Algura vs.

LGU of Naga City Whether or not petitioners Algura should be considered as indigent litigants
GR No. 150135 who qualify for exemption from paying filing fees.

Facts:
In 1999, the City of Naga demolished a portion of the house owned by
spouses Antonio and Lorencita Algura for allegedly being a nuisance as the Held:
said portion of the house was allegedly blocking the road right of way.
No, there was no hearing on the matter hence the case was remanded
In September, the spouses then sued Naga for damages arising from the back to the lower court. In this case, the Supreme Court reconciled the
said demolition (loss of income from boarders), which to the spouses is an provisions of Sec. 21, Rule 3 and Sec. 19, Rule 141 (then Sec. 16, Rule
illegal demolition. Simultaneous to their complaint was an ex-parte motion 141).
for them to litigate as indigent litigants. The motion was granted and the
spouses were exempted from paying the required filing fees. Sec. 21, Rule 3, merely provides a general statement that indigent litigants
may not be required to pay the filing fees. On the other hand, Sec. 19, Rule
In February 2000, during pre-trial, the City of Naga asked for 5 days within 141 provides the specific standards that a party must meet before he can
which to file a Motion to Disqualify Petitioners as Indigent Litigants. Under be qualified as an indigent party and thus be exempt from paying the
the Rules of Court (then Sec. 16, Rule 141), a party may be qualified as a required fees.
pauper litigant (for those residing outside Metro Manila) if he submits an
affidavit attesting that a.) his gross monthly income does not exceed If Sec. 19, Rule 141 (in this case, then Sec. 16, Rule 141) is strictly applied,
P1,500.00 (now not more than double the monthly minimum wage) and b.) then the spouses could not qualify because their income exceeds P1.5k,
he should not own property with an assessed value of not more than which was the threshold prior to 2000. But if Sec. 21, Rule 3 is to be
P18,000.00 (now not more than P300k market value). The City asserted applied, the applicant (the Spouses) should be given a chance in a hearing
that the combined income of the Alguras is at least P13,400 which is way to satisfy the court that notwithstanding the evidence presented by the
beyond the threshold P1.5k. The City presented as proof Antonios pay slip opposing party (Naga), they have no money or property sufficient and
as a policeman (P10,400) and Lorencitas estimated income from her sari- available for food, shelter and other basic necessities for their family, and
sari store. The claim of the spouses that they were property-less, as proven are thus, qualified as indigent litigants under said Rule. Therefore, the
by the City Assessors Certification, was not disputed by the City. court should have conducted a trial in order to let the spouses satisfy the
court that indeed the income theyre having, even though above the P1.5k
The spouses argued that since the boarding house was demolished by the limit, was not sufficient to cover food, shelter, and their other basic needs.
city, they only relied on the income of Antonio which was barely enough to
cover their familys need like food, shelter, and other basic necessities for
them and their family (they have 6 children).

The judge, however, granted the motion of the City and so the spouses
were disqualified as pauper-litigants. Subsequently, the case filed by the GREGORY U. CHAN vs. NLRC COMMISSIONER
spouses against the City was dismissed for the spouses failure to pay the ROMEO L. GO and ATTY. JOSE RAULITO E. PARAS
required filing fees. A.C. No. 7547 September 4, 2009
Issue: Fact:
Gregory Chan filed a complaint against Commissioner Romeo Go of the
NLRC and Atty. Jose Raulito Paras for perpetrating acts unbecoming and
degrading to the legal profession in violation of the Code of Professional Go labelled Chans allegations as blatant lies. It was Chan who organised
Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, and Rules of Court. the meetings.
Petitioner alleged that respondents are influence paddlers who pride
themselves of being able to direct the outcome of cases pending the
NLRC. Petitioner complaint that respondents tried to extort money from him Issue: WON respondent are guilty of influence peddling
in behalf of Susan Que Tiu who has filed an illegal dismissal case against
him and his companies. He also narrated that Go would arranged meetings Held: No.
at expensive restaurants to perpetrate the allegations.
SC found no sufficient evidence to support the complaint. There is no proof
In the illegal dismissal case, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of Tiu and that respondents engaged in influence peddling, extortion, or in any
ordered Chan to pay her backwages, separation pay, unpaid commissions, unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. It is axiomatic that he
and 10% attorneys fees. NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters Decision, but who alleges the same has the onus of validating it.
removed the award of separation pay and ordered complainant to reinstate
Tiu to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. It was also noted by SC that the labor case of Tiu has already been
NLRC also denied the parties Motions for Reconsideration and sustained decided in the latters favor prior the alleged meetings and NLRC affirmed
its earlier Resolution. the decision of the labor arbiter. If respondent Go really agreed to influence
the outcome of the case, then the results would have been otherwise.
On June 5, 2007 or simultaneous with the filing of the present
administrative case, petitioner filed a case for Grave Misconduct against The receipt of the dinner meeting does not prove the presence of the
the defendants with the Office of the Ombudsman. Previously, he filed an respondents and that alleged representations was refuted by the affidavits
Estafa case against the group of Susan Tiu but the case was dismissed for of Apanay and Taculao. no proof was presented in support of the allegation
insufficiency of evidence. regarding the belittling or denigration of the legal profession and the NLRC.

On April 2007, Paras also filed a complaint against complainant Chan for Moreover, the present case was only filed after the lapse of 4 years since
Grave Oral Slander, Serious Slander by Deed, Grave Threats, and Alarms the alleged extortion or 2 years after the decision of NLRC. It gave the
and Scandals[ with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong. This impression that it was filed as leverage against the case for Grave Oral
is on the insults and invectives given by Complainant when his group Slander, Serious Slander by Deed, Grave Threats, and Alarms and
accidentally bumped onto him. Scandals (I.S. No. 07-71604-D) filed by Paras against complainant.

Going back to the dismissal case, the CA affirmed the resolution of the SC is convinced that Chan was the one who arranged the meeting to
NLRC and modified the monetary reward to PhP 737,757.41. convince Tiu to accept a lower settlement amount. There was no need for
respondents to get in touch with Chan since the case was ruled in favour of
Paras contends that the present case was only filed as leverage to the Tiu.
criminal case he filed against Chan. On the meetings enumerated, he was
not present to all the meeting and that he only attended a few as social SC does not believe that Chan met with respondent 6-7 times when Chan
dinner rather than a mediation for settlement. He also claimed that paid for the bills even if he alleged that his group was insulted and offended
omplainants charge of violation of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of by the repondents. Even after the decision of the NLRC was rendered, they
Professional Responsibility is misplaced as he was not a lawyer in the alleged that their group still met the respondents. Chans action are not in
government service at the time material to the acts complained of. accord with human behavior, logic, and common sense. At this time,
complainant would have known that respondents could not deliver on their
alleged promises to influence the outcome of the case in his favor; that
they were only trying to extort money from him, and abusing him for free Meanwhile, another lessee file a criminal case against the complainants
meals. As such, he should have stopped meeting them, or immediately and respondents for falsification. He claims that was also given the promise
filed criminal and/or administrative charges against them, or at the least, that the property will be offered to him before it will be sold to another, but
refused to foot the bill for their meals. respondents sold it to complainants without offering to him. Because of the
foregoing circumstances, complainants filed an administrative case against
The Court agrees with respondent Paras that complainants charge of respondent.
violation of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
is misplaced because he was not a government lawyer at the time material Issue:
to the acts complained of. Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

Chua vs. Mesina; Gross misconduct Held:

A.C. No. 4904. August 12, 2004 Yes, said the Court- "This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of
gross misconduct.
Facts:
Complainants Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Hsia administratively First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale
charged respondent Atty. Simeon M. Mesina, Jr., for breach of professional antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains taxes, he violated his
ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable malpractice. duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and not to abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as he
Complainants were lessees of the property of respondent's mother. did defraud not a private party but the government is aggravating.
Respondent's mother defaulted in paying a loan that she obtained in a
bank, thus respondent convinced complainants to help her mother if paying Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute another
the said obligation, to which the complainants acceded. It was agreed document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they made it appear
among that that in consideration for the act of complainants, the property that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he
which they are leasing will be transferred to their name. The complainants committed dishonesty.
complied with the terms of the agreement. A deed of sale concerning such
property was executed. Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own clients, the Chua
spouses, into turning over to him the owners copy of his mothers title
However, to evade liability for paying capital gains tax, respondent upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a deed of
instructed complainants to execute another deed of sale which will be sale executed by his mother in favor of complainants, he likewise
antedated 1979, wherein the capital gains tax was not yet in effective. committed dishonesty.
Subsequently, after the execution of the deed of sale, respondents
instructed his clients [complainants] to execute a simulated deed of sale That the signature of Felicisima M. Melencio in the 1985 document and
which will reflect that the property was re-conveyed to his mother. that in the 1979 document are markedly different is in fact is a badge of
falsification of either the 1979 or the 1985 document or even both.
The cunning acts of respondent did not end there. Respondent went to the
house of complainants and got the owners certificate of title of the said A propos is this Courts following pronouncement in Nakpil v. Valdez
property which is still under the name of her mother. he promised to the
complainants that he will process the transfer of the property to their name. As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the
Years passed, but respondent never returned the said title to the business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good
complainants. faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise
in his dealings with his client is a much higher standard that is required in
business dealings where the parties trade at arms length. Business RULING:
transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and Yes, Custodial Investigation is a procedural step after arrest where an
discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these accused have the right to be assisted by a counsel before making any
transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his action. It is stated in the law that the accused has right to be assisted
client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an by a counsel all the time after arrest. In this case there was no evidence
attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the credulity and showing that Esmenio De la Pena was assisted by his counsel when he
ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of innocence or improbability was asked to sign the receipt of the property seized which is the Caramel
of wrongdoing is considered in an attorneys favor. Pack. However, this error was held by the court as inadmissible and
proceeded to convict Esmenio
Respondent having welched on his promise to cause the reconveyance of
the Melencio property to complainants, consideration of whether he should PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MERCY SANTOS
be ordered to honor such promise should be taken up in the civil case filed y ENTIENZA, accused-appellant.
for the purpose, the issue there being one of ownership while that in the
case at bar is moral fitness. FACTS:
Charmaine Mamaril, a kindergarten pupil, was brought to school, the
Respondent ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR. is, for gross misconduct, Kaligayahan Elementary School, in Novaliches, Quezon City by her
hereby DISBARRED. mother, Raquel Mamaril, at noontime on March 8, 1993. Raquel left
Charmaine in her classroom with her classmates but stayed awhile, going
G.R. No. 92534 July 9, 1991 home only after 12:30 p.m. She would be going back for Charmaine,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. according to her daily routine, at 2:00 p.m. When she returned to fetch
ESMENIO DE LA PEA y BEDRIO, accused-appellant. Charmaine before 2:30 p.m., Charmaines teacher Ms. Grace Lucena, met
FACTS: and asked her if the child had already reached home; Raquel replied that
Sometime in March 1998, Lt. Eleuterio Salde of Narcotics Command, Charmaine did not know the way home. She then looked for her child in
Region IV, Iloilo City received a an information from a concern citizen school until someone informed her that a woman had earlier fetched her
reporting that one Esmie or herein accused Esmenio De la Pena was daughter. She immediately reported the matter to the police authorities
selling Marijuana in Punta Baluarte, Molo, Iloilo City. Immediately Lt. Salde stationed in Novaliches at around 3:00 p.m. and then to the National
organized a team ro conduct a buy-bust operation Bureau of Investigations the next day; she also approached radio and
Arriving at the directed place, the designated poseur buyer went to the sari- television stations for help. She and her family conducted their own search
sari store and inquired about one Esmie the child he inquired then pointed from then until her daughter was finally found on March 13, 1993.
out where Esmie. Sgt. Allaga, the poseur-buyer approach the accused Raquel recounted how her child was recovered. According to her, a police
and asked if he could get a score or a drug. Both of them engaged on a sergeant came to her house on March 13, 1993 and asked for her; he told
conversation regarding buying marijuana and reacting to it Esmie left Sgt. her to contact Kagawad Aida Bautista of Sto. Domingo. When contacted,
Allaga for a while and came back bringing with him a Caramel Cigarette Bautista informed her that a child named Charmaine was with her; Raquel
Pack containing the said marijuana. After seeing the pack contained with immediately went to Bautista with some identification papers of Charmaine,
marijuana Sgt, Allaga then immediately arrested Esmenio. and the child was turned over to her after showing the birth certificate. This
At the Narcom Headquarters, Lt. Salde placed identifying marks on occurred on a Saturday.
the confiscated Caramel Pack, he issued a receipt for the property Although Charmaines kidnapper was not immediately caught, the matter
seized and was signed by the accused Esmie did not end with the return of Charmaine to her familys bosom. Two days
ISSUE: later, on Monday, Bautista telephoned Raquel to tell her that the woman, a
Whether the signing of the property seized violated the right of the accused certain Mercy Santos, had returned to her place to claim
under custodial investigation? Charmaine. Raquel wasted no time notifying NBI Agent Roel Jovenir, who,
in turn and with other NBI agents, accompanied by Raquel and her investigation. Specifically, the prosecution failed to show that appellant
husband, proceeded to Bautistas place and arrested Santos. was, at that time, assisted by competent and independent counsel
ISSUE: preferably of her own choice.
WON the court erred in admitting in evidence the extra-judicial confession
of the accused despite the fact that it was elicited in violation of the
exclusionary rule on evidence.
HELD: PEOPLE VS. SANTICILDES
A confession is not admissible in evidence unless the prosecution Facts: On February 17, 1992, appellant was charged with the crime of
satisfactorily shows that it was obtained within the limits imposed by the rape of a girl less than 9 years old. Appellant contends that he was
1987 Constitution. Section 12, Article III thereof, provides: represented during trial by a person named Gualberto C. Ompong, who for
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall all intents and purposes acted as his counsel and even conducted the
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have direct examination and cross-examinations of the witnesses. On appeal,
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the however, appellant secured the services of a new lawyer, Atty. Igmedio S.
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with Prado, Jr., who discovered that Gualberto C. Ompong is actually not a
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence member of the bar. Appellant therefore argues that his deprivation of the
of counsel. right to counsel should necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 charged.
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it is The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, maintains that
subsequently tested for voluntariness, i.e., if it was given freely -- without notwithstanding the fact that appellant's counsel during trial was not a
coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false promises; and credibility, i.e., if member of the bar, appellant was afforded due process since he has been
it was consistent with the normal experience of mankind. given an opportunity to be heard and the records reveal that said person
A confession that meets all the foregoing requisites constitutes evidence of "presented the evidence for the defense with the ability of a seasoned
a high order because no person of normal mind will knowingly and lawyer and in general handled the case of appellant in a professional
deliberately confess to be the perpetrator of a crime unless prompted by and skillful manner."
truth and conscience. Otherwise, it is disregarded in accordance with the
cold objectivity of the exclusionary rule. Consequently, the burden of Issue: Whether or not the accused was deprived, though no fault of his
evidence to show that it was obtained through undue pressure, threat or own, to be defended by a person authorized to practice law amounting to
intimidation shifts to the accused. denial of due process.
Thus, the trial court erred in admitting appellants extrajudicial confession
without showing that Atty. Gordon Uy was indeed the competent and Held: The right to counsel of an accused is enshrined in Article III, Sections
independent counsel of appellants own choosing. The Court notes 12 and 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution. Such right is guaranteed to
appellants insistent and persistent disavowals of knowing said Atty. Uy, minimize the imbalance in the adversarial system where the accused
much less of retaining him as her counsel of choice. The prosecution, for is pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the State. Such a
unexplained reasons, failed to present Uy as a witness to show his role in right proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which
the taking of the alleged confession. basically means that a person must be heard before being condemned.
Therefore, the trial court had no basis for ruling that Atty. Uy rendered The due process requirement is a part of a person's basic rights; it is not a
independent and competent assistance to her as her counsel of choice mere formality that may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily.
during the investigation. The extrajudicial confession must be struck down
as inadmissible in evidence for failure of the prosecution to establish Hence, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of conviction and
observance of appellants constitutional rights during custodial ordered the remand of the case to the trial court for new trial.
 Whether or Not Senator Defensor Santiago, a member of the bar, should
The Supreme Court also directed the IBP to investigate Ompong's face disciplinary action for her controversial remarks against the Supreme
unauthorized practice of law. Court.
HELD:
No. The court ruled in favor of Defensor-Santiago in this case. The plea of
Senator Santiago for the dismissal (under the umbrella of parliamentary
POBRE vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO immunity) of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well
(A.C. No. 7399), August 25, 2009 taken. However the court reminded the lady Senator regarding her
Facts: responsibility as an attorney and as an officer of the court:
Petitioner Antero Pobre made aware to the court the contents of Senator No lawyer who has taken an oath to maintain the respect due to the courts
Miriam Defensor-Santiagos speech delivered on the senate floor. The should be allowed to erode the peoples faith in the judiciary. In this case,
following excerpts of her speech are as follows: the lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide:
am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I Canon 8, Rule 8.01.A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and Canon 11.A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by
[of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in others.
