Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

TIMOTEO CRUZ V SALVA Role of Prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure

conviction of guilty but to protect innocent. Thus, the jurisdiction is


FACTS:
properly laid.
CFI found Oscar Castelo, De Jesus, Bonifacio,Mendoza, Berdugo Petitioner had a right to be present but it is not a legal obligation
guilty of crime of murder and sentenced them to death. It was and he could not be compelled to do so.
appealed by the accused since it bears the highest penalty the However with respect to the manner of the investigation it
court must review the case. appeared from the record that Salva conducted the same in session
Pending appeal, President Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation of the hall of municipal court which accommodated big crow and
case and they were able to obtained confessions from persons considered public when he should do so in his office much less
other than those convicted. publicity.
Fiscal Salva conducted a preliminary onvestigation based on those Further he told the press and media men that they can ask
affidavits and confessions obtained during investigation. question and those will be deemed as if his own. But the press
Counsel for the appellants filed a motion for new trial supported by refused to ask any questions.
the confession of Sergio De Guzman,Caymo,Canlas The incident caused great publicity which disturbed the court.
The said affidavits and confession was sent to fiscal salva and Salva went beyond his authority and committed grievous error. His
proceeded with the reinvestigation of the case with the committee. actuations went beyond the bounds of prudence, discretion and
During Preliminary Investigation Timoteo Cruz was subpoenaed by good taste.
Salva to testify but the former wrote the latter asking for the Respondent Salva was warranted in holding preliminary
postponement due to the unavailability of his counsel so it was investigation and warned that a repetition of the same would meet
rescheduled and the counsel appeared questioning the jurisdiction severe penalty.
of the committee in view of the pendency of the case.
A petition was filed by Cruz against Salva to restrain him from
conducting preliminary investigation in connection with the killing of
Monroy
POBRE V DEFENSOR
SALVAS DEFENSE:
FACTS:
He subpoenaed Cruz because of hir oral request to allow him to
Antero asked for the disbarment of defensor because of the speech
appear in the investigation. He did not opposed the same instead
she delivered on the senate floor.
asked for the rescheduling of the same.
Defensor insulted the member of the bar specifically Chief Justice
There is justification for Salvas reinvestigation because One of the
Pangabinan and the members of the supreme court by uttering
accused named Salvador wa not included because he was arrested
improper words such as I spit on chief justice panganiban and
after the trail against the other had commenced he must assess the
those members of the SC and that they were idiots
same and conduct investigation to determine whether he will
Defensor did not denied the same but said that she merely wanted
recommend the prosecution or dismissal of the case.
to expose what she believed to be unjust. She asked for the
SCS RULING: dismissal of the case as her privilege speech is not actionable
criminal or in a disciplinary proceedings.
She further alleged that pobre failed to prove that she made said
statements.
The sentiment of defensor rooted from the fact that the judicial bar
council send public invitation for nomination for the position of
Chief Justice but later said that it is only available to the incumbent
justices of the SC and she could not be nominated.

SCS RULING:

A senator as provided in the constitution ARTVI, Sec6 senators


have privileged from arrest (not more than 6yrs) and they cannot
be questioned and be held liable for their speech or debate in the
committee.
That is to enable them to perform their duties as representatives CASPE V MEJICA
chosen by public. The court could not interfere with that.
However the senator crossed the limits of decency and good FACTS:
professional conduct. Her speech is improper. No lawyer who has 2 different cases were filed by caspe. First with respect to a case that
taken an oath should be allowed to erode the peoples faith in caspe filed against rodriguez for frustrated murder were atty mejica was
judiciary. his counsel but when rodriguez filed his counter-affidavit he was assisted
She violated Canon 8, rule 8.01 and canon 11 that a lawyer shall by atty mejica.
not used in his professional dealings offensive, abusive or improper He filed for the disbarment of atty mejica and atty mejica warned him that
language; a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to he will help file cases against him until he kneel down to him.
The second case was in connection with harassment with the use of a gun
the courts and to the judicial officers.
made by one of the tanod gaduena against busa and jatas. Caspe was on
They are duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of
duty that time and he recovered the gun and turned it over to the police
the court station.
It is evident from the speech of defensor that it was her expression However gaduena escaped with the help of the brgy captain and other
of her own anger and frustration. The immunity shall not be tanods. The chief of police requested caspe to desist from filing charges
allowed to be used for personal benefits and so as to destroy the against those who helped gaduena. He agreed to the same.
reputation of the court. Thereafter gaduena filed a case of serious slander with atty mejia as
Defensor violated the rules of her own chamber with respect to counsel and said that caspe kicked,collared and slapped gaduena.
rules relating to parliamentary privilege prohibiting the use of This prompted caspe to file disbarment case against atty mejia.
A mandatory conference was issued but atty mejica failed to appear and it
offensive and improper language.
She cannot assail that the complainant failed to prove that she was rescheduled but atty mejica filed a manifestation that he did not
received the complaint and asked for the rescheduling of the same and
made the statement as it was impliedly admitted by her that the
the copy of the complaint.
same was part of her parliamentary privilege. A complaint was sent to him thru lbc private carrier but he did not claim
The case was referred to the senate ethics committee for the same and manifested that he did not receive tha complaint and that
appropriate disciplinary actions. the registered mail should be used.
On the date of conferenece atty mejica failed to appear the ibp warned SPOUSES AMOTORIO V YAP
him that the next time he would be rendered in default and the case will
FACTS:
be submitted for decision but then again failed to appear.
Complainants in the disbarment case were the clients of atty paras and
IBP: FOUND HIM GUILTY 1.03,1.04,10.01 3MONTHS SUSPENSION IBP BOG:
the respondent in the civil case for collection suit of their indebtedness to
INCREASED SUSPENSION 3YRS
spouses yap(lawyers) evidenced by a promisorry note amounting to
94,173 pesos.
When they filed their answer in the civil case the spouses yap asked that it
SCS RULING: should not be allowed since their counsel atty paras was suspended
He maintained that he was denied due process since he did not receive the notice therefore lacking of proper verification but it was denied.
and the copy of the complaint. He never threatened caspe. Unable to find a lawyer they went to the law office of the spouses yap and
ask for the settlement of the debt and tendered payment of 20,000 and
In disbarment proceedings a clear preponderance of evidence is sufficient. that the remaining be paid in installment.
Court is convinced that there is sufficient evidence against the lawyer. Spouses yap agreed to it and the transaction was recorded in a document
with the letterhead of yap law office and the signature of atty Francisco
That there is already administrative case for disbarment filed by caspe yap.
when atty mejica assisted gadueana in filing the case and further he Respondent asked them if they are going to attend the hearing but the
threatened caspe due to his refusal to withdraw tha disbarment case spouses yap that they will no longer attend the same and that they will
against him. inform the court of the settlement.
Despite existence of settlement agreement between caspe and the tanods The respondent relying on the statement of Francisco yap did not attend
he still filed the case of slander against caspe. the same. But thereafter was surprised that a judgment was rendered in
His contention of denial of due process is wanting under sction 5 rule v favor of the yaps and that they were declared in default and that yap filed
rop; non-appearance of the parties at mandatory conference shall be a motion for the writ of execution of the judgment.
deemed a waiver of right to participate in the proccedings. Exparte This prompted the respondents to seek the help of atty paras and filed the
conference shall be conducted. case for disbarment against spouses yap on the ground that they resorted
He missed all 4 rescheduled hearings. His attitude toward the proceedings deceitful means to obtain favorable judgment.
before the ibp indicates a lack of respect.
As on officer of the court he is bound to know that a resolution of the DEFENSE:
court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with. Respondent yap denied the same but admitted that there was an out-of-
A lawyer must observe and maintain respect not only to the courts but
court settlement through rose paras the wife of counsel paras and denied
also to judicial officers and duly constituted authorities therin including
that the spouses amatorio paid him.
ibp.
He further stated that atty yap filed the case because yap was the counsel
He violated rule 1.03,1.04,10.01 and canon 11
of his former wife for abandonment of family which caused his suspension.

IBP: there is substantial evidence that yap deliberately misled the court. Such
documentary evidence supported the claim of spouses amonterio that there
wa an ou-of-court settlement and if yap offered the same before the court the
judgment would not be the same. 6MONTHS SUSPENSION

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and at the same time


the complainants executed a judicial admission that they did not knew
the contents of the complaint that it was atty paras who asked them to indicated therein that the judge is happy upon informing him of the
sign without telling them the contents thereof. They asked for the willingness of atty bunyi to prepare the judgment in 3 civil cases.
dismissal of the case against Yap. On the second letter were atty bunyi wrote lantoria and asked for
forgiveness due to the delay despite reminders from mascarinas and
SC RULING: that he was not sure whether the judge would be satisfied on what he
Lawyer should act with honesty and integrity it is a privileged will prepare and that he is willing to accept judges recommendation or
burdened with conditions. correction.
Court cannot simply yielded on the complainants change of mind with Another letter was made by atty bunyi to lantoria containing the
respect to disbarment case. decisions of 3 cases which the judge told him to prepare and asked
A lawyer may be disciplined regardless of the pardon or withdrawal of lantoria to deliver the same to the judge.
the complaianant. 3years after lantoria filed for the disbarment of atty bunyi relating to
Misconduct is deemed a violation of an oath to keep sacred the the decisions he made in 3 cases.
integrity of the profession fro which he must be disciplined. DEFENSE: complainant filed a motion to dismiss and admitted the existence of
He violated canon 1,1.01 canon 10 10.01 the letter and explain that he merely made the decisions because of the
There is a clear and preponderant evidence, the complainants were insistence of lantoria that the judge would consider the same as a big help to him
educated as she was a teacher and impossible not to understand the due to his busy schedule. The decisions he made was merely a drafts.
content of the complaint.
Atty yap misled the court and must be suspened for 3months The case was referred to solicitor general for the investigation and both of
the appear and found that respondent had indeed prepared the draft of
the decisions and had previous communications with judge Galicia
Complainant asking for the withdrawal of the case or its dismissal and
that he is no longer interested with the case and he had lost the original
letters.

SC RULING:

Respondent is guilty of of highly unethical amd unprofessional conduct for


failure to help promote independence of judiciary and refrain from any
acts that would influence judicial dtermination of a litigation.
LANTORIA V BUNYI Withdrawal of the complainant and the lost of original document is of no
moment since atty bunyi admitted that he made the draft thereof.
FACTS: It should proceed regardless of the complainants withdrawal.
Atty Bunyi allegedly committed acts of graft and corruption and The act of the respondent amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and
dishonesty and unfit to be a member of the bar. an officer of the court. He violated canon 13 and rule 13.03;
Lantoria was the complainant and the manager of a farm owned by
A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN
Mascarinas.
FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE
A civil case sought to eject the squatters in the said farm was filed and
APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.
the defendants in this case were declared in default.
Records show that there were letters between lantoria and atty bunyi
LAWYER SHALL NOT EXTEND EXTRAORDINARY ATTENTION OR
on the first letter made by lantoria addressed to atty bunyi it was
HOSPITALITY TO NOR SEEK OPPURTUINTY FOR CULTIVATING
FAMLIIARITY WITH JUDGES.
Respondent claimed that he acted on good faith in invoking said resolution which
he believed to be authentic.
RESPONDEND IS GUILTY OF UNETHICAL PRACTICE IN ATTEMPTING TO
INFLUENCE THE COURT AND BE SUSPEND FOR 1YEAR. Respondent used the the said reolution twice first before the police officers
and second before the rtc since he used the spurious resolution, it is
presumed that he participated in its fabrication.
Record shows that respondednt used offensive language in describing
natashan and her relatives, a lawyers lamguage should be forceful and
dignified but respectful.
Respondent erode the public perception of legal profession. They
constitute gross misconduct sanctioned under section 27 rule 128.
NATASHA FLORIDO V ATTY FLORIDO Suspende for 2yrs.
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. He violated canon 10
FACTS:
rule 10.01 and 10.02
Natasha filed for the annulment of her marriage with atty james florido.
Atty florido went to her house and demanded the custody of their 2
children and showed her a resolution of the court of appeals which A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO ANY FALSEHOOD; NOR CONSENT TO THE DOING
granting him the temporary custody of the children. OF ANY IN COURT; NOR SHALL MISLEAD OR ALLOW THE COURT TO BE
She asked for the original copy but he failed to give it. Upon examining MISLED BY ANY ARTIFICE
the resolution she noticed that the dates indicated therein are different
which cast doubt on her part.
While Natasha was with her children, atty florido went there with the A LAWYER SHALL NOT MSIREPRPESENT THE CONTENTS OF A PAPER OR TEXT
assistance of the agents of nbi and asking for the custody of the children, DECISION OR AUTHORITY OR PROVISION OF LAW WHICH IS INOPERATIVE
she sought the help of the police but atty florido stated in the blotter that AND FACTS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVED.
he formally served Natasha with the resolution of the CA.
Natasha agreed to let atty florido sleep with her children with a condition
that they should not go out of tanjay city.
Natasha was notified that atty florido rented a van to take them in Bacolod
so she immediately went to the hotel and she slept with her children.
Atty florido filed with the RTC a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right of
custody withbthe children and showed the resolution issued by the CA
Natasha seek a certification of said resolution from Ca and found out that
theres no such resolution.
During the hearing of the habeas corpus atty florido did not appear and
the case was dismissed.
Natasha filed a disbarment case against atty florido.

