43.

ADEZ REALTY v CA

FACTS:
In a resolution of the Supreme Court, Atty Dacanay was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinary
dealt with by intercalating a material fact in the quoted judgment of the Court of Appeals, inserting “without notice to
the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty” when in fact it did not make such finding.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty Dacanay, by inserting phrase which is in fact not true, should be disbarred.

RULING:
YES. In the case at bar, the Supreme Court held that the inserted phase “without notice to the actual occupants of the
property, Adez Realty,” was just the right phrase intercalated at the right place, making it highly improbable to be
unintentionally, making it appear that respondent Court of Appeals found that no notice was given to the occupants of
subject property –– when in fact it did not make such a finding
is a clear indication not merely of carelessness in lifting a portion of the assailed decision but a malicious attempt to ga
in undue advantage in the sporting arena of fairplay and, more importantly, to deceive and misguide this Court, which i
s the final arbiter of litigations.
He then violated Rule 10.02, Canon 10, Chapter III, of the Code of Professional Responsibility which directs that “[a] l
awyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposin
g counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved”

44. COBB-PEREZ V LANTIN

FACTS:
A civil case was filed by Ricardo Hermoso against Damaso Perez for the latter’s 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 Damaso’s 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 counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s cause must be encouraged
and is to be commended; what is not tolerated is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s 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 client’s 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 client’s propensity to litigate. A lawyer’s oath to uphold the
cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.

45. FESTIN v ZUBIRI

46. MONTECILLO v GICA

FACTS:
Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of slander. Atty. Quirico del Mar represented Montecillo and he
successfully defended Monteceillo in the lower court. Del Mar was even able to win their counterclaim thus the lower
court ordered Gica to pay Montecillo the adjudged moral damages.
Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where the latter court reversed the same. Atty. Del Mar
then filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the Court of Appeals judges intimating
that he thinks the CA justices “knowingly rendered an unjust decision” and “judgment has been rendered through
negligence” and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.
The CA denied the MFR and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from using such tone with the court. Del Mar then filed a
second MFR where he again made threats. The CA then ordered del Mar to show cause as to why he should not be
punished for contempt.
Thereafter, del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter which he sent to the President of the Philippines
asking the said justices to consider the CA judgment. But the CA did not reverse its judgment. Del Mar then filed a
civil case against the three justices of the CA before a Cebu lower court but the civil case was eventually dismissed by
reason of a compromise agreement where del Mar agreed to pay damages to the justices. Eventually, the CA
suspended Atty. Del Mar from practice.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the courts. As an officer of the
court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards
the court so essential to the proper administration of justice.

47. IN RE: SOTTO

FACTS:
Atty. Vicente Sotto issued a written statement in connection with the decision of this Court in In re Angel Parazo the
statement was published in the Manila Times and other daily newspapers of the locality. The court required Atty. Sotto
to show cause why he should not be charged with contempt of court. he contends that under section 13, Article VIII of
the Constitution, which confers upon this Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure, "this Court has no power to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens, and that the Supreme
Court can only impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and has to be promulgated by Congress with the
approval of the Chief Executive." And he also alleges in his answer that "in the exercise of the freedom of speech
guaranteed by the Constitution, the respondent made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith and with
no intention of offending any of the majority of the honorable members of this high Tribunal, who, in his opinion,
erroneously decided the Parazo case; but he has not attacked, or intended to attack the honesty or integrity of any
one.'

Issue: WON Atty. Sotto can be punished for contempt of court?

Held: Yes. Atty. Sotto does not merely criticize or comment on the decision of the Parazo case, which was then and
still is pending reconsideration by this Court upon petition of Angel Parazo. He not only intends to intimidate the
members of this Court with the presentation of a bill in the next Congress, of which he is one of the members,
reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the
members of Justices from eleven to seven, so as to change the members of this Court which decided the Parazo
case. As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty bound to uphold
the dignity and authority of the Court

48. PENTICOSTES V. HIDALGO

49. WICKER V ARCANGEL

50. MACEDA v VASQUEZ

FACTS:
Respondent Napoleon Abiera of Public Attorney’s Office filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman
against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. alleged that petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of
service by certifying that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision for a period of 90 days
have been determined and decided on or before January 31, 1989, when in truth and in fact, petitioner Maceda knew
that no decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have been submitted for decision.
Respondent Abiera further alleged that petitioner Maceda also falsified his certificates of service in 1989 and 1990.

Maceda contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over said case since the offense charged arose from the
judge's performance of his official duties, which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the Supreme Court's
constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts.

Issue: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of a
judge's certification submitted to the Supreme Court, and assuming that it can, whether a referral should be made first
to the Supreme Court.

Held: Yes. Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate offense committed by judge whether or not offense
relates to official duties. It has jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by a judge even if the charged is
unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the Supreme
Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to
the State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.
51. ALCANTARA, ET AL. V. DE VERA

FACTS: Atty. Eduardo De Vera won a case for Rosario Mercado. De Vera garnished the bank account of the
opposing party but he did not remit the same to Mercado, instead he claimed that he used the same to pay off the
judge and what’s left was for his attorney’s fees. Mercado filed an administrative complaint and eventually De Vera
was suspended from the practice of law for one year. In obvious retaliation, he filed various complaints against
Mercado and her family, the IBP officers who suspended and several others. He attempted to re-open the case of her
client in an attempt to collect more attorney’s fees. He also instigated the opposing party in the case he won for
Mercado to file lawsuits against Mercado. The complaints were dismissed but he re-filed them nonetheless.

ISSUE: Whether or not De Vera should be disbarred.

