Chapter III The Lawyer and the Courts

(Canons 10-12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

James Gregory A. Villasis JD 1-1

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for Legal Ethics under Atty. Maria Cristina Gimenez

Chapter III The Lawyer and the Courts

CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rationale The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. (Munoz v. People, 53 SCRA 190). (A). Lawyer is an officer of the Court A lawyer is an officer of the Court. He is like the Court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. (B). Example of lawyers display of candor Director of Lands v. Adorable Facts: Adorable files a land claim before the Director of Lands. The case went to the CA for appeal. However, the war broke out. After the war, Adorable files a reconstitution case before the SC believing that the case was not resolved by the CA. Atty. Zamora, counsel of the appellee of the case informed the Court that the case was already settled by the CA in favor of Adorable. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper. Held: Yes. The conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper. The Court in this case praised Atty. Zamoras conduct as the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes of the deserving member of the bar. Hence, the act of Atty. Zamora is proper.

Rule 10.01- A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in the court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. (A) Lawyer as a disciple of truth An Attorneys oath mandates the lawyer among other duties: a. to do no falsehood; b. nor consent to the doing of any in the court; and c. to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the court. (B) Some cases of falsehoods which merited discipline a. Lawyer falsely stating in a deed of sale that property is free from all liens and encumbrance when it is not so (Sevilla v. Soleta, 96 Phil. 979). b. Lawyer making it appear that a person, long dead, executed a deed of sale in his favor (Monterey v. Arayata, 61 Phil. 820). c. Lawyer concealing the fact that he was charged with or convicted of a crime, in an information sheet required by law in connection with its employment (Calo v. Degamo, 20 SCRA 447). d. Lawyer, encashing a check payable to a deceased cousin by signing the latter;s name on the check (In re: Samaniego, 90 Phil. 382). e. Lawyer falsifying a power of attorney and used it in collecting the money deu to the principla and appropriating the money for his own benefit (In re: Rusiana, 105 Phil. 1326). f. Lawyer alleging in one pleading that his clients were merely lessees of the property involved, and alleged in a later pleading that the same clients were the owners of the same property (Chavez v. Viola, G.R. 2152, 19 April 1991). g. Lawyer uttering falsehood in a Motion to Dismiss (Martin v. Moreno, 129 SCRA 315). h. Lawyer denying having received the notice to file brief which denial is belied by the return card (Regacejo v. IAC, 153 SCRA 462). i. Lawyer presenting falsified documents in court which he knows to be false (Bautista v. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151). j. Lawyer filing false charges or groundless suits (Retuya v. Gorduiz, 96 SCRA 526). k. Lawyer falsifying Sheriffs Return and seeking the default of the defendant (Libit v. Oliva, 237 SCRA 375).

l. Using in pleadings, the IBP number of another lawyer (Bongolata v. Castillo, CBD No. 176, Jan. 1, 1995). m. Use of fictitious residence certificate by a notary public (Roces v. Aportadera, AC No. 2936, March 31, 1995). Rule 10.02- A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, or the language or argument of the opposing counsel or the text of a decision or authority or shall cite as a law a provision which has been rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. (A). Rule in the quotation of a decision- when a lawyer makes a quotation of a decision in his pleadings, he should quote the same verbatim to avoid misleading the court. The Insurance Life Assurance Co. Employees Assoc. v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Facts: The Employees Assoc. Files before the CIR a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Company. The CIR then dismissed such complaint. In its decision, CIR Judge Martinez misquoted a SC decision in the case of Lopez Sr v. Chronicle Publication Employees Assn: (1) 60 words of the paragraph quoted by Martinez do NOT appear in the original; (2) Martinez used For it is settled that...; the original reads, For it must be remembered... (3) Last sentence in the quoted paragraph of Martinez is actually part of the immediately succeeding paragraph in the SC decision. In the companys brief, counsels for respondents quoted the CIRs decision Issue: Whether or not the Judge and the respondents counsel are liable for contempt. Held: No. The Judge and the respondents counsel are not liable for contempt. In citing SCs decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-forpunctuation mark. This is because only the decisions of this Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction. (Miranda v. Imperial). However, there was good faith in both the Judge and the respondents counsel, hence their action is not liable for contempt.

(B). Syllabus of a case is not the worl of the Supreme Court; it should not be cited in place of the text in the Decision.

