CHAPTER III.

THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court
to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or 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.
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to
the proper authorities only.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND
CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has
adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case,
the evidence he will adduce and the order of its proferrence. He
should also be ready with the original documents for comparison
with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from
the same cause.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time
to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the

execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness
during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under
examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to
misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a
witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client,
except:
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication
or custody of an instrument, and the like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is
essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his
testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.
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.

CARLET VS CA

Recit-Ready Digest:
Heirs of Cirila Baylo Carolasan, under the surname Zarate, filed a
case for annulment for a Deed of Sale in order for them to be the
rightful owners of a lot in Laguna. The case was docketed as Civil
Case No. B-1656. They won and the deed was rendered null and
void.
The losing party, the Sevillos, filed several cases to overturn the
decision, all of which were dismissed. On 1991, Carlet, filed for
reconveyance of property as a special administrator of the lot in
favor of the Sevillos, docketed as Civil Case No. B-3582.
Defendants Zarate moved to dismiss the case on the ground of res
judicata. The Defendants won and now Carlet has appealed to the
CA. The previous decision won and the appeal is dismissed.
Even though Civil Case No. B-3582 was initiated by
petitioner as administrator of the estate of Pablo and
Antonia Sevillo, the fact remains that he represents the
same heirs. This still constitutes res judicata.
B

When material facts or questions which were in issue in a former

action and were admitted or judicially determined there are
conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, such facts or
questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a
subsequent action between the same parties or their privies
regardless of the form of the latter. This is the essence of res
judicata or bar by prior judgment.

Case Name Carlet v CA

In 1965, Pablo Sevillo, with Candida Baylo, filed a petition before

the
Court
of
First
Instance
for
reconstitution
of
title. Reconstitution was allowed and a TCT was issued in the
name of Pablo Sevillo, married to Candida Baylo. Pablo Sevillo and
his wife died in 1967 and in 1974, respectively.
Before dying, Candida Baylo executed a Deed of Sale in favor of
Pablos former children in his previous marriage.
In 1980, the heirs of Cirila Baylo Carolasan, all surnamed Zarate
and herein private respondents, filed a case for annulment of the
said Deed of Sale. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. B1656 before the Court of First Instance of Bian, Laguna.
The Deed of Sale was rendered as null and void and of no force
and effect, and the representative of the estate of the plaintiff
Cirila Baylo Carolasan and the defendants Gregorio Sevillo, Samero
Sevillo, Maltin Sevillo, Andrea Sevillo and Isidro Zamora, as the
surviving spouse of Consolacion Sevillo, are hereby ordered to
partition Lot No. 981.
The losing party, the Sevillos then filed several cases to annul the
decision to the IAC and the SC, all of which were denied.
On July 10, 1991, petitioner Iigo F. Carlet, as special
administrator of the estate of Pablo and Antonia Sevillo, filed the
case at bar, an action for reconveyance of property, docketed
as Civil Case No. B-3582, against the heirs of Cirila.
Defendants Zarate moved to dismiss the case on the ground of res
judicata. The Defendants won and now Carlet has appealed to the
CA.

Issues:

Whether or not the case should be dismissed on the ground of res

judicata.

G.R. No. 114275

Ponente: Romero, J.

Facts:

Held/Ratio:

In 1917, a Transfer Certificate No. 1599 was issued in Jose

Sevillas name after payment of the full purchase price of Lot 981
of the Bian Estate in Laguna, with an area of 864 square meters.
In 1949, Pablo Sevillo, one of Joses four sons with a wife and four
children of his own, declared the lot for taxation purposes even if
the property was still in Jose Sevillos name.
In 1955, Pablo, by then a widower, married Candida Baylo who had
a previous daughter already married named Cirila Baylo
Carolasan. The union produced no offspring.

NO. It was already decided in Civil Case No. B-1656. Res

Judicataaaaaa!!!!! There are four requisites to successfully invoke
res judicata: (a) finality of the former judgment; (b) the court
which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there
must be between the first and second actions identity of parties,
subject matter and cause of action. A judgment on the merits
rendered in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the
subsequent action when the three identities are present. Even
though Civil Case No. B-3582 was initiated by petitioner as
administrator of the estate of Pablo and Antonia Sevillo, the
fact remains that he represents the same heirs.

the Fortunados consented to his appearance for Lopez.

BAUTISTA VS GONZALES
Facts:
- Angel Bautista filed a complaint against Ramon Gonzales for the following
acts:
o Accepting a case where he agreed to pay all expenses for a contingent
fee of 50% of the value of the property in litigation;
o Acting as counsel for the Fortunados in a case where Eugenio Lopez, Jr.
is one of the defendants and, without said case being terminated, acting
as counsel for Lopez in another case;
o Transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the
Fortunados, which properties are the subject of the litigation,
while the case was still pending;

o Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a

contract with him for the development of the land involved in a
case into a residential subdivision, claiming that he acquired fifty
percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney's fees from the
Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was
already sold at a public auction;
o Submitting to the CFI falsified documents purporting to be true
copies of "Addendum to the Land Development Agreement" and
submitting the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon
City, in connection with the complaint for estafa filed by
respondent against complainant. Issue:

- Third act, the Court said that such is a violation of Art. 1491 of the Civil
Code, which prohibits a lawyer from buying/acquiring the property of his
clients which is the subject of a pending case. This Court has held that the
purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or interest in litigation is a
breach of professional ethics and constitutes malpractice. And although
the Code of Professional Responsibility does not anymore contain
Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which states
that "[t]he lawyer should not purchase any interests in the subject
matter of the litigation which he is conducting," the Code still
provides that a lawyer should follow the laws of the Phil. At all times. By
acquiring the property in litigation, Gonzales has violated Art. 1491 of the
Civil Code and can be administratively punished for such violation.
- The SC held that in withholding such information, respondent failed to
live up to the rigorous standards of ethics of the law profession which
place a premium on honesty and condemn duplicitous conduct. The fact
that complainant was not a former client of respondent does not exempt
respondent from his duty to inform complainant of an important fact
pertaining to the land which is subject of their negotiation.
- Lastly, the SC held that the original copies of the documents Gonzales
submitted were false because they bore the signatures of the Fortunados
when, in fact, they did not sign the original copy but only a photocopy of
the original. Such conduct constitutes willful disregard of his solemn duty
as a lawyer to act at all times in a manner consistent with the truth. A
lawyer should never seek to mislead the court by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law.

The Insurance Life Assurance Co. Employees

Assoc. v. Insular Life Assurance Co.

W/n Gonzales should be punished for these acts.

Held:

Facts:

- Yes, SC suspends him for 6 months.

The Employees Assoc. Files before the CIR a complaint for

unfair labor practice against the Company. The CIR then dismissed
such complaint. In its decision, CIR Judge Martinez misquoted a SC
decision in the case of Lopez Sr v. Chronicle Publication Employees
Assn: (1) 60 words of the paragraph quoted by Martinez do NOT
appear in the original;

- For the first allegation, the SC pointed out that a lawyer may indeed
advance expenses of litigation but such payment should be subject to
reimbursement. In this case, the contingent fee agreement between the
Fortunados and Gonzales did not provide for such reimbursement. Such
contract is against public policy because it gives undue leverage in favor of
the lawyer.
- Second, the Court found that Gonzales did not violate any law because

(2) Martinez used For it is settled that...; the original reads, For
it must be remembered... (3) Last sentence in the quoted
paragraph of Martinez is actually part of the immediately

succeeding paragraph in the SC decision.

In the respondents brief, counsels for respondents quoted the
CIRs decision
Issue:
Whether or not the Judge and the respondents counsel are
liable for contempt.
Held:
No. The Judge and the respondents counsel are not liable for
contempt.
In citing SCs decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of
courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same wordfor-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. This
is because only the decisions of this Honorable Court establish
jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction. (Miranda v.
Imperial).
However, there was good faith in both the Judge and the
respondents counsel, hence their action is not liable for contempt.

ADEZ VS CA
FACTS:

In a petition for reconstitution of title over a parcel of land, Atty.

