Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 375 views

    Molina vs. Magat

    Uploaded by

    Charlou Gala
    Atty. Magat represented a client, de Leon, in criminal cases filed against de Leon. Atty. Magat then filed a motion to dismiss one of the criminal charges against de Leon claiming double jeopardy due to a similar case, but no such similar case existed. The court found Atty. Magat deliberately misled the court in his motion in violation of rules against false statements by lawyers. The court ruled lawyers must maintain high standards of ethics, honesty and integrity and not make false statements in pleadings.

    Copyright:

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

    Molina vs. Magat

    Uploaded by

    Charlou Gala
    375 views1 page
    Atty. Magat represented a client, de Leon, in criminal cases filed against de Leon. Atty. Magat then filed a motion to dismiss one of the criminal charges against de Leon claiming double jeopardy due to a similar case, but no such similar case existed. The court found Atty. Magat deliberately misled the court in his motion in violation of rules against false statements by lawyers. The court ruled lawyers must maintain high standards of ethics, honesty and integrity and not make false statements in pleadings.

    Original Title

    molina-vs.-magat.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Magat represented a client, de Leon, in criminal cases filed against de Leon. Atty. Magat then filed a motion to dismiss one of the criminal charges against de Leon claiming double jeopardy due to a similar case, but no such similar case existed. The court found Atty. Magat deliberately misled the court in his motion in violation of rules against false statements by lawyers. The court ruled lawyers must maintain high standards of ethics, honesty and integrity and not make false statements in pleadings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    375 views1 page

    Molina vs. Magat

    Uploaded by

    Charlou Gala
    Atty. Magat represented a client, de Leon, in criminal cases filed against de Leon. Atty. Magat then filed a motion to dismiss one of the criminal charges against de Leon claiming double jeopardy due to a similar case, but no such similar case existed. The court found Atty. Magat deliberately misled the court in his motion in violation of rules against false statements by lawyers. The court ruled lawyers must maintain high standards of ethics, honesty and integrity and not make false statements in pleadings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MOLINA VS.

    MAGAT

    Facts:

    The case stemmed from a complaint for disbarment filed by Rodrigo A. Molina (complainant) against Atty.
    Magat before the Court on May 5, 1978. The complaint alleged, among others, that complainant filed cases
    of Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority and Breach of the Peace and Resisting Arrest against
    one Pascual de Leon (de Leon) before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila; that the counsel of record
    for accused de Leon in both cases was Atty. Magat; that a case for slight physical injuries was filed against
    him (Molina) by de Leon as a counter-charge and Atty. Magat was also the private prosecutor; that Atty.
    Magat subsequently filed a motion to quash the information on Assault upon an Agent of a Person in
    Authority on the sole ground of double jeopardy claiming that a similar case for slight physical injuries was
    filed in court by a certain Pat. Molina (Molina); that based on the record, no case of slight physical injuries
    was filed by Molina against de Leon; that Atty. Magat was very much aware of such fact as he was the
    counsel and private prosecutor on record of de Leon from the very start of the case way back on May 24,
    1974; that Atty. Magats act of filing the Motion to Quash was a malicious act done in bad faith to mislead
    the court, thus, a betrayal of the confidence of the court of which he is an officer; and that Atty. Magat
    likewise committed willful disobedience of the court order when he appeared as counsel for de Leon on two
    (2) occasions despite the fact that he was suspended from the practice of law.

    Held:

    Attorney; False and untruthful statements in pleadings. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those
    who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers are expected
    to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair
    dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients,
    in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
    Responsibility.
    Atty. Magat’s act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
    particularly Rule 10.01, which provides:

    Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
    mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

    The Court ruled that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court when he
    filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat should not
    make any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a similar case for
    slight physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a certification from that
    court that, indeed, a case was filed.

    You might also like