Surigao Mineral Reservation Board case

8/17/2019 Surigao Mineral Reservation Board case

1/7

Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel[G.R. No. L-27072 January ! "70#

07AUGPonente: SANCHEZ, J.

FACTS:

The first contempt proceeding arose from third motion for reconsideration signed by Atty. Vicente .

Santiago, on his beha!f and p"rported!y for Attys. Er!ito #. $y, %raciano #ega!a and Associates, and &ose

'. Sotto, that the petitioners, (ho, according to the So!icitor %enera! and based on their s"bmitted and

signed memorand"m, a!!eged that petitioners:

• To ha)e made fa!se, ridic"!o"s and (i!d statements in a desperate attempt to pre*"dice the co"rts

against +acArth"r nternationa! -s"ch efforts co"!d be acc"rate!y ca!!ed scattershot desperation/01

• To ha)e s"ch a proposition is corr"pt on its face and it !ays bare the immora! and arrogant attit"de

of the petitioners, and petitioners 2 opport"nistica!!y change their c!aims and stories not on!y from

case to case b"t from p!eading to p!eading in the same case. Atty Santiago f"rther a!!eged that the

S"preme Co"rt3 has o)er!oo4ed the app!icab!e !a( d"e to the misrepresentation and obf"scation of

the petitioners5 co"nse! and

And the S"preme Co"rt in the effect:

• Ne)er has any ci)i!i6ed, democratic trib"na! r"!ed that s"ch a gimmic4 -referring to the right to

re*ect any and a!! bids/0 can be "sed by )"!t"ro"s e7ec"ti)es to co)er "p and e7c"se !osses to the

p"b!ic, a go)ernment agency or *"st p!ain fra"d2/. Atty. Santiago a!so fi!ed a motion to inhibit against

Chief &"stice Concepcion and &"stice Castro.

The second contempt proceeding arose (hen respondent +acArth"r, thro"gh ne( co"nse!, Atty. &"anito+. Ca!ing (ho entered a specia! appearance for the p"rpose, !odged a fo"rth motion for reconsideration

(itho"t e7press !ea)e of co"rt. Said motion reiterated pre)io"s gro"nds raised, and inc!"ded citing the

Ne( #"!es of Co"rt Section 8 #"!e 98 and that a!!eged in*"stice may c"t off a!! aid and benefits to the

Phi!ippine %o)ernment by in)o4ing the Hic4en!ooper Amendment after ma4ing it 4no(n to the or!d

Co"rt. +eads, for his part tried to reason o"t (hy s"ch a distorted ;"otation came abo"t < the portion !eft

o"t (as any(ay mar4ed by =S/ (hich is a common practice among !a(yers. Canon >> of the Canons of

ega! Ethics reminds the !a(yer to characteri6e his cond"ct (ith candor and fairness, and specifica!!y

states that it is not candid nor fair for the !a(yer 4no(ing!y to mis;"ote./.

ISSUES:

hether or not:

a0 Atty. Vicente . Santiago1 Atty. &ose 'e!tran Sotto1 %raciano C. #ega!a1 and Associates1 and Atty.

Er!ito #. $y1 are g"i!ty of contempt on the fi!ed Third +otion for #econsideration1

b0 Atty. Vicente . Santiago1 Atty. &"anito +. Ca!ing, and +r. +orton ?. +eads are g"i!ty of contempt on

the fi!ed ?o"rth +otion for #econsideration1


2/7

HELD:

a0 ?or Atty. Vicente . Santiago @ YES. ?ine of P8,..

?or Atty. &ose 'e!tran Sotto @ YES. ?ine of P8..

?or Atty. %raciano C. #ega!a and Associates @ NO. -Too4 no part0

?or Atty. Er!ito #. $y @ NO. -Too4 no part0

b0 ?or Atty. Vicente . Santiago @ YES. Additiona! fine of P8,.

?or Atty. &"anito +. Ca!ing @ YES. ?ine P>..

?or +r. +orton ?. +eads @ YES. ?ine of P8,..

RATIO:

a0 Bn the Third +otion for #econsideration

The S"preme Co"rt finds !ang"age that is not to be e7pected of an officer of the co"rts. Atty. Santiago

pict"res petitioners as )"!t"ro"s e7ec"ti)es/ and spea4s of this S"preme3 Co"rt as a ci)i!i6ed,

democratic trib"na!/, b"t by inn"endo (o"!d s"ggest that it is not. Atty. &ose 'e!tran Sotto has

misbeha)ed, "nder Section D -a0, #"!e 8 of the #"!es of Co"rt1 and that he too has committed, "nder

Section D -d0 of the same r"!e, improper cond"ct tending to degrade the administration of *"stice. Atty.

#ega!a did not e)en 4no( that his name (as inc!"ded as coFco"nse! in this case. ?ina!!y, borne o"t by the

record is the fact that Atty. $y (as not a!so in)o!)ed in the preparation of any of the p!eadings s"b*ect of

the contempt citation.

b0 Bn the ?o"rth +otion for #econsideration

Atty. Santiago is a !a(yer of record for respondent +acArth"r in this case. He has not resigned from his

position as s"ch !a(yer. He has contro! of the proceedings. hate)er steps his c!ient ta4es sho"!d be

(ithin his 4no(!edge and responsibi!ity. ndeed, Canon 8G of the Canons of ega! Ethics sho"!d ha)ereminded him that a3 !a(yer sho"!d "se his best efforts to restrain and to pre)ent his c!ients from doing

those things (hich the !a(yer himse!f o"ght not to do, partic"!ar!y (ith reference to their cond"ct to(ards

co"rts, *"dicia! officers, *"rors, (itnesses and s"itors. f a c!ient persists in s"ch (rongdoing the !a(yer

sho"!d terminate their re!ation./

Atty. Ca!ing !ifted Section 8. #"!e 98, #"!es of Co"rt, o"t of conte7t. He has not sho(n to the satisfaction

of this Co"rt that he sho"!d be e7empted from the contempt charge against him. He 4no(s that he is an

officer of this Co"rt. He admits that he has read the fo"rth motion for reconsideration before he signed it.

hi!e he has been dragged in on!y at the !ast min"te, sti!! it (as p!ain!y his d"ty to ha)e ta4en care that

his name sho"!d not be attached to p!eadings contempt"o"s in character.

As to +r. +eads, ha)ing admitted ha)ing prepared the fo"rth motion for reconsideration, he cannot beg

off from the contempt charge against him e)en tho"gh he is not a !a(yer.


3/7

In Re: Vicente Almacen

31 SCRA 562 – Legal Ethics – A Lawe!"s Right t# C!itici$e the C#%!ts

Atty. A!macen (as the co"nse! of one Virginia aptinchay in a ci)i! case. They !ost in said

ci)i! case b"t A!macen fi!ed a +otion for #econsideration. He notified the opposing party of

said motion b"t he fai!ed to indicate the time and p!ace of hearing of said motion. Hence, his

motion (as denied. He then appea!ed b"t the Co"rt of Appea!s denied his appea! as it

agreed (ith the tria! co"rt (ith regard to the motion for reconsideration. E)ent"a!!y, A!macen

fi!ed an appea! on certiorari before the S"preme Co"rt (hich o"tright!y denied his appea! in

a min"te reso!"tion.

This earned the ire of A!macen (ho ca!!ed s"ch min"te reso!"tions as "nconstit"tiona!. He

then fi!ed before the S"preme Co"rt a petition to s"rrender his !a(yer5s certificate of tit!e as

he c!aimed that it is "se!ess to contin"e practicing his profession (hen members of the high

co"rt are men (ho are ca!!o"sed to p!eas for *"stice, (ho ignore (itho"t reasons their o(n

app!icab!e decisions and commit c"!pab!e )io!ations of the Constit"tion (ith imp"nity. He

f"rther a!!eged that d"e to the min"te reso!"tion, his c!ient (as made to pay P8>4 (itho"t

4no(ing the reasons (hy and that he became one of the sacrificia! )ictims before the a!tar

of hypocrisy./ He a!so stated that *"stice as administered by the present members of the

S"preme Co"rt is not on!y b!ind, b"t a!so deaf and d"mb./

The S"preme Co"rt did not immediate!y act on A!macen5s petition as the Co"rt (anted to(ait for A!macen to ct"a!!y s"rrender his certificate. A!macen did not s"rrender his !a(yer5s

certificate tho"gh as he no( arg"es that he chose not to. A!macen then as4ed that he may

be permitted to gi)e reasons and ca"se (hy no discip!inary action sho"!d be ta4en against

him . . . in an open and p"b!ic hearing./ He said he preferred this considering that the

S"preme Co"rt is the comp!ainant, prosec"tor and &"dge./ A!macen (as ho(e)er

"napo!ogetic.

ISSUE: hether or not A!macen sho"!d be discip!ined.

HELD: es. The S"preme Co"rt first c!arified that min"te reso!"tions are needed beca"se

the S"preme Co"rt cannot accept e)ery case or (rite f"!! opinion for e)ery petition they

re*ect other(ise the High Co"rt (o"!d be "nab!e to effecti)e!y carry o"t its constit"tiona!

d"ties. The proper ro!e of the S"preme Co"rt is to decide on!y those cases (hich present

;"estions (hose reso!"tions (i!! ha)e immediate importance beyond the partic"!ar facts

and parties in)o!)ed./ t sho"!d be remembered that a petition to re)ie( the decision of the


4/7

Co"rt of Appea!s is not a matter of right, b"t of so"nd *"dicia! discretion1 and so there is no

need to f"!!y e7p!ain the co"rt5s denia!. ?or one thing, the facts and the !a( are a!ready

mentioned in the Co"rt of Appea!s5 opinion.

Bn A!macen5s attac4 against the S"preme Co"rt, the High Co"rt regarded said criticisms as

"nca!!ed for1 that s"ch is inso!ent, contempt"o"s, gross!y disrespectf"! and derogatory. t is

tr"e that a !a(yer, both as an officer of the co"rt and as a citi6en, has the right to critici6e in

proper!y respectf"! terms and thro"gh !egitimate channe!s the acts of co"rts and *"dges.

His right as a citi6en to critici6e the decisions of the co"rts in a fair and respectf"! manner,

and the independence of the bar, as (e!! as of the *"diciary, has a!(ays been enco"raged

by the co"rts. '"t it is the cardina! condition of a!! s"ch criticism that it sha!! be bona fide,

and sha!! not spi!! o)er the (a!!s of decency and propriety. ntemperate and "nfair criticism

is a gross )io!ation of the d"ty of respect to co"rts.

n the case at bar, A!macen5s criticism is misp!aced. As a )eteran !a(yer, he sho"!d ha)e

4no(n that a motion for reconsideration (hich fai!ed to notify the opposing party of the time

and p!ace of tria! is a mere scrap of paper and (i!! not be entertained by the co"rt. He has

on!y himse!f to b!ame and he is the reason (hy his c!ient !ost. A!macen (as s"spended

indefinite!y.

In Re: Clemente SorianoLegal Ethics – Lawyer’s Negligence

Atty. C!emente Soriano entered his appearance in the case People’s Homesite vs Mencias

and Tibrcio et al. He so"ght to represent +arce!ino Tib"rcio. The odd thing is that, (hen

he entered his appearance before the S"preme Co"rt, the case has !ong been decided by

the S"preme Co"rt. The S"preme Co"rt then directed Atty. Soriano to sho( ca"se (hy he

sho"!d not be s"b*ected to discip!inary actions.

Atty. Soriano, in his defense, stated that he mere!y re!ied on the ass"rance made by one

Atty. Ia!angpan (ho ass"red him that the case is sti!! pending (ith the S"preme Co"rt.

ISSUE: hether or not Atty. Soriano sho"!d be s"spended.

HELD: No. '"t he is se)ere!y cens"red. The on!y reason (hy he5s not s"spended is that he

e7hibited candor before the S"preme Co"rt in ac4no(!edging his mista4e. He has been


5/7

neg!igent in his d"ty and this )io!ates his d"ty to be di!igent on his responsibi!ity to his c!ient.

He sho"!d ha)e chec4ed (ith the former !a(yer of Tib"rcio as to the stat"s of the case. f

not, he co"!d ha)e simp!y chec4ed (ith the C!er4 of Co"rt of the S"preme Co"rt instead of

re!ying "pon the ass"rances of Atty. Ia!angpan -(ho e)en denied before the S"preme

Co"rt that he made s"ch ass"rances0.

RODRIGO E. TAPAY and J. RUSTIA, Complainants, !"s#s ATTY. CHARLIE L. $ANCOLO

and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER, R!spond!nts.

A.C. No. %&'(

)a"*+ ' '-

!ttorney" a lawyer shall not assist in the nathori#ed practice o$ law.

/ACTS:

#odrigo Tapay and Anthony #"stia, both emp!oyees of the S"gar #eg"!atory Administration

recei)ed an Brder from the Bffice of the Bmb"dsmanFVisayas re;"iring them to fi!e a co"nterF

affida)it to a comp!aint for "s"rpation of a"thority, fa!sification of p"b!ic doc"ment, and graft and

corr"pt practices fi!ed against them by Nehimias Ii)inagracia, &r., a coFemp!oyee. The

Comp!aint (as a!!eged!y signed on beha!f of Ii)inagracia by Atty. Char!ie . 'anco!o. hen Atty.

'anco!o and #"stia accidenta!!y chanced "pon each other, the !atter informed Atty. 'anco!o of the case fi!ed against them. Atty. 'anco!o denied that he represented Ii)inagracia since he had

yet to meet Ii)inagracia and dec!ared that the signat"re in the Comp!aint (as not his. Th"s,

Atty. 'anco!o signed an affida)it denying the said signat"re. This affida)it (as "sed by Tapay

and #"stia in fi!ing a co"nterFaffida)it acc"sing Ii)inagracia of fa!sifying the signat"re of Atty.

'anco!o. Ii)inagracia, denying the same, presented as e)idence an affida)it by #ichard A.

Cordero, the !ega! assistant of Atty. 'anco!o, that the &arder 'anco!o a( Bffice accepted

Ii)inagracia5s case and that the Comp!aint fi!ed (ith the Bffice of the Bmb"dsman (as signed

by the office secretary per Atty. 'anco!o5s instr"ctions. The case (as then dismissed.

Tapay and #"stia then !ater fi!ed (ith the ntegrated 'ar of the Phi!ippines a comp!aint to disbar

Atty. 'anco!o and Atty. &arder, Atty. 'anco!o5s !a( partner. The comp!ainants a!!eged that not

on!y (ere respondents engaging in "nprofessiona! and "nethica! practices, they (ere a!so

in)o!)ed in fa!sification of doc"ments "sed to harass and persec"te innocent peop!e. n their

Ans(er, respondents admitted that d"e to some minor !apses, Atty. 'anco!o permitted that the

p!eadings be signed in his name by the secretary of the !a( office. After in)estigation, Atty. o!ita

A. J"is"mbing, the n)estigating Commissioner of the Commission on 'ar Iiscip!ine of the 'P,


6/7

s"bmitted her #eport. Atty. J"is"mbing fo"nd that Atty. 'anco!o )io!ated #"!e K.8 of Canon K

of the Code of Professiona! #esponsibi!ity (hi!e Atty. &arder )io!ated #"!e 8.8 of Canon 8 of

the same Code, and recommended that Atty. 'anco!o be s"spended for t(o years from the

practice of !a( and Atty. &arder be admonished for his fai!"re to e7ercise certain responsibi!ities

in their !a( firm.

ISSUE:

hether or not Atty. 'anco!o is g"i!ty of )io!ating Canon K of the Code of Professiona!

#esponsibi!ity.

HELD:

ES. Atty. 'anco!o admitted that the Comp!aint he fi!ed for a former c!ient before the Bffice of

the Bmb"dsman (as signed in his name by a secretary of his !a( office. He !i4e(ise

categorica!!y stated that beca"se of some minor !apses, the comm"nications and p!eadings fi!ed

against Tapay and #"stia (ere signed by his secretary, a!beit (ith his to!erance. C!ear!y, he

)io!ated #"!e K.8 of Canon K of the Code of Professiona! #esponsibi!ity -CP#0, (hich pro)ides:

CANBN K @ A AE# SHA NBT, I#ECT B# NI#ECT, ASSST N THE

$NA$THB#ZEI P#ACTCE B? A.

#"!e K.8 @ A !a(yer sha!! not de!egate to any "n;"a!ified person the performance of any

tas4 (hich by !a( may on!y be performed by a member of the 'ar in good standing.

Atty. 'anco!o5s a"thority and d"ty to sign a p!eading are persona! to him. A!tho"gh he may

de!egate the signing of a p!eading to another !a(yer, he may not de!egate it to a nonF!a(yer.?"rther, "nder the #"!es of Co"rt, a co"nse!5s signat"re ser)es as a certification that -80 he has

read the p!eading1 ->0 to the best of his 4no(!edge, information and be!ief there is good gro"nd

to s"pport it1 and -D0 it is not interposed for de!ay. Th"s, by affi7ing one5s signat"re to a p!eading,

it is co"nse! a!one (ho has the responsibi!ity to certify to these matters and gi)e !ega! effect to

the doc"ment. ?or )io!ating r"!e K.8 of the CP#, Atty. 'aco!o (as meted (ith the pena!ty the

s"spension from the practice of !a( for one year.


7/7

ALAWI VS ALAUYA

Facts:

Sophia Alawi was a sale representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Lt. of

!avao Cit". Ashari Ala#"a is the inc#m$er e%ec#tive of cler of co#rt of the 'th

(#icial Shari)a !istrict in *arawi Cit". It appears that thro#+h Alawi)s a+enc", a

contract was e%ec#te for the p#rchase on installments $" Ala#"a of one of the

ho#sin+ #nits $elon+in+ to the a$ove mentione rm -hereafter, simpl" Villarosa &

Co./ an in connection therewith, a ho#sin+ loan was also +rante to Ala#"a $" the

0ational 1ome *ort+a+e 2inance Corporation -01*2C. 0ot lon+ afterwars, or

more precisel" on !ecem$er 34, 3554, Ala#"a aresse a letter to the Presient of Villarosa & Co. avisin+ of the termination of his contract with the compan".

Ruling:

3. As re+ars Ala#"a)s #se of the title of 6Attorne",6 this Co#rt has alrea" ha

occasion to eclare that persons who pass the Shari)a Bar are not f#ll78e+e

mem$ers of the Philippine Bar, hence ma" onl" practice law $efore Shari)a co#rts.

9he title of 6attorne"6 is reserve to those who, havin+ o$taine the necessar"

e+ree in the st#" of law an s#ccessf#ll" taen the Bar E%aminations, have $een

amitte to the Inte+rate Bar of the Philippines an remain mem$ers thereof in

+oo stanin+/ an it is the" onl" who are a#thorie to practice law in this

;#risiction.

RE, responent Ashari *. Ala#"a is here$" REPRIMANDED for the #se

of e%cessivel" intemperate, ins#ltin+ or vir#lent lan+#a+e, i.e., lan+#a+e

#n$ecomin+ a ;#icial o?cer, an for #s#rpin+ the title of attorne"/ an he is

warne that an" similar or other impropriet" or miscon#ct in the f#t#re will $e

ealt with more severel".

Documents

Surigao Mineral Reservation Board case