PALUWAGAN NG BAYAN SAVINGS BANK v.

KING Petitioner bank sued Mercantile Financing Corporation (MFC), and private respondents, as directors and officers of MFC, for the recovery of money market placements through certain promissory notes. They were charged jointly and solidarily. Some of the respondents (PRIVATE RESPONDENTS) were former officers of MFC, however they were no longer connected with MFC when the case was filed. The summons and copies of the complaints were served upon MFC and private respondents, only in one address, at the 4th Floor, LTA Building, No. 118 Perea Street, Makati, Metro Manila, which is the stated office address of MFC in the complaint, through its Assistant Manager Mr. Nasario S. Najomot Jr. who acknowledged receipt and in behalf of MFC and the private respondents. The law firm of Guillermo E. Aragones and Associates filed a motion for extension of time to file a responsible pleading and/or motion to dismiss. The said motion was signed by Atty. Guillermo E. Aragones as counsel for the defendants (for MFC and the private repondents). The motion was granted. Eventually, a compromise agreement was reached by the bank and the MFC. In the compromise agreement, signed a Compromise Agreement in behalf of MFC and private respondents which was submitted to the court on the basis of which a compromise judgment was rendered; that said judgment was partially complied with but upon default in the payment of the balance, a writ of execution was sought from and granted by the trial court; and that it was only then that Atty. Aragones informed the court that he committed an oversight in having filed the Compromise Agreement in behalf of private respondents when it was only MFC which hired his services.

and that they did not participate as directors or officers of MFC in the subject transaction. The motion was denied by the RTC and CA. ISSUE (Legal ethics issue): WON Atty. Aragones lapses warrants a sanction RULING: Yes. A copy of the decision was furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for an appropriate administrative investigation, report and recommendation on Atty. Guillermo E. Aragones. Atty. Aragones' appears to be remiss in his duties and reckless in the performance of his responsibility as counsel of record in said case. He represented himself to be the counsel for the defendants including the private respondents not only in the motions he filed but also in the Compromise Agreement he submitted. It was only after the writ of execution of the compromise judgment was being enforced that he perked up by saying that he committed an oversight and that he was not authorized by the private respondents to represent them as counsel, much less in the Compromise Agreement. Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. To say one thing today and another tomorrow is a transgression of this imperative. Counsel should be made to account before his peers.

However, on the part of the private respondents, the Syquia Law Offices, in behalf of private respondents, filed a motion to set aside the decision on the Compromise Agreement and the writ of execution on the ground that there was no service of summons upon each of them as the corporate address of the corporation was not their address as they were no longer connected; that Atty. Aragones had no authority to represent them in the action and compromise agreement; that they were not served copies of the decision of the court; that they learned about the same only when it was being executed; 1 ESTRELLADO|2013-2014| LEGAL ETHICS| VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE COURTS

BEREGUER v. CARRANZA A complaint against respondent Pedro B. Carranza was filed, for deception practiced on the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, in that he was aware of the falsity of an Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer executed by the mother of his client to the effect that her own mother left no legitimate ascendants or descendants or any other heirs except herself, when, as a matter of fact, the deceased was survived by four other daughters and one son, father of the complainant, he introduced the same in evidence. Atty Caranza in his defense contended that his failure to notice the existence of an incorrect statement in the said affidavit was a mere oversight. It was not willful, for he has not consented to the doing of the falsity therein made, since the same was prepared by petitioner's lawyer in Pasay City; nor did he willingly do falsehood in the hearing. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Carranza should be held responsible of the said falsehood committed in court. RULING: Respondent Pedro B. Carranza was reprimanded and warned that a repetition of an offense of this character would be much more severely dealt with. The reprimand was publicly administered. His failure to exercise greater care did result in the "confusion and prolongation of the cadastral suit." Under the circumstances, it would be to err on, the side of undue leniency if he would be held blameless. He had incurred liability. His fidelity to his oath as attorney was less than entire. Every member of the bar must be on his guard, lest through oversight or inadvertence, the way he conducts his case or the evidence he presents could conceivably result in a failure of justice. Time and time again, lawyers have been admonished to remember that they are officers of the court, and that while they owe their clients the duty of complete fidelity and the utmost diligence, they are likewise held to strict accountability insofar as candor and honesty towards the court is concerned.

