Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Canon 12
Canon 12
CANON 12
1. PEOPLE V JARDIN, 124 SCRA 167
FACTS:
Prosecutor filed a criminal action against respondent
Jardin for malversation of public funds thru falsification
of public documents on six counts. A series of
postponement of the preliminary investigation and
arraignment was repeatedly filed by the accused causing
further delays. During the arraignment on Sept 29, 1970
the accused pleaded not guilty, after which he requested
the trial be postponed and re-set for Oct. 12, 1970 with
noticed to both parties.
On Oct. 12, 1970, when the said criminal cases were
called for hearing, no one appeared for the prosecution
except a state witness from the Provincial Auditors
office, who remain silent during the proceedings.
Invoking his client constitutional right to speedy trial and
seizing the opportunity to take advantage of the
prosecutions failure to appear on that day, the
defendant counsel moves for dismissal of the cases. The
lower court granted the oral motion for dismissal for
reasons of constitutional rights of the accused Jardin.
ISSUE: WON, the lower court is correct in dismissing the
cases and in predicating the dismissal on the right of the
defendant to a speedy trial?
HELD: from a perusal of the fact, the court readily seen
that all the delays in the prosecution of the case were
caused by the accused himself, the defendant had
deliberately used all the available dilatory tactics he
could utilize and abused the principle that the accused
August 10, 1989. On May 29, 1989, Garcia and the other
lessors filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Lee. On
September 5, 1989, Judge Bautista issued a resolution
rejecting this allegation on the ground that the issues before
the two courts were separate and different. On October 24,
1989, Lee, through Francisco, filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction against Judge Bautista,
Garcia and the other lessors. On April 6, 1990, Lee through
Francisco filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
prayer for preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals
against Judge Vera, Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other
lessors. On June 14, 1990, Judge Singzon decided the case in
favor of complainant Garcia and the other lessors. Lee did not
appeal. Instead, on, June 21, 1990, through Francisco again,
he filed a petition against Judge Singzon and the other lessors
for certiorari and annulment of the decision of such case. On
September 27, 1991, Lee, through Francisco, filed a motion to
inhibit Judge Singzon and to defer the hearing of the motion
then finally, Lee, still through Francisco, filed a petition for
certiorari with preliminary injunction against Judge Singzon,
Garcia and the other lessors in the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City to set aside and declare the writs of execution in
Civil Case No. 1455. This was dismissed on August 4, 1992,
and Lee, through Francisco, filed a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Francisco abuses his right of recourse to
the courts.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer owes fidelity to
the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the
administration of justice. The cause of the respondents client
is obviously without merit. The respondent was aware of this
fact when he willfully resorted to the gambits summarized
above, continuously seeking relief that was consistently
denied, as he should have expected. By grossly abusing his
right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a
cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining
the obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or
FACTS:
The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari with preliminary
injunction to annul an Order of Ho. Rosendo Baltazar, ordering
the demolition of the residential house of petitioner, likewise
to assail an Order, approving said demolition. The filing of
said case spawned by various court suits from many years
back 1962 and decided 1973. Private respondent Hector
HELD: In the case at bar, the period of almost four (4) years
of waiting constitutes inaction that caused unnecessary delay
in the disposition of said cases. The fact that no damage or
prejudice was sustained by the complainant, he being the
defendant in that case, is of no moment. As an officer of the
court whose primary function is to assist the court in the
impartial and speedy adjudication of cases, respondent ought
to be vigilant and avoid any act or omission that only impedes
and obstructs speedy disposition of cases. First and foremost
among the duties of a lawyer is his duty to the court. The
chief mission of an attorney is to assist in the administration
of justice and to this end, his clients success in the case is
subordinate. As mandated in Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS
DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Moreover, by respondents inaction to the court order in Civil
Case No. B-259, he has very well violated his Attorneys Oath
to "obey the laws and legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities."
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Enrique Empleo is hereby
REPRIMANDED with WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely