Está en la página 1de 35

G.R. No.

86421 May 31, 1994 On 07 October 1985, a complaint for "Annulment of Judgment, Lease Contract and Damages"
was filed by petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch XLI) asking, in main,
for the nullification of the judgment in the ejectment case. The complaint was dismissed on
the ground of res judicata. This time, petitioners appealed the dismissal to the Court of
ROLDAN, petitioners,
Appeals. Meanwhile, a writ of execution was issued by the MTC for the enforcement of its
decision. The writ, however, was held in abeyance when petitioners deposited with the Court
THE HON. ED VINCENT ALBANO, Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
of Appeals the sum of P3,000.00 in cash plus an amount of P100.00 to be paid every month
beginning February 1987. On 11 March 1987, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of
LEONARDO CRUZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge Regional Trial of Manila,
dismissal of the lower court. Petitioners' recourse to this Court was to be of no avail. The
Branch XXV, respondents.
petition was denied, and an entry of judgment was made on 14 July 1987.

Gregorio T. Fabros for petitioners.
Accordingly, the records were remanded to the MTC for execution. When petitioners refused
to remove their house on the premises in question, upon motion of private respondent, an
Isidro F. Molina for private respondent. order of demolition was issued. Shortly thereafter, the demolition began. Before the
completion of the demolition, a restraining order was issued by the Regional Trial Court of
RESOLUTION Manila (Branch XIX) following a petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction and
restraining order, filed by petitioners. On 23 February 1988, the trial court dismissed the

Unfazed by the series of dismissals of their complaints and petitions, petitioners assailed
VITUG, J.: anew the MTC decision in a petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction, and for
declaratory relief (docketed Civil Case No. 88-43944) before the Regional Trial Court of Manila
Spouses Miguel and Thelma Masinsin, et al., instituted this petition for certiorari, prohibition, (Branch XXV), which, again, issued a restraining order. 2
relief from judgment, as well as declaratory relief, with prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction, asking us to order the Metropolitan Trial Court ("MTC") of Manila, Branch X, to Private respondent then filed a motion for an alias writ of execution with the MTC. An ex-
cease and desist from further proceeding with Civil Case No. 107203-CV. parte motion of petitioners for the issuance of a second restraining order was this time
denied by the RTC (Branch XXV). 3 On 23 August 1990, 4 the trial court, ultimately, dismissed
This case emerged from an ejectment suit (docketed Civil Case No. 107203-CV) filed by the petition with costs against petitioners.
private respondent Vicente Cañeda ("Cañeda"), then as plaintiffs, against herein petitioners,
as defendants, with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (Branch X). After trial, the MTC, on In this petition, petitioners contend that the MTC of Manila (Branch X) has lost jurisdiction to
01 July 1985, rendered judgment; thus: enforce its decision, dated 01 July 1985, in Civil Case No. 107203, when the property in
question was proclaimed an area for priority development by the National Housing Authority
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants and on 01 December 1987 by authority of Presidential Decree 2016.
all persons claiming right under them to vacate the premises and to remove their
house/apartment and surrender possession of the subject land to the plaintiff; to pay The petition is totally without merit.
to the plaintiff the sum of P100.00 a month from January 1987 as the reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of the premises until the land is actually
vacated, and the costs of suit. 1 In resolving this issue, we only have to refer to our resolution of 01 February 1993 in G.R. No.
98446, entitled, "Spouses Thelma R. Masinsin, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.," to which this
case is intimately related, where we ruled:
No appeal having been taken therefrom, the judgment became final and executory. On 22
August 1985, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of Manila
(Branch XXXII) seeking the annulment of the aforesaid decision in the ejectment case and to . . . The singular question common to both cases submitted for resolution of this
set aside an order of its execution. The petition was in due time dismissed. Again, no appeal court is the implication of Presidential Decree No. 1517, otherwise known as the
was taken therefrom. "Urban Land Reform Law," and its amendments or ramifications embodied in
Proclamation No. 1893, as amended by Proclamation No. 1967 and Presidential

Decree No. 2016. All the above statutes are being implemented by the Housing and Four times did the petitioners, with the assistance of counsel, try to nullify the same MTC
Land Use Regulatory Board, and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating decision before different branches of the court, trifling with judicial processes. Never, again,
Council, Office of the President. should this practice be countenanced. 6

