Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

CANONS 1, 2, 3 & 5 Group 1

Promote and Respect Law and Legal Process


The petitioner, the respondents legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline, chargingthem with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her daughter that her husband was having an affair with a woman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same information was confirmed when oner of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow. After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded resultstelling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong.Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty. RamonaPaguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed financialsupport. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when they committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of a violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.

Whether Atty. Garridos and Valencias actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly committed when they were not lawyers.

Rule 1.01


(181 SCRA 692)

A lawyer was convicted of Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 which the Court considered a crime involving moral turpitude as this mischief creates not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The lawyer was suspended by the Court of Appeals. She went to the Supreme Court asking for the lifting of the Order of suspension arguing that the issuance of the bouncing checks does not relate to the exercise of her legal profession.

Violation of her attorneys oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility ; continued possession of good moral character in the practice of law

Rule 1.01


(7 SCRA 871)

In a verified complaint filed with this Court, complainant Josefina Royong charged the respondent Ariston J. Oblena, a member of the Philippine Bar, with rape allegedly committed on her person in the manner described therein. Cecilia Angeles, her foster mother, left her alone in their house and went down to the pig sty to feed the pigs. While she" (complainant) was ironing clothes on the second floor of the house, the respondent entered and read a newspaper at her back. Suddenly he covered her mouth with one hand and with the other hand dragged her to one of the bedrooms of the house and forced her to lie down on the floor. She did not shout for help because he threatened her and her family with death. He next undressed as she lay on the floor, then had sexual intercourse with her after he removed her panties and gave her hard blows on the thigh with his fist to subdue her resistance. After the sexual intercourse, he warned her not to report him to her foster parents, otherwise, he would kill her and all the members of her family. She resumed ironing clothes after he left until 5:00 o'clock that afternoon when she joined her foster mother on the first floor of the house. As a result of the sexual intercourse she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby.

Good moral character at time of application for admission to the bar; falsification of petition to take the bar examinations

Rule 1.01

SC: Judgment entered striking the name of Ariston J. Oblena from the roll of attorneys.


(63 SCRA 321)

On January 16, 1973, petitioner Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union was able to obtain from the Court of Industrial Relations the third alias writ of execution for the satisfaction and enforcement of the judgment in its favor.Thereafter, Deputy Sheriff Mario Abiog of Manila, who was especially deputized to serve the writ, did so levying on the personal properties of the Cosmos Foundry Shop or the New Century Foundry Shop for the purpose of conducting the public auction sale.

It was then that respondent Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall writ of execution, asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, a point stressed in another motion, on the further ground that petitioner Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union failed to put up an indemnity bond. The Court of Industrial Relations in its order denied his motions. So likewise was the motion for reconsideration, as shown in its order. Private respondent appealed by certiorari such order to this Court.

This Court, in its resolution, denied the petition for certiorari of private respondent. In the meanwhile, there was a replevin suit by private respondent in the Court of First Instance of Manila covering the same properties. Upon receipt of the order from this Court denying certiorari, petitioner labor union filed a second motion to dismiss the complaint.

It was therein alleged that private respondent has no cause of action, he being a fictitious buyer based on the findings of the Court of Industrial Relations in its order and affirmed by the Supreme Court in its resolution. The lower court dismissed the complaint. That is the decision elevated to the Court of Appeals, and it is precisely because of its obvious character as a further delaying tactic that this petition is filed.

Defense of clients cause at the disregard of truth and in defiance of clear purpose of labor statutes

Rule 1.02



(65 SCRA 512)

The petitioners VenancioCastaeda and Nicetas Henson filed a replevin suit against Pastor Ago in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover certain machineries. The judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Ago to return the machineries or pay definite sums of money.

Ago appealed, and this Court, affirmed the judgment. After remand, the trial court issued a writ of execution for the sum of P172,923.87. Ago moved for a stay of execution but his motion was denied, and levy was made on Ago's house and lots located in Quezon City. The sheriff then advertised them for auction sale. Ago moved to stop the auction sale, failing in which he filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

The appellate court dismissed the petition and Ago appealed. The Court, in Ago vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-19718, affirmed the dismissal. Ago thrice attempted to obtain a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution "to save his family house and lot;" his motions were denied, and the sheriff sold the house and lots to the highest bidders, the petitioners Castaeda and Henson. Ago failed to redeem, and The sheriff executed the final deed of sale in favor of the vendees Castaeda and Henson. Upon their petition, the Court of First Instance of Manila issued a writ of possession to the properties.

However, Pastor Ago, now joined by his wife, as his co-plaintiff, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City (civil case Q-7986) to annul the sheriff's sale on the ground that the obligation of Pastor Ago upon which judgment was rendered against him in the replevin suit was his personal obligation, and that Lourdes Yu Ago's onehalf share in their conjugal residential house and lots which were levied upon and sold by the sheriff could not legally be reached for the satisfaction of the judgment.

They alleged in their complaint that wife Lourdes was not a party in the replevin suit, that the judgment was rendered and the writ of execution was issued only against husband Pastor, and that wife Lourdes was not a party to her husband's venture in the logging business which failed and resulted in the replevin suit and which did not benefit the conjugal partnership.

While the battle on the matter of the lifting and restoring of the restraining order was being fought in the Quezon City court, the Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with this Court, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sheriff from enforcing the writ of possession.

This Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it in a minute resolution; reconsideration was denied. The respondents then filed a similar petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CAG.R. 37830-R), praying for the same preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition. The respondents then appealed to this Court (L-27140) and it dismissed the petition in a minute resolution.

It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his clients cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyers oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy indisputable.

Rule 1.03

SC: Treble costs are assessed against the spouses Pastor Ago and Lourdes Yu Ago, which shall be paid by their lawyer, Atty. Jose M. Luison.