Leg Prof Digests.docx

77. Go vs Abrogar  Facts: Petitioner failed to pay his debt in the bank, prompting the bank to file a case against him. RT rendered decision in favor to the bank. Atty. Atty. !avier, "ithdra"n his services as co#nsel and "as formally released by the petitioner thro#gh the $%otice of Permission& only on 'ct. (), *))). 'n %ovembe %ovemberr +,*))) +,*))).. petition petitioner, er, no" presente presented d by his ne" co#nsel co#nsel Atty. Atty. aneda aneda !r,. filed filed a otion otion for  Reconsideration Reconsideration of the 'ct. 7,*))) decision. decision. -hen the RT denied denied the motion, petitioner petitioner by his co#nsel filed a %otice on Appeal. RT denied the notice on appeal, on the gro#nd that the reglementary period had already epired. The decision became final and eec#tory. RT ordered the iss#ance of -rit of /ec#tion against petitioner. 'n arch 0, (111, petitioner filed a Petition for ertiorari, Prohibition and andam#s #nder R#le 0+ of the R#les of o#rt. Petitoner arg#es that the parties had act#ally intended their liabilities to be 2oint, that he has evidence to prove that his liability "as less than "hat the RT declared him liable for. The o#rt of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit.

3ss#e: -'% co#nsel acted according to his s"orn responsibility to the co#rt. 4eld: The o#rt dismayed the baseless attacks "ere assisted by co#nsel, "ho is an officer of the co#rt. 5nder  anon ** of the ode of Professions Professions Responsibility. Responsibility. $ A la"yer shall observe and maintain respect d#e to the co#rts and to the 2#dicial officer&.  Atty.  Atty. aneda, !r. sho#ld have kno"n better that to permit irresponsible and #ns#pported claim against !#dge  Abrogar  Abrogar to be incl#ded incl#ded in the the pleadings. pleadings. Allo"ing Allo"ing s#ch s#ch statements statements to be made is against against the la"yer6s oath. oath. Petitioner Go and Atty. aneda, !r. are strictly "arned not to make disrespectf#l statements against a 2#dge "itho#t basis or evidence.

7. aceda vs. 8ar9#e Facts: Petioner !#dge aceda seeks the revie" of the follo"ing orders of the 'ffice of the 'mb#dsman ;*< the 'rder dated =eptember *, *))* denying the e>parte motion to refer to the =#preme o#rt filed by petitioner? and ;(< the 'rder dated %ovember ((, *)+* denying petitioner6s motion for reconsideration and directing petitioner  to file his co#nter>affidavit and other controverting evidences. 3n his complaint, respondent Atty. Abierra alleged that the petitioner falsified his ertificate of =ervice "hen in tr#th, petitioner kne" that no decision had been rendered. Petitioner contends that 'mb#dsman has no  2#risdiction.  2#risdiction. 3ss#e: -'% the 'ffice of the 'mb#dsman co#ld entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of !#dge ertification 4eld:  Article 8333, section 0 of the *)7 onstit#tion onstit#tion ecl#sively vests in the =#preme o#rt administrative administrative s#pervision over all co#rts and co#rt personnel, from the Presiding !#stice of the o#rt of Appeals do"n to the lo"est m#nicipal trial co#rt clerk. @y virt#e of this po"er, it is only the =#preme o#rt that can oversee the  2#dges6 and co#rt co#rt personnel6s personnel6s compliance compliance "ith all all la"s, and takes the proper administrative administrative action action against against them if they commit any violation thereof. %o other branch of government may intr#de into this po"er. -here a criminal complaint against a !#dge or other co#rt employee arises from their administrative d#ties, the 'mb#dsman m#st defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the =#preme o#rt for determination "hether said !#dge or co#rt employee had acted "ithin the scope of their administrative d#ties.

7). Ang vs. astro Facts: Petitoner filed administrative complaint against !#dge astro for ignorance of the la" and grave ab#se of  discretion rendering #n2#st decision. Respondent #pon kno"ing of the administrative complaint filed against him, he ordered petitioner to appear before him, and to sho" ca#se "hy petitioner sho#ld not be g#ilty for  contempt, for contempt#o#s attit#de to"ards him. espite notice, petitioner failed to appear the sched#led hearing hearing for contemp contempt. t. Respond Respondent ent fo#nd him g#ilty for contemp contemptt and sentenced sentenced him to s#ffer s#ffer five days imprisonment.  Ang remained hiding? respondent respondent !#dge instit#ted criminal complaint for libel against petitioner petitioner for #sing malicio#s, insolent and contempt#o#s lang#age against him. Petitioner #pon kno"ing the criminal charges against him, he filed a =#pplemental Prohibition against 2#dge. The co#rt iss#ed Temporary Restraining 'rder en2oining respondent !#dge from cond#cting criminal complaint for libel 3ss#e: -'% may be held liable for contempt on the basis of lang#age he #sed in his letter complaint. 4eld: %o, Respondent !#dge astro, in his comment, arg#es that fail#re of petitioner to appear, despite notice, on the sched#led hearing of the contempt charge for the #se of derogatory lang#age in his t"o letters addressed to the 'ffice of the Presidential Assistant on Begal Affairs and to this o#rt in an administrative complaint against him, constit#tes direct contempt as the acts act#ally impeded, embarrassed and obstr#cted him in the administration of 2#stice =ection C of the R#les 7* of the R#les of o#rt defines indirect contempt. The lang#age fo#nd in the letters of  Petitipner, held as indirect contempt, b#t definitely not direct contempt.

1. 8illasis vs o#rt of Appeals Facts: The case in the F3 rendered the decision in favor of 8illasis #pholding their action title. Petitioner>defendants Petitioner>defendants appealed the 2#dgment to the o#rt of Appeals. 'n !#ne (+, *)71 8illasis received the notice thro#gh his co#nsel Atty. 8alente to s#bmit their brief "ithin the reglementary period of D+ days. A#g *1, *)71 last day of  filing Atty. 8alente filed a motion to "ithdra" as co#nsel of the petitioner 8illasis beca#se he his having employed in the =#preme o#rt and "ith a prayer that Atty. Tayco as a ne" co#nsel be given s#fficient time to file their brief. Atty. Tayco filed on his appearance A#g#st *,*)71. Petitioner>defendants filed a motion to dismiss, beca#se 8illasis failed to file their comment at all. Atty. 8alente, contend contends s that he has not received received a copy of dismissa dismissall motion. motion. Appellate Appellate co#rt granted granted Atty. Atty. 8alen 8alente6s te6s "ithdra"ing as co#nsel. 'n !#ne (+, *)7* after ** months "itho#t "itho#t having filed brief at all. The appellate co#rt dismissed the appeal. 3t "as only then Atty. Tayco from almost a year inaction filed a motion for ismissal of the Appeal on the gro#nd that he, a ne" co#nsel had not received the notice to file comment. The appellate co#rt denied his motion pointing o#t that Atty. Tayco6s appearance "as entered A#g. *, *)71. 3ss#e: -'% appellate co#rt committed error in dismissing the appeal. 4eld: %o, Atty. Tayco has sho"n no valid reason for their fail#re to file their comment for a year. They co#ld not even claim ignorance of the appellate6s notice to file brief since it had re9#ired "ithdra"ing co#nsel Atty. 8alente had to sec#re his "ritten conformity before granting his "ithdra"al as co#nsel. They had a year thereafter to make s#re that ne" co#nsel did attend to their appeal and did file their comment.

*. Achacoso vs o#rt of Appeals Facts: Petitioner6s co#nsel Rodrigo %era file a motion for leave to file his reply "ithin *+ days from notice, alleging that there "as need for s#ch reply, 3n order that 4onorable o#rt may completely informed the nat#re of  controversy "hich gave rise to the instant petition. The co#rt granted s#ch leave. 'n the last day of filling of the reply, co#nsel asked for additional *+ days $d#e to the press#re of "ork and daily trial. The co#rt granted the etension. 'n the last day of filing of etended period of filing, co#nsel asked again another *+ days etension, the same in his prior reason. The co#rt granted the re9#est. The co#nsel re9#ested for the third time and the co#rt still granted the re9#est, b#t the etended period of filing lapsed "itho#t co#nsel having filed any reply.  Accordingly,  Accordingly, the co#rt denied the petition for revie" for lack of merit and re9#ired co#nsel to sho" ca#se disciplinary action. o#nsel filed an eplanation, stating that he "as not in a financial position to advance necessary necessary epenses for preparing and s#bmitting the reply on acco#nt of his client fail#re to advance the s#m of money they agreed #pon. 3ss#e: -'% the reason of co#nsel for his fail#re to file his comment is admissible. 4eld: The o#rt th#s finds #nsatisfactory the Atty6s eplanation for his having allo"ed his etended period "itho#t s#bmitting the re9#ired comment. 4is in action #nd#ly prevented and delayed for considerable period the o#rt6s prompt disposition. The o#rt hereby administers a reprimand on Atty. Rodrigo . %era, "ith the "arning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt "ith more severely

(.aila Pest ontrol 3nc , vs -orkmen6s ommission Facts: ariano Abatria6s clinical history sho"ed that he "as diagnosed a severe p#lmonary t#bercolosis. 4e ac9#ired his illness illness d#ring his "ork beca#se beca#se he "as made to inhale dangero#s dangero#s f#mes, since the atmosphere atmosphere in the "orkplace "orkplace "as poll#t poll#ted ed "ith "ith poison poisono#s o#s chemic chemical al d#st. d#st. 4e notifi notified ed his employ employer er thro#g thro#gh h his genera generall manage managerr abo#t abo#t his condit condition ion b#t the employ employer er ref#se ref#sed d to pay him. him. 4e filed filed a compla complaint int agains againstt his employ employer er.. The -orkme -orkmen6s n6s ompensation ommission considered the complaint and rendered decision a gainst anila Pest ontrol 3nc. The decision "as sent to the petitioner6s co#nsel Atty. orp# , ho"ever he ref#sed to receive the copy of the decision decision alleging that he "as no longer handling handling the case. Atty Atty orp#, instr#cted instr#cted the messenger messenger to deliver the copy of the decision to Atty. amacho, since Atty. amacho "as not aro#nd to receive the decision the messenger  handed the copy of the decision to the receiving clerk therein. 3ss#e: -'% the co#nsel acted negligence of the said case. 4eld:  Abatria proven that the illness he ac9#ired "as service connected. The petitioner alleges that if given the opport#nity opport#nity for hearing hearing it co#ld interpose their their valid defense. defense. @#t the petitioner petitioner "as not able to present their  evidence and "as attrib#ted to the cond#ct of his co#nsel. 4is co#nsel not does so. The petition for prohibition "ith preliminary in2#nction is denied

C. 5=. 8s @allena Facts:  Ana Ramire "as charge of the crime of Per2#ry. Per2#ry. The basis of the prosec#tion prosec#tion "as her testimony, testimony, that the ca#se of death of her h#sband "as the blo" given by iriaco Palle2a. 'n the trial, /stafania /stafania @ar#ga, mother of   Ana testified that Fiscal Beoncio @allena, at the time of the investigation investigation into the ca#se of death of Ana6s Ana6s h#sband, attempted to rape her da#ghter Ana, and asked of the hand of the girl in marriage, b#t @ar#ga ref#sed the proposition of the fiscal beca#se he "as a married man. The F3 charging "ith the crime of s#bordination s#bordination of per2#ry against Beoncio Beoncio @allena. 5pon this complaint the defendant "as d#ly tried, fo#nd g#ilty. From this sentence and 2#dgment the defendant appealed, and no" insists that the testimony given by /stefania @arr#ga in that per2#ry case "as immaterial to the iss#es involved therein. 3f this contention be tr#e, the defendant is not g#ilty. 3ss#e: -'% the testimony of /fipania @ar#ga material to the iss#e involved in the criminal case against her da#ghter. 4eld: The term Ematerial matterE means the main fact "hich "as the s#b2ect of the in9#iry, or any circ#mstance "hich tends to prove that fact, or any fact, or circ#mstance, "hich tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to s#ch in9#iry, or "hich legitimately affects the credit of any "itness "ho testifies. The fiscal "as the moving party in the per2#ry case and it "as #pon his s"orn complaint that Ana "as prosec#ted. 3f he sho#ld have attempted to prosec#te Ana after having committed these acts the co#rt "o#ld not not only only have have disbe disbelie lieved ved the fiscal, fiscal, testi testifyi fying ng as a "itne "itness, ss, b#t b#t it "o#ld "o#ld have have looke looked d #pon #pon the "hole prosec#tion as a fabrication. The 2#dgment appealed is hereby affirmed.

D. The Philippine %ational @ank vs 5y Teng Piao Facts: 'n =eptember ), *)(D, the F3 rendered a 2#dgment in favor of the Philippine %ational @ank and against 5y Teng Piao. The co#rt ordered the defendant to deposit said amo#nt "ith the clerk of the co#rt "ithin three months from the date of the 2#dgment, and in case of his fail#re to do so that the mortgaged properties properties sho#ld be sold at p#blic a#ction in accordance "ith the la" and the proceeds applied to the payment of the 2#dgment. 5y Teng Piao failed to comply "ith the order of the co#rt, and the sheriff of the ity of anila sold the t"o parcels of land at p#blic a#ction to the Philippine %ational @ank The t"o parcel of land "ere sold, b#t the amo#nt amo#nt "as not satisfying satisfying the credit of 5y Teng Teng Piao, The bank bro#ght the present action to revive the 2#dgment for the balance. 'ne of the attorneys attorneys for the plaintiff testified that the defendant reno#nced his right to redeem the parcel of land beca#se a friend of the defendant "as interested in b#ying it. 3ss#e: -hether or not la"yers shall avoid being a "itness for a client 4eld: es. es. -ith respect to the testimony of the bankEs attorney, "e sho#ld like to observe that altho#gh the la" does not forbid an attorney to be a "itness and at the same time an attorney in a ca#se, the co#rts prefer that co#nsel sho#ld not testify as a "itness #nless it is necessary, and that they sho#ld "ithdra" from the active management of the case.

