LEGAL ETHICS
already decided. This is an example worth remembering
by all members of the bar.
CANON 10
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
1. DIRECTOR OF LAND V ADORABLE, 77 PHILS 468
FAITH TO THE COURT.
FACTS: a reconstitution of the above entitled case,
claimant=appellant presented copies of several papers,
exhibits, pleadings, motions and oredrs, including copy of
2. CARLET V CA, 75 SCRA 110
the decision of the Court of First Instance thru Atty.
FACTS: On july 10, 1991 petitioner Carlet, as special
Manuel F. Zamora to save the appellant the trouble of
administrator of the estate of Pablo and Antonia Sevillo
waiting for the reconstitution of this case and the tribunal
filed an action for reconveyance of property which had
the trouble of deciding a case already decided. He filed a
already been decided by the lower court and oredering
petition to the commissioner for the reconstitution to
Atty. Modesto Jimenez why they should not be cited in
make a report that the records be declared reconstituted.
contempt of court for forum-shopping.
ISSUE: WON the action of Atty. Zamora should be
considered an example to be remembered by all
HELD: with respect to the issue of forum shopping for
members of the bar?
which the trial court ordered counsel for petitioners, atty.
HELD: YES, in this case the attorney for the claimants
Modesto Jimenez, to explain why he should not be cited
and appellees, acting under the highest standard of
in contempt, this applies only when the two (or more)
truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becoming of a
case are still pending.
deserving
member
of
the
bar,
instead
of
taking
Clearly, despite knowledge of final judgments in
advantage of claimant and appellants ignorance of what
Civil Case No. B-1656, CA-G.R. CV No. 07657 and
really happened in the court of Appeals, informed this
SC-G.R. No. 74505, as well as in G.R. No. 94382
court that the case had been decided in favor of said
(the ejectment case), counsel persisted in filing the
claimant and appellant by the court of Appeals, filling to
case at bar for reconveyance. Since this case is
said effect the copy of the decision promulgated on sept.
barred by the judgment in Civil Case No. B-1656,
9, 1942, sent to him by said court, to save the appellant
there was no other pending case to speak of when
the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of this case
it was filed in July 1991. Thus, the non-forum-
and this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case
shopping rule is not violated.
What counsel for petitioners did, however, in filing this
present action to relitigate the title to and partition over
Lot No. 981, violates Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for lawyers which states
that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court.
Rule 10.01 of the same Canon states that (a) lawyer
shall not do any falsehood x x x nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Counsels act of filing a new case involving essentially
the same cause of action is likewise abusive of the courts
processes and may be viewed as improper conduct
tending to directly impede, obstruct and degrade the
administration of justice.
3. LIBIT V OLIVA, 237 SCRA 375
(Lawyer falsifying sheriffs return and seeking
the default of the defendant)
FACTS: 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.
Facts:
Judge Domingo Panis in Pedro Cutingting v. Alfredo
Tan ordered the NBI Director to conduct an
investigation to determine the author of the falsified
Sheriffs return in said case. As a result of which, the
NBI charged respondents Attys. Edelson Oliva and
Florando Umali for obstruction of justice.
The case was referred to the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP.
In view of NBIs report that Umalis signature in the
complaint in the civil case was not his, the case was
dismissed with respect to him.
Issue: W/N respondent violated Code of Ethics
Held: Yes. After the careful review of the record of
the case and the report and recommendation of the
IBP, the Court finds that respondent Atty. Edelson G.
Oliva committed acts of misconduct which warrant
the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary powers.
The facts, as supported by the evidence, obtaining in
this case indubitably reveal respondents failure to
live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with
the strictures of the lawyers oath, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of
Professional Ethics. A lawyers responsibility to
protect and advance the interests of his client does
not warrant a course of action propelled by ill
motives and malicious intentions against the other
party.
In this case, respondent Atty. Edelson Oliva has
manifestly violated that part of his oath as a lawyer
that he shall not do any falsehood. He has likewise
violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
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.
Accordingly, the Court resolved to impose
upon Atty. Edelson Oliva the supreme penalty
of DISBARMENT. His license to practice law in
the Philippines is CANCELLED and the Bar
Confidant is ordered to strike out his name
from the Roll of Attorneys.
OLBES
VS.
AC-5365.
Atty.
VICTOR
April
V.
27,
DECIEMBRE
2005
Facts: Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank
checks by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan. After the
loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled
up four of the five checks for P50, 000 with different
maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty.
Deciembre fled a case for estafa against the spouses
Olbes. This prompted the spouses Olbes to file a
disbarment case against Atty. Deciembre with the Office
of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the report,
Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two years for
violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Issue: Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Deciembre
was
in
accord
with
his
fault.
Held: Membership in the legal profession is a special
privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon
individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also
known to possess good moral character. A lawyer is an
oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly
circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and
whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for
truth and justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless
crusader. By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney
becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an
indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial
administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport
themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics faith in
the legal profession. It is also glaringly clear that the
Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously
transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank
checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite respondents full knowledge that
the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had
already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of
a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain.
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely
unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The
standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties
of criminal laws. Considering the depravity of the offense
committed by respondent, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years
from the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for
employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible.
His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the
detention of one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is
sentenced suspended indefinitely from the practice of
law effective immediately.
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.
