Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest Judicial Ethics (Saturday - 08 - 19, - 2023)
Case Digest Judicial Ethics (Saturday - 08 - 19, - 2023)
Facts:
In their defense, petitioners averred that respondents were not the real
parties in interest, that the Deed of Sale was regularly executed before
a notary public, that they were possessors in good faith, and that the
action had prescribed.
Atty. Magbitang filed a Notice of Appeal[5] with the RTC, which gave
due course to the same.[6] The records reveal that on December 15,
2003, respondent Elena G. Garcia wrote a letter to Judge Arturo M.
Bernardo, Acting Judge of RTC
Issues:
Whether or not the CA erred in not dismissing the appeal despite the
undisputed fact that Atty. Magbitang filed the notice of appeal without
respondents' knowledge and consent
Ruling:
The CA did not err in giving due course to the appeal, on both
procedural and substantive grounds.
Facts:
Respondent failed to pay her loan when it fell due. And despite
repeated demands, she failed to settle her obligation. Complainant
attempted to register the Deed of Absolute Sale with the RD of Naga
City but to no avail because the aforesaid SPA only covered the
authority of respondent to mortgage the property to a bank, and not to
sell it.[
Issues:
Ruling:
Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and
to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending
cases... proof of respondent's compliance with the order of
suspension... finding or report contrary to the statements made by the
lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe
punishment, or disbarment,... While, indeed, service of a judgment or
resolution must be done only personally or by registered mail,[39] and
that mere showing of a downloaded copy of the October 5, 2011
Resolution to respondent is not a valid service, the fact however, that
respondent was duly informed of her suspension remains unrebutted...
respondent's six months suspension commenced from the notice of the
denial of her motion for reconsideration on November 12, 2012 until
May 12, 2013.
common sense that when the Court orders the suspension of a lawyer
from the practice of law, the lawyer must desist from performing all
functions which require the application of legal knowledge... by
practice of law, we refer to "any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training,
and experience.
Section 27,[45] Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from practice of law for willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, among other
grounds... willfully disobeyed the Court's lawful orders by failing to
comply with the order of her suspension, and to the Court's directive to
observe the guidelines for the lifting thereof
PETER T. DONTON v. ATTY. EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO, AC. NO. 6057,
2006-06-27
Facts:
Issues:
respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
Ruling:
The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02
of the Code.
A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client
which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and
obey.
FACTS
ISSUE
RULING
NO. The Court held that the acts of Atty. Macabata would not
suffice to warrant a disbarment or suspension from the practice
of law. Citing the case of Zaguirre v. Castillo, the SC reiterated
the definition of “immoral conduct”, as such conduct which is
so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action,
the same must not simply be immoral, but “grossly immoral”:
(1) It must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, (2) or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or; (3)
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances
as to shock the common sense of decency.
kissing her on the lips are distasteful. However, such act, even
if considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered
grossly immoral.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Contado violated Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes.
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. A law shall likewise faithfully perform at all times his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to the clients. For the imposition of the
penalty of disbarment on the ground of immorality, the conduct complained
of must not only be immoral, but must be grossly immoral. In the instant
case, Atty. Contado’s statements made it clear to the court that he
abandoned his legal wife and family to cohabit with Crisanta that resulted in
two children. Such admission can serve as to find him guilty of violating the
CPR for committing grossly immoral acts. It is well-settled that a married
person’s abandonment of his or her spouse to live with and cohabit with
another constitutes gross immorality as it amounts to either adultery or
concubinage. As to the return of the subject vehicle, the ourt finds that the
excuse given by Atty. Contado is flimsy and unacceptable. Refusal to return
property despite lawful demand is akin to deliberate failure to pay debt.
Failure to pay debt despite repeated demands constitutes dishonest and
deceitful conduct. Thus, the Court finds Atty. Allan C. Contado guilty of
gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is disbarred from the practice of law effective
upon receipt of this Decision. His name is ordered stricken off from the Roll
of Attorneys.
ATTY. ALAN F. PAGUIA v. ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA, AC. No. 9881,
2014-06-04
Facts:
The clients of Atty. Molina entered into a contract with the other unit
owners save for Mr. Abreu.
Preamble was binding on Mr. Abreu, who was never a party to the
contract.
Issues:
Ruling:
Even if we assume that Atty. Molina did provide his clients legal
advice, he still cannot be held administratively liable without any
showing that his act was attended with bad faith or malice. The rule on
mistakes committed by lawyers in the exercise of their profession is
as... follows:
SO ORDERED.
RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE LAWYER'S OATH, BAR
MATTER No. 712, 1997-03-19
Facts:
Issues:
Ruling:
It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to "weed out"... lawyers who
have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of
equal importance, to prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer' s oath,
thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent
years has undoubtedly become less than... irreproachable.
vident absence of that moral fitness required for... admission to the bar
since they were totally irresponsible, irrelevant and uncalled for.
we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the
lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal
profession with the following admonition:
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to
atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the
benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of
youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.
Facts:
Natividad.
When complainant deposited the check, the same was returned unpaid
by the drawee bank for the reason: "Account Closed." On June 19,
1997, complainant wrote a letter to respondent demanding that she
pay the face value of the check.
Issues:
Ruling:
CANON 1.
Facts:
On February 13, 2002, petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for
Reconsideration seeking to reverse the February 1, 2002 Order alleging
that Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, does not have the
effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule 138, for the authority to...
interpret the rule is the source itself of the rule, which is the Supreme
Court alone.
April 2, 2002, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for
Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order against the private respondent and the
public respondent MeTC.
The petitioner argues that nowhere does the law provide that the crime
of Grave Threats has no civil aspect. And last, petitioner cites Bar
Matter No. 730 dated June 10, 1997 which expressly... provides for the
appearance of a non-lawyer before the inferior courts, as an agent or
friend of a party litigant, even without the supervision of a member of
the bar.
On June 5, 2002, the RTC issued its Order denying the petitioner's
Motion for Reconside
Issues:
Ruling:
The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as
encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, prohibits the
petitioner, as a law student, from entering his appearance in behalf of
his father, the private complainant in the criminal case without the...
supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the law school.
However, in Resolution[6] dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730,
the Court En Banc clarified:
Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts
by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law
student.
Petitioner further argues that the RTC erroneously held that, by its very
nature, no civil liability may flow from the crime of Grave Threats, and,
for this reason, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not possible.
It is clear from the RTC Decision that no such conclusion had been
intended by the RTC. In denying the issuance of the injunctive court,
the RTC stated in its Decision that there was no claim for civil liability
by the private complainant for damages, and that the records of the...
case do not provide for a claim for indemnity; and that therefore,
petitioner's appearance as private prosecutor appears to be legally
untenable.
Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable except in instances when no
actual damage results from an offense, such as espionage, violation of
neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against popular...
representation.