Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Ac 7474 Word

    Hochgeladen von

    Kuthe Ig Toots
    18 Ansichten10 Seiten
    Social Responsibilities

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    DOCX, PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    Social Responsibilities

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als DOCX, PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    18 Ansichten10 Seiten

    Ac 7474 Word

    Hochgeladen von

    Kuthe Ig Toots
    Social Responsibilities

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als DOCX, PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 10
    ATTYJUAN S. DEALCA Atty. Juan SDeslcs entered his appearance in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795, then pending in Regional Tiel Court Sorsogon Gity, presided by compisinant Judge Jose L. Madrid. Atty. Dealca sought to replace Arty, Vicente Judar who had filed 3 motion to withdrew as counsel for the acaised. But aside from entering his appearence as counsel for the acaised, Atty. Deals also moved that Criminal Case No. 2006-6795 be re- roffiedto another Branchof the RTC. Judge Madriddenied Atty, Deaka’s motiontore-raffiethroughan ‘order. The Court ruled that it will net allawthata caseberemovedtrom it just because of the personal sentiments of counsel whowas hot eventhe ‘original counsel of the itigart. And the motion of Atty. Deaica isan affront to the integrity of thisCour and the other Courts inthis provinceas hewould like itte appear that Jurisdiction over @Family Court caseis based on his whimsicaldictates This was so becuse Atty. Desics had filed Administrative as well as criminal cases agsinst this Presiding Judge which were sll dismissed by the Hon. Supreme COUrE for UTUEN fack OF Mert, This Is why he Should Not have acoepued this partiaiiar case'so as not to derail the smooth proceedings in this Court with his baseless motions fer inhibition. Its the lawyer's duty to appear on behalf of @ client In a case but not to appear for 3 client to remove 8 case from the Court. This is unethical precticein thenist order. In hiscomment-compisint, Atty. Dealcs asserted that Judge Madrid’sisasance of the February 14, 2007 order unconstitutionally and untawfully deprived the accused ofthe right to counsel, to due process and to a fairand impartiaitrial; that Jucige Madrid exhibited bias in faling to act on the motionto liftandsetaside the warrant of arrest issued against the accused, and that it should beJudge Madrid himsef who should be disbarred and accordingly dismissed fromthe Judiciary for grossignoranceof the law. ‘On July 17, 2007, the Court referred the matter to the ISP for appropriate investigation, report andrecommendation. Several months thereafter, the Court also indomed pertinent documents in connection with AM. OCA IPI No. 05- 2385-RTJ, entitled “Joseph Yap Ill v Judge Jose L. Madrid and ‘Court Stenographer Merlyn D. Dominguez, both of the Regional Trial Court Branch 51, Sorsogon City” The Court in Yapy. Judge Madrid dismissed for its lack of merit the administrative complaint agains Judge Madrid for allegedly falsfyingthe ‘Wanscript of stenographic notesof the hearing on March4, 2005 in Civilase No. 2001-6842 entitledJoseph D. Yap\, etal. v JosephH. Yap ll, but referred ‘tothe IBP for investigation, report and recommendationthepropensty of Atty, Dea ete fileadminigrative or criminal complaints againg judges and ‘court personnelwhenever decisions, orders or processes were issued adverselyte him and hiscliems. The ipiainants show that respondent Atty. JuanS. Dealcafiled by himself (1) Bar Matter No. 1197 and acting as counsel forthe complainants, (@)Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 04-2112-RTS; (2) OMB-L-C-05-0476-£; (4) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ and ()Adm. Matter OCAIPI No. 05-2191-RTJ These five (5) cases are factual evidence of the cases that respondenthad filed by himself and as counsel forthe complainants against court officers, judges and personnel as a consequence ofthe IBP Election and incidents in cases thatrespondenthad handled as counsel terthe parties in the said cases. All these four (4) cases are precipitated by the adverse ruling rendered by the court against the clients of the respondent that instead of resorting to the remedies available under the Rules of Procedure, respondent assisted his clients in filing administrative and criminal case against the judges and personnel of the court. Findings and Recommendation ofthe IBP: ISP Commissioner Salvader B. Hababag ultimately submitted his Report and Recommendstion finding Atty. Dealca guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Cade of Professional Responsibility by filing frivolous administrative and criminal complaints; and recommending that Atty. Dealca be suspended from the practice of law for one year because his motion to inhibit Judge Madrid was devoid of factual or legal basis, and was grounded on purely personal whims, + Issues (1) Did Atty, Dealea file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against judges and court personnel in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Cade of Professional Responsibility? (2) Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of Judge Madrid in Criminal Case No. 2008-6798? HELD: Asa lawyer, Atty, Dealcawas aware af his duty under his Lawyer's Oath otto initiate groundless false or unlawful suits. Theduty hasaiso been express embodied in Rule 1.03, Cancn 1 of the Codect Professional Responsibility thuswise: Rule 1.03—A lawyer shalinot, for arycorrupt motive or interest, encourageany suitor proceeding ordelaysnyman'scause. Atty. Deaica must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the proper administration of justice. He disregarded his mission because his filing of the unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge Madrid, increased the workload of the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in gaod faith. Atty. Dealca’s bringing of the numerous administrative and criminal complaints against judges, court personnel and his fellow lawyers did not evince any good faith on his part, considering that he made allegations against them therein that he could not substantially prove, and are rightfully deemed frivolous and unworthy of the Court's precious time and serious consideration. Repeatedly denying any wrongdoing in filingthe various complaints, Atty. Deaica had the temerity to confront even the Court with the following arroganttirade, towit: With due respect, what could be WRONG was the summary missalof cases filed against erring judges and courtpersonnel for lack of merit’, i.e. without even discussing the facts.and the lawof the case Atty. Dealca was apparently referring to the minute resolutions the Court could have promulgated in frequently dismissing his unmeritorious petitions. His arrogant posturing would not advance his cause now. He thereby demonstrated his plain ignorance of the rules of procedure applicable to the CourtThe minute resolutions have been issued for the prompt dispatch ofthe actions bythe Court. Whenever the Court then dismisses a petition for review for its lack of merit through a minute resolution, it is understood that the challenged decision or order, together with alll its findings of fact and law, is deemed sustained or upheldnd the minute resolution then constitutes the actual adjudication on the merits of the case. The dismissal of the petition, or its denial of due course indicates the Court’s agreement with and its adoption of the findings and conclusionsofthe courts quo. " Atty. Dealca violated Canon 41 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Atty. Dealcs maintains that Judge Madrid should have “in good grace inhibited himself” upon his motion toinhibit in order to preserve “confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. However, |B Commissioner Hababag has recommended that Atty. Desica be sanctioned for filing the motion to inhibit considering that the motion, being purely based on his personal whims, wes bereft of fectualand legal bases. + Inlight of theCANON 11nd 11.04; Al lawyers areboundto uphold thedignity and authority ofthe courts, and to promatecontidence in the fair administration of justice. 'tis the respect for the courtsthat guaranteesthe stability of the judidal Institution; elsewise, the institutionw auld beresting on averyshaky foundation, Worth stressing, too, isthat the rightof a partyto seek the inhibition or disqualification of judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the case must be balanced withthe latter's sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression, ‘Thus, it was incumbent upen Atty. Dealca to establish by clearand convincingevidence the ground of bias and prejudice in order to disqualify Judge Madrid from participatingin a particulartrial in which Atty, Dealca was participating as a counsel. The Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03 and Canon 11, Rule 11. 04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one year effective from notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen