Chavez vs. Viola In 1966, Atty. Viola assisted Felicidad Alvendia et al in filing a petition against Teodoro Chavez where he sought to have the Alvendias be declared as bona fide lessees in a land controversy. Said petition was dismissed because of nonappearance by the Alvendias. In 1977, Atty. Viola assisted same clients in applying for an original registration of title over the same land in controversy in 1966. In said application, Atty. Viola insisted that his clients were the true owners of said land because they acquired it by sale from Teresita Vistan way back in 1929. Chavez then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Viola. Chavez said that because of the conflicting claims that Viola prepared in behalf of his clients, he had willingly aided in and consented to the pursuit, promotion and prosecution of a false and unlawful application for land registration, in violation of his oath of office as a member of the Bar. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Viola is in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. HELD: Yes. Viola alleged in an earlier pleading that his clients were merely lessees of the property involved. In his later pleading, he stated that the very same clients were owners of the same property. One of these pleadings must have been false; it matters not which one. Worse, he offered no explanation as regards the discrepancy. A lawyer owes honesty and candor to the courts. It cannot be gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious administration of justice. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Atty. Viola was suspended for 5 months.
Chavez vs. ViolaIn 1966, Atty. Viola assisted Felicidad Alvendia
et al in filing a petition against Teodoro Chavez where he soght to
have the Alvendias !e declared as !ona fidelessees in a land
controversy. "aid petition was dis#issed !ecase of nonappearance !y
the Alvendias.In 19$$, Atty. Viola assisted sa#e clients in
applying for an original registration of title over the sa#e land
in controversy in 1966. In said application, Atty. Viola insisted
that his clients were the tre owners of said land !ecase they
ac%ired it !y sale fro# Teresita Vistan way !ac& in 19'9.Chavez
then filed a dis!ar#ent case against Atty. Viola. Chavezsaid that
!ecase of the conflicting clai#s that Viola prepared in !ehalf of
his clients, he had willingly aided in and consented to the prsit,
pro#otion and prosection of a false and nlawfl application for land
registration, in violation of his oath of office as a #e#!er of the
(ar.I"")*+ ,hether or not Atty. Viola is in violation of the
-awyer.s /ath.0*-1+ 2es. Viola alleged in an earlier pleading that
his clients were #erely lessees of the property involved. In his
later pleading, he stated that the very sa#e clients were owners of
the sa#e property. /ne of these pleadings #st have !een false3 it
#atters not which one. ,orse, he offered no e4planation as regards
the discrepancy.A lawyer owes honesty and candor to the corts. It
cannot !e gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the corts,
is essential for the e4peditios ad#inistration of 5stice. Corts are
entitled to e4pect only co#plete candor andhonesty fro# the lawyers
appearing and pleading !efore the#. Atty. Viola was sspended for 6
#onths.