There is a prejudicial issue the answer to which hangs the resolution of this case. On The lawyer's oath to which we have all subscribed in solemn agreement in dedicating
May 20, 1992, this Court required the National Housing Authority to submit a ourselves to the pursuit of justice, is not a mere fictile of words, drift and hollow, but a sacred
Comment on the status of the program of acquisition by the Government of the land trust that we must uphold and keep inviolable. Perhaps, it is time we are here reminded of
area which includes the disputed property, as part of the Areas for Priority that pledge; thus -
Development (APD), under the aforementioned decrees and proclamations.
In compliance with said order of this Court, Mr. Andres C. Lingan, Manager of the
Metro Manila Project Department of the National Housing Authority, submitted the I, . . ., do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
following report on the status of Lot 6-A, Block 1012, located at No. 1890 Obesis Philippines; I will support and defend its Constitution and obey the laws as well as
Street, Pandacan, Manila, known as the Carlos Estate, an APD site. Pertinent portions the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood nor
of the report read: consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will not
Please be informed that Lot 6-A, Block 1012 located at No. 1890 Obesis St., delay any man's cause for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer
Pandacan, Manila which is the subject matter of the case and located within the according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
Carlos Estate declared as APD site pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 1967, is the courts as to my clients and I impose upon myself this obligation voluntary,
not for acquisition by NHA. without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

The Carlos Estate is located outside of the NHA projects under the Zonal SO HELP ME GOD. (Emphasis supplied.)
Improvement Project (ZIP) and Community Mortgage Program (CMP). The site,
however, is under the administration of the Presidential Commission on Urban Poor We have since emphasized in no uncertain terms that any act on the part of a lawyer, an
(PCUP) for acquisition and upgrading. (Emphasis Supplied.) officer of the court, which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the
administration of justice is contumacious calling for both an exercise of disciplinary action
The above information answers the uncertainty concerning the status of the alleged and warranting application of the contempt power. 7
negotiation for the acquisition by the government of certain areas in Metro Manila.
The NHA is definitely NOT acquiring the said lot for its program. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners' counsel of record is hereby strongly
CENSURED and WARNED that a similar infraction of the lawyer's oath in the future will be
It appearing that the purpose of this Petition for Review is to set aside the decision dealt with most severely. Double costs against petitioners.
of the respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the lower courts,
in order to avoid eviction from the disputed premises and to be allowed to acquire This resolution is immediately executory.
the same allegedly under the Community Mortgage Program of the National Housing
Authority, we find the petition without merit and deny the same. Consequently, the
petition is DISMISSED. 5 SO ORDERED.

What immediately catches one's attention to this case is the evident predilection of
petitioners, through different counsel, to file pleadings, one after another, from which not
even this Court has been spared. The utter lack of merit of the complaints and petitions
[A.C. No. 5624. January 20, 2004]
simply evinces the deliberate intent of petitioners to prolong and delay the inevitable
execution of a decision that has long become final and executory.
FLORIDO, respondent.