another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x. Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private
To Pobre, the foregoing statements reflected a total disrespect on the part capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or good
of the speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the demeanor,[15] a good character being an essential qualification for the
other members of the Court and constituted direct contempt of court. admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such
Accordingly, Pobre asks that disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary privilege. When the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of
actions be taken against the lady senator. Court speaks of conduct or misconduct, the reference is not confined to
In her comment on the complaint, Senator Santiago, through counsel, does ones behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of lawyers
not deny making the aforequoted statements. She, however, explained that professional duties, but also covers any misconduct, whichalbeit unrelated
those statements were covered by the constitutional provision on to the actual practice of their professionwould show them to be unfit for the
parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the office and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law invest
discharge of her duty as member of Congress or its committee. The in them.
purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open Petition DISMISSED.
controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial
legislation. She averred that she wanted to expose what she believed to be Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC August
an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council [JBC]. 19, 2009
The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on the provision Facts: Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, a former clerk of court of Branch 81 of
of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution, which provides: A Senator or Romblon, addressed a letter-query to the Office of the Court Administrator.
Member of the House of Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by It was related to Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 or the
not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held Employees, which prohibits public officials and employees from engaging
liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or during their incumbency in the private practice of their profession unless
in any committee thereof. authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not
ISSUE: conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.
Atty. Buffe questioned the provision giving preferential treatment to And it also violated the Section 7(b) (2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, as
incumbent public officials and employees as regards private practice, while amended (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
non-incumbents, according to the last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 6713, Employees), which places a limitation on public officials and employees
cannot practice their profession in connection with any matter before the during their incumbency, and those already separated from government
office they used to be with for a period of one year after resignation, employment for a period of one (1) year after separation, in engaging in the
retirement or separation from public office. Such question was due to the private practice of their profession.
fact that, within one year after her resignation from her position, she
engaged in the private practice of law by appearing as private counsel in
several cases before RTC-Branch 81 of Romblon. After review, the Court RE: REPORT ON THE A.M. No. P-06-2177
found that Atty. Buffe misinterpreted the law. The confusion lay in the use of FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED (Formerly A.M. No. 06-4-268-RTC)
the term such practice after the phrase "provided that" and the notion that ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO,
incumbent public officials and employees are absolutely permitted to the CLERK OF COURT IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ORAS, EASTERN
practice of their profession. By a thorough analysis of the provision, the SAMAR
Court pointed out the limitation that only those authorized by the
Constitution or law and those that do not conflict or tend to conflict with Facts: Atty. Raquel G. Kho a former clerk of court of RTC of Eastern
their official functions are allowed. Samar was found guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely
Issue: Did Atty. Buffe, as a lawyer, violate the rules governing the practice remittance of judiciary funds in his custody as required by OCA Circular No.
of law by means of her actions? 8A-94.
Held: Yes, the Court found Atty. Buffe guilty of professional misconduct and In his explanation Atty. Kho admitted that his failure to make a timely
was fined. She was also sternly warned that repetition of the violation shall remittance of the cash deposited with him was inexcusable. But maintained
be dealt with more severely. As ruled by the Court, by acting in a manner , that he kept the money in the courts safety vault and never once used it
that R.A. No. 6713 brands as "unlawful," Atty. Buffe contravened Rule 1.01 for his own benefit.
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In addition, by failing Issue: WON Atty. Kho violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
to live up to her lawyers oath, she also violated Canon 7 of the same Professional Responsibility.
Code. The following are the violated rules, to wit: Held: Yes. Atty. Khos apparent good faith and his ready admission of the
CANON 1 infraction, although certainly mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his
A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS failure to remit the fund for over a year was contrary to the mandatory
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93. That omission was a breach of his oath
PROCESSES x x x to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
Rule 1.01 authorities and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful Professional Responsibility:
conduct.
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Although there was the absence FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
of any formal charge against and/or formal investigation of an errant
lawyer, it did not preclude the Court from immediately exercising its RULE 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
disciplining authority, as long as the errant lawyer or judge has been given deceitful conduct.
