Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 114 views

    Canon 10 Cases

    Uploaded by

    Tricia Low Sanchez
    1) In Tiongco v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court ruled that attorney Tiongco violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his harsh criticism of a judge's decision, using offensive language. 2) In Sanggalang v. IAC, the Supreme Court also found an attorney in contempt for using intemperate and accusatory language against a court in a motion, suggesting possible graft and corruption. The attorney was suspended for 3 months. 3) In Gabionza v. CA, the Supreme Court found that amending dates in an information four years later was not a substantial amendment, only a matter of form, and did not violate the defendant's rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Canon 10 Cases

    Uploaded by

    Tricia Low Sanchez
    114 views3 pages
    1) In Tiongco v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court ruled that attorney Tiongco violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his harsh criticism of a judge's decision, using offensive language. 2) In Sanggalang v. IAC, the Supreme Court also found an attorney in contempt for using intemperate and accusatory language against a court in a motion, suggesting possible graft and corruption. The attorney was suspended for 3 months. 3) In Gabionza v. CA, the Supreme Court found that amending dates in an information four years later was not a substantial amendment, only a matter of form, and did not violate the defendant's rights.

    Original Description:

    cases related to canon 10

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) In Tiongco v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court ruled that attorney Tiongco violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his harsh criticism of a judge's decision, using offensive language. 2) In Sanggalang v. IAC, the Supreme Court also found an attorney in contempt for using intemperate and accusatory language against a court in a motion, suggesting possible graft and corruption. The attorney was suspended for 3 months. 3) In Gabionza v. CA, the Supreme Court found that amending dates in an information four years later was not a substantial amendment, only a matter of form, and did not violate the defendant's rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    114 views3 pages

    Canon 10 Cases

    Uploaded by

    Tricia Low Sanchez
    1) In Tiongco v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court ruled that attorney Tiongco violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his harsh criticism of a judge's decision, using offensive language. 2) In Sanggalang v. IAC, the Supreme Court also found an attorney in contempt for using intemperate and accusatory language against a court in a motion, suggesting possible graft and corruption. The attorney was suspended for 3 months. 3) In Gabionza v. CA, the Supreme Court found that amending dates in an information four years later was not a substantial amendment, only a matter of form, and did not violate the defendant's rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Tiongco v.

    Aguilar
    240 SCRA 589 (1995)
    Facts:
    After
    After respondent judge ruled against petitioners
    Atty. Tiongco and his wifes case for recovery of
    possession and damages, petitioner was charged
    for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility. He characterized the decision of
    respondent Judge as having been crafted in
    order to fool the winning party; as a
    hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs favour; one
    with perfidious character; and one which "you
    could have sworn it was the Devil who dictated
    it".
    Tiongco described respondent Judge as a liar,
    perjurer or blasphemer. He also called the
    respondent judge a "robber," "rotten
    manipulator," "abettor" of graft and corruption,
    and "cross-eyed."
    Issue:
    Is Tiongcos act of criticizing the Judges
    judgment a violation of Canon 11 of the Code of
    Professional Responsibility?
    Ruling:
    Yes. Tiongcos criticism of the Judges
    judgment violated Canon 11 of the Code of
    Professional Responsibility, as well as the
    lawyers oath and Rules of court.
    Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility states that a lawyer shall observe
    and maintain the respect due to the courts and
    to judicial matters, and should insist on similar
    conduct by others
    The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely
    entwined with his vow in the lawyers oath to
    conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity
    to the courts, and his duty under Section 20(b)
    of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court to observe and
    maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
    and judicial officers.
    It does not, however, follow that just because a
    lawyer is an officer of the court, he cannot
    criticize the courts. That is his right as a citizen,
    and it is even his duty as an officer of the court
    to avail of such right. Nevertheless, such a right

