13-Jul-11

A.M. No. P-11-2945 Re:

Leave

Division,

Office

of

Administrative Services, OCA vs. Francisco A. Pua, Jr. Clerk of Court

V, RTC, Br. 55, Lucena City
Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 provides that
[a]ny employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness,
regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two
(2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the
year.
Based on the above-cited provision, it is undeniable that Pua has been
habitually tardy. Such administrative offense seriously compromises work
efficiency and hampers public service. By being habitually tardy, he has
fallen short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone
connected with the administration of justice.
It cannot be stressed enough that the Clerk of Court plays a vital role in
ensuring the prompt and sound administration of justice. 1[3] His office is the
hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and concerns. 2[4]
He is specifically imbued with the mandate to safeguard the integrity of the
court as well as the efficiency of its proceedings, to preserve respect for and
loyalty to it, to maintain the authenticity or correctness of court records, and
to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. 3[5]
Thus, he is required to be persons of competence, honesty and probity. 4[6]
The Court has indeed consistently held that moral obligations, performance
of household chores, traffic problems and health, domestic and financial
1
2
3
4

concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.

21-Sep-11 A.C. No. 6281

Carpio

Valentin C. Miranda vs. Atty. Macario D.

Atty. Carpio failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer by unlawfully

withholding and failing to deliver the title of the complainant, despite
repeated demands, in the guise of an alleged entitlement to additional
professional fees. He has breached Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 16.03 of
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which read:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESS.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
POSSESSION.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his
client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien
over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien
to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has
secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Further, in collecting from complainant exorbitant fees, respondent violated
Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a
lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. It is highly improper for a
lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his client which were
never mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the engagement of his
services. At the outset, respondent should have informed the complainant of
all the fees or possible fees that he would charge before handling the case
and not towards the near conclusion of the case. This is essential in order for
the complainant to determine if he has the financial capacity to pay
respondent before engaging his services.

==============================================
=====================
28-Sep-11 A.C. No. 8920
Battung

Judge Rene B. Baculi vs. Atty. Melchor A.

The respondent violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him
inside the courtroom during court proceedings in the presence of litigants
and their counsels, and court personnel. The respondent even came back to
harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many witnesses, cannot be
allowed. We note that the respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi and
acted in a manner that clearly showed disrespect for his position even after
the latter had cited him for contempt. In fact, after initially leaving the court,
the respondent returned to the courtroom and disrupted the ongoing
proceedings. These actions were not only against the person, the position
and the stature of Judge Baculi, but against the court as well whose
proceedings were openly and flagrantly disrupted, and brought to disrepute
by the respondent.
Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and
avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean
and disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents. The Code of
Professional Responsibility provides:
Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due
the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

==============================================
=======================
A.M. No. 2011-07-SC Supreme Court vs. Eddie V. Delgado, Utility
worker II, JOseph Lawrence M. Madeja, Clerk IV & Wilfredo A.
Florendo, Utility Worker II, all of the Office of the Clerk of Court,
Second Division.

This Court had already held that the conduct and behavior of all officials and
employees of an office involved in the administration of justice, from the
highest judicial official to the lowest personnel, requires them to live up to
the strictest standard of honesty, integrity and uprightness in order to
maintain public confidence in the judiciary. Court employees, as the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel puts it, serve as sentinels of justice and any
act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity
of the Judiciary and the peoples confidence in it.
In the case at bench, the respondents palpably failed to meet the high
standard expected from them as court employees. Their conduct is neither
excusable nor tolerable. The respondents, through their acts, have proven
themselves to be unfit for continued employment in the judiciary.
CANON IV
PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
SECTION 1.
Court personnel shall at all times perform
official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit
themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of
their office during working hours.
SECTION 3.
Court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy
or mutilate any record within their control.
==============================================
=======================
16-Nov-11 A.C. No. 6174
Galing

Lydia Castro-Justo vs. Atty. Rodolfo T.

Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, [a]

lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent was
therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with conflicting interests
in a controversy.
By doing so, without showing any proof that he had
obtained the written consent of the conflicting parties, respondent should be
sanctioned.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on
principles of public policy and good taste. In the course of the lawyer-client
relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with the clients case,
including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of the
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.

It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but
also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then
can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is
of paramount importance in the administration of justice
==============================================
======================
G.R. No. 173628
Severino S. Capiral vs. Simeona Capiral Robles
and Vicente Capiral
As a member of the bar and former judge, respondent is expected to be wellversed in the Rules of Procedure. This expectation is imposed upon members
of the legal profession, because membership in the bar is in the category of a
mandate for public service of the highest order. Lawyers are oath-bound
servants of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible
norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the
quest for truth and justice, for which they have sworn to be fearless
crusaders.
As judge of a first-level court, respondent is expected to know that he has no
jurisdiction to entertain a petition for declaratory relief. Moreover, he is
presumed to know that in his capacity as judge, he cannot render a legal
opinion in the absence of a justiciable question. Displaying an utter lack of
familiarity with the rules, he in effect erodes the publics confidence in the
competence of our courts. Moreover, he demonstrates his ignorance of the
power and responsibility that attach to the processes and issuances of a
judge, and that he as a member of the bar should know.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer
must uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the legal processes.
Contrary to this edict, respondent malevolently violated the basic
constitutional right of Gozun not to be deprived of a right or property without
due process of law.
Under Canon 10, Rule 10.03, respondent as lawyer is mandated to observe
the Rules of Procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.