Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Munoz vs. CA
Munoz vs. CA
EN BANC
RESOLUTION
FERNANDO, J.:
although they are conflicting the same cannot be binding on, and is
therefore, reviewable by the Honorable Supreme Court. Where the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals [are conflicting], the same
[are not binding] on the Supreme Court. (Cesica v. Villaseca, G.R. L-
9590, April 30, 1957)" although, in fact, no conflicting findings of
fact are made in the decision appealed from; and that, on page 9 of
the petition, it is alleged that the Court of Appeals had"affirmed the
minimum 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 aforementioned misrepresentations." " 1chanrobles virtual
law library
said petition for certiorari and that the same will not recur in the
future as she will always abide by the provisions on candor and
fairness in the Canons of Professional Ethics, which reads: "22.
[Candor and Fairness]. - The conduct of the lawyer before the court
and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and
fairness. It is not candid or fair for the lawyer knowingly to
misquote the contents of a paper, the testimony of a witness, the
language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the language of a
decision or a textbook or; with knowledge of its invalidity, to cite as
authority a decision that has been overruled, or a statute that has
been repealed; or in argument to assert as fact that which has not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. Ordoñ ez
joins Atty. Delia T. Sutton in expressing his own apologies to the
Honorable Court for not having thoroughly supervised the
preparation by Atty. Delia T. Sutton of a type of pleading with which
she was not thoroughly familiar." 2chanrobles virtual law library
The "Joint Apology" thus offered did mitigate to some extent the
liability of respondent Sutton. Some members of the Court feel,
however, that it does not go far enough. While expressing regret and
offering apology, there was lacking that free admission that what
was done by her should not characterized merely as "errors"
consisting as 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 brazen it out as
long as the words indicative of an apology were offered. This Court
does not view matters thus. To purge herself of the contempt, she
Page 6 of 7