    is not without limits. Such freedom of speech and


    of expression in the Bill of Rights of the
    Constitution must be exercised responsibly. As
    one who is aware of the responsibilities of being
    in the legal profession, he exceeded the bounds
    of decency in putting forth his criticism when he
    falsely and maliciously insinuated against the
    Court, particularly the Members of the First
    Division, and the obvious scurrilous
    characterizations of the respondent judge.
    Because of his anger for the unfavorable court
    decision, he used unnecessary, offensive and
    abrasive language is totally uncalled for and
    jeopardizes the high esteem in courts while
    undermining the confidence of the people in the
    integrity of the members of the Court.
    Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5,000
    plus warning.
    >>>>>>
    Sanggalang vs IAC
    177 SCRA 87
    Facts: After the court ruled against his clients in
    the case, Att. Sangco filed a motion for
    reconsideration which became grounds for
    charges for contempt against the latter due to
    his disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled for
    remarks and for suggesting that the Court might
    have been guilty of graft and corruption. In the
    same motion, he questioned the Court's
    competence and integrity and raised its manifest
    partiality towards the opposing party.
    Issue:
    Are the actuations of Atty. Sancgo proper
    grounds for contempt?
    Ruling:
    Yes, the acts of Atty. Sangco are punishable
    under Section 1, of Rule 71, of the Rules of Court
    treating Direct contempt.
    Using intemperate and accusatory language
    against the court by a lawyer, who is likewise an
    officer of the court, should not go unpunished.
    His suggestions that the Court might be guilty of
    graft and corruption is not only unbecoming , but
    comes as an open assault to the Courts honor
    and integrity, who upon rendering its judgment
    only yielded to records alone and not to outside
    influences. Being a former judge Atty Sangco

    could have demonstrated due empathy to the


    courts in rendering judgments.
    Apart from such, his act also constitutes
    malpractice as the term is defined by Canon 11
    of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
    states that A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND
    MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
    AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS.
    As well as of Rule 11.03 and Rule 11.04 dictating
    that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
    offensive or menacing language or behavior
    before the Courts, and not to attribute to a
    Judge motives not supported by the record or
    have no materiality to the case.
    Atty Sangco is SUSPENDED from the practice of
    law for three (3) months and ORDERED to pay a
    fine of P 500.00.

    Despite that, it believes that like any other right,


    the right of a lawyer to comment on or criticize
    the decision of a judge or his actuation is not
    unlimited. A publication in or outside of court
    tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or
    influence the courts in administering justice,
    destroy public confidence in them or bring them
    in any way into disrepute, transcends the limits
    of fair comment. Such publication or intemperate
    and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the
    lawyers duty to respect the courts, and are
    violative of Canon 11, Rule 11.04 and 11.05 of
    the code of professional responsibility.
    Thus records of the said reports were attached to
    the personal record of Atty Gomez, though
    without further action.
    >>>
    Maceda vs. Vasquez (G.R. No. 102781)

    Facts:
    In 1921, Atty. Feliciano Gomez lost an election
    protest case for the governorship of Laguna filed
    by Juan Cailles which reached the Supreme
    Court. Thereafter, at a public meeting at a fiesta
    celebration Gomez remarked that the Supreme
    Court sided with Cailles as a favor to then
    Governor-General Wood who was a friend of
    Cailles. Said statements were published in a
    newspaper and likewise substantiated by four
    affidavits.

    Facts: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed


    a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman
    against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz
    Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged that
    petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of
    service by certifying that all civil and criminal
    cases which have been submitted for decision for
    a period of 90 days have been determined and
    decided on or before January 31, 1989, when in
    truth and in fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no
    decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10
    criminal cases that have been submitted for
    decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that
    petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of
    service for 17 months.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Gomez is guilty of contempt?

    Issue: Whether or not the action of the


    respondent is filed in the proper venue?

    HELD:
    No. The Supreme Court decided not hold Gomez
    for contempt.

