Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

1. Bergonia v.

Merrera

FACTS:Arsenia Bergonia filed a case for the quieting of title against her niece Josephine Bergonia, as well as the
Paraynos. After due trial, the RTC of Urdaneta ruled in favour of the Parayno. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial
court and the decision became final and executory. Since the disputed land was still in the possession of the
complainant, the Paraynos instituted a civil case to recover its possession. After due trial RTC ordered Bergonia to
vacate the premises and to surrender possession thereof to the Paraynos. Thereafter, complainant appealed the
RTC judgement to the CA. Respondent, as counsel, received a Notice of File Brief on December 17, 1997. Acting
on his Motion for extension, the CA granted him until March 17, 1998. Even before the extension had lapsed,he
again filed an Urgent Second Motion for extension to file brief, the CA again granted the motion. Eventually, the
deadline, which had already been extended twice, lapsed without his filing the appellant‘s brief. CA dismissed the
appeal.

ISSUE/S: WONAtty. Merrerra is guilty of inexcusable negligence.

HELD: Yes, Atty. Merrera is found guilty for violating Canons 12 and 18 of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility and is Suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.

RATIO: Rule 12.03 of the Codeof Professional Responsibility states that "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." A lawyer who requests an extension must do so in good faith and
with a genuine intent to file the required pleading within the extended period. In granting the request, the court acts
on the presumption that the applicant has a justifiable reason for failing to comply with the period allowed.
Without this implied trust, the motion for extension will be deemed to be a mere ruse to delay or thwart the appealed
decision. The motion will thus be regarded as a means of preventing the judgment from attaining finality and
execution and of enabling the movant to trifle with procedure and mock the administration of justice.

2. Allied Banking Corp vs. CA. – Illegal dismissal for transfer of employee (DOSH Ruling) Improper use of
jurisprudence by relying on SCRA.

3. De Leon vs. Atty. Castelo

FACTS: On April 29, 2010, De Leon initiated an administrative case against Atty. Castelo for alleged dishonesty and
falsification committed in the pleadings he filed in behalf of the defendants in the civil action (Civil Case No. 4674MN) in
which De Leon intervened. He alleged that various pleadings were filed for defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
despite said spouses being already deceased at the time of filing. As such, complainant submits that respondent violated
his Lawyer’s Oath and The Code of Professional Responsibility.

Castelo, in his comments, explained that the persons who had engaged him as attorney to represent the Lim family were
William and Leonardo Lim, the children of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu; that they were already actively managing
the family business, and now co-owned the properties by virtue of the deed of absolute sale their parents had executed
in their favor; and that they had honestly assumed that their parents had already caused the transfer of the TCTs to their
names. Likewise, a Motion for Substitution of Defendants was filed. Thus, whether Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
were still living or already deceased as of the filing of the pleadings became immaterial. Also, he assured that he had no
intention to commit either a falsehood or a falsification, for he in fact submitted the death certificates of the Spouses in
order to apprise the trial court of that fact.

ISSUE:

W/N respondent violated the letter and spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in making
the averments in the pleadings of the defendants
HELD:

No. A plain reading of the pleadings indicates that the respondent did not misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu were still living. On the contrary, he directly stated in his answer and clarification that the Spouses were
already deceased. He was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties when he filed the answer with
counterclaim and cross-claim. As such, his pleadings were privileged and would not occasion any action against him as
an attorney. Also, since the Spouses were no longer the actual owners of the affected properties, the fact that they are
already deceased is immaterial.

De Leon could not disclaim knowledge that the Spouses were no longer living. As voluntary intervenor, he was charged
with notice of all the other persons interested in the litigation. He also had an actual awareness of such other persons,
as his own complaint in intervention. Thus, he could not validly insist that the respondent committed any dishonesty or
falsification in relation to him or to any other party.

Court also emphasized that good faith must always motivate any complaint against a Member of the Bar. A Bar that is
insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and fearless, which can then best
contribute to the efficient delivery and proper administration of justice.

Hence, the complaint for disbarment or suspension filed against Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo is dismissed for utter lack of
merit.

4. In Re Ferrer – Forum Shopping 2 petitions filed in CA


5. IN Re UP LAW FACULTY – Digest in Tablet
6. Abiera vs. Maceda – charging respondent judge of grave abuse of discretion for suspending petitioner (waiving
presentation of evidence by not appearing in the second call of the case) and misconduct for deliberately
falsifying his certificates of service (but extension was granted by a justice, hence it is condoned) complaint is
DISMISSED.

7. Madrid v Dealca

FACTS

Dealca entered appearance in crim case pending before Judge Madrid.

Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal Case then pending in RTC and presided by Judge Madrid. Atty. Dealca sought
to replace Atty. Vicente Judar who had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the accused.

Dealca filed a motion to re-raffle case and to inhibit Judge Madrid due to “adverse incidents”

But aside from entering his appearance as counsel for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved that the Criminal be re-
raffled to another Branch of the RTC and filed a motion to inhibit stating that: "considering the adverse incidents
between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the undersigned," where "he does not appear before the incumbent
Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also hear cases handled by the undersigned."

Judge Madrid filed a complaint.

Consequently, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealca's unethical
practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext of previous
adverse incidents between them.

ISSUE: W/N Atty Dealca violated Canon 11 and 11.04 of CPR (YES)

HELD

Pertinent canons
Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and should
insist on similar conduct by others.

Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the
case.

Lawyers bound to uphold respect for courts

In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to promote
confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial
institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation.

Motion to inhibit based on personal whims

Atty. Dealca should be sanctioned for filing the motion to inhibit considering that the motion, being purely based on his
personal whims, was bereft of factual and legal bases.

Dealca implied Madrid was biased without any clear and convincing evidence.

Atty. Dealca's averment in the motion to inhibit that Judge Madrid did not hear cases being handled by him directly
insinuated that judges could choose the cases they heard, and could refuse to hear the cases in which hostility existed
between the judges and the litigants or their counsel. Such averment, if true at all, should have been assiduously
substantiated by him because it put in bad light not only Judge Madrid but all judges in general. Yet, he did not even
include any particulars that could have validated the averment. Nor did he attach any document to support it.

Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Dealca to establish by clear and convincing evidence the ground of bias and prejudice
in order to disqualify Judge Madrid from participating in a particular trial in which Atty. Dealca was participating as a
counsel. As such, Atty. Dealca clearly contravened his duties as a lawyer as expressly stated in Canon 11 and Rule 11.04,
supra. 1 YEAR SUSPENSION

8. Agustin vs. Empleo – failure to make the compromise agreement for 4 years (Imputed it to the unwillingness of the
client) REPRIMANDED

9. In re Almacen G.R. No. L-27654 (In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action against Atty. Vicente Raul
Almacen vs. Virginia Yaptinchay)

Facts of the Case:

Atty. Almacen was the counsel of Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in a civil case but Almacen filed for a
Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but failed to indicate the time and place of
hearing of said motion.

He appealed to the Court of Appeals but motion was denied. He filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court
which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.

Atty. Almacen called such minute resolution as unconstitutional. He filed before the Supreme Court a petition to
surrender his lawyer’s certificate as he claimed that it was 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 argues that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120,000.00 without knowing the reasons why
and that his client became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy”.
He also contends 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 actually surrender his certificate. Almacen, however, did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though he
now argues that he chose not to.

Issue:

Does Almacen deserve disciplinary action?

Court Ruling:

YES. In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme Court cannot
accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject. The Supreme Court must decide “only on cases
which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties
involved”.

The Supreme Court regarded Almacen’s criticisms as uncalled for. His right to criticize the decision of the courts has
always been encouraged, but it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the wall of decency and propriety.

10. OLIVARES v. VILLALON

FACTS:Respondent Atty. Arsenio Villalon Jr.‘s client, Sarah Divina Morales Al-Rasheed repeatedly sued Petitioner Pablo
Olivares for violations of the lease contract which they executed over a commercial apartment in Olivares Building
in Paranaque. In 1993, a case was filed for an action for damages and prohibition with prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The case was dismissed for improper venue. Six years later, on 1 July
1999 an action for breach of contract with damages was filed but was also dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Al-Rasheed through Villalon sought for a review of the order for dismissing but the Court of Appeals denied such. A
subsequent petition for review on certiorari was also denied. The 1999 suit was re-filed but was dismissed on the
grounds of res judicata and prescription.Villalon, on the other hand, asserts that he was only performing his legal
obligation as a lawyer to protect and prosecute the interests of Al-Rasheed. He denied that he was forum
shopping as Al-Rasheed, in her certificate of non-forum shopping, disclosed the two previous cases involving
the same cause of action which had been filed and dismissed. Villalon further claims he could not refuse the
request to file a new case because Al-Rasheed was the ―oppressed party‖ in the transaction.

ISSUE: WON Villalon violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:Yes. A six-month suspension is the penalty but it can no longer be imposed because of the death of Villalon
in 27 September 2006 therefore it renders this disciplinary case moot and academic.

RATIO:A lawyer‘s fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice. 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. Those who
file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for incompetence or wilful
violation of their duties as attorneys to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions that
appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor.