1 PALE (USJR)

Digest by R. Cortes

JUDICIAL ETHICS personal conduct, a price one has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the
judiciary, beyond which he may not freely venture. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
CANON 1 Conduct enjoins a judge to avoid not just impropriety in the performance of judicial
duties but in all his activities whether in his public or private life. He must conduct
1. RODRIGO “JING” N. VIDAL, complainant, vs. JUDGE JAIME L. DOJILLO, JR.,
himself in a manner that gives no ground for reproach.
Municipal Trial Court, Manaoag, Pangasinan, respondent.
Found GUILTY of violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and is hereby
FACTS: Before us is a complaint filed by complainant Rodrigo “Jing” N. Vidal against Judge
REPRIMANDED with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be
Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Manaoag,Pangasinan.
dealt with more severely.
Dojillo, Jr., Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court at Manaoag, Pangasinan is here charged
2. HON. JULIETA DECENA vs. JUDGE NILO MALANYAON, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1669,
with “Misconduct.” The charge stemmed from an Election Protest filed by the brother of
4/14/2004
Judge Dojillo at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court stationed at San Fabian, Pangasinan to
protest the proclamation of herein complainant as Barangay Captain in the 2002 election.
FACTS: A session was conducted wherein revocation of two previous resolutions granting
Mr. Vidal [herein complainant] alleged that during the 29 and 30 July 2003 hearings of the authority to operate a cockpit in the locale was being deliberated. Respondent, whose
Election Protest, Judge Dojillo “sat beside the counsel of his brother” and “actively nephew-in-law was one of the cockpit operators, heckled and interrupted the session by
coached, aided, assisted, and guided said counsel by now and then saying something, hurling various accusatory remarks and insults (such as “lies, they are lies”, “Lies! Can you
handing piece of writing, reminding, and or stopping the counsel from manifesting do that even if they are lies? Even if you are being deceived?”) at the council members.
something to the court, and other similar acts.” Judge Dojillo admitted that he was present Municipal officials later filed a joint affidavit-complaint for Respondent’s dismissal and
disbarment. Respondent admitted his presence during the council session, but contended
during the mentioned hearings but explained that he did not sit beside his brother’s lawyer
that he was not drunk and that he was there merely in his private capacity as a taxpayer.
but in the area reserved for the public; and that the main reason why he was there was to RULING: Respondent FINED P20,000 for conduct unbecoming of a judge in violation of
observe how election protests are conducted as he has never conducted one. His other Canon 2, Rule 2.01 and Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; with STERN WARNING
reason was to give moral support to his brother. In his defense, stated that he attended the that the commission of the same or a similar act or omission in the future will be dealt
hearing of his brother’s election protest case just to give moral support and, in the process,with more severely. His actuations constitute palpable violations of the Code of Judicial
also observe how election protest proceedings are conducted. Conduct, that, “a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities (Canon 2)”, “a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
RATIO: Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to avoid not only confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (Rule 2.01)”; “a judge shall not
impropriety but also the mere appearance of impropriety in all activities. Even if allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The
prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others,
respondent did not intend to use his position as a judge to influence the outcome of his
nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
brother’s election protest, it cannot be denied that his presence in the courtroom during influence the judge (Rule 2.03)”.
the hearing of his brother’s case would immediately give cause for the community to
suspect that his being a colleague in the judiciary would influence the judge trying the case Respondent needs to be reminded that his judicial identity does not terminate at the end
of the day when he takes off his judicial robes. Even when garbed in casual wear outside of
to favor his brother. The fact that neither complainant nor his counsel objected to the
the halls of justice, a judge retains the air of authority and moral ascendancy that he or she
presence of respondent during the hearing is immaterial. Respondent himself should have wields inside the sala.
refrained from publicly showing his seemingly active interest and participation in the case,
for he does not deny that he whispered and passed notes to his brother’s lawyer during A judge’s official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal existence.
Indeed, the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 in particular, mandates that a judge should
the course of the hearing. A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, as well as behave at
2 PALE (USJR)
Digest by R. Cortes

