Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hipos, Sr. v. Bay

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    40 views1 page
    The document summarizes a court case involving petitions filed against individuals charged with rape and acts of lasciviousness. The petitioners' counsel argued in their memorandum that the judge could only deny a motion to withdraw informations from the prosecution if there was grave abuse of discretion by prosecutors. However, the court found that the counsel misrepresented a court ruling in the memorandum by using block quotations and quotation marks, implying the passage was an exact quote when it was not. The court ruled this was a violation of legal ethics and ordered the counsel to show cause why he should not face disciplinary action.

    Original Description:

    Legal Ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes a court case involving petitions filed against individuals charged with rape and acts of lasciviousness. The petitioners' counsel argued in their memorandum that the judge could only deny a motion to withdraw informations from the prosecution if there was grave abuse of discretion by prosecutors. However, the court found that the counsel misrepresented a court ruling in the memorandum by using block quotations and quotation marks, implying the passage was an exact quote when it was not. The court ruled this was a violation of legal ethics and ordered the counsel to show cause why he should not face disciplinary action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views1 page

    Hipos, Sr. v. Bay

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    The document summarizes a court case involving petitions filed against individuals charged with rape and acts of lasciviousness. The petitioners' counsel argued in their memorandum that the judge could only deny a motion to withdraw informations from the prosecution if there was grave abuse of discretion by prosecutors. However, the court found that the counsel misrepresented a court ruling in the memorandum by using block quotations and quotation marks, implying the passage was an exact quote when it was not. The court ruled this was a violation of legal ethics and ordered the counsel to show cause why he should not face disciplinary action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    40. Hipos, Sr. v.

    Bay
    Facts:
    Two Informations for the crime of rape and one Information for the crime of acts of
    lasciviousness were filed against petitioners Darryl Hipos et al., before Branch 86 of the
    Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Petitioners filed their Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the
    Case[s] before the City Prosecutor. They claimed that there was no probable cause to hold
    them liable for the crimes charged.
    Petitioners’ counsel tries to convince us that a judge is allowed to deny a Motion to Withdraw
    Informations from the prosecution only when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of
    the prosecutors moving for such withdrawal; and that, where there is no grave abuse of
    discretion on the part of the prosecutors, the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Informations is
    void. Petitioners' counsel states in the Memorandum:
    6.10. Furthermore, the ORDER dated October 2, 2006 of the Respondent Judge BAY consisting
    of 9 pages which was attached to the URGENT PETITION did not point out any iota of grave
    abuse of discretion committed by Asst. City Prosecutor De Vera in issuing his Resolution in favor
    of the sons of the Petitioners. Hence, the ORDER issued by RJBAY is NULL and VOID in view of
    the recent ruling of the Hon. Supreme Court in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113216,
    September 5, 1997, 86 SCAD 695, 278 SCRA 657 which states that:
    "In the absence of a finding of grave abuse of discretion, the court's bare denial of a motion
    to withdraw information pursuant to the Secretary's resolution is void."(Underscoring ours)
    Issue:
    WON counsel’s (Atty. Procopio S. Beltran) statement in the Memorandum is a violation of legal
    ethics.
    Ruling:
    Yes. It very much appears that the counsel of petitioners is purposely misleading this Court, in
    violation of Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
    Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
    language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or
    knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repel or amendment, or
    assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
    Counsel's use of block quotation and quotation marks signifies that he intends to make it
    appear that the passages are the exact words of the Court. Furthermore, putting the words
    "Underscoring ours" after the text implies that, except for the underscoring, the text is a faithful
    reproduction of the original. Accordingly, we are ordering Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr. to show
    cause why he should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar.

    You might also like