Even if there be no intent to deceive, therefore, a lawyer whose conduct, as in this case, betrays inattention or carelessness should not be allowed to free himself from a charge thereafter instituted against him by the mere plea that his conduct was not wilful and that he has not consented to the doing of the falsity. A lawyer's oath is one impressed with the utmost seriousness; it must not be taken lightly. Every lawyer must do his best to live up to it. There would be a failure of justice if courts cannot rely on the submission as well as the representations made by lawyers, insofar as the presentation of evidence, whether oral or documentary, is concerned. If, as unfortunately happened in this case, even without any intent on the part of a member of the bar to mislead the court, such deplorable event did occur, he must not be allowed to escape the responsibility that justly attaches to a conduct far from impeccable.

1 ESTRELLADO|2013-2014| LEGAL ETHICS| VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE COURTS

OCCENA v. MARQUEZ Petitioners are Atty. Samuel Occena and Atty. Jesus Occena, husband and father-in-law respectively of their client, the executrix Necitas Ogan Occena. Their client was involved in probate proceedings for an estate worth more than P2m. The seven instituted heirs (Necitas included) of the estate entered into a compromise agreement with the other claimants, including coexecutor Atty. Isabelo Binamira. For representing the Occenas from 1963-1965, the Occena lawyers filed a Motion for Partial Payment of Attorneys Fees before the probate court presided by Judge Marquez (CFI Bohol), amounting to P30K. Only five of the seven instituted heirs found the amount amenable, thus the deferment until final agreement. A second Motion for Partial Payment was filed in 1966 but was deferred again. Judge Marquez issued an order fixing the fees to P20k only. To make it worse, he issued another order, upon petitioners MR, indicating that the amount covers the total and not just partial payment. Marquez reasoned that the petitioner lawyers were after all related to the executrix and would already benefit from the estate. -The petitioners contented that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion since their motion only concerned partial payment, but the judge resolved total attorneys fees. Further, five of the seven heirs already concurred on the amount of P30k, the two others were not opposing the motion but only raised deferment. The matters for certiorari on Marquez order and mandamus for the fees were brought to the Supreme Court where Atty. Binamira intervened as party respondent (as Binamira too has interests on the estate). Petitioners filed a Petition for Contempt against intervenor Binamira for his 21 false allegations and obstruction of justice. Binamira filed a counter-contempt against petitioners. ISSUES: (1) Certiorari on fixing petitioners fees (2) Contempt petitions: which party should be cited for contempt. RULING: (1) Certiorari granted, court a quo directed to hold a hearing to redetermine attorneys fees.

(2) Atty. Binamira guilty of contempt, to pay P500. RATIO: Resolution to 1st Issue: Petitioner lawyers were denied due process by the judge in rendering a judgment as to total and not partial fees. Further, Judge Marquez relied solely on the records of the probate proceedings to arrive on the proper amount, without considering other factors in assessing the fees of a lawyer: (1) Amount/character of the services rendered. (2) Labor, time, and trouble involved. For instance, it does not appear on the records that Atty. Samuel had to travel from Davao to Tagbilaran, Manila , and Cebu , and had to move his family to Dumaguete. (3) Nature/importance of the litigation. (4) Responsibility imposed. (5) Amount/Money involved (6) Skill/Experience called for. (7) Professional standing of the lawyer (8) The results secured. Resolution to 2nd issue: Binamira mislead the court, violating his solemn oath to do no falsehood before the court. He made false and unsubstantiated averments to discredit the Occena lawyers, among others: 1. That executrix Necitas, out of the estate funds, loaned P100K to the Bohol Land Transportation Company and that her husband and lawyer, Atty. Samuel, became president of such company, thus husband and wife benefited from the loan. (Yet the corporate secretary of the company certified that Atty. Samuel never became its president). 2. That the 1965 estate income was never distributed. (But Necitas was able to show project of partition.) 3. That Atty. Samuel prepared receipts for Binamira without the latter receiving payments. (An acknowledgement receipt of the check in question was presented.) 4. That Atty. Samuel moved his family to Dumaguete not for purposes of litigation but to teach in Silliman University . (The Personnel Director of Silliman certified that there were no record that Atty. Samuel taught in the university.)

1 ESTRELLADO|2013-2014| LEGAL ETHICS| VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE COURTS

COMELEC v. NOYNAY The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to file an information for violation of Section 261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code against private respondents Diosdada Amor, a public school principal, and Esbel Chua and Ruben Magluyoan, both public school teachers, for having engaged in partisan political activities. The COMELEC authorized its Regional Director in Region VIII to handle the prosecution of the cases. Judge Tomas B. Noynay, as presiding judge of RTC Branch 23, motu proprio ordered the records of the cases to be withdrawn and directed the COMELEC Law Department to file the cases with the appropriate Municipal Trial Court on the ground that pursuant to Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691, the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum imposable penalty in each of the cases does not exceed six years of imprisonment. In response, the petitioners counsel, Atty. Jose P. Balbuena, Director IV of petitioners Law Department, filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. In his argument, Atty. Balbuena cited and misquoted certain authorities in order to bolster his contention. ISSUE: (1) WON RTC Judge Noynay correctly construed the principles/rules of to Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691. If not, does it warrant a sanction? (2) WON Atty. Balbuenas act of misquoting authorities warrants a sanction RULING: (1) RTC Judge erred in construing the law. It is obvious that respondent judge did not read at all the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. It is thus an opportune time, as any, to remind him, as well as other judges, of his duty to be studious of the principles of law, to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself,[to be faithful to the law, and to maintain professional competence.