all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. additional payment of P10,000.00. She allegedly refused to give the additional amount and
Thus, the Court has to dismiss outright Judge Malanyaon’s suggestion that his actions be
earned the ire of respondent. She asked her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to request Atty. Robert
evaluated as one of a taxpayer or ordinary citizen and not as that of a judge. In fact, his
utterances were not made under a cloak of anonymity, for the members of the council, as Juanillo to voluntarily withdraw as counsel, which he did on April 16, 2007. Complainant
well as some of the people in the gallery knew very well that he was a judge. It is highly
also asked Vollmer to withdraw the case. Respondent granted the Motion to Withdraw as
probable that his invectives took on a greater imperative on the listeners precisely because
he was a judge, with all the authority attendant to the office. Counsel on April 23, 2007 and the Motion to Withdraw Case on May 3, 2007.

Respondent denounced the allegation that he offers “package deals” to

3. FLORENDA V. TOBIAS, vs JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO
prospective litigants as malicious, baseless and a lie. He denied that he demanded from
Facts: Complainant charged respondent with corruption for allegedly offering “package complainant the additional payment of P10,000.00. He alleged that he does not know
deals” to litigants who plan to file cases in his court.
complainant and she is a total stranger to him.

She stated that sometime in June 2006, she requested her sister, Lorna V. Vollmer,
RATIO: The Court agrees with the findings of Investigating Judge Guanzon that
to inquire from the Fourth MCTC of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental
complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence her allegation that respondent offers
about the requirements needed in filing an ejectment case. Court Stenographer Salvacion
“package deals” to prospective litigants in his court. However, the investigation revealed
Fegidero allegedly proposed to Vollmer that for the sum of P30,000.00, respondent would
that respondent committed acts unbecoming of a judge, in particular, talking to a
provide the lawyer, prepare the necessary pleadings, and ensure a favorable decision in the
prospective litigant in his court, recommending a lawyer to the litigant, and preparing the
ejectment case which they contemplated to file against the spouses Raymundo and
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo, which pleading was filed in his
Francisca Batalla. Fegidero allegedly required them to pay the initial amount of P10,000.00
court and was acted upon by him. The conduct of a judge should be beyond reproach and
and the remaining balance would be paid in the course of the proceedings. It was made
reflective of the integrity of his office. Indeed, as stated by the OCA, the said acts of
clear that they would not get any judicial relief from their squatter problem unless they
respondent violate Section 1 of Canon 2 (Integrity), Section 2 of Canon 3 (Impartiality), and
accepted the package deal.
Section 1 of Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary, thus:

Further, complainant alleged that on June 23, 2006, Lorna Vollmer, accompanied CANON 2
by Salvacion Fegidero, delivered the amount of P10,000.00 to respondent at his residence.
INTEGRITY
Subsequently, an ejectment case was filed in respondent’s court. Respondent allegedly Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the
assigned a certain Atty. Robert G. Juanillo to represent the complainant in the ejectment judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.

case. Complainant stated that respondent, however, immediately demanded for an

3 PALE (USJR)
Digest by R. Cortes
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct
above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a
reasonable observer.
xxxx
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial
office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by
which the decision is made.
xxxx
SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and
out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the
legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the
judiciary.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance
of impropriety in all of their activities.
SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must
accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular,
judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.
Former Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Valladolid-San
Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, is found GUILTY of gross misconduct for which he
is FINED in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00). The Office of the “In his Comment dated 4 March 2003, Judge Baldado denied the allegations in the
Court Administrator is DIRECTED to deduct the fine of P25,000.00 from the retirement complaint. He maintained that:
benefits due to Judge Limsiaco, Jr.
4. BERNABE L. CARRIAGA, complainant, vs. Judge ISMAEL O. BALDADO, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, Bais City, Negros Oriental, respondent.
Facts: In an Administrative Complaint dated October 28, 2002, Bernabe L. Carriaga charged
Executive Judge Ismael O. Baldado of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bais City, Negros
Oriental (Branch 45), with (1) bias and partiality and (2) abuse of authority. The Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) summarized the factual antecedents as follows:
“Complainant alleges that:
1. On 19 July 2002, Judge Romeo L. Anasario, Acting Presiding Judge,
MCTC, Manjuyod-Bindoy-Ayungan, Negros Oriental issued an Order
inhibiting himself from hearing Criminal Cases Nos. B-36-2000, B-55-2000,
B-62-2000, B-08-2001, B-09-2001 and B-126-2001 on the ground that the
filing of an administrative case against him by accused Bernabe L. Carriaga
has already affected his “emotions and cold neutrality” as a judge;
2. Judge Ismael O. Baldado, as Executive Judge, issued an Order dated 1
August 2002 revoking Judge Anasario’s Order of Inhibition. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed but respondent judge insisted that Judge
Anasario should hear the cases;
3. Complainant filed a Motion Entreating the Honorable Judge to Endorse
Administrative Aspect of Inhibition to the Supreme Court, which motion
respondent judge also denied;
4. The private complainant in Criminal Case No. B-55-2000, Edna Baldado
Iso, is a second cousin of Judge Baldado, while an eye witness is a nephew
of Edna Baldado Iso; and
5. Another witness, Roque Amorganda, is the baptism sponsor of the late
Bonifacio Benitez who, together with Edna Iso’s father were defeated in a
case filed by Carriaga. The private complainant in Criminal Case No. B-62-
2000 is the husband of Edna Baldado Iso.
4 PALE (USJR)
Digest by R. Cortes

1. This is the first time that the complainant raised the issue of conflict of In his letter dated December 17, 2003, Judge Ananson recused himself from hearing the
interest arising from his alleged blood relationship with one of the parties; criminal cases on the ground of delicadeza, because he had represented the complainant
and his family in a related litigation prior to his appointment as judge. In its Resolution
2. He does not personally know Edna Baldado Iso and has never met her. dated April 5, 2004,this Court noted his letter and designated Judge Leoncio R. Bancoro,
However, his late father once informed him that they have relatives in MCTC of Bais City, Negros Oriental, to hear the cases.
Bindoy;
RATIO: A judge’s decision to recuse on account of some disqualification is not conclusive.
3. He reversed the Order of Inhibition of Judge Anasario because the However, orders of inhibition are not administrative in character; they are judicial in
ground cited by [the latter], i.e., that the accused has filed an nature. Questions on the inhibition or the competency of the inhibiting judge should be
administrative case against him, is not meritorious. Well-settled is the rule determined with finality in an appropriate judicial proceeding.
that the filing of an administrative case against a judge is not sufficient
basis for inhibiting [himself] from hearing and deciding a case; In conformity with this rule, parties may avail themselves of the ordinary remedies of
reconsideration and appeal or of the extraordinary remedies of certiorari or mandamus.
4. He disapproved Judge Anasario’s inhibition also because the other two Disciplinary proceedings against the inhibiting judge are not complementary or suppletory
(2) municipal court trial judges under his administrative supervision, Judges to, or a substitute for, the aforementioned judicial remedies.
Leoncio N. Bancorro and Tirso F. Banquerigo, were already handling more
than one court. If he will allow Judge Anasario to inhibit from these six (6) The administrative matter before us differs from petitions assailing a judge’s
cases, it will be an added burden to them; disqualification from hearing a particular case. In the present case, the judge voluntarily
inhibited himself; the parties had not filed any motion on the matter. It was the executive
5. He should not be held administratively liable for revoking the Order of judge who insisted that Judge Anasario should continue hearing the case. Respondent’s
Inhibition of Judge Anasario because he merely exercised his judicial action was improper.
discretion and there was no manifestation of malice and bad faith on his
part; Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988, provides that “inhibitions and
disqualifications [of judges] are judicial actions which do not require prior administrative
6. On several occasions, the Supreme Court had also reversed his Orders of approval. Administrative intervention is necessary only when the inhibition is by a judge of
Inhibition and ordered him to continue with the hearing of the cases; and a single sala court, and the case has to be transferred to another judge of another station.”

7. Complainant has the penchant of filing administrative cases against The duty of executive judges, therefore, is merely to elevate an order of inhibition to the
judges with the end view of seeking their inhibition from the cases. Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator or, otherwise, to appoint
another trial court judge under their supervision to handle the case. It is not within their
“On 03 April 2003, this Office received complainant’s Reply dated 17 March 2003 claiming authority to resist or overrule the order of recusation. By disapproving Judge Anasario’s
that Judge Baldado gravely abused his discretion when he revoked the Order of Inhibition inhibition, respondent acted contrary to the aforesaid Circular.
of Judge Anasario. He contended that respondent judge should have instead forwarded
the matter to the Supreme Court because the same is already beyond his authority as On the other hand, the actuations of Judge Anasario are justified by the terms of
Executive Judge.” paragraph 2, Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. The records do not indicate any
improper exercise of a prerogative conferred on him by law. Absent any abuse of
In a Resolution dated September 29, 2003, this Court resolved to re-docket the Complaint discretion or manifest error, this Court shall not reverse an inhibition or a recusation.
as a regular administrative matter and to designate Judge Jayme E. Ananson of the Neither will the wisdom of such inhibition be delved into in cases in which the reasons
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Pamplona-Amlan-San Jose, Negros Oriental, to hear therefor are concededly subjective. Besides, the question of whether to inhibit is best lef
and decide the subject six (6) criminal cases at the MCTC, Bindoy-Ayungon-Manjuyod. to the sound discretion and the conscience of the judge, “based on his rational and logical
assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before him.”
5 PALE (USJR)
Digest by R. Cortes
Respondent judge’s lack of awareness of the Circular and the decisions concerning
inhibitions of judges indicates a failure to live up to the Code of Judicial Conduct that
enjoins judges “to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence.” Being
the visible representation of the law, judges must be familiar with the circulars and
issuances of this Court and must diligently keep themselves abreast with developments in
our legal system. Only in doing so can they live up to their sacred judicial duties. Hence,
they are called upon to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with the statutes and
procedural rules, lest public confidence in the judiciary be eroded.
The charge of partiality has no factual support. Mere suspicion is not enough. Bias and
partiality must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. While palpable error may be
inferred from respondent’s contested Order, there is no evidence on record that would
justify a finding of partiality or bias.
WHEREFORE, Judge Ismael O. Baldado of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 45) of Bais City,
Negros Oriental is found guilty of administrative abuse and is hereby FINED in the sum of
two thousand pesos (P2,000). A repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely. However, he is found innocent of the charge of bias and partiality.
5. BURBE VS ATTY. MAGULTA
Facts: Magulta decided to represent Burbe in a money claim and a possible civil case for
breach of contract against certain parties. Atty Magulta drafed the demand letter and
other legal documents needed which Burbe accordingly paid. They failed to secure a
settlement but Atty Magulta still suggested to Burbe that they file a complaint and the
amount of the filing fee needed was 25,000. Burbe deposited the amount to Atty Magulta
and was informed by the attorney that the complaint was already filed in court. Months
passed and still there was no notice from the court about the progress of the complaint.
Burbe was advised by Atty Magulta to just wait. Burbe, feeling restless, went personally to
the court to ask about the complaint’s progress and he found out that there was no record
at all of a case filed by Atty Magulta in Burbe’s behalf. Thus, this proceeding against the
attorney.
Atty Magulta’s defense: All the legal documents including the demand letter were services
that Burbe never paid. When Burbe deposited the 25,000, he said that it was for the filing
fee but Atty Magulta said that he needed to pay for the acceptance fee first before the
filing fee.Burbe agreed, then that the 25,000 were for lawyer’s fees, not for the filing of the
complaint.
Ruling:
IBP: Atty Magulta is to be suspended for one year. It is clear that the 25,000 was for the
filing of the complaint and with the deposit, an obligation was created on the part of the
attorney to file the complaint within the time frame. The failure of respondent to fulfill
this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees deposited by complainant, and his
attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which caused complainant
additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part,
unbecoming a member of the law profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the
respondent of part of the money deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not
exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of said funds.
Court’s ruling: AGREE WITH THE IBP.
Atty. Magulta violated CANONS 16.1 AND 18.3 of the CPR.
VIOLATED 16.01 (in what way):
Atty Magulta violated this canon because lawyering is not a business-it is a profession. In
failing to apply to the filing fee the amount given by complainant -- as evidenced by the
receipt issued by the law office of respondent -- the latter also violated the rule that
lawyers must be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to them in their
