CANON 10 complainant, which is the plaintiff in Civil Case No.
by: Rowneylin SJ. Sia Q-98-35326, does not dispute respondents
Rudecon Management Corporation and Atty.
Rugelio D. Tacorda v. Atty. Manuel N. Camacho
(A.C. No. 6403, August 31, 2004)
FACTS:
On September 3, 1998, Sisenando Singson,
represented by herein respondent Atty. Manuel N.
Camacho, filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City a complaint against herein
complainant Rudecon Management Corporation for
damages and reconveyance, docketed as Civil Case
No. Q-98-35444. The case was originally raffled to
Branch 79, RTC, Quezon City but was eventually
re-raffled to Branch 85 of the same court.
On September 21, 1998, Singson, again
represented by Atty. Camacho, filed with Branch
78, RTC, Quezon City a "Motion for Intervention
(With Attached Answer in Intervention With
Affirmative Defenses and Compulsory
Counterclaim)" in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326,
entitled, "Rudecon Management
Corporation,plaintiff-appellee vs. Ramon M.
Veluz, defendant-appellant," a case for unlawful
detainer on appeal before said court.
On October 1, 1998, Rudecon filed a motion
before Branch 78 seeking to cite Singson and his
counsel, Atty. Camacho, for contempt for having
allegedly violated the rule against forum
shopping. And the court, in its dispositive portion
found them guilty. On the basis of the above-cited
order, Rudecon and Tacorda filed the instant
complaint for disbarment or suspension against
Atty. Camacho.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is
liable for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Although respondent was held to be guilty
in forum shopping, the court agreed with respondent
that there was no intention on his part to mislead the
court by concealing the pendency of Civil Case No.
Q-98-35444 in Branch 79 when they filed the
Motion for Intervention and Answer in Intervention
in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326 in Branch 78. Indeed,
the first paragraph of the said Answer in
Intervention shows that respondent and his client
called the trial courts attention with respect to the
pendency of Civil Case No. Q-98-35444. Herein
Page 1 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
allegation that the latter and his client attached to
their Answer in Intervention a copy of their
complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-35444.
Complainants seek the disbarment or
suspension of respondent from the practice of law
for his having allegedly violated Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, however, in
administrative cases for disbarment or suspension
against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant. Moreover, an
administrative case against a lawyer must show the
dubious character of the act done as well as of the
motivation thereof. In the present case, complainant
failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to
show that respondent willfully and deliberately
resorted to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest
conduct in violation of the standards of honesty as
provided for by the Code of Professional
Responsibility which would have warranted the
imposition of administrative sanction against him.
Wherefore, Resolution No. XVI-2004-43
dated February 27, 2004 of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines is SET ASIDE and the instant
administrative case filed against Atty. Manuel N.
Camacho is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
CANON 10
by Rowneylin Sia
ATTY. VAFLOR-FABROA v. ATTY. OSCAR
PAGUINTO
(A.C. No. 6723, March 15, 2010)
FACTS:
On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was
Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a Notice of
Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on October
14, 2001 to consider the removal of four members of the
Board of Directors (the Board), including her and the
General Manager. The notice was signed by respondent.
At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly
presided by respondent and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L.
Gerangco (Gerangco), who were not members of the
then current Board, Gerango, complainants predecessor,
as Chair of the GEMASCO board, declared himself
Chair, appointed others to replace the removed directors,
and appointed respondent as Board Secretary.
On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took
over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the pump
houses, water facilities, and operations. On even date,
respondent sent letter-notices to complainant and the
four removed directors informing them of their removal
from the Board and as members of GEMASCO, and
advising them to cease and desist from further
discharging the duties of their positions.Complainant
thus filed on October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative
Development Authority (CDA)-Calamba a complaint for
annulment of the proceedings taken during the October
14, 2001 Special General Assembly.
The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by Resolution
of February 21, 2002, declared the questioned general
assembly null and void for having been conducted in
violation of GEMASCOs By-Laws and the Cooperative
Code of the Philippines. The RDs Resolution of
February 21, 2002 was later vacated for lack of
jurisdiction of CDA. Thus, complainant files a
disbarment case against respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is liable for violation
of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly
ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes
utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondents
conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A
Courts Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere
request, nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively". Respondents obstinate
refusal to comply with the Courts orders "not only
betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also
underscores her disrespect of the Courts lawful orders
which is only too deserving of reproof.
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and
processes and respondents deference is underscored by
the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the
lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to
disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver
responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other
to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect
to their processes.
The Court notes that respondent had previously
been suspended from the practice of law for six months
for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
he having been found to have received an acceptance fee
and misled the client into believing that he had filed a
case for her when he had not. It appears, however, that
respondent has not reformed his ways. A more severe
penalty this time is thus called for.
Wherefore, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto,
is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law
for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyers Oath, effective
immediately.
CANON 10
by Iran Salvado
FERNANDEZ v. DE RAMOS-VILLALON
(A.C. No. 7024, February 27, 2009)
FACTS:
In 2004, Palacios, a lot owner in Makati, sought
the help of Fernandez to help him in a land grabbing
case. Palacios won the case and he allegedly agreed to
pay Fernandez 2M. In 2005, Palacios bumped into one
Mrs. Lirio and to his surprise, he found out that
Page 2 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
Fernandez was trying to sell HIS Makati property.
Fernandez has for his basis an alleged deed of donation
that Palacio executed in favor of Fernandez. Palacios,
with the help of Atty. Villalon, filed a complaint in order
to nullify the deed of donation. Fernandez answered that
he had an Absolute Deed of Sale in his favor from
Palacios. Thereafter, Villalon was charged by Palacios
for violation of rules 10.01, 10.02, 10.03 among others.
He claims that Villalon suppressed and excluded in the
complaint the existence of an unregistered but notarized
deed of absolute sale. Villalon counters that as counsel
of Palacios she is under no duty to include the fact that
there existed a deed of sale because only her clients
operative facts and not other evidentiary facts needed to
be included in the complaint. The deed of sale was a
matter of defense that Fernandez, as defendant could
raise as a matter of defense.
ISSUE:
Did the non-inclusion of the deed of sale in the
complaint amount to a violation of 10.01, 02, 03?
HELD:
No. A lawyer has the duty to be truthful in all
his dealings, however this duty does not require him to
advance matters of defense on behalf of his or her
clients opponent. Villalon was not duty bound to build
the case for Fernandez. The cause of action chosen by
Palacios was for the annulment of the deed of donation.
Palacios had told her that the deed of sale was void for
lack of consideration. It was not a necessary fact for his
case. Only the clients operative facts and not the other
evidentiary facts need to be included in the Complaint. It
is correct for the respondent to argue that pointing out
the existence of the January 12 Deed of Absolute Sale
was a matter of defense which the defendant in said civil
case can freely point out to the trial judge through his
own pleadings. It cannot be argued that there was
suppression of evidence on the part of the respondent as
she is not the only person who had access or possession
of the said Deed of Absolute Sale. It was a document
readily available to the general public through the
Notarial Office. Moreover, it was a document which was
fully known to herein complainant as he was supposed
to be a party to the said Deed of Absolute Sale. In other
words, a person cannot possibly suppress the existence
of a document which everyone else, especially the
opposing party-litigant, knows about.
CANON 11
by Allan Kristofer Pormento
NG v. ALAR
(ADM Case No. 7952, November 22, 2006)
FACTS:
Ng is one of the respondents in a labor case,
Alar is the counsel for the complainant in the labor case.
The case was filed when employees of the Ng Company
alleged that they did not receive their service incentives
because the Ng Company refused to pay because a strike
was conducted on company premises hampering
entrance and exit into the area. It was later found that the
incentive pay had been paid. When the NLRC dismissed
the appeal, Alar filed an MR with a Motion to Inhibit,
where Alar used scandalous, offensive and menacing
language to support the complaint. He called the labor
arbiter crossed-eyed in making his findings of fact and
that the NLRC commissioner acted with malice in ruling
that the labor arbiter decided correctly. He also alleged
that NLRC retiring commissioners circumvent the law
when the money claims involved in the cases are large.
Because of this a disbarment case was filed against him
saying that he violated canons 8 and 11. Alar argues that
he did not violate them because: 1) NLRC is not a court
contemplated by the rules; 2) NLRC commissioners are
not judges; 3) the complaints in labor cases are bound to
be heated and that they are entitled to some anger. He
counterclaimed that the lawyers of Ng are the ones in
violation of the CPR by filing multiple suits from the
same cause of action and that they deliberately lessened
the number of complainants in the labor case. The
commission on bar discipline found Alar guilty of
violating the CPR.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Alar violated the CPR.
