Garvida vs.

Sales
FACTS:

Petitioner Garvida applied for registration as member and voter of the Katipunan ng Kabataan of
a certain barangay. However the Board of election tellers denied her application on the ground
that she is already 21 years and 10 months old. She already exceeded the age limit for
membership as laid down in Sec 3(b) of COMELEC resolution no. 2824.

The municipal circuit trial court found her to be qualified and ordered her registration as member
and voter in the Katipunan ng Kabataan. The Board of Election Tellers appealed to the RTC, but
the presiding judge inhibited himself from acting on the appeal due to his close association with
petitioner.

However, private respondent Sales a rival candidate, filed with the COMELEC en banc a
“Petition of Denial and/or Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy” against Garvida for falsely
representing her age qualification in her certificate of candidacy. He claimed that Garvida is
disqualified to become a voter and a candidate for the SK for the reason that she will be more
than twenty-one (21) years of age on May 6, 1996; that she was born on June 11, 1974 as can be
gleaned from her birth certificate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Garvida can assume office as the elected SK official

RULING:

In the case at bar, petitioner was born on June 11, 1974. On March 16, 1996, the day she
registered as voter for the May 6, 1996 SK elections, petitioner was twenty-one (21) years and
nine (9) months old. On the day of the elections, she was 21 years, 11 months and 5 days old.
When she assumed office on June 1, 1996, she was 21 years, 11 months and 20 days old and was
merely ten (10) days away from turning 22 years old. Petitioner may have qualified as a member
of the Katipunan ng Kabataan but definitely, petitioner was over the age limit for elective SK
officials set by Section 428 of the Local Government Code and Sections 3 [b] and 6 of Comelec
Resolution No. 2824.

Thus, she is ineligible to run as candidate for the May 6, 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo
A.M. No. 7006

This administrative case stemmed from the events of the Criminal case proceeding originally raffled to
the sala of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser. Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the
accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime
of homicide and not the charge of murder. The counsel of the defense filed a Motion to fix the amount of
Bail Bond. Respondent Atty Bagabuyo, then Senior state Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the
case, objected thereto mainly on the ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion
perpetua, was not subject of bail under the Rules of Court.

Judge Buser inhibited himself from further trying the case because of the harsh insinuation of Senior
Prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo that he lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate, by allegedly
suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the accused.

Respondent appealed to the CA. Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused
the publication of an article regarding the Order granting to the accused in the issue of the Mindanao Gold
Star Daily. The article, entitled Senior prosecutor lambast Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to
bail out.

The RTC of Surigao City directed respondent and the writer of the article to appear in court to explain why
they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article which degrade the
court and its presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation.

Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press conference, but refused to answer whether
he made the statement in the article until after he shall have filed a motion to dismiss. For his refusal to
answer, the trial court declared him in contempt of court pursuant to the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: WON Prosecutor Bagabuyo violated the canons and his oath as a lawyer?

Held: YES
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and
upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer
shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.

Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press
conference where he made statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the accused
in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.

Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial
arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to
bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondents
statements in the article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also
violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
 In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his
grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its
officer when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was
studying mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.

Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer according
to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.

As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of
observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. Montecillo v. Gica held:

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it
is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath
he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without
such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.

Tiongco v. Aguilar Facts: 1. Atty. Jose Tiongco was charged for violating Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He characterized the decision of respondent Judge as “having been crafted
in order to fool the winning party”; as a “hypocritical judgment in plaintiff’s favour”; one with “perfidious
character.” 2. Tiongco described respondent as a liar, perjurer or blasphemer

Ruling: 1. The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely entwined with his vow in the lawyer’s oath “to
conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to the courts,” his duty under Section 20(b) of Rule 138
of the Rules of Court “to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers,” and his duty under the first canon “to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for
the sake of temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.
2. The use of unnecessary /offensive and abusive/abrasive and offensive language which jeopardizes
high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration or tends necessarily to
undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the members of the Court and to degrade the
administration of justice by the Court. 3. Tiongco had exceeded the bounds of decency and propriety in
making the false and malicious insinuation against this Court. Such could only come from anger, if not
hate, after he was not given what he wanted. Anger or hate could only come from one who seems to be
of that frame of mind whereby he considers as in accordance with law and justice whatever he believes to
be right in his own opinion and as contrary to law and justice whatever does not accord with his views. 4.
Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5,000 plus warning.

 SAMONTE vs. ATTY. ABELLANA Legal Ethics: Rule 10.01, 11.02, 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility FACTS: On February 16, 1990, complainant Henry E. Samonte brought this administrative
complaint against respondent Atty. Gines N. Abellana who had represented him as the plaintiff in a civil case.
In the administrative complaint, Samonte enumerated the serious acts of professional misconduct by Atty.
Abellana, to wit:
1. Falsification of documents, when Atty. Abellana made it appear that he had filed Civil Case No. CEB-6970
on June 10, 1988, conformably with their agreement, although the complaint was actually filed on June 14,
1988; 2. Dereliction of duty, when Atty. Abellana failed to: (a) file the reply vis--vis the answer with
counterclaim, with his omission having delayed the pre-trial of the case; (b) inform the trial court beforehand
that Samonte could not be available on a scheduled hearing, thereby incurring for the plaintiffs side an
unexplained absence detrimental to Samonte as the plaintiff; and (c) submit an exhibit required by the trial
judge, only to eventually submit it three months later; 3. Gross negligence and tardiness in attending the
scheduled hearings; and 4. Dishonesty for not issuing official receipts for every cash payments made by
Samonte for his court appearances and his acceptance of the case. In his comment dated April 6, 1990, Atty.
Abellana denied the charge of falsification of documents, clarifying that the actual filing of the complaint
could be made only on June 14, 1988 instead of on June 10, 1988 because Samonte had not given enough
money to cover the filing fees and other charges totaling P5,027.76; and that Samonte shelled out only
P5,000.00, contrary to their agreement in April 1988 on paying to him P10,000.00 as the acceptance fee in
addition to the filing fees. He asserted that the charge of dereliction of duty was baseless, because he had filed
the reply on December 2, 1988 after receiving the answer with counterclaim of the defendants on August 2,
1988, anent his nonattendance at the hearings in Civil Case No. CEB-6970, he explained that although he had
informed the RTC of his having been either stranded in another province, or having attended the arraignment
of another client in another court, the presiding judge had opted not to await his arrival in the courtroom. He
blamed Samonte for his inability to submit the formal offer of exhibits on time, pointing out that Samonte had
failed to give the duplicate originals of the documentary exhibits despite his request because of the latters
absence from the country. He countered that it was Samonte who had been dishonest, because Samonte had
given only the filing fees plus at least P2,000.00 in contravention of their agreement on the amount of
P10,000.00 being his acceptance fees in addition to the filing fees; that the filing fees paid were covered by
receipts issued by the Clerk of Court; that no receipts were issued for the P200.00/appearance fee conformably
with the practice of most lawyers; and that Samonte had not also demanded any receipts. Atty. Abellana
branded as unethical Samontes submission of a motion to change counsel, stating that the latter did not thereby
exhibit the courtesy of informing him beforehand on the intention of not meeting his obligation to him as the
counsel; that Samonte had been forced to issue to him a check after the Branch Clerk of Court had told him
that his motion to change counsel would not be acted upon unless it carried Atty. Abellanas conformity as the
counsel; and that he had duly acknowledged the check.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Abellana was in contravention of his duties as a lawyer.

RULING: Yes. By the Lawyers Oath is every lawyer enjoined not only to obey the laws of the land but also to
refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to
conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the Law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as
well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that honesty,
integrity and trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court
hearings. Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within
a reasonable time to clients request for information.
Atty. Abellana abjectly failed the expectations of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness in his dealings with
Samonte as the client, and with the RTC as the trial court. He resorted to outright falsification by
superimposing "0" on "4" in order to mislead Samonte into believing that he had already filed the complaint in
court on June 10,1988 as promised, instead of on June 14, 1988, the date when he had actually done so. His
explanation that Samonte was himself the cause of the belated filing on account of his inability to remit the
correct amount of filing fees and his acceptance fees by June 10, 1988, as agreed upon, did not excuse the
falsification, because his falsification was not rendered less dishonest and less corrupt by whatever reasons for
filing at the later date. He ought to remember that honesty and integrity were of far greater value for him as a
member of the Law Profession than his transactions with his client. The finding on Atty. Abellanas neglect in
the handling of Samontes case was entirely warranted. He admitted being tardy in attending the hearings of the
civil case. He filed the formal offer of evidence in behalf of his client way beyond the period to do so, a fact
that he could not deny because the RTC Judge had himself expressly noted the belated filing in the order
issued in the case. Atty. Abellana was fortunate that the RTC Judge exhibited some tolerance and liberality by
still admitting the belated offer of evidence in the interest of justice. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
are designed to ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice law in this country should remain
faithful to the Lawyers Oath. Only thereby can lawyers preserve their fitness to remain as members of the Law
Profession. Any resort to falsehood or deception, including adopting artifices to cover up ones misdeeds
committed against clients and the rest of the trusting public, evinces an unworthiness to continue enjoying the
privilege to practice law and highlights the unfitness to remain a member of the Law Profession. It deserves for
the guilty lawyer stern disciplinary sanctions. For Atty. Abellana, therefore, suspension from the practice of
law for six months with warning of a more severe sanction upon a repetition suffices.