Canon 12 (Rules 12.01-12.04)

Canon 12 Rules 12.01 to 12.
04
Reported by:
Diane Michelle M. Licauco
13 December 2014
Canon 12
A
lawyer
shall
exert every effort
and consider it his
duty to assist in
the
speedy
and
efficient
administration
of
Rule 12.01
A lawyer shall not appear
for trial unless he has
adequately
prepared
himself on the law and
the facts of his case, the
evidence he will adduce
and the order of its
preferences. He should
also be ready with the
original documents for
comparison
with
the
Rule 12.02
A lawyer shall not
file
multiple
actions
arising
from
the
same
cause.
Rule 12.03
A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of
time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let
the period lapse without
submitting the same or
offering an explanation
for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04
A lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case,
impede the execution
of
a
judgment
or
misuse
Court
processes.
Title: Nestor B. Figueras and Bienvenido Victoria, Jr. vs. Atty.

Diosdado B. Jimenez
Case No.: AC No. 9116
Date Promulgated: 12 March 2014
Division: First Division
FACTS:
1. Congressional Village Homeowners Association, Inc is the entity

in charge of the affairs of the homeowners of Congressional
Village in Quezon City.
2. On January 7, 1993, the Spouses Federico and Victoria
Santander filed a civil suit for damages against the Association
and Ely Mabanag, President of the Association, before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 104 for
building a concrete wall which abutted their property and denied
them of their right of way. The spouses alleged that the said
concrete wall was built in violation of Quezon City Ordinance No.
8633, S-71 which prohibits the closing, obstructing, preventing or
otherwise refusing to the public or vehicular traffic the use of or
free access to any subdivision or community street.
3. The Law Firm of Gonzalez Sinense Jimenez and

Associates was
the legal counsel for the Association,
with respondent as the counsel of record and handling
lawyer.
4. After trial and hearing, the RTC rendered a decision on
October 4, 1996 in favor of the Spouses Santander. The
Association, represented by said law firm, appealed to the
Court of Appeals (CA).
5. On February 5, 1999, the CA issued a Resolution in CAG.R. CV No. 55577 dismissing the appeal on the ground
that the original period to file the appellants brief had
expired 95 days even before the first motion for extension
of time to file said brief was filed.
6. Eight years later or on April 11, 2007, complainant Nestor

Figueras and Bienvenido Victoria, Jr., as members of the
Association, filed a Complaint for Disbarment against respondent
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on
Bar Discipline for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly Rule 12.03, Canon 12.
7. Respondent denied his administrative liability and claimed that
the case was actually handled by an associate lawyer in his law
office. He only exercised general supervision over the handling
counsel and signed the pleadings prepared by said handling
lawyer.
8. Respondent alleged that after he defeated complainant Figueras
in the election for President of the homeowners association in
1996, Figueras and his compadre, complainant Victoria, stopped
paying their association dues and other assessments.
9. Complainants and other delinquent members of the

association were sanctioned by the Board of Directors and
were sued by the association before the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
10.Respondent concluded that the disbarment case was filed to
harass him.
ISSUE:
Is the respondent administratively liable for violation of Canon
12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
Respondent is found administratively liable for violation of Rule
12.04, Canon 12 and is suspended from the practice of law for
one (1) month. The Court agrees that respondent had been
remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel for the
association. Records show that respondent filed the first motion
for extension of time to file appellants brief 95 days after the
expiration of the reglementary period to file said brief, thus
causing the dismissal of the appeal of the homeowners
association. His contention that he was merely the supervising
lawyer and that the fault lies with the handling lawyer is belied by
the record that he himself signed the Urgent Motion for Extension.
OPINION:
The reporter is of the humble opinion that the respondent should
be suspended for a period of six (6) months. As an officer of the
court, it is his duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice.
In the case at bar, the respondent not only made lapses on the
filing but also made excuses from taking responsibility of the
case. This only shows he has been remiss of his duty upon which
a suspension of six (6) months may be adequate.
Title: John Siy Lim vs. Atty. Carmelito A. Montano

Case No.: AC No. 5653
Date Promulgated: 27 February 2006
Division: First Division
FACTS:
1. Atty. Carmelito A. Montano is charged with gross misconduct
relative to the filing of Civil Case No. C-19928 entitled Spouses
Tomas See Tuazon and Natividad See Deecho vs. John Siy Lim
and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City.
2. Complainant John Siy Lim was the defendant in Civil Case No.
C-14542 for reformation of contract, quieting of title, with
damages, then pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Caloocan City, Branch 131.
3. After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of Lim. On motion for

reconsideration, however, the trial court reversed itself. Lim
appealed the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA
reversed the ruling of the RTC and reinstated the original
decision of the trial court. The aggrieved party elevated the
matter to the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the ruling of
the CA.
4. Complainant alleged that respondent filed the complaint in the
Civil Case No. C-19928 out of malice, indicating that it involves
the same parties, the same causes of action and relief prayed
for as that of Civil Case No. C-14542.
5. Respondent denied the allegations against him asserting that it was

not filed with malicious intent. Moreover, while the new case
involved the same party, it was for a different cause of action and
relief, and, as such, the principle of res judicata did not apply. He
further explained that the complaint in Civil Case No. C-14542 was
for declaratory relief or reformation of instrument, while Civil Case
No. 19928 was for annulment of title. He accepted the case based
on his professional appreciation that his client had a good case.
6. Complainant stressed that respondent was guilty of forum
shopping. Civil Case No. C-19928 was nothing but a revival of the
old complaint; and the lame excuse of the respondent that the
present case is an action in rem while the other case is an action in
personam did not merit consideration.
ISSUE:
Is the respondent administratively liable for violation of Canon 12
of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
Atty. Carmelito A. Montano is found liable for violating Canon 12 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
He is sternly warned that any future violation of his duties as a
lawyer will be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is guilty of forum shopping. By his own admission,

he was aware that Civil Case No. C-14542 was already final
and executory when he filed the second case (Civil Case No.
C-19928). His allegation that he was not the original counsel of
his clients and that when he filed the subsequent case for
nullity of TCT, his motive was to protect the rights of his clients
whom he believed were not properly addressed in the prior
case for reformation and quieting of title, deserves scant
consideration.
As a responsible member of the bar, he should have
explained the effect of such final and executory decision on his
clients rights, instead of encouraging them to file another case
involving the same property and asserting the same rights.
OPINION:
The reporter concurs with the decision of the Court. A lawyer, as
an officer of the court, should employ all possible means in the
speedy administration of justice. He should not unnecessarily file
cases which he knew from the start that said cases involve the
same parties, causes of action, subject matter and issues.

Canon 12 (Rules 12.01-12.04)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canon 12 (Rules 12.01-12.04)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canon 12 Rules 12.01 to 12.

Title: Nestor B. Figueras and Bienvenido Victoria, Jr. vs. Atty.

1. Congressional Village Homeowners Association, Inc is the entity

3. The Law Firm of Gonzalez Sinense Jimenez and

6. Eight years later or on April 11, 2007, complainant Nestor

9. Complainants and other delinquent members of the

Title: John Siy Lim vs. Atty. Carmelito A. Montano

3. After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of Lim. On motion for

5. Respondent denied the allegations against him asserting that it was

Respondent is guilty of forum shopping. By his own admission,

You might also like