Dacanay cites Section 13 of R.A. 26 which provides that notice should be
given to the occupants or persons in possession of the property.
Compliance is a material requirement for granting petition for
reconstitution of title.
However, when he cited the decision of the CA in
Adez Realty v. Honorable Judge of RTC Morong Rizal, the phrase
without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez
Realty was omitted.
Thus, the court directed Atty. Dacanay to show cause when he
should not be disciplined.
Atty. Dacanay reasoned that it was a practice for him to dictate to
this secretary, Alicia Castro. And if portions of decision have to be quoted,
he simply instructs her to copy the particular pages. Basically, he was
saying it was the secretarys fault for omitting the phrase. An affidavit of
Castro was also given in court, supporting his defense.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Dacanay is guilty of falsification of judicial record.
RULING:
Yes, he is guilty.
Making the law office secretary, clerk or messenger the scapegoat
for any mistake is a common alibi of practicing lawyers. Also, it is also
suspicious that a secretary could have omitted the phrase without notice
to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty, without the counsel
dictating it word for word and when it is an essential element to the
original case.
Lawyers are duty-bound to check, review and recheck the
allegations in their pleadings, more particularly the quoted portions to
ensure their accuracy. If the client is bound by the acts of the counsel,
with more reason should the counsel be bound by the acts of his secretary
who merely follows his orders.
In this case, there was not merely a mere carelessness on
Atty. Dacanays part, but also a malicious attempt to gain undue
advantage in the original case. Rule 10.02 of the CPR directs that a
lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper or the text of a decision or authority. The distortion of the CA ruling
is a grave offense and should not be treated lightly because it is an
attempt to misguide the last forum for appeal, the SC.
Atty. Dacanay is disbarred

ETERNAL GARDENS v CA
Facts:
Seelin spouses filed a case against Central Dyeing for quieting
of title. The spouses won and the decision in their favor became final an
executory.
When the spouses filed a Motion for an Immediate Writ of
Possession, Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp opposed claiming that it
is the true and registered owner of the propertyhaving bought the same
from Central Dyeing in good faith. It also argued that it was not bound by
the decision since it was not impleaded in the case.
But the trial court favored the spouses and dismissed Eternal
Gardens claim since the judgment (in the queting of title case) was
binding upon the latter, being the successor-in-interest of Central Dyeing.
The CA, on the same grounds, denied Eternal Gardens appeal.
So Seelin spouses filed for a second writ of execution. Dahil sa
makulit (not to mention optimistic) si Eternal Gardens, nag-file pa ito ulit
ng motion reconsideration. It further contended that since there is a

pending issue on possession (a different case), such should first be

resolved before a writ of possession be issued to the spouses.
Said motion was initially granted but was later denied. So nagfile ng certiorari si Eternal sa CA. And of course, they filed the case to the
SC, essentially with the same arguments.
Issue:Is Eternal Gardens bound by the decision in the quieting of title
case?
Held:Yes. Having admitted that they bought the property from
Central Dyeing, Eternal Gardens is the formers successor-ininterest who will be bound by the judgment. Moreover, being a
transferee, it does not have to be included or impleaded by
name in an action against the transferoraccording to the
Rules of Court. As to the fear that owners of the grave lots will be
disturbed by the writ, the order of the court shows that it took into
account the interests of such lot ownersin fact certain limits were
provided. Hence, the execution of the judgment need not
necessarily desecrate these properties.
LEG PROF:
The case has delayed the execution of a final judgment for 17 years. While
lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients rights, they
should not forget that they are officers of the court, bound to exert every
effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. They
should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or
unduly delay a case, or impede the execution of a judgment.

IN RE ALMACEN
FACTS:

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen (passed the bar in 1941) was counsel
for the defendant in the case of Virginia Yaptinchay v. Antonio H
Calero. It was a civil case which the trial court decided against
Atty. Almacens client. He then filed motion of reconsideration and
furnished a copy of it to the adverse party. Such copy however
failed to state the time and place of the hearing thereby making it
a useless scrap of paper. The lack of proof of service meant
failure to perfect the motion on time (Atty. Almacen served it late
and therefore had no more time to correct his misteke). The issue
was raised to the CA who agreed with the plaintiff in the case that
it should be dismissed. Atty. Almacen then raised the issue on
certiorari to the SC who rejected it via minute resolution.
It was at this point that Atty. Almacen expressed his
disappointment over the SC via filing a Petition to Surrender

