SALCEDO v.

FERNANDEZ Attorney Vicente Francisco, representing the petitionerappellant, inserted alleged contemptuous paragraph in his motion for reconsideration read as follows: We should like frankly and respectfully to make it of record that the resolution of this court, denying our motion for reconsideration, is absolutely erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls in the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas. We wish to exhaust all the means within out power in order that this error may be corrected by the very court which has committed it, because we should not want that some citizen, particularly some voter of the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas, resort to the press publicly to denounce, as he has a right to do, the judicial outrage of which the herein petitioner has been the victim, and because it is our utmost desire to safeguard the prestige of this honorable court and of each and every member thereof in the eyes of the public. But, at the same time we wish to state sincerely that erroneous decisions like these, which the affected party and his thousands of voters will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of sakdalism and make the public lose confidence in the administration of justice. The court required him to show cause, if any, why he should not be found guilty of contempt, giving him a period of ten days for that purpose. In his answer Atty. Francisco, far from regretting having employed the phrases contained in said paragraph in his motion, reiterated them several times contending that they did not constitute contempt because, according to him it is not contempt to tell the truth. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent-appellee is guilty of contempt. HELD: YES. Atty. Francisco ordered to pay a fine of P200.00 in ten days and reprimanded. The insertion of the phrases in question in said motion of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, for many years a member of the Philippine bar, was neither justified nor in the least necessary, because in order to call the attention of the court in a special way to the essential points relied upon VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO COURTS

in his argument and to emphasize the force thereof, the many reasons stated in his said motion were sufficient and the phrases in question were superfluous. RATIO: As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, as any attorney, is in duty bound to uphold its dignity and authority and to defend its integrity, not only because it has conferred upon him the high privilege, not right (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158 and 160), of being what he now is. It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his client, should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is not, and never will be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and respect which the dignity of the courts require. The reason for this is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their institution. Without such guaranty, said institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its importance. Judges, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of the bar against unjust criticism and clamor. Whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint of a judicial officer, it is the right and duty of the lawyer to submit his grievances to the proper authorities. In such cases but not otherwise, such charges should be encouraged and the person making them should be protected.

Page

COBB PEREZ vs. LANTIN A civil case was filed by Ricardo Hermoso against Damaso Perez for the latters failure to pay a debt of P17k. Hermoso won and a writ of execution was issued in his favor. The sheriff was to conduct a public sale of a property owned by Damaso worth P300k. This was opposed by Damaso as he claimed the amount of said property was more than the amount of the debt. Judge Lantin, issuing judge, found merit on this hence he amended his earlier decision and so he issued a second writ this time directing the sheriff to conduct a public sale on Damasos 210 shares of stock approximately worth P17k. Subsequently, Damaso and his wife filed five more petitions for injunction trying to enjoin the public sale. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court where the SC ruled that the petition of the Perez spouses are without merit; that their numerous petitions for injunction are contemplated for delay. In said decision, the Supreme Court ordered petitioners to pay the cost of the suit but said cost should be paid by their counsels. The counsels now appeal said decision by the Supreme Court as they claimed that such decision reflected adversely against their professionalism; that If there was delay, it was because petitioners counsel happened to be more assertive . . . a quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be condemned. ISSUE: Whether or not the counsels for the Spouses Perez are excused. HELD: No. A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his clients cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what is not tolerated is a lawyers insistence despite the patent futility of his clients position, as in the case at bar. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his clients cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate. A lawyers oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable. VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO COURTS

CITY SHERIFF OF ILIGAN CITY vs. FORTUNADO Respondents Alfaro, Editha and Nestor, all surnamed Fortunado, are the registered owners of two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. 7-3041 and T-1929, both registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City. Said properties were mortgaged by Arsenio Lopez, Jr. on July 24, 1968 to the Traders Commercial Bank (now Traders Royal Bank) to secure a loan obligation in the amount of P370,000.00. The mortgage of the property was the subject of litigation until the case reached the Supreme Court. When the case was pending in the Court, the respondents, through counsel Ramon A. Gonzales, filed a verified Manifestation informing the Court that the subject real estate mortgage has already been released by the Traders Royal Bank as shown in the certified true copy of the Release of Real Estate Mortgage, and that the petitioner was killed in a robbery in his house. Respondents therefore pray for the dismissal of the petition. As a result the Court required petitioner's counsel Atty. Emilio Abrogena to comment on the said Manifestation. However, the copy of the resolution of the Court addressed to Atty. Abrogena was returned unclaimed after three notices, with the postmaster's remark "moved." In view of such, the Court considered the resolution as served. Aside from the Courts decision on the main issue of the case the ISSUE was: WON the act of Atty. Abrogena warrants a disciplinary action RULING: YES. The failure of petitioner's lawyer, Atty. Emilio Abrogena, to inform the trial court of the death of petitioner, is a violation of a duty mandated rule by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides in part, to wit: Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and