Allied Bank v. CA and Galanida Facts: Galanida was terminated from Allied Bank due to his refusal to be transferred to other branch. Hence, he filed an action before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter then rendered a decision in Galanidas favor citing the Dosch case, lifted from the syllabus of the SCRA. Issue: Held: No. The conduct of the labor arbiter is not proper. Rule 10.02 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority. In the case at bar, the fact that the labor arbiter quoted in their decision a syllabus from the SCRA is an act of misrepresenting the decision of the Supreme Court since such syllabus is not part of the decision, instead a note of the author of such report. Hence, such conduct is improper. (C) A mere typographical error in the citation of an authority is not contemptuous. Del Rosario v. Chingcuanco and Imperio Facts: The CAR rendered a decision evicting Del Rosario from the land which he leases from Imperio. However, the former refused to vacate the land since the latter does not want to refund him of the improvement he had done to the property. Del Rosario, further, filed a motion before the SC to stay such execution. Due this, Imperio filed a petition to cite Del Rosarios counsel in contempt since said counsel quoted a non-existing SC decision. However, it was discovered that such belief was brought by a mere typographical error. Issue: action. Held: action. No. The conduct of Del Rosarios counsel does not deserve a disciplinary Whether or not the conduct of Del Rosarios counsel deserves a disciplinary Whether or not the conduct of the labor arbiter is proper.

In this case, the Court ruled that the name of the case was given correctly and there was clearly no deception on the part of the counsel. Hence, the conduct of said counsel does not deserve a disciplinary action.

(D) A lawyer shall not assert as a fact that which has not been proven, nor shall he assert as finding of fact by the Court, which actually is not. Munoz v. CA and Sutton Facts: Sutton made some misrepresentations in the facts of the case where she seeks a review before the SC. Issue: Held: court. Whether or not such conduct deserves disciplinary action. Yes. The conduct of Atty. Sutton deserves disciplinary action. Under the Canon 10 of the CPR, a lawyer shall owe candor and honesty to the

In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Sutton made false facts in her pleading for review in SC is a clear manifestation that she lacks candor for the court. Hence, her conduct warrants a disciplinary action.

(E). Foisting a nonexistent rule to mislead the Court is against the legal ethics. Adez Realty v. CA Facts: Atty. Dacanay made some intercalation in the decision of the Court of Appeals when he appealed before the SC. Due this, the Court had suspended him indefinitely. Dacanay argued that it was his client who made the intercalation and later on he admitted that his secretary made the intercalation on the document. Issue: Held: Yes. The conduct of Dacanay warrants suspension. Rule 10.01 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of the paper, language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority. In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Dacanay made the intercalation on the CA decision makes him liable under such rule. Hence, his conduct warrants a disciplinary action. Whether or not the conduct of Dacanay warrants a suspension.

Rule 10.03- A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. (A). Rationale- Procedures are instruments in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. They should be used to achieve such end and not to derail it. Rule 10.04. A lawyer shall, when filing a pleading, furnish the opposing party a copy thereof together with all the documents annexed thereto. Except when the motion is ex parte, ahe should set it for hearing with sufficient notice to the other party. (A). Rationale- This is to promote fairplay between parties and to avaoid unfariness, surprises and backstabbing. (C) Pleaders must also furnish adverse party or parties copies of documents annexed thereto in order to fully promote fairness between them. CANON 11. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESEPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. (A). Rationale- Disrespect toward the court would necessarily undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the members of the court, and consequently to lower or degrade the administration of justice by the court. (B) Respect due to the Courts and to Judicial Officers: In re: Almacen Facts: Atty. Almacen lost in a case before the RTC. He filed a motion for reconsideration. However, he failed to inform the other party regarding the time of the hearing for such motion. Due this, the motion was denied. The same was upheld by the CA and SC. Because of this, Atty. Almacen wrote to the SC accusing them of being callous to justice. He stated that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Alace demands a disciplinary action. Held: Yes. The conduct of Atty. Almacen demands a disciplinary action.

In long list of cases, the Supreme Court held that any contemptuous and insolent statements against the Supreme Court are uncalled for and manifest of unbecoming an officer of the Court. In the case at bar, the statements of Atty. Almacen are clearly contemptuous, insolent and derogatory. Hence, such conduct warrant a disciplinary action. (C) Criticisms to the Court must not spill over the walls of decency and propriety: Zaldivar v. Gonzales Facts: Zaldivar file before the Court a petition to annul the graft and corruption cases filed by Special Prosecutor Gonzalez before the Sandiganbayan since he can no longer prosecute cases since such power was transferred to the Ombudsman. The SC then issued a TRO. However, Gonzalez filed another cases against Zaldivar. The SC issued another TRO and annulled altogether said cases. Due this, Gonzalez irate in media as well as wrote the SC that such conduct only shows that the mighty and rich gets a favorable decision. Issue: Whether or not the statement of Atty. Gonzalez warrants a disciplinary action. Held: Yes. The statement of Atty. Gonzalez warrants a disciplinary action. The Supreme Court held, in long list of cases, those contemptuous statements against the Court demands a disciplinary action. In the case at bar, the statement made by Atty. Gonzalez are clearly contemptuous. Hence, his conduct demands a disciplinary action. (D) Pleading containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements submitted to the Court or Judge in which the proceedings are pending, constitutes direct contempt: Wicker v. Arcangel Facts: Atty Rayos who is the counsel of Wicker filed a motion seeking the inhibition of Judge Arcangel. The judge found the motion contemptuous and derogatory to his honor and integrity hence he cited Atty. Rayos in contempt. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Rayos should be cited for contempt. Held: Yes. Atty. Rayos should be cited for contempt.

Under Canon 11 of the CPR, a lawayre shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officer. In the case at bar, the motion that was filed by Atty. Rayos which contains derogatory statements is a clear manifestation that he lost respect due to the judge. Hence, Atty. Rayos should be cited for contempt. (E) Criticism made in good faith may be tolerated Francisco Jr. v. UEM-MARA Phils. Corp. Facts: UEM-MARA is involved in expressway construction connecting the Cavite and the Metro Manila. Due this, they announced that they will be collecting toll fees. Prompted by such information, Francisco Jr. filed an action before the RTC Makati to enjoin UEM-MARA from collecting such fees. The court ruled in his favor. UEMMARA then appealed the decision before the CA calling the RTC Judge insufficientlyinformed. The CA reversed the decision. Francisco filed an action before the SC to cite the counsels of UEM-MARA in contempt due to their statement. Issue: Whether or not such statement warrants a disciplinary action. Held: No. Statement does not warrant a disciplinary action. In United BF Homeowners v. Sandoval-Gutierrez, the Court ruled that statements, which are not abusive, slanderous or derogatory, does not demand a penalty. In the case at bar, the statement of the counsels of UEM-MARA is clearly not slanderous, abusive or derogatory to the honor of the judge. Hence, such statement does not call for a disciplinary action. Rule 11.01- A lawyer shall appear in Court properly attired. (A) Rationale- to maintain the dignity and respectability of the legal profession. (B) The Court can hold the lawyer in contempt of court if he or she appears not in proper attire. Rule 11.02- A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings. (A) Under Canon 21 of the CPE- It is the duty of the lawyer not only to his client, but also to the courts and to the public to be punctual in attendance and to be concise and direct in the trial and disposition of cases.

(B) Under Rule 20, Section 1 of the RRC- Failure to appear in time in a pre-trial conference may result in the non-suit or the dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute or in the declaration of the defendant as in default. (C) Under Rule 71, Section 3(a) of the RRC- Counsel may even be held in contempt of court for coming late in the hearing or trial of a case. (D) Under Canon 7, CPE- Lack of punctuality interferes in the speedy administration of justice. (E) Under Canon 7, CPE- A judge who is unpunctual in his habits sets a bad example to the bat and tends to create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. Rule 11.03- A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts. (A) Misbehavior in court is direct contempt. (B) Lawyers language sgould be dignified. (C) Raising ones voice before the court is a sign of disrespect.

Montecillo v. Gica Facts: Gica filed a slander case against Montecillo. Montecillo, represented by Atty. Del Mar won the case and was able to claim damages from Gica. Gica then appealed the case before the CA which reversed the ruling. Del Mar then filed a motion for reconsideration stating that their decision was made out of negligence. The CA denied the MR. Del Mar filed another MR which he threatened the CA justices which was also denied. The CA then suspended Del Mar. Due this he appealed before the SC which they denied. This earned the ire of del Mar as he demanded from the Clerk of the Supreme Court as to who were the judges who voted against him. The Supreme Court then directed del Mar to submit an explanation as to why he should not be disciplined. Del Mar in his explanation instead tried to justify his actions even stating that had he not been convinced that human efforts in [pursuing the case] will be fruitless he would have continued with the civil case against the CA justices. In his explanation, del Mar also intimated that even the Supreme Court is part among the corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing injustice. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Del Mar warrants a disciplinary action. Held: Yes. The conduct of Atty. Del Mar warrants a disciplinary action. In People v. Carillo, the Court held that lawyers shall keep the high-esteem that the public had regarded to justice.

In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Del Mar had threatened the members of CA and SC as well as calling them corrupt amounts to disrespect to the court. Hence his conduct warrants a disciplinary action. Rule 11.04- A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motive not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. (A) Lawyer can demand that the misbehavior of a judge be placed on record and it is not a contemptuous act. In re: Aguas Facts: Atty. Aguas objected and motioned for postponement when the judge had shook his witness in the witness stand. In turn, the Judge cited him for contempt. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Aguas demands for contempt. Held: No. The conduct of Atty. Aguas does not demand for contempt. In this case, the Court ruled that the conduct of the Judge of shaking the witness prompted Atty. Aguas to protest. The record of the court does not support the allegation, however, that it was disrespectful. (B) Lawyers must be courageous enough to expose arbitrariness and injustices of Courts and judges Judge Cervantes v. Atty. Sabio Facts: Atty. Sabio files a motion for inhinition against Judge Cervantes whom he suspects received a house and lot from EDC. This was denied. Atty. Sabio then filed a bribery case which was later on turned over to the IBP. The IBP then reported that the allegations of Atty Sabio were false. Due this, Judge Cervantes filed a disbarment case against Atty. Sabio. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Sabio warrants a disciplinary action. Held: Yes. The conduct of Atty. Sabio warrants a disciplinary action. Rule 11.04 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

In the case at bar, the bribery case that was filed by Atty. Sabio against Judge Cervantes was proven to be false. Hence, such conduct warrants a disciplinary action.

(C) A lawyer must not attribute to a judge motive not supported by record or have no materiality to the case People v. Carillo Facts: Carillo was convicted guilty of homicide before the RTC Cebu. On his appeal, Carillos counsel Atty de la Victoria had questioned the Judges motives and conducts in rendering such decision. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Dela Victoria is proper. Held: No. The conduct of Atty, Dela Victoria is not proper. In Ferrer v. De Inchausti, the Court held that it is unprofessional worthy of highest rebuke for a lawyer to attribute to a judge motive which do not appear on the record of the court. In the case at bar, it is clear that Atty. Dela Victoria made questioned the Judges motives. Hence, his conduct calls for a disciplinary action.

Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall not criticize the personal or official conduct of a judge in an insulting and intemperate language. (A) Criticism of the court is not per se contemptuous. In re: Abistado Facts: Abistado is the publisher of the Union. It was published under the said newspaper the malpractice case against Atty. Sotelo. Due this, the latter seek to cite the former in contempt due to violation of confidentiality of suspension and disbarment cases. Atty. Abistado invokes his freedom of expression. Issue: Whether or not the contention of Atty. Abistado is tenable. Held: No. The contention of Atty. Abistado is untenable.

In US v. Sullens, the Court ruled that the court must be permitted to proceed with the disposition of their business in an orderly manner free from outside interference obstructive of thei constitutional function. In the case at bar, Atty. Abistado cannot invoke his constitutional right since it a settled rule that freedom of expression is not protected in its fullest extent.

Rule 11.06. A lawyer shall submit his grievances against the judge to proper authorities only. (A) Criminal complaints against judges in connection with their duties as such must be filed with the Supreme Court, not with the Ombudsman. Maceda v. Vasquez Facts: Atty. Abiera files a case against Judge Maceda a falsification of public document before the Ombudsman. Judge Maceda then prayed that such case be dismissed since said Department does not have jurisdiction to try the case but the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SCs constitutional duty of supervision over all the inferior courts. Held: Yes. The investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SCs constitutional duty of supervision over all the inferior courts. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive administrative supervision over all employees of the Judiciary. In the case at bar, it is clear that Judge Maceda is a member of the Judiciary. Hence, he is under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

CANON 12. A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (A) Constitutional basis- All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies ( Article III, Sec. 16 Constitution).

(B) Acts which obstruct the administration of justice are condemned People v. Jardin Facts: Jardin was accused of malversation of public funds before the Quezon Provincial Fiscal. The Fiscal to which Atty Lucero and Jardin failed to participate then conducted subsequent investigation. Due this, the case was moved for arraignment before the CFI Quezon to which Jardin moved to postpone and filed a motion for re-investigation. Further postponements were perpetrated by Atty. Lucero in behalf of Jardin. Until then, he moved for its dismissal due to the violation of the right Jardin for speedy trial. The case was dismissed. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Lucero is proper. Held: No. The conduct of Atty. Lucero is not proper. In Cantorne v. Ducasin, the Court held that any conduct of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts or impedes the administration of justice constitutes a misconduct. The dilatory tactics employed by Atty. Lucero clearly obstructs the administration of justice. Hence, such conduct is improper. Rule 12.01- A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself with the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its preference. He should also be ready with the original document for comparison with the copies. (A) Lawyer must be ready when he goes to the trial. (B) A newly-hired counsel who appears in a case in the midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedings that have transpired in the record prior to his takeover (Villasis v. CA, 60 SCRA 120). (C) Rule 130, Section 3 of the RRC- A lawyer who is presenting documentary exhibits must also be ready with the originals thereof for purposes of comparison with copies thereof which ordinarily delay the proceedings. (D) Inadequate preparation obstructs the administration of justice. Rule 12.02- A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same the same cause. (A) Duplication or multiplication of suits shall be avoided.

(B) Forum Shopping a. There is forum shopping when as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another (other than by appeal or certiorari). b. Sanctions against Forum Shopping (Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) i. Failure to comply with the requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory plading but shall be cause for dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. ii. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. iii. If the acts of the party of his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. c. Forum shopping only applies to judicial cases and not to disbarment cases (Maronila v. Jorda, 482 SCRA 256) (C) A lawyer must not abuse his right of recourse to the Courts Garcia v. Francisco Facts: Atty. Francisco filed various fraudulent and malicious cases against Garcia in order to prevent the latter of recovering her land from the formers client. Due this, Garcia filed a disbarment case against Atty. Francisco. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Francisco warrants a disciplinary action. Held: Yes. The conduct of Atty. Francisco warrants a disciplinary action. The lawyers oath provides that a lawyer shall not delay any man for money or malice. In the case at bar, it is clear that the cases that were filed by Atty. Francisco against Garcia were malicious. Hence, his conduct deserves a disciplinary action.

Rule 12.03- A lawyer shall not, after 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. (A) A lawyer who asked for extension of time must act in good faith. Achacoso v. CA Facts: Atty. Nera, Achacosos counsel, file an appeal before the SC assailing the decision of the CA. The respondent of the case then filed its comment and then Atty Nera filed a petition to file an answer. However when such is due, he asked for extension. He was still unable to comply for said reply, and asked for another two extensions. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Nera is proper. Held: No. The conduct of Atty. Nera is not proper. Under Rule 12.03 of the CPR, A lawyer shall not after 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. In the case at bar, it is clear that Atty. Nera had asked for extension to file his answer but was not able to do so. Hence, his conduct is not proper for a lawyer. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes. (A) Execution of final decision should not be unduly thwarted. Uypuangco v. Equitable Banking Corporation Facts: City Court of Manila rendered a final decision favorable to Equitable Banking Corp. in collection of sum of money against Uypuangco. The same was for execution. The latter through Atty. Sison questioned the jurisdiction of the City Court. The CFI Manila then affirmed the jurisdiction of the City Court. Atty Sison then appealed it to CA which was then certified for review in SC. The SC affirmed the decision of the City Court. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Sison is proper.

Held: No. The conduct of Atty. Sison is not proper. Under Rule 12.04 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not unduy delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. In the case at bar, it is clear that the case filed by Atty. Sison was frivolous and was only filed to thwart the decision ready for execution. Hence, such conduct is not proper. (B) A judge should prevent dilatory tactics of lawyers who obstruct the administration of justice. (C) Lawyers should not misuse the rules of procedure. Gomez v. Presiding Judge, RTC Br. 15, Ozamis City Facts: RTC Ozamis convicted Gomez of libel. Her counsel then appealed the decision before the CA which affirmed the same. They further affirmed it in SC which also affirmed the same and was already for execution. The counsel then moved for reconsideration which the Court denied. Then they filed another motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of the counsel is proper. Held: No. The conduct of counsel is not proper. Rule 12.04 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not unduy delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. In the case at bar, the counsel misused the remedy of filing motion for reconsideration obviously to delay the execution of the decision by the RTC. Hence such conduct is not proper.

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination. (A) Coaching of witness during break or recess is condemned. Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another. (A) Assisting in misrepresentation or impersonation is condemned. (B) The witness who commits the misrepresentation or impersonation is criminally liable for False Testimony under the RPC.

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him. (A) A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass or needlessly inconvenience a witness. (B) Lawyers should treat witnesses with fairness.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except: a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like, or b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel. (A) Rationale- There are differences in the function of a lawyer and a witness. And due to that difference, the lawyer will find it hard to disassociate his relation to his client as an attorney and his relation to the party as a witness. Santiago v. Rafanan Facts: Santiago filed a disbarment case against Atty. Rafanan. Citing among others, his act of testifying as witness for his client who was accused by the former with attempted murder. Atty. Rafanan argued that he can testify since the incident happened in his residence. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Rafanan can act as witness to his client. Held: Yes. Atty. Rafanan can act as witness for his client. Under rule 12.08, a lawyer may act as witness for his client provided that they absolutely have to and that he withdraw from active management of the case. In the case at bar, the fact that the incident happened in the residence of Atty. Rafanan makes him in a position to testify for his client, provided that he withdraw as his counsel. Hence, such conduct of Atty. Rafanan is valid.