4/22/2017 G.R.No.

L33672

TodayisSaturday,April22,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L33672September28,1973

VICENTEMUOZ,petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINESandTHECOURTOFAPPEALS,respondents,DELIAT.SUTTON,respondent.

RESOLUTION

FERNANDO,J.:

We have before us a task far from pleasant. Respondent, Delia T. Sutton, a member of the Philippine Bar,
connected with the law firm of Salonga, Ordoez, Yap, Parlade, and Associates, must be held accountable for
failuretoliveuptothatexactingstandardexpectedofcounsel,morespecificallywithreferencetoadutyowing
this Tribunal. She failed to meet the test of candor and honesty required of pleaders when, in a petition for
certioraripreparedbyhertoreviewaCourtofAppealsdecision,sheattributedtoitafindingoffactsinreckless
disregard, to say the least, of what in truth was its version as to what transpired. When given an opportunity to
makeproperamends,bothinherappearancebeforeusandthereafterinhermemorandum,therewaslacking
anyshowingofregretforamisconductsoobviousandsoinexcusable.Suchanattitudeofintransigencehardly
commends itself. Her liability is clear. Only her relative inexperience in the ways of the law did save her from a
penaltygraverthanseverecensure.Sowerule.

ThebackgroundoftheincidentbeforeuswassetforthinourresolutionofJuly12,1971.Itreadsas
follows: "Acting upon the petition for review in G.R. No. L33672, Vicente Muoz v. People of the
Philippines and the Court of Appeals, and considering that the main issue therein is whether
petitioner Muoz is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence, as charged in the information
thatinthelanguageofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals"theprosecutionandthedefense
offeredtwoconflictingversionsoftheincidentthatgaverisetothecase"that,uponexaminationof
theevidence,theCourtofAppealsfound,asdidthetrialcourt,thattheversionoftheprosecutionis
thetrueoneandthatofthedefenseisunbelievablethatthisfindingoftheCourtofAppealsisborne
outbysubstantialevidence,whereastheversionofthedefenseisinconsistentwithsomeestablished
facts, for: (a) petitioner's theory, to the effect that his boat had been rammed by that of the
complainant, is refuted by the fact that after hitting the left frontal outrigger of the latter's boat, the
prowandfrontoutriggerofpetitioner'smotorboathitalsotheleftfrontportionofcomplainant'sboat
where the complainant was seated, thereby hitting him on the back and inflicting the injury that
causehisdeathsothat,immediatelyafterthecollisionpartofpetitioner'sboatwasontopofthat
of the complainant (b) these circumstances, likewise, indicate the considerable speed at which
petitioner'smotorboatwascruising,(c)petitioner'smotorboathadsufferedverylittledamage,which
would have been considerable had it been rammed by the offended party's boat, the latter being
biggerthan,aswellasprovidedwithanenginetwiceaspowerfulas,thatofthepetitionerand(d)
although appellant's boat carried several passengers, including children, and was, in fact,
overloaded, appellant acted as pilot and, at the same time, as its machinist, thereby rendering it
difficultforhimtomanueveritproperlytheCourtresolvedto[deny]thepetitionuponthegroundthat
it is mainly factual and for lack of merit. Considering further, that the petition quotes, on page 5
thereofaportionofthedecisionappealedfrom,summingupevidenceforthedefense,andmakes
referencethereto"findings"oftheCourtofAppeals,whichisnottruethat,onpage6ofthepetition,
petitioner states, referring to a portion of the same quotation, that the same "are the established
uncontrovertedfactsrecognizedbytheCourtofAppeals,"whichis,likewise,untruethat,onpage8
of the petition, it is averred "It being conceded that the two versions recounted above are by
themselvescredible,althoughtheyareconflictingthesamecannotbebindingon,andistherefore,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1973/sep1973/gr_33672_1973.html 1/3
4/22/2017 G.R.No.L33672

reviewablebytheHonorableSupremeCourt.WherethefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppeals[are
conflicting],thesame[arenotbinding]ontheSupremeCourt.(Cesicav.Villaseca,G.R.L9590,April
30, 1957)" although, in fact, no conflicting findings of fact are made in the decision appealed from
andthat,onpage9ofthepetition,itisallegedthattheCourtofAppealshad"affirmedtheminimum
penalty of one (1) year and one (1) day imposed by the lower court," although, in fact, minimum
penalty imposed by the trial court was "four(4) months of arresto mayor" the Court resolved to
require counsel for the petitioner to show cause, within ten (10) days from notice, why they should
not be dealt with for contempt of court [or] otherwise subjected to disciplinary action for making
aforementionedmisrepresentations.""1

Apleadingentitled"CompliancewithResolution"bytheaforesaidlawfirmwasfiledonAugust14,1971.There
was no attempt at justification, because in law there is none, but it did offer what was hoped to be a
satisfactoryexplanation.Ifso,suchoptimismwasmisplaced.Itbetrayedonitsfacemorethanjustahintof
lackofcandor,ofminimizingtheeffectsofgraveinaccuraciesintheattributiontotheCourtofAppealscertain
alleged facts not so considered as such. It was then to say that the least a far from meticulous appraisal of
thematterinissue.Muchofwhatwasthereincontaineddidnotringtrue.

Underthecircumstances,wesetthematterforhearingonSeptember14ofthesameyear,requiringalllawyers
partnersinsaidfirmtobepresent.Atsuchahearing,respondentDeliaT.Suttonappeared.Whileherdemeanor
wasrespectful,itwasobviousthatshewasfarfromcontrite.Onthecontrary,theimpressionshegavetheCourt
was that what was done by her was hardly deserving of any reproach. Even when subjected to intensive
questioningbyseveralmembersoftheCourt,shewasnottobebudgedfromsuchanuntenableposition.Itwas
as if she was serenely unconcerned, oblivious of the unfavorable reaction to, which her evasive answers gave
rise. There certainly was lack of awareness of the serious character of her misdeed. The act of unruffled
assuranceunderthecircumstanceswashardtounderstand.PerhapsrealizingthattheCourtwasnotdisposedto
lookatthematterasaminorpeccadillo,AttorneySedfreyA.Ordoezofthelawfirmexpresslyacknowledgedthat
whatappearedinitspetitionforcertioraripreparedbyrespondentDeliaT.Suttoninsofarasitdidmisrepresent
whatissetforthintheCourtofAppealsdecisionsoughttobereviewedwasreprehensible,anddidmakewiththe
properspiritofhumilitythenecessaryexpressionofregret.

Whatismore,thelawfirminapleadingentitled"JointApologytotheSupremeCourt"filedonDecember1,1971,
signed jointly by Sedfrey A. Ordoez and Delia Sutton, did seek to make amends thus: "1. That undersigned
attorney, Delia T. Sutton, together with Messrs. Sedfrey A. Ordoez, Pedro L. Yap and Custodio O. Parlade,
partners in the firm of Salonga, Ordoez, Yap, Parlade & Associates, appeared before this Honorable Court on
November22,1971,pursuanttoanorderdatedOctober18,19712.Thatwithallthesincerityandcandoratthe
command of undersigned attorney, the circumstances surrounding her preparation of the pleading which gave
risetotheinstantcitationtoshowcausewhysheshouldnotbepunishedforcontemptofcourtwereexplainedby
her,withtheassistanceofAtty.SedfreyA.Ordoez3.ThattheundersignedDeliaT.Suttonhadnointentionto
misrepresentanyquestionoffactbeforethisHonorableCourtforherpersonalgainorbenefit,andthatitwasher
lackofadequateextensiveexperienceinpreparingpetitionsforcertiorariwhichmayhavecausedtheinaccurate
statementsinthesaidpetitionwhichwereenumeratedintheorderofthisHonorableCourt4.Thatundersigned
Delia T. Sutton contritely realizes the errors which she committed in the preparation of the said petition for
certiorariandthatthesamewillnotrecurinthefutureasshewillalwaysabidebytheprovisionsoncandorand
fairness in the Canons of Professional Ethics, which reads: "22. [Candor and Fairness]. The conduct of the
lawyerbeforethecourtandwithotherlawyersshouldbecharacterizedbycandorandfairness.Itisnotcandidor
fairforthelawyerknowinglytomisquotethecontentsofapaper,thetestimonyofawitness,thelanguageorthe
argumentofopposingcounsel,orthelanguageofadecisionoratextbookorwithknowledgeofitsinvalidity,to
citeasauthorityadecisionthathasbeenoverruled,orastatutethathasbeenrepealedorinargumenttoassert
as fact that which has not been proved, or in those jurisdictions where a side has the opening and closing
arguments to mislead his opponent by concealing or withholding positions in his opening argument upon which
his side then intends to rely. ..." 5. That undersigned Atty. Sedfrey A. Ordoez joins Atty. Delia T. Sutton in
expressing his own apologies to the Honorable Court for not having thoroughly supervised the preparation by
Atty.DeliaT.Suttonofatypeofpleadingwithwhichshewasnotthoroughlyfamiliar."2

The"JointApology"thusoffereddidmitigatetosomeextenttheliabilityofrespondentSutton.Somemembersof
theCourtfeel,however,thatitdoesnotgofarenough.Whileexpressingregretandofferingapology,therewas
lackingthatfreeadmissionthatwhatwasdonebyhershouldnotcharacterizedmerelyas"errors"consistingas
they do of "inaccurate statements." If there were a greater sincerity on her part, the offense should have been
acknowledged as the submission of deliberate misstatements. There ought to be, for the apology to gain
significance, no further attempt at minimizing the enormity of the misdeed. It is then as if there was hardly any
retreat from the untenable stand originally taken. The mood, even at this stage, seems to be that she could
brazenitoutaslongasthewordsindicativeofanapologywereoffered.ThisCourtdoesnotviewmattersthus.
To purge herself of the contempt, she ought to have displayed the proper spirit of contrition and humility. The
burdencastonthejudiciarywouldbeintolerableifitcouldnottakeatfacevaluewhatisassertedbycounsel.The
timethatwillhavetobedevotedjusttothetaskofverificationofallegationssubmittedcouldeasilybeimagined.
Evenwithduerecognitionthenthatcounselisexpectedtodisplaytheutmostzealindefenseofaclient'scause,it

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1973/sep1973/gr_33672_1973.html 2/3
4/22/2017 G.R.No.L33672

must never be at the expense of deviation from the truth. As set forth in the applicable Canon of Legal Ethics:
"Nothing operates more certainly to create or to foster popular prejudice against lawyers as a class, and to
deprive the profession of that full measure of public esteem and confidence which belongs to the proper
discharge of its duties than does the false claim, often set up by the unscrupulous in defense of questionable
transactions, that it is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever may enable him to succeed in winning his client's
cause."3Whatismore,theobligationtothebench,especiallytothisCourt,forcandorandhonestytakesprecedence.Itis
by virtue of such considerations that punishment that must fit the offense has to be meted out to respondent Delia T.
Sutton.

Atthesametime,theattitudedisplayedbyoneoftheseniorpartners,AttorneySedfreyA.Ordoez,bothinthe
appearancesbeforetheCourtandinthepleadingssubmitted,mustbecommended.Hehasmademanifestthat
his awareness of the role properly incumbent on counsel, especially in his relationship to this Court, is deep
seated. It must be stated, however, that in the future he, as well as the other senior partners, should exercise
greatercareinthesupervisionoftheattorneysconnectedwiththeirlawfirm,perhapsinexperiencedasyetbut
nonethelesscalledupontocomplywiththeperemptorytenetsofethicalconduct.

WHEREFORE, respondent Delia T. Sutton is severely censured. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on her
record.

Makalintal,Actg.C.J.,Zaldivar,Castro,Teehankee,AntonioandEsguerra,JJ.,concur.

Barredo,J.,tooknopart.

Makasiar,J.,isonleave.

Footnotes

1ResolutiondatedJuly12,1971.

2JointApology,12.

3Canon15,CanonsofProfessionalEthics,AppendixI,Malcolm,LegalandJudicialEthics,221222
(1949).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1973/sep1973/gr_33672_1973.html 3/3