UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

2003 DIGESTS Delegating to a counsel of one of the parties the preparation of a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect blatant judicial sloth. HECK VS. SANTOS A.M. No. RTJ-01-1630 April 9, 2003 Lack of malice or bad faith is not an excuse. It bears emphasis that a judge must not only render a just, correct and impartial decision. He should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity. JUDGE PAAS VS. ALMARVES A.M. No. P-03-1690 April 4, 2003

Facts : Heck prays that respondent Judge Anthony E. Santos be disbarred and penalized with other disciplinary sanctions for having (among others) authorized Atty. Samuel Jardin, counsel of the defendants in Civil Case No. 94-334, Vinas Kuranstalten Gesmbh, Bearthold Rindlefleisch and Candido Flor v. Lugait Aqua Marine Industries and Heinz R. Heck, to draft a decision for his approval, and thereafter rendered a decision copied verbatim on the said draft decision, in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 36, Rules of Court.

Issue/s: WON respondent did violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, in having rendered an order for the counsel of one of the parties to draft the decision and his having adoption verbatim of the said decision Held/Ratio: YES. Respondent has violated Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to Sec. 1 of Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. By such order, respondent abdicated a function exclusively granted to him by no less than the fundamental law of the land. It is axiomatic that decision-making, among other duties, is the primordial and most important duty of a member of the bench. 21 He must use his own perceptiveness in understanding and analyzing the evidence presented before him and his own discernment when determining the proper action, resolution or decision.

Facts : This involves the consolidated cases of (1) Judge Estrellita Paas against Edgar Almarves, a court aide/utility worker, for discourtesy, disrespect, insubordination, neglect in performing his duties, disloyalty, solicitation of monetary consideration and gross violation of the Civil Service Law; (2) Almarves complaint against Judge Paas for berating against him and forcing him to resign, for his not having informed her of her husbands illicit affairs; and (3) charges against Judge Paas and Atty. Paas for the latters use of her office as his office in his private practice. Issue/s: WON Judge Paas and Atty. Paas should be held administratively liable for the latters use of her office as his law office Held/Ratio: YES. Under paragraph 6 of SC Administrative Circular No. 01-99, Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Officials and Employers, court officials and employees must never use their offices for any purpose other than for court or judicial functions. Likewise, Rule 2.03 of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that the prestige of

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. SC Circular No. 3-92 also prohibits the use of halls of justice for residential or commercial purposes. AQUINO VS. ATTY. MANESE A.C. No. 4958 April 3, 2003

A judge's official conduct should indeed be free from the appearance of impropriety; and his behavior not only in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life should be beyond reproach. This is premised on the truism that a Judge's official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal existence and that upon a Judge's attributes depend the public perception of the Judiciary.

Facts : Fidel D. Aquino charged Atty. Oscar Manese with falsification of public document for preparing and notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 15, 1994 that could not have been executed and sworn to by Lilia D. Cardona, one of the therein three vendors-signatories, for she had died on November 25, 1990 or 4 years earlier.

Issue/s: WON respondent was remiss in his duties notary public

as

On his part, Atty. Paas was guilty of using a fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive address that had no purpose other than to try to impress either the court in which his cases are lodged, or his client, that he has close ties to a member of the juiciary, in violation of Rules 3.01, 10.01 and 15.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held/Ratio: A notary public must ascertain that the persons who signed the document are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him.

The need for relying on the merits of a lawyer's case, instead of banking on his relationship with a member of the bench which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court, cannot be overemphasized. It is unprofessional and dishonorable, to say the least, to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyer's prestige. Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by such reprehensible and improper conduct.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. By respondent's reckless act of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that the vendorssignatories thereto were the very same persons who executed it and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what were stated therein, he has undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents and he thereby breached Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

1.01 thereof which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. A.C. No. 3223 May 29, 2003

ISIP VS. JUDGE NOGOY A.M. No. MTJ-03-1485 April 1, 2003

Facts : Fidel Isip charged Judge Valentino Nogoy with gross ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency for failing to act on his case despite the lapse of more than 5 months, and gross misconduct in giving his opponent undue advantage, for having found probable cause for usurpation of authority against Isip and issued against him a warrant of his arrest, in the context of a dispute as to who is the duly-elected Vice-Mayor of Macabebe, Pampanga in the 1998 elections. Subsequently, the newly constituted Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Isip as the winner and sought anew the dismissal of the said criminal case. However, the respondent judge failed to resolve it, hence, the filing of complainants charge against him. Issue/s: WON respondent judge is liable for gross inefficiency Held/Ratio: YES. When circumstances arise which prevent a judge from deciding a case or an incident thereof within the reglementary period, all he has to do is to file an application with this Court for a reasonable extension of time within which to decide or resolve the same. However, respondent has made no such request. Judges must promptly and expeditiously decide cases including all incidents therein. Failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency which warrants administrative sanctions.

Facts : Fulgencio sued Atty. Bievenido G. Martin for falsifying and notarizing 2 documents of sale on June 1, 1983 purportedly executed by her husband, Kua Se Beng, who died on July 5, 1983, because he was then confined at the Makati Medical Center, among others. Respondent however maintains that he notarized the said documents upon the express request of Kua. Issue/s: WON respondent is liable for having falsified and notarized said documents, without the affiant personally appearing before him Held/Ratio: YES. For having stated in the Acknowledgement portion of each of the documents that Kua personally appeared before him on June 1, 1983, Atty. Martin made an untruthful statement, thus violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood.

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. Respondent also breached the injunction of the notarial law not to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.

FULGENCIO VS. ATTY. MARTIN

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. VS. WMC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PTY, LT.

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010 Legal Ethics

G.R. No. 153885 September 24, 2003

Facts : This case concerns the determination of which between Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. and Tampakan Companies is the proper transferee of Western Mining Corporation (Philippines), Inc.s FTAA. Issue/s <MINOR>: WON the petition for certiorari brought by the respondents before the CA should have been dismissed for not having been properly verified by WMC. Held/Ratio: NO. Since the verification and certification against forum shopping of the petition was signed by a duly authorized officer of WMC (Chairman of the Board and President of WMCP), who was also the signing representative of WMC, the petition was properly signed.