Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
LOURDES OLIVEROS
The presiding judge ordered Atty. Doronilla to put his Doctrine: A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon
statements into writing and file the appropriate pleading. Atty. his admission to the Bar that he will “do no falsehood nor
Doronilla however did not submit any pleadings after many consent to the doing of any in court” and he shall “conduct
weeks. Maligaya then filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
for "misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his
resulting [in] obstruction of justice," clients.” He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court
his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Darilla is guilty of his false and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving
statements? at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled
to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and
Held: Yes. pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to
defend his client’s rights and is expected to display the utmost
By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had zeal in defense of his client’s cause, his conduct must never be
agreed to withdraw his lawsuits, Atty. Doronilla breached these at the expense of truth.
peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not only that, he violated
the lawyer's oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing Facts:
of any in court," of which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but In a criminal case for murder, Atty. Young was the counsel for
restatements. His act infringed on every lawyer's duty to "never the plaintiff, Attys. Batuegas and Llantino were the counsel for
seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or the accused, and Atty. Susa was the clerk of court of RTC. Atty.
false statement of fact or law." Young, filed for disbarment against Attys. Batuegas, Llantino
and Susa for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court
WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. is hereby and violating the lawyer's oath in a criminal case for murder.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO MONTHS. He
is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct Attys. Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed for
shall be dealt with more severely. bail dated December 13, 2000, alleging that the "accused has
voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and now under
Note: Penalty is light because the SC gave him considerations. detention. Upon personal verification with the NBI where
accused allegedly surrendered, Atty. Young learned that he
“We need to consider a few circumstances that mitigate his
G01 2017-2018 3
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS ATTY. MA. LOURDES OLIVEROS
surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as shown by the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Attys.
Certificate of Detention. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino are found
guilty of committing deliberate falsehood. Accordingly, they are
Attys. Batuegas and Llantino contended that on December 13, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
their client, they filed for bail with the trial court. Then they act will be dealt with more severely.
immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to
the NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy traffic,
they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the CHERYL VASCO-TAMARAY V. ATTY. DEBORAH Z. DAQUIS
certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered [ANDAL]
on December 14, 2000. They argued that there was neither (26 January 2016)
unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleading as their
client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the NBI. FACTS:
- Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray (Vasco-Tamaray) filed a
As for Atty. Susa, he calendared the motion on December 15, Complaint Affidavit before the Integrated Bar of the
2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other formal defects, Philippines on July 30, 2007, alleging that respondent
namely, the lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant, Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis (Atty. Daquis) filed, on her
violation of the three-day notice rule. behalf, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
without her consent and forged her signature on the
In defense, Atty. Susa argues the inclusion of the motion in the Petition.
court's calendar on December 15, 2000 was authorized by the - She also alleged that Atty. Daquis signed the Petition for
presiding judge and, thus, was done by Atty. Susa in faithful Declaration of Nullity of Marriage as "counsel for
performance of his ministerial duty. petitioner," referring to Vasco-Tamaray.
- Vasco-Tamaray stated that Atty. Daquis was not her
Issue: W/N Attys. Batuegas, Llantino and Susa guilty of counsel but that of her husband, Leomarte Regala
deliberate falsehood and violated the lawyer’s oath. Tamaray.
of doing no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any production of documents to be reasonable and for the
falsehood in court as stated in the Lawyer's Oath. documents themselves to be relevant, the matter under inquiry
- Respondent violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10, should, in the first place, be one that the Ombudsman can
Rule 10.01 when she allowed the use of a forged legitimately entertain, investigate and rule upon.
In the
signature on a petition she prepared and notarized. present case, the matter that gave rise to the issuance of a
- Atty. Daquis violated Canon 17 because failed to protect subpoena duces tecum was a criminal complaint filed by the
the interests of her client when she represented complainants Lozano for the alleged violation by retired
complainant, who is the opposing party of her client Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. and retired
Leomarte Tamaray, in the same case. Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria -Martinez of Section 3(e) of
- Atty. Daquis was disbarred by the Supreme Court. R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act).
A simple jurisprudential research would easily reveal
that this Court has had the occasion to rule on the liability of
ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO V. ATTY. SALVADOR N. PE, JR., Justices of the Supreme Court for violation of Section 3(e) of
supra. R.A. 3019 the very same provision that the complainants
Lozano invoke in this case.
HELD/RATIO:
RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED JANUARY 11, 2010
OF ALEU A. AMANTE, PIAB-C, OFFICE OF THE 1. YES. The complainants appear to us to have brazenly
OMBUDSMAN [SIOCHI] misquoted and misused applicable constitutional provisions to
A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC (2 March 2010) justify their case against the retired Justices. We refer
particularly to their use (or strictly, misuse) of Article X, Section
FACTS: 2(3) of the 1973 Constitution which they claim to be the
The subpoena duces tecum issued by the Ombudsman has governing rule that the retired Justices should have followed in
been rendered moot and academic. In the appropriate case, the acting on Pael.
This constitutional provision states:
Cases
Office of the Ombudsman has full authority to issue subpoenas, heard by a division shall be decided with the concurrence of at
including subpoena duces tecum, for compulsory attendance of least five Members, but if such required number is not obtained
witnesses and the production of documents and information the case shall be decided en banc; Provided, that no doctrine
relating to matters under its investigation. The grant of this or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered
authority, however, is not unlimited, as the Ombudsman must en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by
necessarily observe and abide by the terms of the Constitution the Court sitting en banc.
For failure of the retired Justices to
and our laws, the Rules of Court and the applicable act according to these terms, the complainants claim that the
jurisprudence on the issuance, service, validity and efficacy of former subverted the Constitution by reversing, by a vote of a
subpoenas. Under the Rules of Court, the issuance of majority of only three members, the decision of the First Division
subpoenas, including a subpoena duces tecum, operates under unanimously approved by its full membership of five members.
the requirements of reasonableness and relevance. For the
Had the complainants bothered to carefully consider the facts
G01 2017-2018 5
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS ATTY. MA. LOURDES OLIVEROS
and developments in Pael and accordingly related these to the and its Members.
In our view, the complainants errors do not
applicable constitutional provision, they would have discovered belong to the genre of plain and simple errors that lawyers
that Pael was decided in 2003 when the 1987 Constitution, not commit in the practice of their profession. Their plain disregard,
the 1973 Constitution, was the prevailing Charter. They then misuse and misrepresentation of constitutional provisions
would have easily learned of the manner cases are heard and constitute serious misconduct that reflects on their fitness for
decided by Division before the Supreme Court under the 1987 continued membership in the Philippine Bar.
To emphasize
Constitution.
Section 4(3), Article VIII of this Constitution the importance of requiring lawyers to act candidly and in good
provides:
Cases or matters heard by a division shall be faith, an identical provision is found in Canon 22 of the Canons
decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the of Professional Ethics. Moreover, lawyers are sworn to do no
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court before they
issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without are even admitted to the Bar. All these the complainants appear
the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the to have seriously violated.
WHEREFORE, premises
required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en considered, we DISMISS the criminal complaint entitled Oliver
banc; Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by O. Lozano, et al. v. Hilario G. Davide, Jr., et al.,
the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be OMB-C-C-09-0527-J for utter lack of merit, and DECLARE as
modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
This MOOT and ACADEMIC the question of compliance with the
was the provision that governed in 2003 and still governs to this subpoena duces tecum dated January 11, 2010 that the
day. Thus, the complainants’ argument and basis for their Ombudsman issued against this Court.
We hereby ORDER
criminal complaint that in ruling on a motion for reconsideration, the complainants Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline
all five members of the Division should concur is totally wrong. Lozano- Endriano to EXPLAIN IN WRITING to this Court, within
a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt of this
Resolution, why they should not be penalized as members of
2. YES. In their criminal complaint, the complainants gave a the Bar and as officers of this Court, for their open disregard of
slanted view of the powers of this Court to suit their purposes; the plain terms of the Constitution and the applicable laws and
for these same purposes, they wrongly cited and misapplied the jurisprudence, and their misuse and misrepresentation of
provisions of the Constitution, not just any ordinary statute. As constitutional provisions in their criminal complaint before the
lawyers, the complainants must be familiar and well acquainted Office of the Ombudsman, entitled Oliver O. Lozano, et al. v.
with the fundamental law of the land, and are charged with the Hilario G. Davide, Jr., et al., OMB-C-C-09-0527-J.
duty to apply the constitutional provisions in light of their
prevailing jurisprudential interpretation. As law practitioners Note: See also Resolutions dated 15 June 2010 and March
active in the legal and political circles, the complainants can 2012
hardly be characterized as unknowing in their misuse and
misapplication of constitutional provisions. They should, at the
very least, know that the 1973 Constitution and its provisions
have been superseded by the 1987 Constitution, and that they Rule 10.03. Shall not misuse rules of procedure
cannot assail invoking the 1973 Constitution the judicial acts of
members of the Supreme Court carried out in 2003 when the FRANCISCO V. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES [MATIENZO]
1987 Constitution was in effect. Their misuse of the Constitution A.C. No. 10755
is made more reprehensible when the overriding thrust of their
criminal complaint is considered; they used the 1973 provisions
to falsely attribute malice and injustice to the Supreme Court
G01 2017-2018 6