HELD:
Yes. The motion he filed contained insults
attacking the NLRC, casting doubt on its moral and
intellectual integrity, implying that the NLRC can be
bought. He used improper and offensive language,
which cannot be justified. Though a lawyers language
may be forceful and emphatic, it must always be
dignified and respectful. He deserves not only a warning
but also a fine of P 5,0000. The counter-complaint is
dismissed because there was no position paper submitted
to substantiate the claims.
CANON 11
by Allan Kristofer Pormento
FUDOT v. CATTLEYA LAND, INC.
(G.R. No. 175942, September 13, 2007)
FACTS:
De La Serna requested that Justice Tinga, the
ponente in the Fudot case, be inhibited because it was
alleged that he received 10 million pesos from Chan in
exchange for a favorable decision. De La Serna suggests
that Tinga abandoned the doctrine in Lim v. Jorge to
accommodate Chan. He also said that Tinga prioritized
the case and that Chan already knew of the outcome of
the case before the decision was promulgated. Chan
related that he approached De La Serna for the purpose
of amicably settling the case, and offered him to be their
retainer in Bohol. He denied having said to De La Serna
that he had already spent so much money for the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Serna is guilty of indirect
contempt.
HELD:
Yes. Contempt is defined as a disobedience to
the court by setting up opposition to its authority, justice
and dignity. It is not only a willful disregard or
disobedience of the courts orders but it also brings
Page 3 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
authority of the court and administration of law into
disrepute or in some manner impedes the due
administration of justice. Indirect contempt is one
committed out of or not in the presence of the court but
tends to be little, degrade obstruct or embarrass the court
and justice. Improper conduct tending to directly or
indirectly impede obstruct or degrade the administration
of justice is also indirect contempt. A lawyer is first and
foremost an officer of the court and it is his duty to
maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial
officers. While he is expected to bring forth irregular and
questionable practices of those sitting in court it is
important that this criticism shall be bona fide and shall
not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. His
statements bear badges of falsehood because the version
of the witnesses disputes his statements. He maliciously
made these declarations irresponsibly. The libelous
attack on the integrity and credibility of Justice Tinga
degrade the dignity of the court and erode public
confidence in it. He is hereby fined P 3,000.00.
CANON 11
by Aristotle Cruz
GUERRERO v. VILLAMOR
(A.M. No. RTJ-90-483, September 25, 1998)
FACTS:
Carlos and his counsel, Guerrero, charged
respondent with gross ignorance of the law and
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment after they lost a
civil and a criminal case tried by respondent. They were
also thwarted on appeal. However, in the pleadings
before the CA, they used abusive language in describing
the respondents acts, hence, respondent judge cited
them for direct contempt, which was later set aside by
the SC.
ISSUE:
Must the respondent be held liable for violation
of the Code for Professional Ethics?
HELD:
The case was dismissed. The order of direct
contempt may only be considered as an error of
judgment. A judge may not be administratively charged
for mere errors of judgment, in the absence of showing
of any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose. Moreover,
judges cannot be held to account criminally, civilly, or
administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by
them in good faith.
CANON 12
by Reynaldo Dennison Tayag
PEOPLE v. JARDIN
(G.R. No. L-33037-42, August 17, 1983)
FACTS:
The criminal prosecutions originated from a
letter-complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon
requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the necessary
criminal action under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code against Demetrio Jardin for malversation of public
funds thru falsification of public documents on six
counts. The cases were assigned to Assistant Fiscal
Meliton V. Angeles who set them for preliminary
investigation. The accused moved to postpone the
investigation four times but the accused and his counsel
failed to appear every time. Inspire of their absence, the
preliminary investigation was conducted and shortly
afterwards, the six informations were filed against the
accused before the Court of First Instance of Quezon
City. The arraignment was set for May 9, 1967. On the
records it was show that from May 9, 1967, the
arraignment was re-set for June 6; then re-set for June
26; then from August 16, the same was re-set for
September 5, all because of the motions for
postponement filed at the instance of the accused. When
the arraignment of the accused was called on September
5, 1967, counsel for the accused verbally moved for
reinvestigation on the ground that the accused was not
given the opportunity to present his defense during the
preliminary investigation. This was granted by the court
and the first reinvestigation was set on November 24,
1967. Accused moved to postpone many times, failed
still to appear. When he finally appeared with his
counsel, they asked for 15 days to file memorandum.
The memorandum was never filed, so the investigating
fiscal filed a manifestation before the court that the
records of these cases be returned and the trial on the
merits of the same be set. The court transferred the case
to new branch of CFI Quezon without acting on
manifestation. Arraignment date was set but more
postponements was filed at the instance of accused;
moved for reinvestigation again. Arraignment finally
happened on Sept 8, 1970. Accused pleaded NOT
GUILTY and asked for trial to be postponed. On
postponed date, accused asked for another
postponement.
ISSUE:
Whether the acts of the accused and his counsel
obstruct the administration of justice.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that the dilatory tactics
of the defense counsel and the failure of both judge and
the fiscal to take effective counter measures to obviate
the delaying acts constitute obstruction of justice. An
attorney as an officer of the court is called upon to assist
in the due administration of justice. Like the court itself,
he is an instrument to advance its cause. For this reason,
any act on the part of a lawyer that obstructs perverts or
impedes the administration of justice constitutes
misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him.
Acts which amount to obstruction in the administration
of justice may take many forms. They include such acts
as instructing a complaining witness in a criminal action
not to appear at the scheduled hearing so that the case
against the client, the accused, would be dismissed.
asking a client to plead guilty to a crime which the
lawyer knows his client did not commit, advising a client
who is detained for a crime to escape from prison
prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to drain
the resources of the other party and compel him to
submit out of exhaustion and filing multiple petitions or
complaints for a cause that has been previously rejected
in the false expectation of getting favorable action.
Page 4 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
CANON 12
by Reynaldo Dennison Tayag
GARCIA v. FRANCISCO
(A.C. No. 3923, March 30, 1993)
FACTS:
In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on
October 6, 1992, Concordia B. Garcia seeks the
disbarment of Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco. On March 9,
1964, Concordia B. Garcia and her husband Godofredo,
the Dionisio spouses, and Felisa and Magdalena
Baetiong leased a parcel of land to Sotero Baluyot Lee
for a period of 25 years beginning May 1, 1964. Despite
repeated verbal and written demands, Lee refused to
vacate after the expiration of the lease. Lee claimed that
he had an option to extend the lease for another 5 years
and the right of pre-emption over the property. In this
disbarment case, the complainant claims that Lees
counsel, respondent Francisco, commenced various suits
before different courts to thwart Garcias right to regain
her property and that all these proceedings were decided
against Lee. The proceedings stemmed from the said
lease contract and involved the same issues and parties,
thus violating the proscription against forum-shopping.
The respondent, in his comment, says that he asserted in
defense of his clients rights only such remedies as were
authorized by law. That On March 29, 1989, Lee,
through Francisco, filed a complaint against Garcia and
the other lessors for specific performance and re-
conveyance with damages. Thus began more filing of
complaints and dismissals of cases as follows: On June
9, 1989, Garcia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The case was dismissed on August 10, 1989. On May
29, 1989, Garcia and the other lessors filed a complaint
for unlawful detainer against Lee. On September 5,
1989, judge Bautista issued a resolution rejecting this
allegation on the ground that the issues before the two
courts were separate and different. On October 24, 1989,
Lee, through Francisco, filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction against Judge
Bautista, Garcia and the other lessors. On April 6, 1990,
Lee through Francisco filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction with
the Court of Appeals against Judge Vera, Judge Singzon,
Garcia and the other lessors. On June 14, 1990,
Judge Singzon decided the case in favor of complainant
Garcia and the other lessors. Lee did not appeal. Instead,
on, June 21, 1990, through Francisco again, he filed a
petition against Judge Singzon and the other lessors for
certiorari and annulment of the decision of such case. On
September 27, 1991, Lee, through Francisco, filed a
motion to inhibit Judge Singzon and to defer the hearing
of the motion then finally, Lee, still through Francisco,
filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
against Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors in
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to set aside and
declare the writs of execution in Civil Case No. 1455.