IBP: SUSPENSION F 3YRS IBPGOV:6YRS


SONIC STEEL V ATTY CHUA
SC RULING:
FACTS:
A search warrant was procured by SteelCorp through their vice longer possessed the right because of its expiration for more than
president and with the assitance of atty chua against sonic steel. 5 years.
They misled the judge of rtc by saying that they were the exclusive Lawyers are required to act with the highest truthfulness, fairplay
Licensee of the patent being violated by sonic steel when in fact said and nobility.
license were already expired. The respondent violated canon 1 and rule 1.01 canon 10 rule 10.01
They said that they will lose revenue and will sustain damages because
of the act of soniuc steel by using their technical information and
registered patent exclusively belonged to steelcorp.
Thay their product superlume is similar to galvalume metals produced Suspended for 6months with admonition
by sonic steel.
The judge asked, based on their affidavit, the vice-president about the
document patent they talked about and he answered that it is their
office and atty chua will interrupt and will say that and that they
reserve the right to present it.
Thereafter a search was conducted on the company factory of sonic
steel and seized some of its properties.
Hence this complaint against atty chua for disbarment since they
misled the court by saying that they were the exclusive licensee of the
patent which is the basis for the issuance of the search warrant.

DEFENSE: he said that they did not made an allegation that steelcorp is
the exclusive licensee of the patent but only the exclusive licensee of the
process by which galvalume is produced.

IBP: 3MOS IBPGOV:6MOS

SCS RULING:

Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the


administration of justice.
They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings,
especially with the court.
It appears that the respondent claimed made it appear that
steelcorp was the licensee of the patent when investigation show
that their right is limited to the technical information and no to
patents.
When they applied for search warrant against sonic steel their
license had long expired. That being it become free for anyones
use like sonic steel.
Respondent misled the judge by keep on resrving the right to
present the same at another time when they knew that they no
regarding the rotation rule there is no violation since he was
from pasay and he transferred to agusan del sur for more than
17months and the prohibibition is only 3months
he said that it res judicita since the issues raised in both cases
are the same
the supreme court said that res judicita applies however
in this case it is not applicable since the cause of action
in first is disbarment while the second is his removal as
VELEZ V DE VERA ibp board member
with respect to the suspension of atty de vera before the court of
FACTS:
California as ground for disbarment
2 cases the first one pertain to disbarment proceedings while decisions of foreign court with respect to the officer of
the second is about his oath taking as ibp national president the court uis not binding with our jurisdiction unless the
grounds thereof are the same with ours in disbarment
1st case and 2nd case have the same grounds and suspension
the recommendation of the hearing in the state ois not
He is unqualified to continue the bar on the grounds that he
prima facie evidence of misbehavior
concealed the fact that he was suspended by the state of California
However atty de vera admitted that he used the funds
due to misappropriation of funds of his client amounting to moral
but he was allowed by his client to do that being the
turpitude and his violation of rotation rule.
burden of proof lies with and the act constituted a
He was supposedly the next ibp national president and about to violation of cpr.
take the oath but was not allowed and the members thereof He violated canon 167 rule 16.01 and 16.02
asked for his removal as ibp board because he committed an
act inimical to the interest of the ibp in general A lawyer shall account for his client for all money or
that on a session hall in baguio city he said in his speech property collected or received from his client
that the withdrawal of the petition questioning the
A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate
constitutionality of the law increasing salaries of judges
from his own
was due to the influence of the supreme court
and that the ibp national president withheld the copy
He must be suspended for 2 years in the practice of law.
from him of the decision granting withdrawal of the
petition to prevent him from making remedies
they elected nother person to be the president instead of
atty de vera
atty de vera was removed for just and valid cause and that his
removal as member ipso facto means that he is removed as
vice president thereby disqualifying him to be the president.

Похожие интересы