    Held:

    In re: Gomez
    43 Phil 376

    The Supreme Court ruled that litigants and


    lawyers should not be held to too strict an
    account for words said in the heat of the
    moment, because of dissatisfaction at losing
    cases, and that the big way is for the court to
    condone even contemptuous language. The rule
    in the more progressive jurisdictions is, that
    courts, when a case is finished, are subject to the
    same criticism as other people.

    No. criminal complaint against the judge arises


    from his administrative duties should be filed in
    the Supreme Court.
    A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is
    administratively liable to the SC for serious
    misconduct and criminally liable to the State
    under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious
    act.
    In the absence of any administrative action
    taken against him by the Court with regard to his

    certificates of service, the investigation being


    conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into
    the Courts power of administrative supervision
    over all courts and its personnel, in violation of
    the doctrine of separation of powers.
    Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively
    vests in the SC administrative supervision over
    all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding
    Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal
    trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only
    the SC that can oversee the judges and court
    personnels compliance with all laws, and take
    the proper administrative action against them if
    they commit any violation thereof. No other
    branch of government may intrude into this
    power, without running afoul of the doctrine of
    separation of powers.
    Respondent's act is violative of Rule 11.05
    stating that a lawyer shall submit grievances
    against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
    Complaints against Judges and Justices should be
    filed in the SC through OCA (office of Court
    Adminsitrator) if case is administrative in nature;
    and to the Office of Ombudsman if complaint is
    criminal and not purely administrative in nature.
    But criminal complaints against Judges in
    connection with their duties should be lodged in
    the SC, not in the Ombudsman.
    In this case, the criminal complaint against the
    judge arises from his administrative duties, and
    thus should be rightful for the Ombudsman to
    defer action and refer the same to the SC for
    determination whether said judge or court
    employee had acted within the scope of their
    administrative duties.
    >>
    Gabionza vs CA
    G.R. 140311; March 30, 2001
    Facts:
    Petitioner Gabionza was accused for violating
    Sec. 22, pars. (a) and (d), in relation to Sec. 28,
    par. (e), of RA 1161 for willfully' unlawfully failing
    and refusing to remit to the Social Security
    System (SSS) contributions for SSS, Medicare
    and Employee Compensation (EC) and its
    corresponding penatly. Four years after his
    arraignment, the public prosecutor filed a Motion
    for Leave of Court to Amend Information, to

    change the material dates stated in the


    Information which the Petitioner opposed stating
    the
    amendment was substantial in nature, and
    allowing the same would be a violation of his
    right to be informed of the cause and nature of
    the accusation against him.
    Issue:
    Is the contention of Gabionza meritorious?
    Ruling:
    No, the contention of Gabionza is not
    meritorious. The RTC granted the motion and
    allowed amendment of the Information, ruling
    that the amendment pertained only to matters of
    form. It is not even necessary to state in the
    Information the precise time the offense was
    committed.
    Jurisprudence allows amendments to information
    so long as: (a) it does not deprive the accused of
    the right to invoke prescription;(b) it does not
    affect or alter the nature of the offense originally
    charged (c) it does not involve a change in the
    basic theory of the prosecution so as to require
    the accused to undergo any material change or
    modification in his defense;(d) it does not expose
    the accused to a charge which would call for a
    higher penalty;and, (5) it does not cause surprise
    nor deprive the accused of an opportunity to
    meet the new averment.
    This is to ensure speedy and efficient
    administration of Justice in accordance with
    Canon 12 of the code of professional
    responsibility.
    In the case at bar, it is clear that the questioned
    amendment is one of form and not of substance.
    The allegation of time when an offense is
    committed is a matter of form, and is not a
    material ingredient of the offense. Thus,
    petitioner's argument that the amendment
    prejudiced his rights is untenable.
    Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in
    support of his allegation that the amendment
    would adversely affect his rights. In fact, the
    penalty imposed for this violation is constant at
    six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
    years, regardless of the number of infractions.

    You might also like