Digested Cases in Legal Profession - Canon 10, 13 & 15

CANON 10

A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court.

Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice.

Rule 10.02 – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language of the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

 Chavez vs. Viola

In 1966, Atty. Viola assisted Felicidad Alvendia et al in filing a petition against Teodoro Chavez where he sought to have the Alvendias be declared as bona fide lessees in a land controversy. Said petition was dismissed because of nonappearance by the Alvendias.

In 1977, Atty. Viola assisted same clients in applying for an original registration of title over the same land in controversy in 1966. In said application, Atty. Viola insisted that his clients were the true owners of said land because they acquired it by sale from Teresita Vistan way back in 1929.

Chavez then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Viola. Chavez  said that because of the conflicting claims that Viola prepared in behalf of his clients, he had willingly aided in and consented to the pursuit, promotion and prosecution of a false and unlawful application for land registration, in violation of his oath of office as a member of the Bar.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Viola is in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.

HELD: Yes. Viola alleged in an earlier pleading that his clients were merely lessees of the property involved. In his later pleading, he stated that the very same clients were owners of the same property. One of these pleadings must have been false; it matters not which one. Worse, he offered no explanation as regards the discrepancy.

A lawyer owes honesty and candor to the courts. It cannot be gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious administration of justice. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Atty. Viola was suspended for 5 months.

Pangan vs. Ramos

In 1979, a pending administrative case filed by Santa Pangan against Atty. Dionisio Ramos was delayed because Atty. Ramos allegedly appeared before a court in Manila. When the records of the said case was checked (one which Atty. Ramos appeared in), it was found that he used the name “Atty. Pedro D.D. Ramos”. In his defense, Atty. Ramos said he has the right to use such name because in his birth certificate, his name listed was Pedro Dionisio Ramos. “D.D.” stands for Dionisio Dayaw with Dayaw being his mother’s surname. However, in the roll of attorneys, his name listed was Dionisio D. Ramos.

ISSUE: Whether or not what Atty. Ramos did was correct.

HELD: No. The attorney’s roll or register is the official record containing the names and signatures of those who are authorized to practice law. A lawyer is not authorized to use a name other than the one inscribed in the Roll of Attorneys in his practice of law. The official oath obliges the attorney solemnly to swear that he will do no falsehood. As an officer in the temple of justice, an attorney has irrefragable obligations of truthfulness, candor and frankness. In representing himself to the court as “Pedro D.D. Ramos” instead of “Dionisio D. Ramos”, respondent has violated his solemn oath and has resorted to deception. The Supreme Court hence severely reprimanded Atty. Ramos and warned that a similar infraction will warrant suspension or disbarment.

CANON 13

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 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.

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.

Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR

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.

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 Cordero’s thereafter threatened to resort to the media, if their demands are not met. Consequently, Atty. Mauricio the counsel of the Cordero’s, 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 Cordero’s 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.

Canon 15

ABRAGAN V. RODRIGUEZ

Facts:

            The case is about a disbarment case against respondent Rodriguez, wherein it was alleged by the petitioners that respondent represented them sometime in 1986, and that after the case was won. Respondent disturbed the association, wherein the petitioners are members, by selling their rights over the property without the consent of the petitioners. That after the petitioner found out of the alleged selling of right, petitioners then severed the attorney client relationship.

             In a later date petitioners hired the Atty. Salve for his services in the contempt case against the sheriff Loncion. In the said contempt case, respondent allegedly represented the sheriff and against the petitioners. It was also alleged that Rodriguez later on influenced Atty. Salva.

            Additionally on January 12, 1993 respondent without the consent of the petitioners filed a motion to withdraw their exhibit in a civil case 11204.

            Aside from the unethical maneuvers of the respondent, to make matters worse, respondent allegedly fenced an area consisting of 10,200 square meters within the lot 1982, which is the subject matter of civil case 11204.

            On the other hand the respondent states that the land he fenced off was part of the attorney’s fee paid to him for the services he rendered. The case was then referred to the IBP for investigation. After the investigation it was suggested that the respondent be suspended from practice for 6 months. For violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, which states that A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned parties, given the full disclosure of facts. The recommendation was appealed to the IBP board of Governors and the same was affirmed.

Issues:

            Whether or not respondent violated Rule 15’03 of Canon 15.

Ruling: 

            The Court affirmed the recommendation stating that, even if the allegations of the petitioners pertaining to the selling of rights without petitioners consent, the inducement or influence of respondent over atty. Salva and the fencing of the lot, were not proved due to lack of evidence to back up the allegations, the court still finds respondent in violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 by representing conflicting interest, when respondent represented against the petitioner in the indirect contempt case against the Sheriff.

             The court states that lawyers owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with the latter and the public at large. That they must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times.

            That due to the divided alleg9iance of respondent, his divided loyalty constitutes malpractice which may be punished under sec 27 of rule 138 of the ROC.

JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., RESPONDENT.

Facts:
 Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) had previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained from her in filing the civil case.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint for this reason.

In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after finding it to be fully supported by the evidence on record  and Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but the IBP Board of Governors denied his motion.

The Issue

Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.

The Court’s Ruling

The SC agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors. The SC rules that the relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client’s most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given case.

One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client.  Thus, if a lawyer’s argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment

On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, substantial evidence proved to support Atty. Sabitsana’s violation of the above rule: first, he filed a case against the complainant in behalf of Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the complainant as the defendant in the case; and third, the case he filed was for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously prepared and executed for the complainant.

By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against another client in the same action; he also accepted a new engagement  that entailed him to contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a property in which his legal services had been previously retained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law.

Penilla vs. Alcid

Attorney; Gross Misconduct. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated his oath under Canon 18 to “serve his client with competence and diligence” when he filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed, Atty. Alcid, Jr. committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before the RTC, when he should have filed it with the MTC due to the amount involved. Atty. Alcid, Jr. did not also apprise complainant of the status of the cases. Atty. Alcid, Jr. is not only guilty of incompetence in handling the cases. His lack of professionalism in dealing with complainant is gross and inexcusable. The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of the client’s interest. The most thorough groundwork and study must be undertaken in order to safeguard the interest of the client. Atty. Alcid, Jr. has defied and failed to perform such duty and his omission is tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyer’s Oath. Julian Penilla v. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr., A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013.