10/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Philippine British Co., Inc. vs. De los Angeles

*
Nos. L-33720-21. May 21, 1975.

THE PHILIPPINE BRITISH CO., INC. and THE

CIBELES INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioners, vs.
THE HON. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES in his
capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch IV of the Court of
First Instance of Quezon City, THE HON. VICENTE S.
OCOL in his capacity as Clerk of Court of First Instance of
Quezon City and Ex-Oficio Sheriff of Quezon City and
MULTIFIELD ENTERPRISES and MOISES M. TAPIA,
respondents.

Attorneys; Candor; Counsel reminded to be more careful in his

dealings with the courts; Case at bar.—Counsel has expressed his
regrets and this is the first occasion that he has allowed his noted
zeal in the protection of the interests of his clients to obscure his
compliance with the duty to be strictly candid with the courts and
to accord good faith thereto unless he has clearly demonstrable
cause to act otherwise, the Court resolve to simply REMIND
counsel to be more careful henceforth in his dealings with the
courts.

RESOLUTION

BARREDO, J.:

Submitted for the consideration of the Court is the

Compliance and Explanation filed by Atty. Alfonso Felix,
Jr. pursuant to the dispositive portion of the decision in
these cases requiring said counsel to show cause why he
should not be dealt with administratively in consequence of
representations made by him in connection with the merits
of the cases of his client and with the actuations of the trial
judge

__________________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcdec43256e0f3905003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/3
10/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064

* SECOND DIVISION.

119

VOL. 64, MAY 21, 1975 119

The Philippine British Co., Inc. vs. De los Angeles

and the personnel of his court in these cases.

After going over the said explanation, the Court notes
that counsel has not been able to make it clear why there
was less than candor to the court in his allegations
regarding the merits of his clients’ cases, when it appears
rather evident that he was in possession of adverse
information or knowledge in regard thereto. Besides, the
contention of counsel that he has not actually received the
decision of the trial court, assuming it is factually true, is
no warrant for his insistence that it did not exist when the
trial judge ordered execution thereof.
Considering, however, that counsel has expressed his
regrets and this is the first occasion that he has allowed his
noted zeal in the protection of the interests of his clients to
obscure his compliance with the duty to be strictly candid
with the courts and to accord good faith thereto unless he
has clearly demonstrable cause to act otherwise, the Court
resolved to simply REMIND counsel to be more careful
henceforth in his dealings with the courts.

          Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino and

Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Counsel reminded to be more careful in his dealings with

the courts.

Notes.—a) Duty of lawyers to maintain respect for the

courts and judicial officers.—To aged brethren of the bar it
may appear belated to remind them 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 officers. But We do remind them of said
duty to emphasize to their younger brethren its 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. (Montecillo
vs. Gica, L-36800, October 21, 1974).
b) Requisites for practice of law.—The practice of law is a
privilege accorded only to those who measure up to certain

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcdec43256e0f3905003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/3
10/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064

rigid standards of mental and moral fitness. For the

admission of a candidate to the bar the Rules of Court not
only prescribe a test of academic preparation but require
satisfactory

120

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzales vs. De Roda

testimonies of good moral character. These standards are

neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission; the
lawyer must continue to adhere to them or else incur the
risk of suspension or removal. (In Re: Disbarment
proceedings against Atty. Diosdado Q. Gutierrez, Adm.
Case No. L-363, July 31, 1962).

-----o0o-----

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcdec43256e0f3905003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/3