HELD: Yes. What he did is grossly unethical and filled with ill-motive. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to remove
from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney. In filing cases against Mercado, De Vera used matters and
information acquired by him when he was still the counsel for Mercado. A lawyer owes loyalty and fidelity to his client
even if the lawyer-client relationship has already terminated. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of
his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

52. OLIVARES V. VILLALON

FACTS:
Olivares alleged that respondent’s client, Sarah Divina Morales Al-Rasheed, repeatedly sued him for violations of the
lease contract which they executed over a commercial apartment in Olivares Building in Parañaque. Respondent
asserts that he was only performing his legal obligation as a lawyer to protect and prosecute the interests of his
client. He denied that he was forum shopping as his client, in her certificate of non-forum shopping, disclosed the two
previous cases involving the same cause of action which had been filed and dismissed. Respondent further claims he
could not refuse his client’s request to file a new case because Al-Rasheed was the “oppressed party” in the
transaction.

ISSUE: WoN the respondent Atty. violates Rule 12.02, Canon 12 of CPR

HELD: YES. Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Filing multiple
actions constitutes an abuse of the Court’s processes. It constitutes improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct
and degrade justice.

53. ECONOMIC INSURANCE CO. V. UY REALTY CO

54. LANTORIA V. BUNYI

Facts:
 An administrative complaint was filed by Lantoria against Bunyi, a member of the Philippine Bar, on the ground
that Bunyi committed acts of graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the IBP,
and corruption of the judge and bribery
 This is in relation to Bunyi’s handling of a civil case wherein Bunyi was counsel of Mrs. Mascarinas. The latter was
the owner of the farm and Lantoria is the supervisor and manager of the said farm. The 3 civil cases presided by
Judge Galicia involved an ejectment suit of squatters in the said farm. The defendants in the said cases were
declared in default.
 Correspondences between Lantoria and Bunyi showed that Bunyi initially enclosed a letter in an envelope
addressed to Judge Galicia in a confidential and private manner. Judge Galicia thru the mediation of Lantoria
informed Bunyi that he is willing to let Bunyi write the decisions for th 3 civil cases. Lantoria informed the same to
Bunyi which later delivered the 3 decisions thru Lantoria.
 Three years later, Lantoria file the present case against Bunyi alleging that they won the said cases because
Bunyi wrote the decisions in those cases.
 Bunyi contends that Lantoria had knowledge of the request of Judge Galicia to Bunyi as the said judge had two
salas before him. Also, Bunyi contends that the drafting of the decision was not an idea spawned by him.
Furthermore, he contends that his participation is merely on revision.

Issue: WON Bunyi violated the code of professional responsibility for lawyers?

Held: YES. In the new Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer's attempt to influence the court is rebuked, as
shown in Canon No. 13 and Rule 13.01. CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain
from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court. Rule 13.01 — A
lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with
judges.
 Court finds Bunyi guilty of unethical practice in attempting to influence the court where he had pending civil case.
Suspended for 1 year.

55. CRUZ V SALVA

- A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, de Jesus, Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo et al.
guilty of murder. They all appealed and Castelo sought new trial. Castelo was again found guilty.
- Pres Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary questioned people and got confessions pointing
to persons other than those convicted.
- Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct reinvestigation on basis of new confessions. Fiscal conferred w/
SolGen and the Justice Sec decided to have the results of investigation made available to counsel for appellants.
- Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits and confessions. Salva organized a
committee for reinvestigation and subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and mastermind in the
new affidavits and confessions. Cruz’ counsel questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct
preliminary investigation bec the case was pending appeal in the SC. Counsel filed this present petition.
- Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of Cruz’ oral and personal request to allow him to appear at the investigation.
- SC issued writ of preliminary injunction stopping the prelim investigation.

ISSUES
1. WON Salva and his committee can push through with the investigation
2. WON Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify before Salva

HELD
1. Yes. SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally reqested to allow him to appear at the investigation.
- Normally, when a criminal case handled by fiscal is tried and decided and appealed to a higher court, functions of
fiscal have terminated. However, Salva has justified his reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one of the defendants
(Salvador Realista y de Guzman) was not included in the trial.
- The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure conviction of the guilty but also to protect the
innocent.
2. No. Under the law, Cruz had right to be present at the investigation but he need not be present. His presence is
more of a right than a legal obligation.

55. IN RE: ALMACEN

FACTS:
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 lawyer’s 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 Almacen’s petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually
surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s 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: 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. In the case at bar, Almacen’s 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.
56. FAJARDO v ALVAREZ

FACTS:

Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo was the Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent
Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez to defend her in criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Teresita alleged that Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health. He
asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee. However, Atty. Alvarez did not enter his appearance before the Office of
the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings.

Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends connected with the Office of the Ombudsman who could help with
dismissing her case for a certain fee. Atty. Alvarez said that he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to his
friends and acquaintances working at the Office of the Ombudsman to have the cases against Teresita dismissed.

However, just two (2) weeks after Teresita and Atty. Alvarez talked, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution
and decision recommending the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita, and her dismissal from service,
respectively. Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the amount she gave. Atty. Alvarez
promised to return the amount to Teresita; however, he failed to fulfill this promise. Teresita sent a demand letter to
Atty. Alvarez, which he failed to heed.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Alvarez violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.

RULING: YES. Respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
communicated to or, at the very least, made it appear to complainant that he knew people from the Office of the
Ombudsman who could help them get a favorable decision in complainant's case. In relation, Canon 13 mandates that
lawyers "shall rely upon the merits of his [or her] cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or
gives the appearance of influencing the court."