Lawyers Certificate of Title where he would surrender his

certificate to the Clerk of Court to be held in trust until the time
comes when he shall regain faith and confidence in the SC once
again and therefore resume his practice of the noblest profession.
Such petition also contained lengthy accusations of constitutional
violations and saying that the justice administered by the SC was
not only blind but also deaf and dumb. Asked to show cause as
to why he should not be disciplined for his actions he replied with
an answer that was undignified, cynical embellished with sarcasm
and innuendo, saying things like:
We condemn the SIN not the SINNER. We detest the ACTS not
the ACTOR. We attack the decision of this Court, not the members.
x x x We were provoked.
Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications
for JUSTICE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY and FAIRNESS? Did His
Honors attempt to justify their stubborn denial with any semblance
of reason, NEVER.
Atty. Almacen also quoted the bible as opening statement; But
why doust thou see the speck in thy brothers eye, and yet dost
not consider the beam in thy own eye? x x x Thou hypocrite, first
cast out the beam from thy own eye, and then thou wilt see clearly
to cast out the speck from thy brothers eys. Basically, Atty.
Alamacen felt extremely bitter at his motion being denied and the
reason for such denial being delivered only through a minute
resolution.
RULING:
First off, the SC justified the need to reject numerous appeals with
an outright denial or minute resolution. Were we to accept every
case or write a full opinion for every petition we reject we should
be unable to carry out effectively the burden placed upon us by the
Constitution. The SC only accepts those cases which present
questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance
beyond the particular facts and parties involved.
Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until further
notice. The Supreme Court emphasizes that it is the RIGHT and
RESPONSIBILITY of every lawyer to criticize the decision of the
Court but such criticism must be decent and proper. A critique of
the court must be intelligent and discriminating fitting to its high
function as the court of last resort. Any time after this suspension
becomes effective Atty. Almacen may prove to this Court that he is
once again fit to resume the practice of law. (We assume by
apologizing because he was unapologetic when he was asked to
explain why he shouldnt be disciplined.)

ZALDIVAR V. GONZALES
FACTS:
Petitioner Zaldivar is one of several defendants in Criminal Cases
Nos.
12159-12161 and 12163-12177 (for violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) pending before the Sandiganbayan. The
Office of the Tanodbayan conducted the preliminary investigation
and filed the criminal informations in those cases (originally TBP
Case No. 86-00778).
On 10 September 1987, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition
for Certiorari, Prohibition and mandamus (G.R. Nos. 79690-707)
naming as respondents both the Sandiganbayan and Hon. Raul M.
Gonzalez. Among other things, petitioner assailed: (1) the 5
February 1987 Resolution 1 of the "Tanodbayan" recommending
the filing of criminal informations against petitioner Zaldivar and
his co-accused in TBP Case No. 86-00778; and (2) the 1
September 1987 Resolution 2 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
Cases Nos. 12159-12161 and 1216312177 denying his Motion to
Quash the criminal informations filed in those cases by the
"Tanodbayan." In this respect, petitioner alleged that respondent
Gonzalez, as Tanodbayan and under the provisions of the 1987
Constitution, was no longer vested with power and authority
independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for
graft and corruption against public officials and employees, and
hence that the informations filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 1215912161 and 12163-12177 were all null and void.
On 9 February 1988, petitioner Zaldivar filed with the Court a
Motion to Cite in Contempt 11 directed at respondent Gonzalez. The
Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent Gonzalez in: (1)
having caused the filing of the information against petitioner in
Criminal Case No. 12570 before the Sandiganbayan; and (2)
issuing certain allegedly contemptuous statements to the
media in relation to the proceedings in G.R. No. 80578 .
ISSUE:
WN Gonzales is liable for the contemptuous statements?
HELD:
This Court is compelled to hold that the statements here made by
respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for the
exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court.
Respondent's statements, especially the charge that the Court
deliberately rendered an erroneous and unjust decision in the