Respondent Judge is DIRECTED to try and decide said cases with purposeful dispatch and, further, ADMONISHED to faithfully comply with Canons 4 and 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (2) Counsel for petitioner, Atty. Jose P. Balbuena, Director IV of petitioners Law Department, must also be admonished for his utter carelessness in his reference to the cited case against a certain judge. If Atty. Balbuena was diligent enough, he would have known that the correct name of the complainant in the case cited is neither Alberto Naldeza as indicated in the motion for reconsideration nor Alberto alone as stated in the petition, but ALBERTO NALDOZA. Moreover, the case was not reported in volume 245 of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) as falsely represented in the paragraph 16 of the petition, but in volume 254 of the SCRA. Worse, in both the motion for reconsideration and the petition, Atty. Balbuena deliberately made it appear that the quoted portions were the Courts findings or rulings, or, put a little differently, the Courts own words. The truth is, the quoted portion is just a part of the memorandum of the Court Administrator quoted in the decision. Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility[14] mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority. Atty. Jose P. Balbuena is ADMONISHED to be more careful in the discharge of his duty to the court as a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

1 ESTRELLADO|2013-2014| LEGAL ETHICS| VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE COURTS

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD. The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers & Employees Association-NATU, and Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU, while still members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into separate collective bargaining agreements with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU Insurance Group. Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies; negotiations were conducted on the Unions proposals, but these were snagged by a deadlock on the issue of union shop, as a result of which the Unions filed on January 27, 1958 a notice of strike for deadlock on collective bargaining. The issue was dropped subsequently (in short, nagkasundo). But, the parties negotiated on the labor demands but with no satisfactory result due to a stalemate on the matter of salary increases. As legal actions were taken by both parties, a decision was rendered by Presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez of the Court of Industrial Relations. In his decision, it is plain to the naked eye that the 60 un-underscored words of the paragraph quoted by the respondent Judge do not appear in the pertinent paragraph of this Court's decision in L-20179-81. Moreover, the first underscored sentence in the quoted paragraph starts with "For it is settled ..." whereas it reads, "For it must be remembered ...," in this Court's decision. Finally, the second and last underlined sentence in the quoted paragraph of the respondent Judge's decision, appears not in the same paragraph of this Court's decision where the other sentence is, but in the immediately succeeding paragraph. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent also quoted the same on pages 90-91 of the respondents' brief. ISSUE: WON the presiding judge and the respondent counsels acts warrant a contempt. RULING:

No. However, both the presiding judge and the respondent counsel were admosnished. This apparent error, however, does not seem to warrant an indictment for contempt against the respondent Judge and the respondents' counsels. The misquotation is more a result of clerical ineptitude than a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent Judge to mislead. We fully realize how saddled with many pending cases are the courts of the land, and it is not difficult to imagine that because of the pressure of their varied and multifarious work, clerical errors may escape their notice. Upon the other hand, the respondents' counsels have the prima facie right to rely on the quotation as it appears in the respondent Judge's decision, to copy it verbatim, and to incorporate it in their brief. Be that as it may, we must articulate our firm view that in citing this Court's decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. Indeed, there is a salient and salutary reason why they should do this. Only from this Tribunal's decisions and rulings do all other courts, as well as lawyers and litigants, take their bearings. This is because the decisions referred to in article 8 of the Civil Code which reads, "Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines," are only those enunciated by this Court of last resort. We said in no uncertain terms in Miranda, et al. vs. Imperial, et al. (77 Phil. 1066) that "[O]nly the decisions of this Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction." Thus, ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of this Court may lose their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled. But if inferior courts and members of the bar meticulously discharge their duty to check and recheck their citations of authorities culled not only from this Court's decisions but from other sources and make certain that they are verbatim reproductions down to the last word and punctuation mark, appellate courts will be precluded from acting on misinformation, as well as be saved precious time in finding out whether the citations are correct.

