LEGAL ETHICS

CANON 13

1. MARTELINO V ALEJANDRO 32 SCRA 106

HELD: where the publicity did not focus on the guilt

of the petitioners but rather on the responsibility of
the government for what was claimed to be a
massacre of Muslim trainees, there is no trial by
publicity which would prejudice the right of the
accused to a fair and impartial hearing. If there was a
trial by newspaper at all, it was not of the
petitioners but of the government
*** TRIAL BY PUBLICITY WHEN PREJUDICIAL - in
order to warrant a finding of prejudicial
publicitythere must be an allegation and proof that
the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply
that they might be, by the barrageof publicity
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF
HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH
TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF
INFLUENCING THE COURT.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.

2. CRUZ V SALVA 105 PHI 1151

FACTS :
-

A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found

Castelo, de Jesus,
Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo et al. guilty of murder. They
all appealed and Castelo sought new trial. Castelo was
again found guilty.

Pres Magsaysay

ordered reinvestigation.

Philippine

Constabulary questioned people and got confessions

pointing to persons other than those convicted.
-

Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct

reinvestigation on basis of new confessions.
Fiscal
conferred w/ SolGen and the Justice Sec decided to have
the results of investigation made available to counsel for
appellants.
Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of
the affidavits and confessions.
Salva organized a
committee for reinvestigation and subpoenaed Timoteo
Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and mastermind in
the new affidavits and confessions.
Cruz counsel
questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to
conduct preliminary investigation bec the case was
pending appeal in the SC. Counsel filed this present
petition.
Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of Cruz oral and
personal request to allow him to appear at the
investigation.
SC issued writ of preliminary injunction stopping the
prelim investigation.

ISSUES :
1. WON Salva and his committee can push through with
the investigation?
2. WON Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify
before Salva?
3. WON Salva conducted the investigation properLy?
-

HELD: 1. Yes.
SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally
requested to allow him to appear at the investigation.
Normally, when a criminal case handled by fiscal is tried
and decided and appealed to a higher court, functions of
fiscal have terminated. However, Salva has justified his
reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one of the
defendants (Salvador Realista y de Guzman) was not

included in the trial.

The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to
prosecute and secure conviction of the guilty but also to
protect the innocent.
Writ of preliminary injunction dissolved. Investigation
may continue.
Petition for certiorari and prohibition granted in part,
denied in part.
2. No
Under the law, Cruz had right to be present at the
investigation but he need not be present. His presence is
more of a right than a legal obligation.
No
Salva shld have done investigation privately in his office
and not publicly in the session hall of Municipal Court of
Pasay where microphones were installed and media
people were present. He should also not have made the
media people ask questions. SC was disturbed and
annoyed by such publicity.
Salva is publicly reprehended and censured.

HELD: IN THE CASE AT BAR, WHILE THE PROVINCIAL

FISCAL HAS ESTABLISHED A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
REINVESTIGATION OF THE ACSE ALTHOUGH THE SAME IS
ON APPEAL AND PENDING CONSIDERATION BY THE
Tribunal, however said Fiscal committed grievous error
and poor judgement when he allowed, even encouraged,
the reinvestigation to be conducted with much fanfare,
publicity and sensationalism. Such actuations of the
fiscal constitute contempt of court punishable by public
censure.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against
a party.

3. BUMANLAG V BUMANLAG 74 SCRA 92

Facts: Esteban T. Bumanglad, the respondent, was
found by the Court in its decision of September 24, 1973
guilty of gross immoral conduct and ordered his
suspension from the practice of law for a period of two
(2) years;
.

Respondent filed several motions for reconsideration but

the same were denied;
As a result of such denial, the respondent wrote a
petition to the President of the Philippines that he
promulgate(s) a decree that the order of suspension by
the Supreme Court be set aside and that your humble
self be allowed to become an active member of the New
Society.
The respondent alleged in the same petition that he was
deprived of due process of law;
The Clerk of Court, by way of an indorsement from the
Assistant Executive Secretary, received a copy of the
petition and was requested to comment and/or
appropriate action on the subject matter;
However, in a subsequent letter to the President the
respondent retracted and acknowledged his non
observance of protocol of separation of powers;
In the end, the respondent asked for an apology from the
members of the Honorable Court.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not respondent may be disciplined for
gross ignorance of the law and of the Constitution in not
observing the protocol of separation of power by asking

the President to set aside by decree the decision of the

Court imposing suspension upon the respondent?
(2) Whether or not a decision duly promulgated by the
Supreme Court may be set aside by a Presidential
Decree?
Held:
(1) Respondent is hereby administered a reprimand for
gross ignorance of the law and of the Constitution in
having asked the President to set aside by decree the
Court's decision which suspended him for two years from
the practice of law, with warning that the commission of
any transgression in the future of his oath and duties as
a member of the bar will be severely dealt with.
(2) Since respondent has apologized for his "big mistake"
and now appreciates that under the fundamental
principle of separation of powers enshrined in both the
1935 and 1973 Constitutions, a decision of this Court
may not be set aside by the President, the Court is
disposed to view his misconduct and/or ignorance with
liberality and will administer a reprimand with warning of
severe action on any future transgressions, considering
respondent's unenviable record.
FROM LEGAL ETHICS BOOK by PINEDA
HELD: a final word is called for on respondents
statement in his explanation inferring that he was led to
file hi petition with the president by the fact that his
motions for reconsideration were only denied by the
Clerk of curt without any comment whatsoever as the
court has had the occasion to state in People v catolico
and earlier cases, this remark of respondent exposes his

lack of appreciation or disregard of the time-honored

usage of the court that minute resolutions, summons
and processes of the court, upon being only duly
adopted and recorded are transmitted to the interested
parties by and upon the signature of the clerk of court
who is duly authorized to do so. With the thousand of
resolutions approved monthly by the court, it would
unduly tax the time and attention of the chief justice and
members of the curt to the prejudice of the
administration of justice, decisions and papers and other
decisions could be released only upon their own
signature.
*** The rule should be distinguished from Rule 11.05
which reads
a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the
proper authorities only