professional capacity. Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that
lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and properties that may come into
their possession.Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of
professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.It
may be true that they have a lien upon the client’s funds, documents and other papers that
have lawfully come into their possession; that they may retain them until their lawful fees
and disbursements have been paid; and that they may apply such funds to the satisfaction
of such fees and disbursements. However, these considerations do not relieve them of
their duty to promptly account for the moneys they received. Their failure to do so
constitutes professional misconduct.In any event, they must still exert all effort to protect
their client’s interest within the bounds of law.
VIOLATION OF CANON 18.3
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers should not
neglect legal matters entrusted to them. Lawyers must exert their best efforts and ability in
the prosecution or the defense of the client’s cause. They who perform that duty with
diligence and candor not only protect the interests of the client, but also serve the ends of
justice. Respondent wants this Court to believe that no lawyer-client relationship existed
between him and complainant, because the latter never paid him for services rendered.
The former adds that he only drafed the said documents as a personal favor for the
kumpadre of one of his partners.We disagree. A lawyer-client relationship was established
6 PALE (USJR)
Digest by R. Cortes
from the very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the
former’s business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client
employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any
retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted
did not aferward handle the case for which his service had been sought.
(In case Sir asks why he was not disbarred,,(because he was only suspended..The reason is
that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the bar will disbarment
be imposed as a penalty.)…
6. In Abay v. Montesino,[10] this Court held:
The legal profession is invested with public trust. Its goal is to render public
service and secure justice for those who seek its aid. Thus, the practice of law is
considered a privilege, not a right, bestowed by the State on those who show that
they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications required for the
conferment of such privilege.
Verily, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency and of morality – which includes honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts
and their clients in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession,
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Any conduct found
wanting in these considerations, whether in their professional or private capacity,
shall subject them to disciplinary action. In the present case, the failure of
respondent to file the appellant’s brief was a clear violation of his professional
duty to his client.
7. ARSENIA T. BERGONIA, complainant, vs. Atty. ARSENIO A. MERRERA, respondent.
Facts: Complainant, together with her relatives, filed a case for the quieting of title
(docketed as Civil Case No. U-4601) against her niece Josephine Bergonia, as well as
Spouses Rodolfo and Remedios Parayno and their minor daughter Gretchen. Afer due trial,
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 49, promulgated its
Decision in favor of the Parayno spouses and their daughter. On appeal, 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 complainant, the Paraynos instituted
Civil Case No. U-6061 to recover possession. Afer the Answer was filed, respondent
became her counsel of record. Afer due trial, Branch 48 of the same RTC rendered its
Decision ordering her to vacate the premises and to surrender possession thereof to the
Parayno spouses.
Thereafer, complainant appealed the RTC judgment to the CA. Respondent, as counsel,
received a Notice to File Brief on December 17, 1997. Acting on his Motion for extension
to file the appellant’s brief, the CA in its February 18, 1998 minute Resolution granted him
until March 17, 1998 to do so. Even before the first extension had lapsed, however, he
again filed an Urgent Second Motion for extension to file brief, praying that he be given
until April 16, 1998 to submit the required pleading. The CA again granted his Second
Motion. Eventually, the deadline, which had already been extended twice, lapsed without
his filing the appellant’s brief. Hence, the CA, upon motion of the appellees, dismissed the
appeal in its June 25, 1998 Resolution.
RATIO: Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, requires all the
members of the bar to observe the following:
“A lawyer shall not, afer 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.”
Expressly stated is the requirement to show good and sufficient cause for requests of
extension of time to file appellate briefs. Section 12 of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court
provides that an extension of time for the filing of a brief shall not be allowed, except when
there is good and sufficient cause, and only when the motion is filed before the expiration
of the extension sought.
From time to time, a request for extension becomes necessary when an advocate needs
more time to study the client’s position. Generally, such request is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court. Lawyers who, for one reason or another, decide to dispense with
the filing of the required pleading, should promptly manifest this intent to the court. It is
necessary for them to do so in order to prevent delay in the disposition of the case. Those
7 PALE (USJR)
Digest by R. Cortes

who file motions for extension in bad faith misuse the legal process, obstruct justice, and
thus become liable to disciplinary action.
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.
Lawyers should fully familiarize themselves with the causes of their clients before advising
the latter on the soundness of litigating. If they find that the intended suit is devoid of
merit or that the pending action is defenseless, they should promptly inform and dissuade
their clients accordingly.
Assuming that respondent indeed tried to persuade complainant to abandon the appeal,
he should have manifested to the CA that he had decided not to file the appellant’s brief
anymore, instead of just letting the period lapse. His contention that he could not find the
appropriate jurisprudence to support her case is too flimsy to be credible. A competent
and ethical lawyer would have at least tried to persuade the CA with reason and logic.

In this case, respondent twice moved for an extension of time to file the required Respondent alleges that complainant knew of the dismissal of the appeal. That she had
appellant’s brief. In his first Motion, he alleged that he had a hectic daily schedule of referred the Motion for Execution and Demolition to him for comment allegedly showed
hearings and other pressures from work. In his next Motion, he claimed he had acute that she had already given up her desire to pursue her appeal. He pointed out that if she
arthritis and asthmatic attacks. The granting of his two Motions implied that he had been had indeed blamed his inexcusable negligence for its dismissal, then she would not have
given ample time either to finish researching his case or to withdraw his appeal. Yet, he referred that Motion to him.
still failed to file the required brief. In its June 25, 1998 Resolution, the CA noted that the
appellee’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal was filed only afer forty (40) days from the We are not convinced. Anyone would have done what complainant did, because no one
expiration of the last extension. else would know the case better than one’s lawyer. Contrary to respondent’s allegation,
we do not read any intention on her part to withdraw the appeal, which showed that she
Respondent claims that he never planted false hopes in the mind of complainant. Upon wanted to oppose the execution of the Decision.
receiving the Decision in Civil Case No. U-6061, he purportedly advised her that her
chances of winning in the appellate court were slim, because the ownership of the We concur in the IBP’s finding that respondent was negligent in the performance of his
disputed land had already been adjudicated to the other party in Civil Case No. U-4601. He duties as counsel for complainant, and that his negligence was inexcusable. If indeed it was
avers that he tried to persuade her to accept her defeat “like a good soldier.” true that he found her case to be futile, he should have just withdrawn the appeal, instead
of filing several Motions for extension to file the appellant’s brief.
We are not persuaded. If, indeed, respondent failed to convince complainant to drop her
appeal, he should have just withdrawn his appearance. Based on his arguments in his Candor in all their dealings is the very essence of a practitioner’s honorable membership in
Opposition to the Motion for Execution and Demolition, however, we do not believe that the legal profession.[23] Lawyers are required to act with the highest standard of
he even tried to convince her to withdraw the appeal. We are inclined to believe that this truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of litigation and in their relations with
excuse was merely an aferthought to justify his negligence. their clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the courts. They are bound by
their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to the best of their
Moreover, respondent claims that afer filing the Motions for Extension, he surmised that knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their clients. Canon 18.03 of
the appeal would be useless, because he could not show sufficient cause to reverse the the Code requires that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
Decision. negligence in connection therewith renders him liable.”

This justification is even more inexcusable. Respondent, should have checked first if there WHEREFORE, Atty. Arsenio A. Merrera is hereby found guilty of violating Canons 12 and 18
was a good ground to support the appeal. If there was none, he should have been of the Canons of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
forthright in his evaluation of the case. a period of six (6) months from receipt of this Decision. This Decision is immediately
executory.
8 PALE (USJR)
Digest by R. Cortes