1 ESTRELLADO|2013-2014| LEGAL ETHICS| VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE COURTS

MACIAS v. UY KIM Petitioner-appellant Manuel Y. Macias filed on December 2, 1969 a petition for review by certiorari against respondents Uy Kim, Andres Co, Nemesio Co, Nicasio Co, Manuel Sosantong, Reliable Realty Corporation, and Branch X of the Manila Court of First Instance, alleging that he filed on May 5, 1969 a complaint dated April 30, 1969 for the annulment of a deed of sale, reivindicacion and damages against respondents docketed as Civil Case No. 76412 and assigned to Branch X of the Manila Court of First Instance presided over by Honorable Jose L. Moya. This case was filed despite the fact that an order regarding the same case was by Judge Barcelona presiding over Branch VIII of the same court. It is a general principle that the branch of the court of first instance that first acquired jurisdiction over the case retains such jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other branches of the same court of first instance or judicial district and all other coordinate courts. ISSUE:

GARCIA v. FRANCISCO On March 9, 1964, Concordia B. Garcia and her husband Godofredo, the Dionisio spouses, and Felisa and Magdalena Baetiong leashed a parcel of land to Sotero Baluyot Lee for a period of 25 years beginning May 1, 1964. Despite repeated verbal and written demands, Lee refused to vacate after the expiration of the lease. Lee claimed that he had an option to extend the lease for another 5 years and the right of pre-emption over the property . In this disbarment case, the complainant claims that Lee's counsel, respondent Francisco, commenced various suits before different courts to thwart Garcia's right to regain her property and that all these proceedings were decided against Lee. The proceedings stemmed from the said lease contract and involved the same issues and parties, thus violating the proscription against forum-shopping. Respondent, in his comment, says that he inserted in defense of his client's right only such remedies as were authorized by law. ISSUE: 6

WON the act of the petitioner-appellant, in filing identical suits, through his counsel warrants a sanction RULING:

WON Atty. Francisco should be sanctioned for forum shopping RULING:

The Court cannot ignore the proclivity or tendency of appellant herein to file several actions covering the same subject matter or seeking substantially identical relief, which is unduly burdening the courts. Coming from a neophyte, who is still unsure of himself in the practice of the law, the same may be regarded with some understanding. But considering appellant's ability and long experience at the bar, his filing identical suits for the same remedy is reprehensible and should merit rebuke.

Yes. He is SUSPENDED for ONE YEAR from the practice of law and from the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges appurtenant to membership in the Philippine bar. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The cause of the respondent's client in obviously without merit. The respondent was aware of this fact when he wilfully resorted to continuously seek relief that was consistently denied, as he should have expected. He thereby added to the already clogged dockets of the courts and wasted their valuable time. He also caused much inconvenience and expense to the complainant, who was obliged to defend herself against his every move. By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining the obligation of the lawyer

1 ESTRELLADO|2013-2014| LEGAL ETHICS| VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE COURTS

to maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be just and such defense only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. By violating his oath not to delay any man for money or malice, he has besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proved himself unworthy of trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. Atty. Crisanto l. Francisco took his oath as a lawyer on March 2, 1956. Considering his age and experience in the practice of the laws, he should have known better than to trifle with it and to use it as an instrument for harassment of the complainant and the misuse of judicial processes. For this serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he deserves to be sanctioned, not only as punishment for his misconduct but also as a warning to other lawyers who may be influenced by his example.

ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORP v. CA This is the second time petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation has come to this Court assailing the execution of the judgment dated August 24, 1989, rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City in Civil Case No. C-9297. Apparently, hope springs eternal for petitioner, considering that the issues raised in this second petition for review are but mere reiterations of previously settled issues which have already attained finality. We now write finis to this controversy which has dragged on for seventeen (17) years. The case started on May 18, 1981 when private respondent-spouses Jose Seelin and Lilia Sevilla Seelin filed a complaint against Central Dyeing & Finishing Corporation (Central Dyeing for brevity) for quieting of title and for declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 205942) issued in the name of said corporation, docketed as Civil Case No. C-9297, before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. The case was decided in favor of the Seelin spouses, even by the CA. The petitioner had been persistent in filing a motion for reconsideration, up to the level of the Supreme Court. ISSUE: WON the act of the petitioner through counsel is correct by law RULING:
NO. This case has again delayed the execution of a final judgment for seventeen (17) years to the prejudice of the private respondents. In the meantime that petitioner has thwarted execution, interment on the disputed lot has long been going on, so that by the time this case is finally terminated, the whole lot shall have already been filled with tombstones, leaving nothing for private respondents, the real owners of the property. This is a mockery of justice.

"As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when a case such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts." 1 ESTRELLADO|2013-2014| LEGAL ETHICS| VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE COURTS