This was dismissed on August 4, 1992, and Lee, through
Francisco, filed a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Francisco abuses his right of
recourse to the courts.

HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of
truth and the administration of justice. The cause of the
respondents client is obviously without merit. The
respondent was aware of this fact when he willfully
resorted to the gambits summarized above, continuously
seeking relief that was consistently denied, as he should
have expected. By grossly abusing his right of recourse
to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had
been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining the
obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or
proceedings as appear to him to be just and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable
under the law. By violating his oath not to delay any
man for money or malice, he has besmirched the name
of an honorable profession and has proved himself
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer
of the Court.
CANON 12
by Desserie Marie Guillarte
CAPT. CABAGUI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
THIRD DIVISION
(G.R. No. L-38377, October 15, 1975)
FACTS:
Under its Resolution of November 20, 1974, the
Court, acting on a third petition for review of a Court of
Appeals decision affirming petitioners conviction of the
crime of malversation of public funds, as filed on
November 13, 1974 by his attorney, Eugenio M.
Millado, with address at Koronadal, South Cotabato,
ordered that said petition be expunged from the records
and required Atty. Eugenio Millado to show cause
within ten (10) days from notice hereof why disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for trifling with
the Court by filing this third petition despite previous
resolutions of this Court. In its previous Resolution of
May 8, 1974 referring to the first two petitions filed by
respondent Millado on behalf of the same petitioner, the
Court had dismissed the secondpetition (filed on March
18, 1974) by respondent Millado in the guise of a new
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction but
which merely raised again the same questions in his first
petition (filed on January 9, 1974) seeking to set aside
petitioners conviction for malversation of public funds,
by decision of the court of first instance of Misamis
Oriental dated June 20, 1963 as affirmed with
modification by the Court of Appeals decision dated
June 8, 1973, for alleged lack of jurisdiction and praying
for reversal of the conviction or for a reduction of his
criminal liability by finding appellant-petitioner guilty of
technical malversation only for the amount of P1,161.65.
Said first petition had been denied on January 15, 1974
by virtue of the petition having been filed late by 4
months and 25 days beyond the last date for filing which
fell due since August 15, 1973.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Millado is guilty of
violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Page 5 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
HELD:
The Court finds respondent, Attorney Eugenio
M. Millado, guilty of gross negligence in not having
complied with a show cause resolution and of abusing
the right of recourse to the Court by filing multiple
petitions for the same cause in the false expectation of
getting favorable action from one division as against the
adverse action of the other division. The Court deems his
suspension from the practice of law since February,
1975 as sufficient penalty and now lifts his suspension
with the warning that the commission in the future by
respondent of the same or other infractions shall be dealt
with severely.
CANON 12
by Desserie Marie Guillarte
VDA. DE BACALING v. LAGUNA & HON.
ROVIRA
(G.R. No. L-26694, December 18, 1973)
FACTS:
Private respondent Hector Laguda is the
registered owner of a residential land known as lot No.
3508 situated at La Paz, Iloilo City many years back,
petitioner and her late husband, Dr. Ramon Bacaling,
with the acquiescence of private respondent Laguda,
constructed a residential house on a portion of said lot
fronting Huevana Street, paying a monthly rental of
P80.00. Unable to pay the lease rental from July 1959 to
September 1961, 5otaling P2,160.00, an action for
ejectment (Civil Case No. 6823) was filed by private
respondent Laguda against petitioner in her capacity as
judicial administratrix of the estate of her late husband,
Dr. Bacaling, in the City Court of Iloilo City. The filing
of said case spawned various court suits. Petitioner on
July 23, 1962, filed certiorari proceedings in this Court
(G.R. No. L-20061) but was dismissed for lack of merit
on August 3, 1962. Petitioner on November 12, 1962,
filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition
for certiorari with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No.
6162) but the same was dismissed on December 1, 1962.
Unsuccessful in her motion for reconsideration,
petitioner went to the Court of Appeals by way of
certiorari (CA-G.R. No. 31882-R) but her petition was
dismissed by that Court on March 7, 1967.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of the petitioner as
judicial administratrix prior to her discharge or removal
are valid and binding upon her successor.