+. A#tria vs asa9#el Petitioner "as one of the plaintiffs in the above>mentioned ivil ase against Pedro @ravo for the recovery of  three parcels of land. After trial, respondent !#dge rendered a decision declaring the plaintiffs the o"ners of the three three parcels parcels of land in 9#estio 9#estion n and ordering ordering the defenda defendant nt to vacate the lands lands and pay the plaintiffs plaintiffs damages 'n ay (C, *)0C, Atty. ariano . =icat, a former assistant of respondent !#dge entered his appearance as the ne" co#nsel for defendant Pedro @ravo. Atty. =icat, filed a s#persedes bond to stay the eec#tion of the  2#dgment,  2#dgment, and respondent respondent !#dge !#dge granted the the stay of eec#tion, eec#tion, over over the ob2ection ob2ection of plaintiffs, plaintiffs, and ordered ordered the sheriff to restore the possession of the lands 'n A#g#st (D, *)0C, pending the approval of the defendantEs amended record on appeal, Atty. =icat filed a motion for ne" trial and to set aside the 2#dgment and, over the ob2ection of plaintiffs, the respondent !#dge granted the said motion. @efore the opening of the co#rtEs session, Atty. aniel acaraeg, co#nsel for petitioner, talk privately the respondent respondent 2#dge and verbally transmitted transmitted to him the re9#est of petitioner petitioner that he inhibit himself from f#rther  f#rther  hearing the case #pon the gro#nd that the ne" co#nsel for the defendant, Atty. ariano . =ikat, "as his former associate. The respondent !#dge, ho"ever, re2ected the re9#est beca#se, according to him, the reason for the re9#est of his inhibition is not one of the gro#nds for dis9#alification dis9#alification of a 2#dge provided for in the R#les of o#rt. omingo A#stria, in the premises, as offensive, ins#lting and a reflection on the integrity and honesty of the Presiding !#dge of this o#rt and sho"s his lack of respect to the o#rt, respondent !#dge fo#nd petitioner  g#ilty of direct contempt 3ss#e: -'% Atty. aniel acaraeg, co#nsel for petitioner acted in good faith 4eld  Atty.  Atty. acaraeg, approach respondent respondent !#dge and s#ggest to him to refrain from hearing the case on the ne" trial, precisely in order that respondent !#dge might not be embarrassed or eposed to p#blic odi#m. -hen petitioner re9#ested respondent !#dge to inhibit himself from f#rther trying the case #pon the gro#nd that the co#nsel for the opposite party "as the former associate of the respondent !#dge, petitioner did so beca#se he "as impelled by a 2#stifiable apprehension "hich can occ#r in the mind of a litigant "ho sees "hat seems to be an advantage on the part of his adversary? and that the petitioner made his re9#est in a manner  that "as not disrespectf#l, m#ch less ins#lting or offensive to the respondent !#dge or to the co#rt. ecision is set aside

0. %estle Phil vs =anche The 5nion of Filipro /mployees, set #p their 9#arters in front of =#preme o#rt. They constr#cted temporary shelter shelter along along side"alk side"alk.. They "aived "aived their their slogan, slogan, placards placards and criticied criticied the co#rt co#rt "ith the #se of lo#d spea speaker kers. s. 5nion 5nion6s 6s co#n co#nsel sel,, Atty. tty. /spin /spinas as had had been been inform informed ed by the the co#rt co#rt that that the 5nion 5nion m#st m#st cease cease immediately for the same constit#tes direct contempt and the o#rt "ill not entertain their petition as long as they did not cease their protest. The o#rt iss#ed a resol#tion re9#iring Atty. Atty. /spinas, et al to appear before the o#rt. Atty. Atty. /spinas, in behalf  of the 5nion Beaders apologied to the o#rt for their act, together "ith the iss#ance that they "ill not be repeated. That he already eplained to the leaders of the 5nion that any delay in the resol#tion of their cases is #s#ally for ca#ses beyond the control of the o#rt and he already eplained to the members of the 5nion that "hat they did "as "rong. 3ss#e: -'% the protest of the 5nion represented by o#nsel Atty. /spinas is direct contempt to the o#rt. 4eld: The d#ty and responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily #pon the sho#lders of their  co#nsel of record. Atty. !ose . /spinas, 5nion leaders are not a"are that even as the rights of free speech and of assembly are protected by the onstit#tion, any attempt to press#re or infl#ence co#rts of 2#stice thro#gh thro#gh the eercise eercise of either either right amo#nts amo#nts to an ab#se thereof thereof,, is no longer longer "ithin the onstit# onstit#tion tional al protection, nor did they realie that any s#ch efforts to infl#ence the co#rse of 2#stice constit#tes contempt of  co#rt. 4o"ever the o#rt accept apologies offered by the respondents at the time of the imposition of the sanction "arranted by the contempt#o#s acts The contempt charges against respondents are 3=3==/

7. 3n re de 8era ;(11C< Facts:  A Petiton Petiton to dis9#alify Atty. Atty. Beonard Beonard de 8era, 8era, on legal and moral gro#nds, gro#nds, from being elected elected 3@P Governor Governor for  /astern indanao. indanao. Petitioners Petitioners alleged that respondent respondent e 8era 8era had transferred transferred his 3@P membership from the Pasay, Parana9#e, Bas Pinas and #ntinl#pa ;PPB< hapter to Ag#san del =#r hapter, stressing that he indeed covets the 3@P presidency.The presidency.The transfer of 3@P membership to Ag#san del =#r, the petitioners "ent on, is a braen ab#se and mis#se of the rotation r#le, a mockery of the domicile r#le and a great ins#lt to la"yers from /astern indanao for it implies that there is no la"yer from the region 9#alified and "illing to serve the 3@P Respondent de 8era arg#es that the o#rt has no 2#risdiction over the present controversy, contending that the election of the 'fficers of the 3@P, incl#ding the determination of the 9#alification of those "ho "ant to serve the organiation, is p#rely an internal matter, governed as it is by the 3@P @y>Ba"s and ecl#sively reg#lated and administered by the 3@P. 3ss#e: *. -hether this o#rt has 2#risdiction over the present controversy 4eld: =ection +, Article 8333 of the *)7 onstit#tion ;+< Prom#lgate r#les concerning the protection and enforcement of constit#tional rights, pleading, practice, and proced#re in all co#rts, the admission to the practice of la", the Integrated Bar, and the legal assistance to the #nderprivileged. #nderprivileged. =#ch r#les shall provide a simplified and inepensive proced#re proced#re for the speedy disposition of  cases, shall be #niform for all co#rts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, increase, or modify s#bstantive s#bstantive rights. R#les of proced#re of special co#rts and 9#asi>2#dicial bodies shall remain effective #nless disapproved by the =#preme o#rt The 3@P @y>Ba"s, the doc#ment invoked by respondent e 8era in asserting 3@P independence from the =#preme o#rt, ironically recognies recognies the f#ll range of the po"er of s#pervision of the =#preme o#rt over the 3@P.

)*. B//=A 8 B3A' FAT=: Bedesma Bedesma is co#nsel co#nsel of one acc#sed acc#sed.. Thereaft Thereafter er,, he "as appointe appointed d as /lection /lection Registra Registrarr by '/B/ Bedesma "ithdre" as co#nsel on the basis that his appointment as /lection Registrar  "o#ld re9#ire f#ll time service as "ell as on the vol#me or press#re of "ork "ill prevent him from handling ade ade9#at 9#atel ely y the defe defens nse. e. !#dge limaco den ied his motion, and even appointed him as co#nsel de officio of the acc#sed 3==5/: -'% the "ithdra"al of Bedesma sho#ld be allo"ed 4/B: %o. There is obvio#s rel#ctance of Bedesma to comply "ith his r esponsibilities esponsibilities as co#nsel . Th There is no ec#se for him to neglect from his obligation as member of the bar, "ho epects to remain in good standing, sho#ld f#lfill. Bedesma "as not mindf#l of his obligation as co#nsel. 4e o#ght to kno" that memb me mb er ship sh ip in the th e bar ba r is a privilege privilege b#rdene b#rdened d "ith condition conditions. s. @eing @eing appoin appointed ted as as co#nsel co#nsel re9# re9#ires ires a high high degree of fidelity.