Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Legal Ethics Digest - Macapagal vs. Young

    Uploaded by

    Peter Frogoso
    58 views1 page
    1) Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal filed an administrative complaint against attorney Walter T. Young for sending her a threatening letter stating he would file administrative and criminal complaints against her if she implemented a writ of demolition in an expropriation case. 2) Young argued the letter was courteous and cautionary, but the Court found it demonstrated a failure to observe respect for judicial officers as required by the Code of Professional Responsibility. 3) The Court ruled Young violated Canon 11 by threatening Judge Macapagal and held he committed an act unbecoming of a lawyer.

    Original Description:

    ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal filed an administrative complaint against attorney Walter T. Young for sending her a threatening letter stating he would file administrative and criminal complaints against her if she implemented a writ of demolition in an expropriation case. 2) Young argued the letter was courteous and cautionary, but the Court found it demonstrated a failure to observe respect for judicial officers as required by the Code of Professional Responsibility. 3) The Court ruled Young violated Canon 11 by threatening Judge Macapagal and held he committed an act unbecoming of a lawyer.

    Copyright:

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

    Legal Ethics Digest - Macapagal vs. Young

    Uploaded by

    Peter Frogoso
    1) Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal filed an administrative complaint against attorney Walter T. Young for sending her a threatening letter stating he would file administrative and criminal complaints against her if she implemented a writ of demolition in an expropriation case. 2) Young argued the letter was courteous and cautionary, but the Court found it demonstrated a failure to observe respect for judicial officers as required by the Code of Professional Responsibility. 3) The Court ruled Young violated Canon 11 by threatening Judge Macapagal and held he committed an act unbecoming of a lawyer.

    Copyright:

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

    LEGAL ETHICS > The Code of Professional Responsibility > To the Courts

    PRESIDING JUDGE AIDA ESTRELLA MACAPAGAL, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 195,
    PARAÑAQUE CITY, Complainant, vs. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, Respondent
    A.C. No. 9298, July 29, 2019
    (Second Division)

    FACTS: Presiding Judge Macapagal in a letter-complaint, alleged that she received a letter from
    respondent Atty. Walter Young, threatening her that an administrative and a criminal complaint for
    „knowingly rendering an unjust judgment‰ would be filed against her if the writ of possession/writ of
    demolition would be implemented in connection to an expropriation case filed by the City of Parañaque
    against Magdiwang Realty Corporation and Fil-Homes Realty Development Corporation. It appeared
    that Judge Macapagal granted the motion for demolition for before the case was unloaded to her, the
    writ of possession had already been issued. Judge Macapagal alleged that Atty. Young committed an
    act unbecoming of a lawyer in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) in sending the
    subject threatening letter. Atty, Young alleged that he was courteous in the subject letter; the subject
    letter was worded in such a manner that not a hint of scandalous, offensive or menacing tenor was
    made; he was so choosy with his words that almost every paragraph was prefaced with a reverential
    phrase or tone; the objective of the subject letter was to serve a cautionary notice unto Judge
    Macapagal so that she „could be thwarted and/or rescued from treading on unlawful ground; assuming
    without admitting that he threatened Judge Macapagal, the threat must be unlawful in order to be
    considered as a ground for an administrative complaint; but the alleged „threat,‰ if it may be called
    as such, is more of a cautionary notice; finally, pursuant to Canons 18 and 19, a lawyer is duty-bound
    to serve his clients with diligence and zeal.

    ISSUE: Whether Atty. Young violated the Code of Professional Responsibility on the ground
    of committing an act which is unbecoming of a lawyer.

    HELD: Yes, Atty. Young violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
    “1 CANON 11 -A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial
    officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.”

    There is no question that Atty. Young did threaten to file administrative and criminal complaints against
    Judge Macapagal if the writ of demolition was implemented.

    While Atty. Young alleged in his Comment that he had no intention to threaten Judge Macapagal in
    sending the subject letter, he also stated that she may be “stubbornly pursuing” the demolition
    operations “because of her desire to please and gratify” the Mayor of Parañaque City. These statements,
    in the mind of the Court, indubitably demonstrate how Atty. Young had failed to observe the respect
    due to the Courts and to judicial officers.

    LEGAL ETHICS> Code of Professional Responsibility> To the Courts

    WILMA L. ZAMORA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MAKILITO B.


    MAHINAY, Respondent.
    A.C. No. 12622. February 10, 2020.
    CAGUIOA, J.:

    FACTS: Complainant Wilma Zamora, representing the PJH Lending Corporation, is the plaintiff in an
    action for forcible entry filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City. The MeTC
    subsequently rendered a decision in favor of the PJH Lending Corporation. The Regional Trial Court
    (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 212 likewise affirmed the MeTC decision on appeal, and the case
    was eventually remanded to the MeTC for proper disposition. PJH Lending Corporation filed a motion
    for execution which the MeTC of Mandaluyong City, through Assisting Judge John Benedict Medina,
    granted. Respondent Atty. Makilito Mahinay, on behalf of his clients, filed a motion for reconsideration.
    where he pertinently alleged in part:

    96

    You might also like