Canon 11

In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562

FACTS:
Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a Petition to Surrender the Lawyers Certificate of Title to the
Supreme Court as a sign of his protest as against to what he call a tribunal peopled by people
who are calloused to our pleas for justice. He also expressed strong words as against the
judiciary like justice is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb. . The petition rooted from the
case he lost due to the absence of time and place in his motion in the trial court. His appeal
was dismissed in the Court of Appeals by reason of jurisprudence. In a petition for certiorari in
the Supreme Court, it was again dismissed thru a minute resolution. With the disappointments,
he thought of this sacrificial move. He claimed that this petition to surrender his title is only in
trust, and that he may obtain the title again as soon as he regained confidence in the justice
system.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary actions for his acts.
HELD:
YES. Indefinite suspension imposed.
RATIO:
It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that there is no one to blame but Atty. Almacen
himself because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his accusations are so noble, in
speaking of the truth and alleged injustices, so as not to condemn the sinners but the sin, it has
already caused enough damage and disrepute to the judiciary. Since this particular case is sui
generis in its nature, a number of foreign and local jurisprudence in analogous cases were cited
as benchmarks and references. Between disbarment and suspension, the latter was imposed.
Indefinite suspension may only be lifted until further orders, after Atty. Almacen may be able to
prove that he is again fit to resume the practice of law. For, membership in the Bar imposes
upon a person obligations and duties which are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into
the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting and more
imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the courts. He vows solemnly to conduct
himself "with all good fidelity ... to the courts; and the Rules of Court constantly remind him "to
observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers." The first canon
of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the
sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme
importance."
Wicker vs Arcangel
FACTS:
It appears that on Nov 18, 1993, Wicker's counsel, Atty. Rayos, filed a motion seeking the
inhibition of the respondent Judge Arcangel from the case. Respondent judge found offense in
the allegations on the motion for inhibition filed by complainants, and in an order, held them
guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and to
pay a fine of P100.00. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which respondent judge
denied for lack of merit in his order of Dec 17, 1993.
HELD
The power to punish for contempt is to be exercised on the preservative and not on the
vindictive principle. Only occasionally should it be invoked to preserve that respect without
which the administration of justice will fail. Consistent with the foregoing principles and based

on the abovementioned facts, the Court sustains Judge Arcangel's finding that petitioners are
guilty of contempt. Atty. Rayos, however, cannot evade responsibility for the allegations in
question. As a lawyer, he is not just an instrument of his client. His client came to him for
professional assistance in the representation of a cause, and while he owed him whole-souled
devotion, there were bounds set by his responsibility as a lawyer which he could not overstep.
Based on Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rayos bears as much
responsibility for the contemptuous allegations in the motion for inhibition as his client. Atty.
Rayos' duty to the courts is not secondary to that of his client. The Code of Professional
Responsibility enjoins him to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and [to] insist on similar conduct by others" and "not [to] attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have materiality to the case."
Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty
FACTS:

Baculi vs Battung
FACTS
Judge Baculi, Presiding Judge of Municipal TrialCourt in Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City, filed a
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Battung. He claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the
hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting
while arguing his motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the
respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct
contempt, the respondent shouted, Then cite me!Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt
and imposed a fine of P100.00. The respondent then left.

While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted,
Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you! Judge Baculi cited him for
direct contempt of court for the second time. After his hearings, respondent again shouted in a
threatening tone, Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you! He kept
on shouting, I am not afraid of you! and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers
escorted him out of the building. Judge Baculi later found out that after the respondent left the
courtroom, Atty. Battung continued shouting and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of
Court.
ISSUE:
Did Atty. Battung violate Cannons 11 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
IBP Commissioner found that the respondent failed to observe Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that requires a lawyer to observe and maintain respect due the
courts and judicial officers. The respondent also violated Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 that provides
that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the courts. The respondents argument that Judge Baculi provoked him to shout should not be
given due consideration since the respondent should not have shouted at the presiding judge;
by doing so, he created the impression that disrespect of a judge could be tolerated. De la
Rama recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months. The Supreme Court held that litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of
their position and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean
and disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents. A lawyer who insults a judge inside a
courtroom completely disregards the latters role, stature and position in our justice system.
When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he would file
a case for gross ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a
manner tending to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculis competence and in his ability
to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be handled with sensitivity in
the manner provided under the Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act in
a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the justice system into disrepute. Atty.
Battung was ordered suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year with a warning that a
repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely .
Judge Cervantez vs Atty Sabio
FACTS:

Maceda vs Ombudsman
FACTS: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a complaint before the Office of the
Ombudsman against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged
that petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of service by certifying that all civil and
criminal cases which have been submitted for decision for a period of 90 days have been
determined and decided on or before January 31, 1989, when in truth and in fact, petitioner
Maceda knew that no decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have
been submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda falsified his
certificates of service for 17 months.
Issue: Whether or not the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an
encroachment into the SCs constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts
Held: A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the SC for
serious misconduct and under Sec. 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the
State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.
In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by the Court with regard to his
certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into
the Courts power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of
the doctrine of separation of powers.
Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over
all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest
municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the SC that can oversee the judges
and court personnels compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action
against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude
into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same
to the SC for determination whether said judge or court employee had acted within the scope
of their administrative duties.
CANON 12
Nunez vs Atty Ricafort
FACTS:
Sometime in October 1982 petitioner authorized respondent attorney to sell her two parcels of
land located in Legazpi City for P40,000. She agreed to give respondent 10 percent of the price
as commission. Respondent succeeded in selling the lots, but despite complainants repeated
demands, he did not turn over to her the proceeds of the sale. This forced complainant to file
against respondent and his wife an action for a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City.
Respondent was declared in default and judgment was rendered in favor of petitioner.
Respondent appealed said decision to the Court of Appeals but the same was dismissed for
failure to pay the docket fee within the required period.
A writ of execution was issued, it appeared however that only a partial amount has been paid
by the lawyer. Four postdated checks were subsequently issued to cover the balance. Said
checks however, upon presentment were dishonored because the account against which they
were drawn was closed. Demands to make good the checks were to no avail so a case for
violation of BP 22 was filed by petitioner.
The lawyer denied the allegations and filed several motions for extension of time to file

comment. Complainant filed a motion to cite lawyer for contempt for his alleged delaying
tactics unbecoming of a lawyer and a law dean.
Issue: What is the liability of the lawyer?
Held: Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant. Rule
1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Respondent had no intention to honor the money judgment against him in as can be gleaned
from his (1) issuance of postdated checks; (2) closing of the account against which said checks
were drawn; and (3) continued failure to make good the amounts of the checks.
Santiago vs Rafanan
FACTS:
Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, was allegedly notarized several documents on different dates and
failed to: a) make the proper notation regarding the Community Tax Certificate (CTC) of the
complainant; b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; and c)
make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he
had notarized.
On the other hand, Atty. Rafanan admitted having administered the oath but believed
that non-notation of the Resident Certificates as well as not entering the details of the
notarized documents in the notarial register was allowed. Notation of Resident Certificates are
applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary public and was not mandatory for
affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other government offices. He further
asserted that this was a popular practice among notaries public in Nueva Ecija, some of whom
were older practitioners.
Issues: What is the rule on registry of notarial documents?
Held:
The court ruled in the negative. The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and
duties of notaries public. They are required to certify that the party to every document
acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from
the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of such
certification. They are also required to maintain and keep a notarial register; to enter therein all
instruments notarized by them; and to give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before [them] a number corresponding to the one in [their] register [and to state
therein] the page or pages of [their] register, on which the same is recorded. Failure to perform
these duties would result in the revocation of their commission as notaries public.
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected, considering the
degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. Notaries public
entering into their commissions are presumed to be aware of these elementary requirements.
It is intolerable that he did away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly
because others were doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an acceptable
justification for breaking the law.
Disbarment, however, cannot be granted considering the nature of the infraction and
the absence of deceit on the part of Atty. Rafanan. A fine of P3, 000 is imposed with a warning
that similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Sebastian vs Bajar
FACTS:

suspended for three (3) years.

Fil-Garcia Inc. vs. Hernandez
Canon 13
Lantoria vs Atty. Bunyi

Foodsphere vs Mauricio
FACTS:
A certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City
canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. As Cordero and his relatives were eating
bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a
colony of worms inside the can. This was complained before the BFAD. After conciliation
meetings between Cordero and the petitioner, the Corderos eventually forged
a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus
dismissed the complaint. Respondent, Atty. Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his signature to
the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he
prepared the document.
Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and
Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending
at the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint. Despite the pendency of the
civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further
publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO,
respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law.
RATIO:

The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of
Professional Responsibility which reads: A lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the
Office of the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent
clearly assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it
and did not even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use
by respondent of the above-quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon
11 and the fundamental Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes. Respondent defied said status quo order, despite his
(respondents) oath as a member of the legal profession to obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities.
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandate, and by failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the
exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and the
dignity of the legal profession.
Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo