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.

Banogon vs. Zerna154 SCRA 593

–
Legal Ethics
–
Speedy and Proper Administration of Justice
F A C T S :

In 1926, a judgment favorable to Zerna was issued by a cadastral court. In 1957 or thirty one yearslater, Banogon filed a motion to amend
the 1926 decisions. An opposition was filed by Zerna in the
same year. Banogon’s counsel repeatedly failed to set for hearing and in 1971 or fourteen years
later, Zerna filed for a motion to dismiss which was granted by reason of B
anogon’s filing being out
of time.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Banogon’s suit should prosper.

HELD:
No. He slept on his rights hence laches had set in. The Supreme Court also took time to remindlawyers to judiciously study facts and
laws so as to avoid the filing of improper cases such as thiscase where the filing of motions and pleadings was way out of time.
One reason why there is adegree of public distrust for lawyers is the way some of them misinterpret the law to the point ofdistortion in a
cunning effort to achieve their purposes. As officers of the court, lawyers have aresponsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice.
They do not discharge this duty by filingpointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary. Lawyers do not advance the causeof
law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve theattention of the courts

Medina vs Yan

Javellana vs Lutero

Achacoso vs CA