LAWYERS AND THE COURTS 1. AFURONG vs. AQUINO [1999] Administrative Matter in the SC.

Malpractice FACTS: Paraluman B. Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment a g a i n s t Victorino Flores for nonpayment of rentals and the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner Paraluman Afurong and the court issued a writ of execution. Facing eviction, Flores sought help from Citizens Legal Assistance Office and they assigned Atty. Angel G Aquino to his case. He filed two petitions. When the court set a pre-trial, he filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement and signed his name as counsel for Flores and indicated the address of Citizens Legal Assistance Office as his office address notwithstanding the fact that he was separated from Citizens Legal Assistance Office at that time. In the aforesaid motion, he stated that he could not attend the pre-trial conference because he had to attend the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that same day and hour. But the Clerk of Court of the JDR Court certified that a decision had been rendered on the aforementioned special proceedings case and that there was no hearing. Thus, Afurong filed a verified lettercomplaint for disbarment against Aquino, for filing frivolous harassment cases to delay the execution of a final d e c i s i o n , committing falsehood in an Urgent Motion for P o s t p o n e m e n t , a n d misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens Legal Assistance Office. Atty. Aquino denied the charges against him and contended that such acts had been done without malice.In a Reply, complainant asserted that Atty. Aquino was declared guilty of contempt of court and correspondingly fined by this Court for making false allegations in his Urgent Motion for Postponement. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline submitted a Report finding that Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time of the commission of the acts in question. They recommended that he be penalized with 6 months suspension. Board of Gov. of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner

ISSUE: WON Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time of the commission of the acts in question RULING: The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a petition for certiorari considering that there was no apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution of a valid judgment. Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for Postponement that he had to attend the hearing of a special proceedings case the s a m e d a y a s t h e p r e - t r i a l o f t h e C i v i l C a s e . S u c h a c t v i o l a t e s t h e C a n o n s o f Professional Ethics which obliges an attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth from the court. A lawyer is mandated not to mislead the court in any manner. Lower court correctly declared respondent in contempt of court for c o n d u c t t e n d i n g , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , t o i m p e d e , o b s t r u c t , o r d e g r a d e t h e administration of justice, in violation of Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from said office. The Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Angel G. Aquino guilty of m a l p r a c t i c e a n d S U S P E N D S h i m f r o m t h e p r a c t i c e o f l a w f o r s i x ( 6 ) m o n t h s commencing upon receipt of notice hereof.

LAWYERS AND THE COURTS 1. The Court held that under the ruling in In re Wenceslao Laureta and Alzua v. Arnalot, a criminal complaint for violation of sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, based on the legal correctness of the official acts of Justices of the Supreme Court, cannot prosper and should not be entertained. This is not to say that Members of the Court are absolutely immune from suit during their term, for they are not. The Constitution provides that the appropriate recourse against them is to seek their removal from office if they are guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. Only after removal can they be criminally proceeded against for their transgressions. While in office and thereafter, and for their official acts do not constitute impeachable offenses, recourses against them and their liabilities therefor, are as defined in the above rulings. 2. The Court also found that the Lozanos also brazenly misquoted and misused applicable constitutional provisions to justify their case against the retired Justices. Citing sec. 4(3), Art. VIII of the Constitution, the Court stressed that cases or matters heard by a division can be decided or resolved with the concurrence of at least three members of a division. 3. In our view, the complainants errors do not belong to the genre of plain and simple errors that lawyers commit in the practice of their profession. Their plain disregard, misuse, and misrepresentation of constitutional provisions constitute serious misconduct that reflects on their fitness for continued membership in the Philippine Bar, the Court said.

2. VILLAFLOR VS. SARITA 308 SCRA 129 FACTS: Complainant filed a case for disbarment against respondent before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The Commissioner assigned to investigate the case issued an order directing respondent to file his answer or comment to the complaint. The period of time alloted to answer the complaint lapsed without respondent submitting his comment. An order was issued requiring the parties to attend the hearing of the case but the respondent failed to appear. A notice of hearing was sent to respondent but again he failed to attend the proceeding. After giving the respondent enough opportunity to face the charges against him, which the latter did not avail, the case was submitted for resolution.