Page

address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of the counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. xxx xxx xxx Hence, the proper substitution of the deceased in accordance with the aforequoted provisions of Rule 3 could not be effected. Atty. Abrogena's failure to inform this Court of his change of address which accounts for his failure to comment on the manifestation of respondents relative to the death of petitioner and the release of the subject real estate mortgage also caught the Courts ire. The Court said that Atty. Abrogena should bear in mind that a lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. His duties to the court are more significant than those which he owes to his client. His first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics of the profession. Atty. Emilio Abrogena, counsel for petitioner, is hereby REPRIMANDED for his failure to inform this Court of the death of petitioner and to perform his duty under Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. He is further warned that a repetition of such omission in the future will be dealt with severely.

In re Almacen Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied. He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution. This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he became one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He also stated that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb. The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyers certificate though as he now argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing. He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is the complainant, prosecutor and Judge. Almacen was however unapologetic. ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined. HELD:

VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO COURTS

Page

Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme Court

cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the courts denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals opinion. On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.

CHAVEZ vs. VIOLA In 1966, Atty. Viola assisted Felicidad Alvendia et al in filing a petition against Teodoro Chavez where he sought to have the Alvendias be declared as bona fide lessees in a land controversy. Said petition was dismissed because of nonappearance by the Alvendias. In 1977, Atty. Viola assisted same clients in applying for an original registration of title over the same land in controversy in 1966. In said application, Atty. Viola insisted that his clients were the true owners of said land because they acquired it by sale from Teresita Vistan way back in 1929. Chavez then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Viola. Chavez said that because of the conflicting claims that Viola prepared in behalf of his clients, he had willingly aided in and consented to the pursuit, promotion and prosecution of a false and unlawful application for land registration, in violation of his oath of office as a member of the Bar. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Viola is in violation of the Lawyers Oath. HELD: Yes. Viola alleged in an earlier pleading that his clients were merely lessees of the property involved. In his later pleading, he stated that the very same clients were owners of the same property. One of these pleadings must have been false; it matters not which one. Worse, he offered no explanation as regards the discrepancy. A lawyer owes honesty and candor to the courts. It cannot be gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious administration of justice. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Atty. Viola was suspended for 5 months.

VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO COURTS

Page

PANGAN vs. RAMOS In 1979, a pending administrative case filed by Santa Pangan against Atty. Dionisio Ramos was delayed because Atty. Ramos allegedly appeared before a court in Manila. When the records of the said case was checked (one which Atty. Ramos appeared in), it was found that he used the name Atty. Pedro D.D. Ramos. In his defense, Atty. Ramos said he has the right to use such name because in his birth certificate, his name listed was Pedro Dionisio Ramos. D.D. stands for Dionisio Dayaw with Dayaw being his mothers surname. However, in the roll of attorneys, his name listed was Dionisio D. Ramos. ISSUE: Whether or not what Atty. Ramos did was correct. HELD: No. The attorneys roll or register is the official record containing the names and signatures of those who are authorized to practice law. A lawyer is not authorized to use a name other than the one inscribed in the Roll of Attorneys in his practice of law. The official oath obliges the attorney solemnly to swear that he will do no falsehood. As an officer in the temple of justice, an attorney has irrefragable obligations of truthfulness, candor and frankness. In representing himself to the court as Pedro D.D. Ramos instead of Dionisio D. Ramos, respondent has violated his solemn oath and has resorted to deception. The Supreme Court hence severely reprimanded Atty. Ramos and warned that a similar infraction will warrant suspension or disbarment.

VII-A LAWYERS DUTY TO COURTS

Page