Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
GR 171406 / April 4, 2011 Contract between petitioner and the PPA in determining
petitioner’s liability.
Facts:
Held:
1. Shandong Weifang Soda Ash Plant shipped on board the
vessel MV “Jinlian” 60,000 plastic bags of soda ash dense. 1. Judicial notice does not apply
The shipment was insured with Malayan Insurance. 2. Section 1, Rule 129
2. Upon arrival of the vessel, the stevedores of Asian Terminals a. Judicial notice when mandatory – a court shall take
unloaded the bags from the vessel and brought them to the judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of
open storage area of petitioner for temporary storage and the existence and territorial extent of states, their
safekeeping pending clearance from the Bureau of Customs political history, forms of government and symbols of
and delivery to consignee. After all the bags were unloaded, nationality, the laws of nations, the admiralty and
a total of 2,881 bags were in bad condition. maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political
3. Malayan Insurance, as insurer, paid the value of the lost constitution and history of the Philippines, the official
cargoes to the consignee. acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
4. Malayan Insurance, as subrogee of the consignee, filed with departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
the RTC a complaint for damages against Asian Terminals. measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
5. RTC found Asian Terminals liable for the damage sustained 3. The Management Contract entered into by petitioner and the
by the shipment. The proximate cause was the negligence of PPA is clearly not among the matters which the court can take
Asian Terminals’ stevedores who handled the unloading of judicial notice of.
the cargoes from the vessel. This was caused by their usage a. It cannot be considered an official act of the executive
of the steel hooks in retrieving and picking-up the bags by the department.
stevedores, despite the admonitions of the Marine Cargo b. The PPA is a GOCC in charge of administering the
Surveyors. ports in the country.
6. RTC orders Asian Terminals to pay P643K to Malayan c. the PPA was only performing a proprietary function
Insurance. CA agrees with the decision of the RTC when it entered into a Management Contract with
7. Asian Terminals argues claims that the amount of damages petitioner.
should not be more than P5,000, pursuant to its Management
People v. Tomas Tundag (October 2000)
Contract for cargo handling services with the Philippine Ports
Authority(PPA). Petitioner contends that the CA should have Facts:
taken judicial notice of the said contract since it is an Mary Ann Tundag, alleged that her father, Tomas Tundag, raped
official act of an executive department subject to judicial her twice. First was on September 5, 1997 and the other on
cognizance. November 18, 1997. 2 separate criminal cases were filed against
Issue: her father. Mary Ann Tundag also alleged that she was 13 years
old when she was raped by her father. (However, the prosecution violator of her honor. The victim’s account of the rapes
in the case at bar was not able to show any documents pertaining complained of was straightforward, detailed, and consistent. Her
to Mary Ann’s age at the time of the commission of the rape. The testimony never wavered even after it had been explained to her
prosecution then asked the Court to take judicial notice that Mary that her father could be meted out the death penalty if found guilty
Ann was under 18 years of age which was subsequently granted by the court.
without conducting a hearing.) She narrated that her father used Dr. Acebes testified that her findings of healed hymenal
a knife to threaten her not to shout while he was raping her on lacerations in the complainants private parts meant a history of
both occasions. While raping her, he was even asking her if it felt sexual congress on her part. According to her, the lacerations
good. He was even laughing. (What a bastard!) After the may have been caused by the entry of an erect male organ into
commission of the second rape, Mary Ann went to her neighbor complainants genitals. Bu this does not conclusively and
(by the name of Bebie Cabahug) and told her what happened to absolutely mean that there was sexual intercourse or contact
her. They reported this to the police and was later examined by a because it can be caused by masturbation of fingers or other
doctor who concluded that she was not a virgin anymore. The things, nonetheless, the presence of the hymenal lacerations
Trial Court convicted Tomas Tundag on both counts of rape and tends to support private complainants claim that she was raped
was sentenced to the penalty of death. On appeal to the CA,
by appellant.
Tomas flatly denied that the incidents complained of ever took
place. He contends that on September 5, 1997, he was working Appellant next contends that his daughter pressed the rape
as a watch repairman near Gals Bakery in Mandaue City Market charges against him because she had quarreled with him after he
and went home tired and sleepy at around 11:00 oclock that had castigated her for misbehavior. But such allegation of a family
evening. On November 7, 1997, he claims he was at work. In his feud, however, does not explain the charges away. Filing a case
brief, he argues that it was impossible for him to have raped his for incestuous rape is of such a nature that a daughter’s
daughter because when the incidents allegedly transpired, he accusation must be taken seriously. It goes against human
went to work and naturally, being exhausted and tired, it is experience that a girl would fabricate a story which would drag
impossible for him to do such wrongdoings. herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, unless that
is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.