ISSUE: Whether or not failure to obey notices from the IBP investigators constitutes an unethical act.

HELD: Yes. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of a lawyer to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. It is his foremost responsibility to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. The highest form of respect to the judicial authority is shown by a lawyer s obedience to court orders and processes.

3. Criminal complaints vs. SC justices; procedure. In AM No. 10-1-13-SC, Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman, March 2, 2010, the Philippine Supreme Court reiterated he following basic doctrines:

4 . BALAOING vs. CALDERON AM No. RTJ-90-580, 27 April 1993 Facts: -Atty. Balaoing was severely censured in a Resolution of the Court En Banc for having instituted a patently unfounded and frivolous administrative action against the different judges of Olongapo City and Zambales.

LAWYERS AND THE COURTS -Notwithstanding the censure and suspension, Atty. Balaoing filed a serious administrative complaints against a number of judges in Olongapo City and Zambales, charging them with grave misconduct for their alleged failure and refusal to issue corresponding writ of execution, prayed for by the complainant, grave abuse of authority, and malicious delay in the administration of justice, which were all dismissed for lack of merit. Issue: WON Atty. Balaoing violated Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Court and to the judicial officer and should insist on similar conduct of others. Held: -The Court finds that the complainant Balaoing has a penchant for filing administrative charges against judges in whose sala he has pending cases, whenever the latter rendered decision or issue orders adverse to him or to his clients. -Balaoing s wanton disregard of the stern warning not to again file baseless and frivolous complaints which only clog the already full dockets of the Court instead of serving the ends of justice. -Balaoing has utterly failed to live up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal profession. His disbarment is in order. objected thereto on the ground that the original charge of murder is not subject to bail. Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan favorably resolved the Motion for bail and denied the respondent s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Instead of availing himself of judicial remedies, respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the order, in which prosecutor lambasts and lashes out at judge Tan for allowing the murder suspect out on bail. The article also contains misrepresentation about the strength of the evidence against the accused in the criminal case. Respondent admits to have held a press conference but refused to answer whether he made the statements in the newspaper article. For refusing to answer, the trial court declared him in contempt. After this, respondent still entertained media interview in a radio station, and in said interview, again attacked the integrity of Judge Tan, calling him a judge who does not know the law, a liar, and a dictator who does not accord due process to the people. He was ordered by the trial cause to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and not be suspended from the practice of law for violating Canon 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, on scheduled hearing respondent did not appear or informed the court of his absence. Issue Whether or not respondent should be suspended for violating the Code Ruling The Office of the Bar Confidant found that the acts of the respondent constitute grave violation of oath of office, and with said findings the Supreme Court agreed. Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he caused the holding of a press conference where he made statements against the Order allowing the accused to post bail. He also violated the same Canon for his disrespect of the court when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law and that he was a liar. The SC held that it is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules providethe proper venue and procedure because respect for the institution must alwaysbe maintained. Hence, Atty. Bagabuyo was suspended from the practice of law forone year.

6. RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER STATE PROSECUTOR A.C. No. 7006 October 9, 200718. RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER STATE PROSECUTORA.C. No. 7006 October 9, 2007 Facts In the Crim. Case No. 5144, which is declared by Judge Buyser as a crime of homicide and not of murder, the counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Bagabuyo

LAWYERS AND THE COURTS 8. Javellana v. Lutero GR. No.G.R. No. L-23956 July 21, 1967 FACTS: On March 1963, the Roman Archbishop in Jaro, Iloilo filed a detainer complaint against Elpidio Javellana in the municipal court which was presided by Judge Nicolas Lutero. The hearing was reset four times, all at the behest of Elpidio Javellana s lawyer who gave reasons as flimsy as a painful toe, or an unfinished business transactions in Manila. This last postponement was granted by the municipal court, with a warning that no further postponements shall be allowed. When the case was called for trial on August 27, 1963, neither the defendant nor his counsel Atty. Hautea appeared although one Atty. Romy Pea who was present in court verbally moved for the postponement of the trial on the ground that Atty. Hautea was in Manila attending to a business transaction. The plaintiff's counsel objected to the motion on the ground that the defendant and his counsel were well aware of the court's previous admonition that no further postponement of the case would be granted, and then manifested that the witnesses and the evidence for the plaintiff were ready for presentation on that date. The verbal motion was denied, and plaintiff was directed to adduce his evidence. During the hearing, a telegram arrived from Atty. Hautea asking for a postponement of the hearing. However, the hearing still continued. The court on the same date rendered judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendant. About 50 days later, the defendant thru his same counsel filed a petition for relief (from the judgment of the municipal court)with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, praying that the decision in question be set aside, that the detainer case be set for trial on the merits, and, pending determination of the petition, that an injunction issue restraining the enforcement of the decision. Counsel for the petitioner averred that his absence on the date of the trial was excusable as he attended to a very urgent business transaction in Manila; that before his departure for the latter city, he verbally informed the respondent judge that his return to Iloilo might be delayed and that he might not arrive on time for the trial of the case as set; that he called at both the law office and the residence of the counsel for the private respondent to inform him of the desired postponement and the reason there for, but the latter was in Bacolod at the time; that he exercised utmost diligence and precaution in the sense that while in Manila he sent a telegram to the respondent judge, asking for postponement; and that notwithstanding all the foregoing, the municipal court nevertheless proceeded with the trial in his absence and that of his client, allowed the private respondent to present his evidence ex parte, and rendered a decision against the petitioner, thus depriving the latter of his day in court. Counsel for the petitioner further asserted that his client has a good and substantial defense, which is, that the complainant had given his client an option to buy the premises subject-matter of the complaint below, and that a reopening of the case would cause the private respondent no real injury. Issue: W/N Atty. Hautea was negligent in his duties as a lawyer. HELD: A counsel for any party in a judicial controversy, by mandate of the canons of legal ethics, and with due regard for the elementary standards of fair play, is duty bound to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed. This norm of conduct is no less applicable in a detainer case, such as the one at bar, even if the issues are essentially simple and uncomplicated. It is obvious that the counsel for the petitioner-appellant has been remiss in this respect. The case was set for trial six times. Thrice it was postponed at the behest of the said counsel. The last postponement was granted on July 24, 1963 with the unequivocal admonition by the judgment that no further postponement

LAWYERS AND THE COURTS would be countenanced. The case was reset for hearing on August 27, 1963, which means that the appellant's counsel had more than a month's time to so adjust his schedule of activities as to obviate a conflict between his business transactions and his calendar of hearings. Came August 27, and neither he nor the appellant appeared at the trial. His absence on the latter date was not occasioned by illness or some other supervening occurrence which unavoidably and justifiably prevented him from appearing in court. It was the bounden duty of the said counsel, under the circumstances, to give preferential attention to the case. As things were, he regarded the municipal court as a mere marionette that must ever await his pleasure. This attitude on his part is censurable as it reveals more than just a modicum of disrespect for the judiciary and the established machinery of justice 12. Millare vs Atty Montero Facts: Atty. Eustaquio Montero represented Elsa Dy Co in an ejectment case filed against her by Millare s mother. RTC then decided to be in favor of Pacifica Mallare and Co, thru counsel who filed the following actions: y Manifestation and Motion that RTC and MTC decisions were void for allowing lessor to increase rentals by 300 percent for an old house y Petition for Annulment of Decisions which was dismissed y Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Motion for Reconsideration for Oral Arguments of the CA decision, denied y Petition for Review on Certiorari, denied y Motion for the Issuance of a Prohibitory or Restraining Order y Special civil action Issue: WON Atty. Montero violated the Code. Decision: YES, Atty Montero VIOLATED the following CODE and suspended for a year Canon 19: a lawyer is required to represent his client "within the bounds of the law. to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) warns him not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03) unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process delayed the execution of judgment

13. JONAR SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. EDISON V. RAFANAN A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004PANGANIBAN, J. FACTS: Complainant Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, lodged a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Edison Rafanan before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging, inter alia, that Atty. Rafanan violated Rule 12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12of the Code of Professional Responsibility when the latter executed an affidavit in favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in a case where he is actively representing his client. The complaint also alleged that after the hearing of the case, respondent accompanied by several persons waited for C o m p l a i n a n t a n d a f t e r c o n f r o n t i n g t h e l a t t e r di sarmed him of hi s si dearm and thereafter uttered insulting words and veiled threats. In his answer, respondent denied having disarmed the complainant and uttered insulting words nor veiled threats against the latter. He however admitted that he executed an affidavit in favor of his c l i e n t a n d o f f e r e d t h e s a m e a s e v i d e n c e i n a case where he i s acti vel y representi ng hi s cli ent but interposed the defense that lawyers could testify on behalf of