Consolidated Petitions, necessarily implying that the justices of this

Court betrayed their oath of office, merely to wreak vengeance
upon the respondent here, constitute the grossest kind of
disrespect for the Court. Such statements very clearly debase and
degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire
system of administration of justice in the country. That
respondent's baseless charges have had some impact outside the
internal world of subjective intent, is clearly demonstrated by the
filing of a complaint for impeachment of thirteen (13) out of the
then fourteen (14) incumbent members of this Court, a complaint
the centerpiece of which is a repetition of the appalling claim of
respondent that this Court deliberately rendered a wrong decision
as an act of reprisal against the respondent.
MONTECILLO V. GICA
FACTS:
Atty. del Mar represented Montecillo in a deflation case
against Gica. The RTC ruled in favor of Montecillo however CA
reversed the decision. Atty. del Mar moved for reconsideration of
the CAs decision with veiled threats by mentioning the provisions
of RPC on knowingly rendered unjust judgment and judgment
rendered through negligence, and the innuendo that the CA
allowed itself to be deceived. CA admonished del Mar to remember
that threats and abusive language cannot compel any court to
grant reconsideration. On the second motion of del Mar, he
insinuated that he will bring the matter to the President of the
Philippines and reiterated his threats. He was asked to explain
within 10 days why he should not be punished. He responded by
saying that the court cannot be threatened and also sent a letter
to the Justices informing that he already sent the letter to the
President. He also reminded them of another civil case he had
against the justices of SC. He was found guilty if contempt by the
CA and condemned to pay a fine (200) and ordered to be
suspended from the practice of law. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. del Mar is guilty of contempt of court
HELD:
YES.
1. It may appear that second only to the duty of maintaining
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines , is the duty of all
attorneys to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of
justice and judicial officer but it is of paramount importance. A
lawyer must always remember that he is an officer of the court

exercising a high privilege and serving in the noble mission of

administering justice.
2. A just man can never be threatened is not at all true. Any man,
just or unjust, can be threatened. If he is unjust, he will succumb,
if he is just, he will not.
3. A lawyer facing contempt proceedings cannot just be allowed to
voluntary retire from the practice of law, an act which would
negate the inherent power of the court to punish him for contempt
in defense of its integrity and honor. His accusations tend to erode
the peoples faith in the integrity of the courts of justice and in the
administration of justice. (He wanted to retire because of old age
but the court did not allow it.)
PEOPLE v. JARDIN (CANON 12)
FACTS:
The criminal prosecutions originated from a lettercomplaint 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.

ATTY PAGUIA: SANDIGANBAYAN V ESTRADA

Facts: Atty. Paguia is the counsel of Joseph Estrada in the case of Estrada
vs. Arroyo. Atty. Paguia asserts that the members of the Supreme Court
should inhibit themselves from hearing the petition because of Rule 5.10
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from
participating in partisan political activities. According the Atty. Paguia, the
justices have violated the rule by participating in the EDSA 2 rally and
authorizing the assumption of office by President Arroyo.
The Sandiganbayan denied the petition and motion for reconsideration of
Atty. Paguia to dismiss all the criminal cases against Estrada. Atty. Paguia
attacked the decision of the Court in the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo by
saying: similar in the decisions involving admin. agencies, if the act of the
justices is lawful, it is the act of the Supreme Court, and if the act of the

judges is not lawful, it is not the act of the Supreme Court. As such, Atty.
Paguia asserts that the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo being unlawful in
view of Rule 5.10 of Code of Judicial Conduct, is not the act of the SC.

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;

Atty. Paguia repeated his assault on the court in both broadcast and print
media. For that reason, the court asked him to show cause why he should
not be sanctioned.

However, in a subsequent letter to the President the respondent retracted

and acknowledged his non observance of protocol of separation of
powers;

Issue: W/N Atty. Paguia should be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming.

In the end, the respondent asked for an apology from the members of the
Honorable Court.

Held: Atty. Paguia is sanctioned. He is indefinitely suspended from

practice of law.Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates the lawyer should observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. In liberally imputing
sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity,
and authority of the members of the court, Atty. Paguia has only
succeeded seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of
justice.
Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from making
such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion
for or against a party.
BUMANGLAD
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;

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.