Issue: WON Tomas Tundag is guilty of the crime of rape
Appellant likewise points out that it was very unlikely for him to
Held: Yes! have committed the crimes imputed to him considering that he
Tomas Tundag’s defense of alibi and denial is negative and self- and his wife had ten children to attend to and care for. This
serving. It hardly counts as a worthy and weighty ground for argument, however, is impertinent and immaterial since he was
exculpation in a trial involving his freedom and his life. Against estranged from his wife, and private complainant was the only
the testimony of private complainant who testified on affirmative child who lived with him.
matters, such defense is not only trite but pathetic. Denial is an
Nor does appellants assertion that private complainant has some
inherently weak defense, which becomes even weaker in the face psychological problems and a low IQ of 76 in any way favor his
of the positive identification by the victim of the appellant as the defense. These matters did not affect the credibility of her
testimony that appellant raped her twice. We note that the victim nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
understood the consequences of prosecuting the rape charges seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the
against her own father – her father’s death. official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments
of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and
Issue 2: WON the penalty of death imposed on him is correct.
the geographical divisions.
WON it was correct for the Court to take judicial notice of Mary
Ann’s age without a hearing. Section 2 of Rule 129 enumerates the instances when courts may
take discretionary judicial notice of facts -
Held: No. Death penalty should not have been imposed. It was
incorrect for the Court to take judicial notice of Mary Ann’s age SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. - A court may take
without a proper hearing. judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known
Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section
to judges because of their judicial functions.
11 of R.A. No. 7659 penalizes rape of a minor daughter by her
father as qualified rape and a heinous crime. The elements are Catungal v. Hao (Short title)
as follows: (1) sexual congress; (2) with woman; (3) by force or GR # 134972 | March 22, 2001
without her consent; and in order to warrant the imposition of
capital punishment, the additional elements that: (4) the victim is Petitioner: Sps. Ernesto and Mina Catungal
under 18 years old at the time of the rape and (5) the offender is Respondent: Doris Hao
a parent of the victim.
(Rule 129, Section 2)
In this case, Mary Ann’s age was not properly and sufficiently
proven beyond reasonable doubt. She testified that she was
thirteen years old at the time of the rapes. However, she admitted DOCTRINE
that she did not know exactly when she was born because her
mother did not tell her. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters that are
commonly known. The power of taking judicial notice is to be
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the
may properly take and act on without proof because they already requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the
know them. Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may either subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.
be mandatory or discretionary. Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules
of Court provides when court shall take mandatory judicial notice
of facts - FACTS
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take
judicial notice without the introduction of evidence, of the
- Galang, leased a three-storey building situated at
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
Baclaran to BPI for a period of15 years and during the
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of
existence of the lease, BPI subleased the ground floor to - Instead of resolving the motion for reconsideration, the
Hao. MeTC of issued an Order, elevating the case to the RTC.
- Galang and Hao executed a contract of lease on the - RTC of Paranaque ordered that the rentals should covers
second and third floors of the building. and spouses all floors.
Catungal subsequently bought the property from Galang. - CA reduced the amount of rentals for the second and third
- Invoking her right of first refusal purportedly based on the floors.
lease, Hao filed a complaint for Annulment of Sale with ISSUE/S
RTC Makati.
- Meanwhile, the lease agreement between BPI and Galang 1. W/N CA erred in reversing the findings of the RTC by using
expired. so Spouses Catungal sent demand letters to Hao as basis for reducing the rental only the evidence submitted
to vacate. by the parties and ignoring circumstances of which the RTC
- The demand letters were unheeded causing the spouses properly took judicial notice.
to file two complaints for ejectment, with MeTC
Paranaque.
o Hao then filed an action for injunction with RTC of PROVISIONS
Makati, to stop the MeTC of Paranaque from
proceeding.
- The cases were consolidated with RTC of Makati which Rule 129, Section 2
rendered a decision granting the injunction and annulling Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial
the contract of sale. notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable
- On appeal, CA reversed and set aside the decision of the to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
RTC and the complaints were accordingly dismissed. because of their judicial functions. (1a)
- Hao elevated the case before the SC which denied the
same.