the opportunity to be heard. In this case, Atty. Buffe has been afforded the As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to be
opportunity to be heard on the present matter through her letter-query and at the forefront of observing and maintaining the rule of law. They are
Manifestation filed before this Court. expected to make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation. This, in fact,
is what a lawyers obligation to promote respect for law and legal processes o But court still maintained previous order, counsel was also
entails. absent at that day
COURT denied the presentation of evidence
Atty. Raquel G. Kho is found GUILTY of unlawful conduct in violation of the Petitioner got a new counse, Attty. PAsamba filed an appeal. But by
Attorneys Oath, Section 20(a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Canon herself, filed for extension for 30 days
1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is ordered to o Same time, Atty. Pasamba filed an extension 45 days
pay a FINE of P5,000 within ten days from receipt of this resolution. o Atty. Pambasa asked to be relieved as counsel> ground:
Reyes v. CA
petitioner did not give records, and acted as her own
G.R. No. 11682
counsel
CA granted Atty. Pasamba
FACTS:
petitioner Zenaida Reyes was accused of falsifying a deed of sale CA: gave 30 days to file her brief
of four (4) parcels of land o Accoding to CA: appellant as a ground for invoking a new
o By signing the name of Pablo Floro, who could not affix his trial is the POLICY OF LIBERALITY IN THE APPLICATON
signature anymore due to age infirmity, OF RULES AND ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF HER
o She caused it to appear that Pablo FLoro participated in the COUNSEL
o Only grounds for new trial
execution of the deed of sale
o In truth> the DOS was not executed and signed by Pablo 1. Errors of law/irregularities prejudicial to substantial
Floro right
She pleaded not guilty> presentation of evidence > RESET 2. New and material evidence= probably change the
o Feb. 6, 1989 reset to Mar. 10, 1989 > for the last time judgment
o She wants the appellate court to bend over backwards to
o Due to ILLNESS
consider her case as an irregularity
Hearing on Mar. 10, 1989 was CANCELLED
o SHE WAS AFFORDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO
o Absence of prosecutor and defense counsel
PRESENT EVIDENCE
o New Schedule April 12, 1989
Apr. 12, 1989 > defense counsel was absent + petitioner (sick)
o Postponed to May. 17, 1989 > for the last time ISSUE: WON petitioner Reyes was denied of due process , since she
Defense counsel moved for postponement f the hearing on May 17, was denined the opportunity to present evidence, hence, claiming
1989 to June 5 ,1989 that her conviction by the trial court void.
o Assistance in the prosecution of her brother-in-laws killer in
bukidnon HELD:
o Though intransferrable in character the court nonetheless FIRST : whether the trial court properly held that she waived her right - NO
grant The postponement of the trial of a case to allow the presentation of
June 5 was resched> defense counsel tenorio absent evidence of a party is a matter which lies in the discretion of the trial court,
July 10, 1989, both petitioner and atty. Tenorio absent Based on record, the hearings were scheduled for 6differnt dates
1) February 6, 1989 petitioner sick
o COURT: declared petitioner to have waived the right to
(2) March 10, 1989; - prosecutor and defense counsel
present evidence
(3) April 12, 1989; - defense counsel absent + sick
4 days later, she sent a med cert (4) May 17, 1989; -asssistance in bukidnon
(5) June 5, 1989; and-defense absent
(6) July 10, 1989.-sick It was Atty. Tenorio's absences, then, rather than petitioner's, which
Though petioners absences were informed to the court by her counsel, the appear to be the cause for the defense's failure to present its evidence.
absences of her counsel were not. Atty. Tenorio simply disappeared without His negligence= not an error of procedure or lapse in
a trace strategy
There were warnings, specifiacally on June 5, that in their absence BASIC: failure to appear in court despite warning that
> right to present evidence will be considered deemed waived such absence would amount to a waiver of right
Petitioner had to soldier on and, by herself, had to plead with the
court for a chance to present her evidence.
For the Court, Reyes absences were not so many, capricious as to SECOND.- the CA observed that reyes is knowledgable of the law,
indicate an attempt to stall the proceedings. She might have tried to delay more than a layman knowleed- having been able to prepare her own
the filling of brief but her effort can be atibbuted to an understanble desire motion and brief
to be allowed to present evidence Court: But even lawyers, who are parties in a case, need the guiding hand
of counsel.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT: reyes was negligent Skill in drafting pleadings is vastly different from skill needed in the
She could not have been unaware of Atty. Tenorios absences courtoom
Despite that she did nothing to protect herninterest Preparing pleadinsg can be done through consultation of booksor
people. BUT TRIAL WORK DEMANDS MORE
Court: responsdents contention was exaggerated o Reuiqres ability to think fast on ones feet and fell te witness
Petitioner might have thought that her counsel would be more mood and motive
sedulous in her behalf.
Or perhaps petitioner tried to get another counsel, but failed and, IN SUM: It is better to allow petitioner another chance to present her
left with no choice, stuck it out with Atty. Tenorio and simply hoped evidence than to let her conviction stand based solely on the
for the best rather than be left without a counsel. evidence of the prosecution.
Her presence during mar. 17 and June 5 even when counsel was Petition Granted.
absent tends to negate intention to delay