HELD:
Such a view is not tenable. Under Section 3,
Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, petitioners lawful acts
before the revocation of her letters of administration or
before her removal shall have the same validity as if
there was no such revocation or removal. It is
elementary that the effect of revocation of letters
testamentary or of administration is to terminate the
authority of the executor or administrator, but the acts of
the executor or administrator, done in good faith prior to
the revocation of the letters, will be protected, and a
similar protection will be extended to rights acquired
under a previous grant of administration. The petitioner
is not entitled to the writ of certiorari. In the case at bar,
there is absolutely no showing that the respondent courts
acted so arbitrarily, despotically or capriciously as
to amount to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the
questioned orders. Grave abuse of discretion which is
a ground for certiorari means such capricious and
arbitrary exercise of judgment as is equivalent, in the
eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction. Even mere
abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the
issuance of a writ of certiorari. For that purpose the
abuse of discretion must be grave and patent, and it must
be shown that it was exercised arbitrarily or despotically,
which is not the case made out by the present petition.
CANON 13
by Maxi Fernandez
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO,
FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR
(ADM. CASE No. 7006, October 09, 2007)
FACTS:
The administrative case has its roots from the
case of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard before the
sala of Judge Jose Manuel Tan, Regional trial court of
Surigao City, Branch 29. Luis Bucalon, was found to be
guilty of homicide and not murder with the evidence as
basis. Counsel of the defense thereafter filed a motion to
fix that amount of bail bond, with which Senior state
prosecutor and deputized prosecutor of the case Atty.
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo contests stating that murder is non-
bailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a motion for
reconsideration which was consequently denied. Hence,
instead of resorting to his available judicial remedies,
respondent caused the publication of an article in the
August 18, 2003 issue of Mindanao Gold Star Daily.
Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to the media, after he was
ordered arrested and put up a bail of P100,000.00 this
time at Radio Station DXKS. He attacked once again
Judge Tan and his disposition on the proceedings of
People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the
Code of professional conduct.
HELD:
Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating the
code of professional conduct Canon 13, Rule 13.02
which states that a lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending
to arouse public opinion for or against a party. That
instead of resorting to the available judicial remedies
before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has degraded the dignity
and authority of the court and the presiding judge, as
well as promoted distrust in the administration of justice
when he resorted to media and declared his complaints
there. Atty. Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of
Canon 11, when he disrespected the courts and the
judicial officers and Rule 11.05 when he did not submit
grievances against a judge to proper authorities only.
CANON 13
by Maxi Fernandez
Page 6 of 6
ETHICS CANON CASE DIGESTS
FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MAURICIO, JR.
(A.C. No. 7199, July 22, 2009)
FACTS:
Foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the
business of meat processing and manufacture of canned
goods of CDO filed an administrative complaint
against Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for violation of the
code of professional responsibility. The case at hand
involved a certain Alberto Cordero who purportedly
found a colony of worms inside the can of liver spread
by CDO and Foodsphere that he bought from the
grocery. The Cordero family sued the company for
P150,000 for damages, but the companies did not agree
to the demands. The Corderos thereafter threatened to
resort to the media, if their demands are not met.
Consequently, Atty. Mauricio the counsel of the
Corderos, was involved in various media productions
such as being a writer/columnist of tabloids including
Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and
HATAW!, and a host of a television program
KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and
of a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN
aired over DZBB. Atty. Mauricio, in many cases utilized
these media outlets to place the said company in a bad
light by declaring to the masses the liver spread of
worms; even after his receipt of the Order addressed to
him to desist from further publishing, televising and/or
broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the
instant case more specifically the imputation of vices
and/or defects on plaintiff and its products. Even after
the parties have performed an agreement, signed by the
Corderos and Atty.Mauricio himself resulting in the
dismissal of the Cordero case, Atty.Mauricio still
inexplicably launched a media offensive to the
companies.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, Atty. Mauricio has violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of
professional responsibility. His recourse to the Media,
even after being told to desist from such was a clear
violation of Rule 13.03 of Canon 13, A lawyer shall not
make public statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party. His action has put not only the company
Foodsphere and CDO in a bad light, but has also
degraded the dignity and authority of the legal system.
Besides the above, he has also violated Canon 1.01 by
engaging in deceitful conduct taking advantage of the
complaint against CDO to advance his own interests,
and Canon 8, when he used abusive and offensive
language in his dealings.