- The MeTC Paranaque, after the reversal of the decision RULING & RATIO
for injunction, proceeded with the trial of the ejectment 1. Yes
cases and rendered a Decision ordering Hao to vacate. - In ruling that the increased rental should be awarded, RTC
- Spouses Catungal filed a motion for clarificatory judgment based its decision on the doctrine of judicial notice.
on the ground that MeTC only awarded rent for the ground - The Court a quo misappreciated the nature of the property,
floor. MeTC clarified that the payment was only for the use its location and the business practice in the vicinity and
of the first floor. indeed committed an error in fixing the amount of rentals.
- Spouses sought reconsideration, praying that Hao be - According to jurisprudence, the trial court had the authority
ordered to pay the use all floors and Hao. to fix the reasonable value for the continued use and
occupancy of leased premises after the termination of the
lease contract, and that it was not bound by the stipulated Facts:
rental in the contract of lease.
Feliciano F. Wycoco is the registered owner of a 94.1690 hectare
- The RTC correctly applied the legal concept of judicial unirrigated and untenanted rice land, covered by Transfer
notice Certificate of Title No. NT-206422 and situated in the Barrio of
- Judicial knowledge may be defined as the cognizance of San Juan, Licab, Nueva Ecija. Pursuant to the CARP, Wycoco
certain facts which a judge under rules of legal procedure voluntarily offered to sell his land to the DAR for P14.9 million.
or otherwise may properly take or act upon without proof The evidence presented by Wycoco in support of his claim were
because they are already known to him, or is assumed to the following: (1) Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-206422; (2)
have, by virtue of his office. Notice of Land Valuation; and (3) letter dated July 10, 1992
- Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters that are rejecting the counter-offer of LBP and DAR. However, the offered
commonly known. The power of taking judicial notice is to price of the DAR is only P2,280,159.82, thus, he rejected the
be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken offer. He then filed a case before the RTC for the determination
that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable of just compensation. The RTC ruled in his favor. It ruled that
doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the there is no need to present evidence in support of the land
negative.
valuation inasmuch as it is of public knowledge that the prevailing
- Matters of judicial notice have three requisites: (1) matter market value of agricultural lands sold in Licab, Nueva Ecija is
must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) must from P135,000.00 to 150,000.00 per hectare. The court thus took
be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or judicial notice thereof and fixed the compensation for the entire
uncertain (3) it must be known to be within the limits of 94.1690 hectare land at P142,500.00 per hectare or a total of
jurisdiction of the court. P13,428,082.00.
- The RTC correctly took judicial notice of the nature of the
leased property subject of the case at bench based on its Issue:
location and the commercial viability. WON the just compensation determined by the RTC was valid
and within its jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION Ruling:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
rendered in favor of petitioners by reinstating the decision of the Sec. 3. Judicial Notice, When Hearing Necessary. During the trial,
RTC, with modifications. the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may
announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and
allow the parties to be heard thereon.
Sec. 2. Discretionary Judicial Notice
After trial and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on
Landbank vs. Wycoco its own initiative, or on request of a party, may take judicial notice
of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such
matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. Hilario filed a complaint with the RTC against Salvador alleging
that they were the co-owners of the parcel of land where Salvador
Inasmuch as the valuation of the property of Wycoco is the
constructed his house without their knowledge and refused to
very issue in the case at bar, the trial court should have allowed
vacate despite their demands.
the parties to present evidence thereon instead of practically
assuming a valuation without basis. While market value may be
Salvodor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
one of the bases of determining just compensation, the same
lack of jurisdiction. He contended that the complaint did not state
cannot be arbitrarily arrived at without considering the factors to
the assessed value of the property, which determines the
be appreciated in arriving at the fair market value of the
jurisdiction of the court.
property e.g., the cost of acquisition, the current value of like
properties, its size, shape, location, as well as the tax
Hilario maintained that the RTC had jurisdiction since their action
declarations thereon. Since these factors were not considered, a
was an accion reinvindicatoria, an action incapable of pecuniary
remand of the case for determination of just compensation is
estimation; thus, regardless of the assessed value of the subject
necessary. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by
property, exclusive jurisdiction fell within the said court. Also, in
courts with caution especially where the case involves a vast tract
their opposition to Salvador's motion to dismiss, they mentioned
of land. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and
the increase in the assessed value of the land in the amount of
every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly
P3.5 million. Moreover, they maintained that their action was also
resolved in the negative. To say that a court will take judicial
one for damages exceeding P20,000.00, over which the RTC had
notice of a fact is merely another way of saying that the usual
exclusive jurisdiction.
form of evidence will be dispensed with if knowledge of the fact
can be otherwise acquired. This is because the court assumes
that the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed. But
Issue:
judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal
knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court,
Whether or not the action filed by Hilario was an accion
and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a
reinvindicatoria.
fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action.
Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint filed
Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384 (April 29, 2005) Case Digest by Hilario.
SUMMARY:
DOCTRINE:
Fe opposed the motion, arguing that the decision, was the subject of
FACTS: an appeal, had not yet become final.
The RTC granted the motion by Teofilo, treating it as a motion for
CIVIL CASE MAN-8241
summary judgment. It ruled that judicial separation was proper, taking
Teofilo Adolfo filed a petition for judicial separation of property against
judicial notice of its decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 that the
his wife, Fe, alleging that they bought with conjugal funds because
property is conjugal property. With Fe’s failure to provide a verified
they have been separated in fact and reunion is now an impossibility
answer or denial under oath to the request for admission of the
due to irreconcilable differences.
documents, she is deemed to have admitted the genuineness of the
In her answer, Fe alleged that the property is not conjugal, but same.
paraphernal property belonging to her.
Going back to Civil Case No. MAN-2683
CIVIL CASE MAN-2683
The Gingoyon’s appeal to the CA, was resolved in their favour, the CA
Fe’s sister Florencia and her husband Juanito (Gingoyons) filed a civil
ruling that the property is paraphernal property as established by the
case for partition with damages, alleging that in 1988, Fe sold a 300-
records and the evidence.
square meter lot portion of the lot to the spouses Gingoyon, but that
the former refused to subdivide it. This time, Fe alleged that the It became final and executory.
property was conjugal, and the sale was made without the signature Going back to Civil Case MAN-4821
of Teofilo, hence it was null and void. The RTC ruled in favour of Fe
and declared it conjugal property, hence, the Gingoyons appealed to Fe appealed to the CA saying that the TC was wrong in treating his
the CA. motion for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary judgment.
She also asks the court to submit to the findings of the CA in Civil Case
Going back to Civil Case No. MAN-4821 2683 finding the property to be paraphernal.
Teofilo filed a Request for Admission of (among others)
Her appeal was favourably acted upon by the CA. The CA held that
respondent’s declaration in said Answer that the subject property the trial court cannot treat Adolfo’s motion for judgment on the
constituted conjugal property of the marriage; and pleadings as one for summary judgment. It stated that in a proper
the trial court’s pronouncement in said case that the subject property case for judgment on the pleadings, there are no ostensible issues at
forms part of the conjugal estate. all on account of the defending party’s failure to raise an issue in his
answer, while in a proper case for summary judgment, such issues
Fe failed to answer the Request for Admission, hence, Teoflio filed a
exist, although they are sham, fictitious, or not genuine as shown by
motion to render judgment on the pleadings, alleging that since Fe
affidavits, depositions or admissions. In other words, a judgment on
failed to answer the request for admission, the matters included in the
the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded, while a summary
request are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 of the
judgment is a judgment on the facts as summarily proved by affidavits,
Rules of Court, he is now entitled to judgment on the pleading based
depositions, or admissions. It added that Fe’s Answer appeared on its
on Rule 34.
face to tender an issue; it disputed petitioner’s claim that the subject
property is their conjugal property. The next thing to be determined is complaint and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new
whether this issue is fictitious or sham as to justify a summary matter which, while admitting the material allegations of the complaint
judgment. The CA added that although respondent was bound by the expressly or impliedly, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by
resulting admission prompted by her failure to reply to petitioner’s the plaintiff), a judgment on the pleadings would naturally be
request for admission, her claims and documentary exhibits clearly improper.”
contradict what petitioner sought to be admitted in his request; that the
trial court disregarded the fact that the issue of whether the subject
property is conjugal was still unresolved as CA-G.R. CV No. 78971 Republic of the Philippines vs. Kenrick Development
was still pending; and that finally, the trial court should have been Corporation, G.R. No. 149576
guided by the principles that trial courts have but limited authority to PARTS OF A PLEADING – SIGNATURE AND ADDRESS
render summary judgments and that summary judgments should not
be rendered hastily. G.R. No. 149576 August 8, 2006
Teofilo assailed the CA decision to the Supreme Court via petition REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Land
Registration Authority, Petitioner, vs. KENRICK DEVELOPMENT
ISSUES/HELD: W/N summary judgment is proper in the case, CORPORATION, Respondent.
considering the failure of Fe to answer or deny under oath the Request
for Admission in Civil Case No. MAN-4821. DOCTRINE: A counsel’s authority and duty to sign a pleading are
personal to him. He may not delegate it to just any person. The
signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that he has read
RATIO: Judgment on the pleadings is proper “where an answer fails the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief,
to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the there is a good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for
adverse party’s pleading.” delay.
Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be granted “if the NATURE OF THE CASE: The case is a petition under Rule 45 as an
pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, appeal to the ruling of the CA against the Republic and lifting the trial
show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine court’s order of default against Kenrick for failure to file an answer to
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a the Republic’s complaint.
judgment as a matter of law.”
FACTS: Kenrick built a concrete fence around some parts of the land
An answer would “fail to tender an issue” if it “does not deny the behind the Civil Aviation Training Center of the Air Transportation
material allegations in the complaint or admits said material Office (ATO) claiming ownership over those lands. Its encroachment
allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the resulted to the dispossession of ATO of some 30,228 square meters
truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. Now, if an of prime land. Kenrick justified its action by presenting TCTs issued in
answer does in fact specifically deny the material averments of the
its name and which allegedly originated from a TCT registered in the Kenrick in default and allowed the Republic to present its evidence ex
name of Alfonso Concepcion. parte.
When ATO verified the TCTs, the Registrar of Deeds reported that it
has no record of them and that their ascendant title, allegedly in the Republic: It presented its evidence ex parte, after which it rested its
name of Concepcion, was non-existent in their office. Thus, the OSG case and formally offered its evidence.
filed a complaint for revocation, annulment and cancellation of
certificates of title in behalf of the Republic against Concepcion and
Kenrick. Kenrick filed an answer which was allegedly signed by its Kenrick: Its motion for reconsideration was denied. So, it elevated the
counsel Atty. Onofre Garlitos Jr. When Concepcion could not be matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari.
located and be served with summons, the trial court ordered the
issuance of an alias summons by publication against him.
While the case was pending, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and CA: It assailed the RTC’s decision. It granted Kenrick’s petition for
Committee on Justice and Human Rights investigated Kenrick’s certiorari and lifted the trial court’s order of default against Kenrick
acquisition of fake titles. During the hearing, Atty. Garlitos was Then, it ordered the trial court to proceed to trial with dispatch. It ruled
summoned and testified that he prepared Kenrick’s answer and so because it found Atty. Garlitos’ statements in the legislative hearing
transmitted an unsigned draft to Kenrick’s president, Victor Ong. to be unreliable since they were not subjected to cross-examination.
Apparently, the signature appearing above Garlitos’ name was not his, It also scrutinized Atty. Garlitos’ acts after the filing of the answer and
he did not authorized anyone to sign it in his behalf, and he did not concluded that he assented to the signing of the answer by somebody
know who finally signed it. in his stead.
Republic: It filed an urgent motion to declare Kenrick and Concepcion Republic: It moved for reconsideration but was denied, hence this
in default for failure to file a valid answer because the person who petition.
signed it was not the counsel for the respondents. Thus, the answer
was effectively an unsigned pleading. Under Sec. 3, Rule 7 of the
ROC, an unsigned pleading is a mere scrap of paper and produced ISSUE: Whether or not Kenrick failed to file a valid answer on the
no legal effect. ground that its pleading was unsigned by its counsel Atty. Garlitos.
RTC: It granted the Republic’s motion. It ruled Kenrick’s answer “to be HELD: Yes. Pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 7, a pleading must be “signed
a sham and false and intended to defeat the purpose of the rules.” It by the party or counsel representing him.” The law is clear, and the
also ordered that the answer be stricken from the records, declared counsel’s duty and authority to sign a pleading is personal to him and
may not be delegated to just any person.
another “as long as it conformed to his draft.” We give no value
The signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that whatsoever to such self-serving statement.
he has read the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, No doubt, Atty. Garlitos could not have validly given blanket authority
information and belief, there is a good ground to support it; and for just anyone to sign the answer. The trial court correctly ruled that
that it is not interposed for delay. Under the Rules of Court, it is respondent’s answer was invalid and of no legal effect as it was an
counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who can certify to these unsigned pleading. Respondent was properly declared in default and
matters. the Republic was rightly allowed to present evidence ex parte.
Respondent insists on the liberal application of the rules. It maintains
The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work that even if it were true that its answer was supposedly an unsigned
involving practice of law which is reserved exclusively for the pleading, the defect was a mere technicality that could be set aside.
members of the legal profession. Counsel may delegate the
signing of a pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor
Procedural requirements which have often been disparagingly labeled
of one who is not.
as mere technicalities have their own valid raison d’ etre in the orderly
administration of justice. To summarily brush them aside may result in
arbitrariness and injustice[1].
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: