Antonio vs.

CA

Facts: Severino Antonio and Carlito Antonio were charged with the
crime of murder against Gonzalo Guittierez (the suspects brother in
law). They appealed to the CA, but the latter affirmed the decision
of the lower court. They petitioned to SC claiming that the CA erred
in failing to give importance to the inconsistency of the gunshot
wounds details testified by the witnesses (witnesses was the son of
the victim and another person), for excusing the admitted
contradictions of the testimonies of the witnesses, for not showing a
sufficient motive for the killing and for not granting the demurrer to
evidence.

Legal issue: WON the CA erred in affirming their conviction.

Decision: Petition denied.

The court sees no reason to set aside the findings of fact of the trial
court, which are supported by the testimony of witnesses who have
no reason whatsoever to testify falsely against the accused-
brothers. A witness testimony ought to be entitled to great weight
when his accusing words are directed against a close relative. a
witness is not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect
recollection down to insignificant and minute details.

Judicial action on a motion to dismiss or demurrer to the evidence is

left to the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Unless there is a
grave abuse thereof, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the trial
courts denial of a motion to dismiss may not be disturbed.[40]
In re Integration of the bar

FACTS:

On September 1, 1971, RA 6397 "An Act Providing for the

Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor,
was passed providing that after 2 years of the its approval, the
Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of
the Philippine Bar. The purpose is to raise the standards of the legal
profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar
to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.

On December 1,1972 , the Commission on Bar Integration (created

by SC in 1970) submitted a report of earnest recommendation for
the Integration of the Philippine Bar. The Court accepted all
comments on the proposed integration.

Issues:

(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?

(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?

(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?
(1971)

Decision:

1. Yes. Under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate

rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and
the admission to the practice of law." Indeed, the power to integrate
is an inherent part of the Court's constitutional authority over the
Bar. It is a mere legislative declaration that the integration of the
Bar will promote public interest or, more specifically, will "raise the
standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of
justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility
more effectively."

2. Yes. The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a

privilege, moreover, clothed with public interest, because a lawyer
owes duties not only to his client. These public responsibilities can
best be discharged through collective action; but there can be no
collective action without an organized body; no organized body can
operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair
and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to the support of
such organized body;
3. Yes. The survey among lawyers resulted to huge support for this
move..

DE ROY
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS

The firewall of a burned-out building owned by Feliza De Roy

collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop of the respondents,
resulting in injuries and death of their daughter. De roy was charged
guilty of gross negligence and was demanded to pay damages. CA
affirmed this. On the last day of the 15-day period to appeal, De roy
filed petition to extend the time to file motion for reconsideration,
which again was denied.

Issue: WON the CA erred in denying the filing for extension of

motion for reconsideration.

Decision: No. As laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon, the

15-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be
extended. It is the duty of counsel as lawyer in active practice to
keep up-to-date of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly
where issues have been clarified. As also applied in Mission v.
Intermediate Apellate, petitioners cannot seek refuge in the
ignorance of their counsel regarding the said rule for their failure to
file a motion for reconsideration within the required period.
Far eastern shipping Co (FESC)
vs CA digest

MV PAVLODAR, owned by FESC arrived at the Port of Manila , with

Senen Gavino assigned by MPA (Manila Pilots Assoc.) to conduct the
docking. When the vessel was nearing the pier, Gavino noticed that
the anchor did not take hold. Before the right anchor could be
dropped, the bow of the vessel bumped into the pier causing
damage to it. The Philippine Ports Authority then filed a complaint
for a sum of money against FESC, the latter appealed to the CA
claiming that the owner of the vessel should not be made liable. The
CA further held MPA solidarily liable to PPA but entitled to reimburse
from Gavino. Both PPA and MPA were not happy with the decision of
CA. They later raised their plea in the SC on 2 different GR Petitions
while acquiring the service of the law firm of Del Rosario and Del
Rosario.

Issue: WON the counsels for the parties committed acts which
require the exercise of the courts disciplinary powers.

Decision: Yes.

Sec. 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, mentions that a

certification against Forum shopping is a requirement for petitions
filed in SC or CA. Further

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a

certification under oath that he has not commenced any other
action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state
the status of the same.

The records show that the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario
through its associate, Atty. Herbert A. Tria, is the counsel of record
for FESC in both G.R. No. 130068 and G.R. No. 130150.

More specifically, a lawyer is obliged to observe the rules of

procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. It
bears stressing that procedural rules are instruments in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice. They should be used to
achieve such end and not to derail it. 34