Phil. Aluminum Wheels, Inc. vs FASGI Enterprises, Inc.

G.R. No. 137378, October 12, 2000

FACTS:

On June 1, 1978, FASGI Enterprises, Inc. (FASGI) a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the State of California, USA, entered into a distributorship agreement with
Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. (PAWI), a Philippine corporation. According to the agreement, PAWI
agrees to deliver 8,594 wheels to FASGI. Upon receipt, FASGI paid $216, 444.30 to PAWI. Later, however
FASGI found out that the wheels were defective and did not comply with certain US standards. On Sept.
21, 1979. FASGI instituted an action against PAWI for breach of contract and recover of damages before
the US District for the Central District of California. During the pendency of the case, the parties reached
a settlement but PAWI failed to comply with the terms. A second agreement was made, but PAWI again
failed to fulfill its obligation. The agreement provides that PAWI shall return the purchase price in
installment and FASGI will return the wheels. PAWI was only able to make 2 installments. FASGI south the
enforcement of the agreement and received a favorable judgement from the Court of California. PAWI
was then ordered to pay P225 thousand plus damages but FASGI was not ordered to return the wheels.
PAWI was not able to comply with the court order in US. In 1983, FASGI filed an action for the enforcement
of a foreign judgement with RTC of Makati. RTC ruled against FASGI, on appeal, CA reversed the judgement
of the trial court, thus the present appeal.

ISSUE:

W/N the foreign judgement may be enforced here in the Philippines.

RULING:

Yes. The judgement is valid. A valid judgement rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized
insofar as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is
convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of
competent judgement. In this case, PAWI was well represented in the Court of California. PAWI’s
insistence that its American lawyer colluded with FASGI; that he entered into the compromise without
the PAWI’s authority is belied by the fact that PAWI initially complied with the agreement. It did not
disclaim the agreement. PAWI cannot, by this petition for review, seek refuge over business dealing and
decision gone awry. Neither do the courts function to relieve a party from the effects of an unwise or
unfavorable contract freely entered into. The Court finds no reversible error on the part of the appellate
court in its appealed judgement.
Cesar A. Espiritu vs. Juan Cabredo IV

A.C. No. 5831, January 13, 2003

FACTS:

This is an administrative case filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on May 8, 2001
by complainant Cesar Espiritu against Atty. Juan Cabredo IV for failure to fulfill a fiduciary obligation to a
client.

Complainant was the president of Esphar Medical Center, and he executed a promissory note that
obliges him to pay P511,956 in monthly installments to Gencars, Inc. Gencars assigned to BPI Family
Savings Bank all of its rights regarding the promissory note. Complainant failed to pay for three
consecutive months and demands were made to pay their obligation. Complainant engaged the services
of respondent to represent him in the civil case. Esphar’s representative Maritess Alejandrino, delivered
P51,160 to respondent’s office. It was later found out that respondent did not deliver the money to the
Court or to BPI-FSB, even failing to appear at the hearing of the complainant’s civil case. Complainant then
filed a case for fraud against respondent after amicably settling civil case with other party. The
respondent’s defense was that his secretary, Rose Tria did indeed receive the money from Esphar, but
Tria failed to inform about the money. Respondent shifted the blame of negligence towards his staff. He
is also willing to reimburse complainant to show his good faith and remove any suspicion that he used the
amount for his own use and benefit.

ISSUE:

W/N Atty. Cabredo should be suspended by the court for his actions.

RULING:

Yes. Atty. Cabredo was suspended for 1 year from the practice of law and was ordered to return
the money to Esphar. The relationship between a lawyer and client is highly fiduciary; it requires a high
degree of fidelity and good faith. Hence, in dealing with trust property, a lawyer should be very scrupulous.
Money or other trust property of the client coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported
by the latter and accounted for promptly and should not, under any circumstances, be comingled with his
own or used by him.

Even after receiving notice and 2 other demand letters, respondent never returned the money of
complainant nor paid it to bank. Indeed, it is improbable that the respondent’s secretary failed to inform
complainant about the receipt of such a substantial sum of money. In failing to account for the money of
his client, respondent violated not only the Code of Professional Responsibility but also his oath to conduct
himself with all good fidelity to his client. Like judges, lawyers must not only be proper but they must also
appear to be so. This way, the people’s faith in the justice system would remain unshaken.
Benjamin Uy vs. Hon. S. Mercado

A.M. No. R-368-MTJ, September 30, 1987

FACTS:

Municipal Trial Court Judge Renato S. Mercado of Cabarrogue Qurino Province, later Municipal
Circuit Trial Court Judge of Aglipay-Sagaday Quirino Province, is administratively charged with abuse of
judicial power and discretion, and gross ignorance of the law.

In May 1985, former Mambabatas Pambansa Orlando Dulay filed a complaint for liber against
herein complainant. Respondent judge conducted the preliminary investigation and issued the warrant of
arrest of Uy on the same day, without any evidence or proof to warrant conclusion that the accused may
frustrate the ends of justice by their non-appearance in the trial. Thus, Uy was arrested and ordered
detained.

Complainant alleges that respondent judge due course despite to the complaint of libel despite
the fact that under R.A. No. 1289, as amended by R.A. No. 4363, the proper jurisdiction and venue of the
case is Quezon City, where former MP Dulay held office or in Manila where the allegedly libelous article
was printed first and published.

ISSUE:

W/N respondent judge committed abuse of judicial power and discretion, and gross ignorance of
law.

RULING:

Yes. It should be noted the accused in the libel case filed a motion to dismiss, raising the issue of
venue and jurisdiction, thus affording the respondent judge an opportunity to rectify his previous stand,
but respondent judge fitted and refused to dismiss the libel case, even if it was clear that the court, over
which he presided, really had no jurisdiction over the case. With this unjustified action, respondent judge
placed his integrity under a heavy cloud, leading the court to believe that he went “out of his way” to
accommodate and favor the then influential and powerful former governor and later MP Dulay.

It appearing that the records of the case sufficiently provide a clear basis for the determination of
charges. The unjustified and irregular acts of respondent judge in the premises constitute serious
misconduct or at east, gross ignorance of law.