Title: FLORENCE MALCAMPO-SIN vs. PHILIPP T. SIN, G.R. No.

137590, FIRST
DIVISION, PARDO, J., March 26, 2001

Facts:

1. This case is an appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the
decision of the RTC dismissing the annulment of marriage filed by here in respondent
due to inefficiency of evidence.

2. The Solicitor General nor the Fiscal Jose Danilo C. Jabson failed to actively
participate in the case, although a the fiscal herein mentioned filed a manifestation
dated November 16, 1994, since then no other pleadings had been filed for the
petitioner.The presiding judge as well did not take any step to encourage the fiscal to
contribute in the proceedings.

3. The Family Code mandates:

"ARTICLE 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of

marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it
to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the
parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed (italics
ours).

"In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be

based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment."

Issue:

1. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals valid.

2. Is the fiscal liable for failure to observe code of professional responsibility.

1. No, the Court of Appeals decision lacks merit.

In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Erlinda Matias Dagdag, the court
ruled against the the premature ruling of the court for failure of the petitioner to
comply with the evidenciary requisites.
 In the same manner, on this case, the court can not render a decision as it will be
too premature since the fiscal for the petitioner failed to actively participate as much
as the court’s lack of encouragement by calling the attention of the fiscal.

2. Yes, lawyers both as a private and in the government sector should always
observe code of professional responsibility.

3. In this case the following applies:

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared
himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order
of its proferrence. He should also be ready with the original documents for
comparison with the copies.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

The fiscal on this case only filed a manifestation on November 16, 1994, other
than this he failed to participate actively as a case on Family Code is a a matter of
interest of state, which requires attention and active participation

Wherefore, for failure of the fiscal to actively take part on the matter of this case
to ensure equal protection of law, the decision in this case is prematurely held. The
decision on this case is set aside, and remanded. The fiscal on this case is hereby
warned, that future occurrence will result to a disciplinary action of this court.