4664273 cpr canons 13 digest

8/12/2019 4664273 CPR Canons 13 Digest

1/10

Zaldivar v. GonzalesSubject for resolution:

1.Motion dated Feb 9 1988 to cite in contempt filed by Zaldivar against publicrespondent Special prosecutor Gonale.

!.a resolution of t"is court dated May ! # 1988 re$uiring Gonale to s"o% cause%"y "e s"ould not be punis"ed from t"e motion above and or subjected toadministrative sanction for ma&ing public statements against t"e court.

Facts:

Zaldivar is one of t"e defendants in several criminal cases in t"e Sandiganbayan'S().*"e office of t"e *anodbayan'*() conducted t"e investigation and filed t"e criminal

information.Sept. 1+# 198,# Zaldivar filed a petition for certiorari# pro"ibition# and mandamus in t"e S-#

naming *( Gonale and S(.e assails t"e /esolution on Feb 0# 198, by t"e *( %"ic" recommended t"e filing of crim

info against Zaldivar and "is co accused. nd anot"er resolution on Sept 1# 198, of t"eS( denying "is motion to $uas" t"e crim info.

is main allegation is t"at respondent lac&s aut"ority because under t"e 198, consti# t"e *(no longer "ad po%er and aut"ority to investigate and institute crim cases for graft andcorruption against pub. officials and employees# independently.

So "e prays for t"e crim cases against "im to be declared null and void.Sept. 11# t"e S- issues a resolution as&ing respondent to comment on "is lac& of aut"ority#

and ordered S( to cease and desist from "earing t"e case against Zaldivar and from"earing and resolving t"e State 2rosecutor3s motion to suspend dated Sept. 4

*"e parties later filed t"eir o%n pleadings.

5ov. 19 Zaldivar filed a !

nd

petition for certiorari and pro"ibition in t"e S- naming Gonale#"e assails t"e Sept. !6 resolution on t"e *( recommending t"at additional crim c"argesbe filed against t"em.

*"is time# "e once again alleges t"e lac& of aut"ority of t"e *( and as&s for t"econsolidation of "is previous petition.

5ov. !6# a resolution by t"e S- %it"out giving due course to !ndpetition re$uired Gonaleto submit "is comment. */7 %"ic" ordered anot"er cease and desist of filing crim infofrom t"e prelim investigation %as inssued.

5ov !+# 6 days before t"e resolution# t"e office of t"e *( "as already instituted a crim case%it" t"e S( %"ic" later ordered an order of arrest for Zaldivar and "is co accused.

Zaldivar motioned and t"e court issued a resolution on ec. 8 saying: t"e etension forcomments is granted. t also no% considered t"e S( as party;respondent in pursuance ofand supplementing t"e */7 issued on 5ov. !6.

Solgen filed a comment on t"e petition. nd t"e S- re$uired petitioner to reply.Feb 9# 1988 Zaldivar filed a motion to cite in contempt against Gonales# alleging:

1."aving filed crim info against Zaldivar!.issuing certain contemptuous statements to t"e media in relation to t"e

proceedings 'i.e. in t"e 2"il. aily n$.: *"e S- */7 can aggravate t"et"oug"t t"at affluent persons can prevent t"e progress of a trial).


2/10

action against "im# and contumacious conduct %arranting application of t"e contemptpo%er.

5one. *"e court is dictinct from individual personalities. nd only asinvestigators in fulfilling t"eir mandate.

*"is is important because of t"e plea of Gonale of n"ibition or *ransfer# in "is assumptiont"at t"e courts %ill not "ear "im impartially.

n n re lmacen# lmacen %as %rong to ma&e it appear t"at t"e courts acted ascomplainants# prosecutors# and judges3 all rolled up into one. s t"e disciplinaryproceedings %ere sui generis# meaning# t"ey do not intend to punis"'civil or crim) butonly investigate t"e conduct of its officers. *"ere is no plaintiff nor defendant. *"e courtsonly as& for an accounting for "is actuations. So# t"ere is no occasion for t"e court to actas complainant or prosecutor. @ven if t"e courts are undeniably t"e aggrieved party# int"e eercise of its disciplinary po%ers# t"e court acts as an entity separate and distinctfrom t"e individual personalities of its members. So if t"ere need be a complainant# it%ould be t"e court and not its individual members. nd t"e constitution vests upon t"emt"is jurisdiction 'disciplinary po%ers)# public policy demands t"at t"ey act upon it.

S*, therefore, the court can+t inhibit themselves. *"ere is also no need for t"e courtsto disclaim any bias or prejudice t"at %ould prevent t"em from acting in accordance %it"t"e eacting re$uirements of t"eir oat"s of office. *"e court is compelled to eercise t"eirjurisdiction.


3/10

-ourt concludes Gonale to be guilty of contempt in facie curiae and of gross misconductas an officer of t"e court and member of t"e (ar. e is suspended from t"e practice of la%indefinitely and until furt"er orders of t"e court# effective immediately.

%atricia 4&G5(6*$, complainant vs. Simeon '$6$70*, 8r., respondent 9:;;


4/10

community. Moreover# for suc" conduct to %arrant disciplinary action# same must beDgrossly immoralE i.e. must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act orso unprincipled as to be repre"ensible to a "ig" degree. (ut (onifacia3s act ofimmediately distancing "erself from -arlos upon discovery of "is true civil statusbelies just t"at alleged moral indifference.

7n t"e matter of t"e falsified -ertificate of Marriage# "er ecuses arecontrary to "uman eperience and "ig"ly improbable. ny prudent la%yer %ouldverify t"e information contained in an attac"ment to "er pleading# especially so %"ens"e "as personal &no%ledge of t"at facts and circumstances t"erein. *"us# "er

defense of good fait" cannot stand. t is t"e bounden duty of la%yers to ad"ereun%averingly to t"e "ig"est standards of morality. *"eir ealted positions as officersof t"e court demand no less t"an t"at.

(strada v. S'Facts:

*"is case deals %it" t"e resolution of t"e court in a petition for certiorari under

rule =0 of t"e /ules of -ourt filed by Aosep" @strada# acting t"roug" "is counseltty. 2aguia# against t"e Sandiganbayan.

ttorney lan F. 2aguia# spea&ing for petitioner# asserts t"at t"e in"ibition oft"e members of t"e Supreme -ourt from "earing t"e petition is called for under/ule 0.1+ of t"e -ode of Audicial -onduct pro"ibiting justices or judges fromparticipating in any partisan political activity %"ic" proscription# according to"im# t"e justices "ave violated by attending t"e L@S ! /ally3 and byaut"oriing t"e assumption of ice;2resident Gloria Macapagal rroyo to t"e2residency in violation of t"e 198, -onstitution

2etitioner contends t"at t"e justices "ave t"ereby prejudged a case t"at %ouldassail t"e legality of t"e acts ta&en by 2resident rroyo. *"e re$uest of t"e movant is simply for t"e -ourt to include in its Aoint

/esolution t"e */B* of t"e acts of -"ief Austice avide# et al.# last Aanuary !+#!++1 in going to @S# aut"oriing t"e proclamation of rroyo as president andactually proclaiming GM as president.

Auly !# !++4 ; Sandiganbayan issued an order denying t"e foregoing motion# as%ell as t"e motion to dismiss# filed by petitioner. s a result petitioner filed amotion for reconsideration %"ic" %as also denied.

Auly 16# !++4 tty. 2aguia filed a motion for dis$ualification of t"e t%o

resolutions. '1stresolution and resolution denying t"e MF/). *"e petition %asdismissed for gross insufficiency in substance and for utter lac& of merit.

tty. 2aguia denounces t"e decision and "e stated t"at:

o *"e act of t"e public officer# if H


5/10

!. reducing t"e bai l in a criminal case %it"out prior not ice to t"eprosecution 't"is time filed by sst. 2rovincial 2rosec.)

4. allo%ing ot"er persons to ta&e certain confiscated smuggled goodsdeposited in "is court %it"out corresponding memorandum# resulting in loss anddamage

(ecause of t"ese previous encounters %it" t"e judge# t"e petitioners allege t"atMadroQo "as been "arassing t"em by filing numerous complaints against t"em in orderto eact revenge

*"e cases are as follo%s:

1. dm. case against enustiano for #erious irregularity# supposedly forlending "is service firearm to an ac$uaintance %"o t"en used t"e gun to etortmoney

!. For fals ifying an entry in t"e pol ice b lot ter to ma&e i t appear t"atenustiano "ad lost "is firearm

4. -rim. case for evasion through negligence# supposedly for ta&ing intocustody '%it"out permission) a prisoner by final judgment# %"o later escaped

6. dm. case against /osalia for violation of the $mnibus %lection &odefor acting as c"airperson of t"e (oard of @lection nspectors despite being arelative of a candidate for barangay councilor

t t"e time t"e present case for disbarment %as filed# all t"ree cases againstenustiano "ave been dismissed

/osalia3s defense includes t"e fact t"at "er relative lost %"ile MadroQo3s son%on in t"e election

2etitioners3 contention:

*"e claim t"at t"ey "ave been subjected to mental# moral# p"ysical andfinancial damage# %"ic" resulted in t"eir c"ildren "aving to stop t"eir sc"oolingbecause family funds %ere used up to attend to t"eir legal fees

/espondent3s contention: For "is defense# MadroQo contends t"at '1) t"e c"arges of t"e administrative

cases do not constitute moral turpitude# t"erefore "e could not "ave been disbarredKand '!) none of t"e complaints against petitioners %ere manufactured

*"e (2 *"e S- referred t"e matter to t"e ntegrated (ar of t"e 2"ilippines '(2) for

investigation# report and recommendation *"e (2 reported t"at '1) MadroQo and "is counsel did not appear and present

evidence in t"e "earing and# t"erefore# %as considered to "ave %aived "is rig"t topresent evidence in "is be"alfK and '!) did not submit a memorandum as directed

The &'% ruled that there was convincing proof that respondent did commit actsconstituting grave misconduct and recommended t"at "e be suspended for one year

0astaneda v. $goFacts:

1900 enancio -astaneda and 5icetas enson filed a replevin suit against

2astor go in t"e -7F of Manila to recover certain mac"ineries. 190, judgment %as rendered in favour of -astaneda and go %as ordered to

return t"e mac"ineries or pay a definite sum of money. go appealed but t"edecision %as affirmed.

ugust !0# 19=1 trial court issued a %rit of eecution for t"e sum of

21,!#9!4.8,. go moved to stay t"e eecution but it %as denied. *"e levy%as made on go3s "ouse and lots in R-. *"e auction sale %as advertised andgo moved to stop t"e auction sale.

go t"rice attempted to obtain a %rit of preliminary injunction to restrain t"e

s"eriff from enforcing t"e %rit pf eecution Dto save "is family "ose and lotE "ismotion %as denied and t"e sale %as eecuted.

go failed to redeem "is properties and as a result t"e s"eriff eecuted t"e final

deed of sale in favor of -astaneda and enson. May !# 19=6 go no% joined by "is %ife filed a complaint in t"e -7F of R- to

annul t"e s"eriff3s sale on t"e ground t"at t"e obligation of go upon %"ic" t"ejudgment %as rendered against "im in t"e replevin suit %as "is personalobligation# and t"at Hourdes Cu go3s s"are in t"eir conjugal residential"ouse and lots %"ic" %ere levied upon and sold by t"e s"eriff could not legallybe reac"ed for t"e satisfaction of t"e judgment.