LAWYERS AND THE COURTS their clients "on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice." Complainant charged respondent s clients with attempted murder. Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the alleged crime occurred, "his testimony is very essential to the ends of justice. The IBP, while finding that administrative offense was committed by respondent for violating the notarial law, recommended the dismissal of the complaint for alleged violation of Rule 12.07 and Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for insufficiency of evidence. Hence, the present action was commenced. ISSUE: May a lawyer testify on substantial matters relative to the cause of the party which he is actively representing in a case without violating the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD:YES. Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed u p o n l a w y e r s b y t h e t a s k o f dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that as advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In contradistinction, advocates are partisans -- those who actively plead and defend the cause of others. It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of the lawyers who testify for their clients. Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at the same time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to refrain from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from active management of the case. Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan in favor of his clients, we cannot hastily make him administratively liable for the following reasons: First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that is authorized by law for the benefit of the client, especially in a criminal action in which the latter s life and liberty are at stake. Having undertaken the defense of the accused, respondent, as defense counsel, was thus expected to spare no effort to save his clients from a wrong conviction. The Affidavit executed by Atty.Rafanan was clearly necessary for the defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and could not have possibly committed the crime charged against them. Notably, in his Affidavit, complainant does not dispute the statements of respondent or suggest the falsity of its contents. Second, paragraph (b) of Rul e 12.08 contemplates a si tuati on i n whi ch l awyers give thei r testimoni es during the tri al. I n thi s i nstance, the Affi davi t was submi tted d u r i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y investigation which, as such, was merely inquisitorial. Not being a trial of the case on the merits, a preliminary investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of securing innocent persons against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions; protecting them from open and public accusations of crime and from the trouble as well as expense and anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the State from useless a n d e x p e n s i v e p r o s e c u t i o n s . The i nvestig ati on is advi sedl y cal led preli mi nary, as i t i s y e t t o b e followed by the trial proper. Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and remind respondent to refrain from accepting employment in any matter in which he knows or has reason to believe that he may be an essential witness for the prospective client. Furthermore, in future cases in which his testimony may become essential to serve the "ends of justice," the canons of the profession require him to withdraw from the active prosecution of these cases.

LAWYERS AND THE COURTS 15. CRUZ V SALVA FACTS - A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, de Jesus, Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo et al. guilty of murder. They all appealed and Castelo sought new trial. Castelo was again found guilty. - Pres Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary questioned people and got confessions pointing to persons other than those convicted. - Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct reinvestigation on basis of new confessions. Fiscal conferred w/ SolGen and the Justice Sec decided to have the results of investigation made available to counsel for appellants. - Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits and confessions. Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and mastermind in the new affidavits and confessions. Cruz counsel questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct preliminary investigation bec the case was pending appeal in the SC. Counsel filed this present petition. - Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of Cruz oral and personal request to allow him to appear at the investigation. - SC issued writ of preliminary injunction stopping the prelim investigation. ISSUES 1. WON Salva and his committee can push through with the investigation 2. WON Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify before Salva 3. WON Salva conducted the investigation property - Salva is publicly reprehended and censured. 1. Yes. - SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally reqested to allow him to appear at the investigation. - Normally, when a criminal case handled by fiscal is tried and decided and appealed to a higher court, functions of fiscal have terminated. However, Salva has justified his reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one of the defendants (Salvador Realista y de Guzman) was not included in the trial. - The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure conviction of the guilty but also to protect the innocent. - Writ of preliminary injunction dissolved. Investigation may continue. - Petition for certiorari and prohibition granted in part, denied in part. 2. No - Under the law, Cruz had right to be present at the investigation but he need not be present. His presence is more of a right than a legal obligation. 3. No - Salva shld have done investigation privately in his office and not publicly in the session hall of Municipal Court of Pasay where microphones were installed and media people were present. He should also not have made the media people ask questions. SC was disturbed and annoyed by such publicity.

HELD