-7F of R- issued an e parte %rit of preliminary injunction restraining t"e

petitioners# t"e /egister of eeds and t"e s"eriff of R-# from registering t"efinal deed of sale# from cancelling t"e respondent3s certificates of titles andissuing ne% ones and from carrying out any %rit of possession. situationarose %"ere %"at t"e Manila court "ad ordered to be done# t"e R- courtcountermanded.

57 Hac"es "as effectively barred t"em from raising t"e issue t"at t"e property is

unleviable. *"e spouses go "ad every opportunity to raise t"e issue in t"evarious proceedings before but t"ey did not.

o %ife is normally privy to "er "usband3s activities

o t"e levy %as made and t"e properties advertised for auction sale in19=1

o s"e lives in t"e very properties in $uestion

o "er "usband "ad moved to stop t"e auction sale

o t"e properties %ere sold at auction in 19=4

o "er "usband "ad t"rice attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction

to restrain t"e s"eriff from enforcing t"e %rit of eecutiono t"e s"eriff eecuted t"e deed of final sale on pril 1,# 19=6 %"en

2astor failed to redeemo 2astor "ad impliedly admitted t"at t"e conjugal properties could be

levied upon by "is pleas Uto save "is family "ouse and lotU in "isefforts to prevent eecution

o it %as only on May !# 19=6 %"en "e and "is %ife filed t"e complaint

for annulment of t"e s"eriffTs sale upon t"e issue t"at t"e %ifeTs s"arein t"e properties cannot be levied upon on t"e ground t"at s"e %as

5| P a g e


6/10

not a party to t"e logging business and not a party to t"e replevinsuit

6.


7/10

Mauricio 0. 5/(%, petitioner v. The /(G$/ 0/&7&0 &nc., respondent 9:;;B=*"e Hegal -linic nc. is a company %Jc claims to provide legal support services %Jc consistof giving ready info by trained paralegals to laymen I la%yers. ts advices are non;diagnostic I non;advisory. t ma&es use of computers I modern information tec"nologyin researc" I data gat"ering# encoding I reproduction of documents I pleadings. tassists laymen in obtaining birt"# marriage registrations# info about la%s of ot"ercountries li&e foreign divorce I ot"er matters t"at don3t involve representation of clientsin court.

*"e Hegal -linic3s proprietor# tty. 5ogales# provided info re t"e company3s structure#purpose I operations in an article entitled D/ for Hegal 2roblems#E publis"ed in t"e Aan.14# 1991 issue of Star%ee& '2"ilippine Star3s Sunday magaine). n t"e article 5ogalesclaimed t"at t"eir company can ta&e care of any problem even if it3s as complicated as t"eS"aron;Gabby domestic situation. e furt"er claimed t"at t"ey cater to clients %"o can3tafford t"e services of big la% firms. *"ey analye a client3s problem t"en t"ey refer it toone of t"eir specialists. 5ogales I "is staff of la%yers are specialists in various fields ofla%. @asier cases are disposed of on a %"ile you %ait basis %"ile more complicated onesare dealt %Jaccordingly.

2etitioner# a la%yer %"o claims to be as"amed I offended by t"e acts of respondents %Jc"e c"aracteried as c"ampertous# unet"ical I demeaning of t"e la% profession# prays t"att"e -ourt order:1. respondent to cease I desist from issuing advertisements similar to t"e

follo%ing: promotion of secret marriage# distribution of boo&s re Guam divorce andaid in t"e follo%ing services: annulment# immigration problems# visa applications#declaration of absence# remarriage# adoption# etc.

!. persons or entities be pro"ibited from ma&ing ads re t"e eercise of t"e la%profession ot"er t"an t"ose allo%ed by la%.

/espondent on t"e ot"er "and claims t"at "e3s not engaged in t"e practice of la% but onlyin t"e rendering of legal support services t"ru paralegals. e invo&es t"e BS S-3sdecision in Ao"n /. (ates I an 73Steen v. State (ar of riona allo%ing advertisement oflegal services.

*"e S- re$uested several la%yers3 organiations to submit position papers focusing inparticular on t"e issue of


8/10

n illegal act can never be justified by %"atever merit t"e illegal actmay serve. *"us even if ads are allo%ed# BS# -anada I ot"er countries# t"e factremains t"at t"is is pro"ibited in t"e 2"ilippines.

n re *aguda: Solicitation for clients by an atty by circulars ofadvertisement is unprofessional I offenses of t"is c"aracter justify permanentelimination from t"e (ar.

@. 4ederacion &nternacional de $bogadas 4&$# person engaged in a la%ful calling %Jc may invo&e t"e &no%ledge of

la% suc" as an arc"itect giving advice re oning# bldg I fire prevention codes or aperson used as an agent for negotiations re real estate# is not engaged in t"epractice of la% provided t"at:a. t"e legal $uestion is subordinate I incidental to a major

non;legal problemb. services performed are not customarily reserved to

members of t"e barc. no separate fee is c"arged for t"e legal adviceJinfo.ll of t"ese must be considered in relation to t"e %or& for any particular client as a%"ole.

-2/ /ule 10.+8: la%yer %"o is engaged inanot"er professionJoccupation concurrently %Jt"e practice of la% s"all ma&e clear to"is client %"et"er "e3s acting as a la%yer or in anot"er capacity.

F3s stand is t"at t"e acts of t"e respondents"ould not be automatically c"aracteried as practice of la%. For instance# rendering%edding services suc" as securing a marriage license or ma&ing arrangements %Ja

priest may not constitute a practice of la%. t only becomes legal practice if advice isgiven to parties %Jproblems similar to t"e S"aron;Gabby;/ic"ard case. Hi&e%ise#purely giving out of info materials re divorce# annulment# etc. is o&ay but once t"eirparalegals apply t"e la% to particular problems t"en %e can say t"at t"ey areinvolved in t"e unaut"oried practice of la%. *"us# a factual in$uiry may benecessary for t"e judicious disposition of t"e case.

ds may be et"ically objectionable consideringt"at t"ey give an impression t"at secret marriages are allo%ed in t"e country I t"eyfail to state t"e limitation t"at only paralegal services I not legal services areavailable.

&SS5(S F 6$T&*1:. *7 respondent company is engaged in the practice of law. D (S 2ractice of la% defined:

1. any activity# in or out of court# %Jc re$uires t"e application of la%# legalprocedures# &no%ledge# training I eperience. *o engage in t"e practice of la%is to perform t"ose acts %Jc are c"aracteristic of t"e profession to give advice

or render any &ind of service t"at involves legal &no%ledgeJs&ill. 'positionpaper by ttys. Himpe I Migallos)

!. t includes conduct of cases in court# legal advice I counsel# preparation of leginstruments I contracts by %Jc legal rts are secured. 'o%ton v. Morro%)

4. 4 types of professional activity:a. legal advice F instructionsinforming clients of t"eir rts I obligb. preparation for clients of documents re$uiring &no%ledge of leg

principles not possessed by laymenc. appearance for clients before public tribunals %Jc posses po% I

aut"ority to determine rts of life# liberty I property accdg to la%6. t li&e%ise includes advertising oneself as a la%yer '2 v. -astleman)# conferring

%Jclients# giving t"em advise I ta&ing business to an atty as&ing latter to loo&after t"e case in court 'epe% v.


9/10

b. Bse of ordinary simple professional car ltd to name# la% firm# address# p"oneno. I special branc" of la% practiced.

c. 2ublication of simple announcement re opening of ne% la% firm or c"anges inpartners"ip.

d. *elep"one directory listing. /espondent3s ads don3t fall under any of t"ese eceptions considering

t"at t"ey even contain fees c"arged. lt"oug" BS allo%s publication of legal fees for initial consultation#

our -2/ does not.

llo%ing publication of ads %ould only aggravate t"e deterioratingpublic opinion of t"e legal profession %"ose integrity "as consistently been underattac&.

C. *7 the purpose for wHc the /egal 0linic was created is legal > 5ot %Jin court3sjurisdiction considering t"at t"is is only administrative in nature. /emedy lies %JSol Gen%"o can institute $uo %arranto action. /eferred to Sol Gen.?*/&7G15ogales reprimanded I %arned. /epetition of sameJsimilar acts %ill be dealt %Jmoreseverely./espondent restrained I enjoined from:

1. issuingJcausing t"e publicationJdissemination of any ad in any form %Jc issameJsimilar to t"e aforementioned ads

!. conducting directly or indirectly any activity# operation or transaction proscribedby la% or t"e -2/

&n re Tagorda Huis (. *agorda# a practicing attorney and member of t"e provincial board of

sabela admitted to ma&ing use of a card %"ic" indicated "is being an attorney#notary public and candidacy for 4rd member %it" t"e intimation of t"e legal service"e may provide. e also admits aut"ors"ip of a letter addressed to a lieutenant ofbarrio in "is "ome municipality intimating t"at despite "is members"ip in t"e (oard#"e still offers "is legal service as la%yer and notary public %it" a re$uest to informt"e barrio people of suc" accompanied by %"at &ind of legal service "e may provide.

&ssue1


10/10

65/&7G1 The S0 agrees with the &'%+s findings and recommendation

*7 the respondent has violated prohibition on advertisement and solicitation.(S./*7: Solicitation of legal business is not altoget"er proscribed. o%ever# it must be

compatible %it" t"e dignity of t"e legal profession# done in a modest anddecorous manner.

H@GH (SS:

6ule 2.JB 0%6#: A lawyer shall not do nor permit to be done any act designedprimarily to solicit legal business

People vs. Tuanda

AC 3360, 30 January 1990Resolution En Ban, Per Curia!

Facts:"n 1983, Atty# $e %uan&a reei'e& (ro! one )er!inia A#*ar+ue se'eral -iees o( .e/elry /it a total 'alue o( P36,000 (or saleon o!!ission ases# "n 1984, instea& o( returning te unsol& -iees o(

.e/elry /ort P26,250, se issue& 3 es# %ese es /ere

&isonore& y te &ra/ee an, %ra&ers Royal Ban, (or insu((iienyo( (un&s# ot/itstan&ing reei-t o( te notie o( &isonor, %uan&a!a&e no e((ort to settle er oligation# Cri!inal ases /ere (ile&,/erein se /as a+uitte& o( esta(a ut /as (oun& guilty o( 'iolation o(BP 22# %e a--ellate ourt a((ir!e& te &eision o( te trial ourt an&i!-ose& (urter sus-ension against %uan&a in te -ratie o( la/, on tegroun& tat te o((ense in'ol'es !oral tur-itu&e#

Issue: eter 'iolation o( BP 22 in'ol'es !oral tur-itu&e to allo/ tesus-ension o( a !e!er o( te ar (ro! te -ratie o( la/#

Held:Con'ition o( a ri!e in'ol'ing !oral tur-itu&e relates to an&a((ets te goo& !oral arater o( a -erson on'ite& o( su o((ense#)erein, BP 22 'iolation is a serious ri!inal o((ense /i &eleteriouslya((ets -uli interest an& -uli or&er# %e e((ets o( te issuane o( a/ortless e transen&s te -ri'ate interest o( -arties &iretlyin'ol'e& in te transation an& toues te interest o( te o!!unity atlarge# Putting 'alueless o!!erial -a-ers in irulation, !ulti-lie& atousan& (ol&, an 'ery /ell -ollute te annels o( tra&e an&o!!ere, in.ure te aning syste! an& e'entually urt te /el(are o(

soiety an& te -uli interest# %e Court a((ir!e& te sus-ension o(%uan&a (ro! te -ratie o( la/#

10| P a g e

4664273 cpr canons 13 digest

Documents