DECISION presence of Tanjay City Chief of Police Juanito Condes and NBI Investigator Roger Sususco,
among others.
In the early morning of January 16, 2002, complainant received information that a van arrived
at the hotel where respondent and the children were staying to take them to Bacolod City.
This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. James Benedict C.
Complainant rushed to the hotel and took the children to another room, where they stayed
Florido and his eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as
until later in the morning.
a lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals
On the same day, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch
31, a verified petition[4] for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to
In her Complaint-Affidavit, Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido averred that she is the legitimate
custody of the children on the basis of the alleged Court of Appeals resolution. In the
spouse of respondent Atty. James Benedict C. Florido, but that they are estranged and living
meantime, complainant verified the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a certification
separately from each other. They have two children namely, Kamille Nicole H. Florido, five
dated January 18, 2002[5] from the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering
years old, and James Benedict H. Florido, Jr., three years old both of whom are in
complainant to surrender custody of their children to respondent had been issued.
complainants custody. Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her marriage with
respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 23122, before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City,
Branch 24. Meanwhile, there is another case related to the complaint for annulment of At the hearing of the petition for habeas corpus on January 23, 2002, respondent did not
marriage which is pending before the Court of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54235 appear. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
entitled, James Benedict C. Florido v. Hon. Pampio Abarientos, et al.
Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint alleging that respondent violated his
Sometime in the middle of December 2001, respondent went to complainants residence in attorneys oath by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious Court of Appeals Resolution
Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their two minor children be in and outside a court of law. Furthermore, respondent abused and misused the privileged
surrendered to him. He showed complainant a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by granted to him by the Supreme Court to practice law in the country.
the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his motion for temporary child custody.
Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter informed her that he had not received any After respondent answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the IBP-Commission on
motion for temporary child custody filed by respondent. Bar Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP-CBD recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years with a warning
Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of that another offense of this nature will result in his disbarment. [6] On June 23, 2003, the IBP
Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant then examined the resolution Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and recommendation of the
closely and noted that it bore two dates: November 12, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Commission with the modification that the penalty of suspension be increased to six years.
Sensing something amiss, she refused to give custody of their children to respondent.
The issue to be resolved is whether or not the respondent can be held administratively liable
In the mid-morning of January 15, 2002, while complainant was with her children in the ABC for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Learning Center in Tanjay City, respondent, accompanied by armed men, suddenly arrived
and demanded that she surrender to him the custody of their children. He threatened to In his answer to the complaint, respondent claims that he acted in good faith in invoking the
forcefully take them away with the help of his companions, whom he claimed to be agents of Court of Appeals Resolution which he honestly believed to be authentic. This, however, is
the National Bureau of Investigation. belied by the fact that he used and presented the spurious resolution several times. As
pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, the assailed Resolution was presented by
Alarmed, complainant immediately sought the assistance of the Tanjay City Police. The respondent on at least two occasions: first, in his Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas
responding policemen subsequently escorted her to the police station where the matter could Corpus docketed as Special Proc. Case No. 3898, [7] which he filed with the Regional Trial Court
be clarified and settled peacefully. At the police station, respondent caused to be entered in of Dumaguete City; and second, when he sought the assistance of the Philippine National
the Police Blotter a statement that he, assisted by agents of the NBI, formally served on Police (PNP) of Tanjay City to recover custody of his minor children from complainant. Since it
complainant the appellate courts resolution/order. [3] In order to diffuse the tension, was respondent who used the spurious Resolution, he is presumed to have participated in its
complainant agreed to allow the children to sleep with respondent for one night on condition fabrication.
that he would not take them away from Tanjay City. This agreement was entered into in the

Bulacan.: gentlemen to another. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR." the latter rendered a decision on 28 June 1991. He further alleges that Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan. have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. its face because it: .a petition for certiorari filed by the period of two years.. which we deem commensurate to the offense committed. Santos for and in his own behalf. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court. for unlawful detainer commenced on 5 May 1990 with the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan. No.02 . Respondent. Atty. Rule 10. MTC. hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a The complainant herein is the lawyer for the defendants in Civil Case No. in view of all the foregoing considerations. 90-1706. or for judgment be rendered in accordance with plaintiff's prayer in their Complaint in the above- any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice. James Benedict C. suspension for the lesser 19 January 1993 in Sp. is hereby defendants in Civil Case No. nor consent to the doing of any in court. the gross misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed by Section 27. grossly WHEREFORE. or the text of a decision or authority. SO ORDERED. Rule complainant charges the respondent with gross ignorance of the law and gross 138 of the Rules of Court which states: incompetence. A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified.M. MTJ-93-781 November 16. or for entitled case. EDUARDO R. FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. grounds therefore.A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of FIRST DIVISION a paper.[10] By calling complainant. PAGUIO. a sly manipulator of truth as well as a vindictive congenital prevaricator. vs. The burden cast on the judiciary would WHEREFORE. Petitioner.had already opined that the said decision is void upon imposed on respondent. Considering the attendant circumstances. Moreover.01 . we agree with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law. They constitute verified complaint filed through the Office of the Court Administrator on 18 March 1993. 1the decretal portion of which reads as follows: SEC. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Code of professional Responsibility states: (IBP) and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts of the country. emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. in view of all the foregoing. Civil Action No. [8] Thus. 03-M-93 2. it must never be at the expense of the truth. or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered A. Instead. or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing complainant and her relatives. JR. Even with due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal Let copies of this resolution be entered in the personal record of respondent as a in the defense of a clients cause. the member of the Bar and furnished the Bar Confidant. 90-1706 . Rule 10. 27.Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. In his Respondents actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. the language or the argument of an opposing counsel. JUDGE ORLANDO C. it is hereby respectfully prayed that immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Meycauayan. Florido is SUSPENDED from be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. an action lawyer. in its Order of we find that the period of six years is too harsh a penalty. SO ORDERED.. nor shall he mislead. However. CANON 10. The time that will the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. The complainant supports his charge with the allegation that after the answer in the said case was filed and "without notice and hearing.[9] The lawyers arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should be of such words as may be properly addressed by one DAVIDE. Bulacan while the respondent is the presiding Judge of the said court.A lawyer shall not do any falsehood.A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit. SANTOS. malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. Eduardo R. 1993 inoperative by repeal or amendment. J.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.

7 the respondent argues that while the 28 June 1991 integrity of the judiciary. that the respondent believes that "he could correct the decision after its According to the complainant. Ordering the defendants to pay costs." Further. Philippine and academic by the corrections made in the Decision of 25 January 1993. the plaintiff's motion for by: execution was granted and a writ of execution was issued. a copy of which was sent to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Malolos for service.000. Meycauayan. (7) thereafter." and maintains that the respondent's attempt to convince this Court that SO ORDERED. who represented the latter until the time that the parties were court and passed through the usual course of the proceedings. would be impossible to be implemented for the simple or obvious reason that the same only after a preliminary conference was held where the parties with their respective counsels cannot be considered a decision at all. 90-1706 on 25 January 1993 plaintiff. and thereafter until they shall execution. and that the "clarified decision" alleges." The complainant then prays that the respondent "be removed from office if only to save the In his Sur-Rejoinder filed on 13 July 1993. and the complainant's sweeping for every hearing/trial attended by said attorney before this Honorable Court. specifically until 29 November 1991 when guilty of gross ignorance of the law and of lack of Atty. Sr. (4) on 4 December 1991. (2) the Decision of 28 June 1991 was rendered .. andchanrobles conclusions show his disrespectful attitude."chanrobles virtual law library amend the same to favor plaintiff was both appalling (sic) and downright improper. the dispositive portion of the 28 June 1991 Decision is permissible and proper shows "gross ignorance. dwelling structure/unit. (6) the presiding judge of said Branch 18. in view of all the foregoing. The dispositive portion of this 28 June 1991 Decision. He finally contends that the issue regarding the dispositive portion of the 28 June 1991 Decision was rendered moot 3. Philippine Currency. discussed the possibility of an amicable settlement and after the defendants failed to comply it merely prays that judgment be rendered. on account of plaintiff's attorney's fees (retainer) and P500. In his 17 June 1993 Rejoinder filed on 7 July 1993."chanrobles virtual law library Decision "could hardly be enforced for the reason that there is some sort of ambiguity or omission (sic) in its dispositive portion. ." Accordingly. with the 16 November 1990 Order for the parties to submit in writing their "respective position statements setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them and to submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other evidences in support thereof within fifteen (15) days but despite this. 03-M-93. that the charge of currency. the dispositive portion of the 28 June 1991 Decision exhibits finality" and after the RTC of Bulacan had declared it to be null and void upon its face clearly the respondent's gross ignorance in "decision preparation." which was what he had in fact done. Ordering defendants individually to pay the sum of P350. per month plaintiff filed its opposition on 8 February 1993 together with a motion for immediate by way of monthly rental commencing from May 16. (9) on 22 March 1993. inter alia. 5 he received an order 1.chanrobles virtual law library the former did not appear on the date it was set for consideration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library appearance as counsel for the defendants. 4 the respondent denies the imputations and corrected and clarified. . new decision reads as follows: which the defendants did not oppose. Macapagal. which the court set for its consideration and to which the 2. (8) instead of appealing therefrom. (5) on 5 January 1991.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law virtual law library library 4. Instead of deciding or ordering something to be done. Adriano Javier. prompting the plaintiff to file on 5 April 1991 an ex-parte motion 1991] in order to nullify the order of a superior Court." he was not prohibited from having the defect "timely In his Comment filed on 2 July 1993. 1990. he could not be directed to file their respective position papers. at 117 Bayugo. aforementioned) and to remove said dwelling structure/units from said subject premises of he (respondent) handed down a new decision in Civil Case No. the complainant filed a motion to inhibit the respondent by have vacated the premises of the plaintiff. Judge Demetrio B. more particularly the portion on which are erected their respective execution. 90-1706 3promulgated on 25 January 1993. 6 the complainant reiterates his charge that the respondent is incompetent because he lacks the "ability to prepare a sensible and credible decision. (3) the defendants did not appeal from the in Civil Case No. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the sum of P2. Bulacan (or lot of plaintiff issued on 19 January 1993 its order disposing of Sp.00. judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and there was no valid pre-trial order. hence the plaintiff filed a motion for execution on 2 September 1991. instead they filed a motion for reconsideration and to declare the decision null and void on the ground that the plaintiff did not file her pre-trail brief WHEREFORE. gross ignorance is contemptuous and unfounded. the RTC of Bulacan" via a new decision praying that judgment be rendered in this case. that: (1) the complainant was not the original counsel for the defendants did not prejudice "the substantial rights of the parties" since they "were given their day in but one Atty.chanrobles virtual law library that contained "completely the missing sentences needed in the dispositive portion" of its earlier decision. Civil Action No.. Javier filed a motion to withdraw his appearance and the complainant filed his notice of competence.00. the respondent still "changed and amended [his] final decision [of 28 June from receipt" thereof." and that respondent's "haste to manifests his "patent ignorance of our laws and jurisprudence.00 Philippine Currency. Sr. Ordering defendants and persons claiming any rights under them to vacate the premises from Branch 18 of the RTC of Bulacan directing him to desist from implementing the writ of occupied by them. the defendants filed on 4 February 1993 a motion to set aside the decision.

the error could have easily the ex-parte manifestation and motion praying that judgment be rendered filed after the been discovered at the time the Motion for Execution was filed on September 2. 1991. If he had been more careful. 8 Not to be outdone. report and property (Ibid). It did not have the effect of finally disposing the supported by the pleadings submitted by the parties in this case. .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library After a careful examination of the respondent's "Decision" of 28 June 1991. such a missing portion considered to be the most important part of a decision could not have escaped his attention.chanrobles virtual law library Reply on 9 August 1993. For a more vivid explanation showing the incidental facts (Ibid). diligence. Respondent could have 1. Decision. There is no denying that the quality of a decision rendered by the arcanum. The only ineluctable conclusion is that respondent never read said decision before he signed the same." It took is obviously a prayer lifted from a pleading of the plaintiff.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library 3. the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its Memorandum have no place in a court decision.qualities which Judges must. a fine of P5. both the original and amended decisions still contained errors in grammar and syntax indicating that there was no adequate editing of the decision There can.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library complaint. Plaintiff on being opposed to this motion. If only he devoted even only a little time to read the same. such as the Memorandum or respondent Judge 1-1/2 years to discover and correct his error. report and recommendation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library the decision that he signed. easily avoided the errors and defects had he taken a little more time and effort to at least 1991). however. How it gained entry into what should have been the fallo is an not mitigate his liability. nay.00 be imposed upon respondent with a warning that any repetition of the It is quite unbelievable. and made the and recommends that: following findings: .chanrobles virtual law passion for excellence. containing its evaluation. is a reflection on the integrity of the court in dispensing respondent who is only charged herein with gross ignorance or justice to whom it is due. Respondent was at the very least careless in failing to read carefully incompetence. Its "dispositive portion" disposes of. Careful editing and rewriting should have been done. Presumably. be no dispute behind the errors of grammar and syntax and the fatally that was signed by him. Ibid). the respondent filed a Manifestation to becomes one of a detainer plain and simple (page 6. this must have been simply copied from plaintiff's case. although not from the complaint as suspected the writ was nonetheless issued on December 4. conscientiousness and thoroughness .chanrobles virtual law library . it was legally permissible for respondent to amend his original defective decision since body to be flawed with grammatical and syntactic errors. among others. Any attempt to unravel the mystery may only complicate the matter against the judge such as herein respondent. But nothing has been done by the latter to renew such contract of lease of which right Manifestation on 28 July 1993. impossible for respondent to have overlooked the missing same or similar infraction shall be meted with a more severe penalty of dismissal from the dispositive portion of his original decision which is considered the executory portion thereof. the said office submitted that the instant complaint is meritorious. the complainant filed a Reply to Sur-rejoinder and 4. He is also admonished to exhibit greater care in the writing of his decisions. But defendants failed to file their position paper. Hence. While this Court cannot expect every Judge to be an expert on the English language or an authority in grammar. And defendants seems that they are not really sincere (Ibid). however. to produce a decision which fosters respect for and encourages library obedience to it and enhances the prestige of the court. countered as follows: (Page 5. extraordinary diligence. he would have avoided such fractured infirmed "dispositive portion" is the inefficiency. 9chanrobles virtual law library 5.Wanting to have the last word. After summarizing the antecedent facts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library recommendation. the belated correction would by the Court Administrator. It what was rendered by Judge Paguio "can not be considered a decision at all. . That being the case to allow them will mean ownership over the The Court referred this to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation. he must. neglect of duty or carelessness on the part of phrases as:chanrobles virtual law library the respondent betraying the absence of due care. June 28. do everything he can. for their fractured constructions On 31 August 1993. service. we do find its True. the RTC dismissed the petition for certiorari although Judge Perfecto Macapagal found that resolves or decrees nothing. 1991. We find the above observations of the Office of the Court Administrator to be sufficiently The alleged dispositive portion was a prayer.000. and 2. through constant study. It cannot even be called a dispositive or decretal portion at all.chanrobles virtual law library read its original copy before he finally affixed his signature thereon. possess. In fact.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library It is possible that this is not the usual language of the Judge.

negligence.C. task and all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to. be admonished to faithfully adhere to the Code of Professional Responsibility.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library studious and thorough. be liable for ignorance of law and jurisprudence or for incompetence when he WHEREFORE. namely: that "[h]e should exhibit an industry and application integrity so as to preserve.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library the RTC of Bulacan in Sp. 14 Every Judge should never forget that he is the visible representation A.the complainant herein . He could not. and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the Constitution that a public office is a public trust and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. and act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.00).merely filed a motion for reconsideration based solely of the foregoing pleadings and documents. 13 It is not therefore correct to say. while the counsel for the the court had conducted the preliminary conference and issued the order for the submission defendants . Civil Action No. he must constantly be the . more importantly. he alleged that what was amended was a " final decision. We find that the case was properly placed and considered under the Rule on We must add. He could not have feigned ignorance of such nothingness hearing. Judiciary. for inefficiency and neglect of duty amounting to a violation of Canons 5 and 31 handed down a new decision on 25 January 1993. as the complainant suggested.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law keeping in mind his duty under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional library Responsibility.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library trial order. The counsel for the parties in the case knew or ought to have known submitted position papers. his complaint a strong prima facie case against the respondent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library We take this opportunity to stress once again that the administration of justice is a sacred SO ORDERED. Complainant should. if not outright for it is embarrassingly self-evident. 11chanrobles virtual law library A few words must also be made of record regarding the complainant. and by the Canons of Judicial Ethics. hence the respondent had the power to amend it to make it conformable to law and the same or similar infractions shall be dealt with more justice. affidavits and other pieces of evidence. however. inefficiency. We note that in his Moreover. integrity. always amended decision in the ejectment case. the respondent failed to comply with two standard of conduct prescribed embodiment of competence. The 28 June 1991 Decision was of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Obviously. Complainant further the fatal defect of the dispositive portion and the obvious inefficacy of any writ of execution. the case was set for preliminary conference and thereafter the parties were required to submit their position papers and the affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence. of justice. While he was entitled to fairness and good faith. He was not. in the very least. hold inviolate. for all legal intents and purposes. or at least this counsel was never notified of any such that there was nothing to execute. He nevertheless ordered its execution. the plaintiff's counsel still filed a motion for execution. respondent Judge ORLANDO C. therefore.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library We thus conclude that the respondent Judge is guilty of.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library mislead it through suppression of important facts which would have a bearing on its initial action. promote and enhance the people's confidence in the commensurate with the duties imposed upon him" 10 and that he should be conscientious." he even complaint in this case he alleged under oath that after the defendants filed their answer. carelessness. when he assailed the 25 January 1993 Decision. he forgot that he owes to this Court absolute glaring defect of the "dispositive portion" of the 28 June 1991 candor. accordingly. loyalty and efficiency. serve them with utmost responsibility. the complainant initially believed in the completeness of the decision. that the order of severely." rendered the 28 June 1991 Decision. 03-M-93 stating that the respondent's Decision of 28 June 1991 is "void upon its face" forever bars the respondent from rendering a new or Complainant is hereby ADMONISHED to be more careful in the drafting of pleadings. This is of course inaccurate. As a matter of fact. it had no fallo and could not attain to pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (P5. 1994 of the law and. however. 2837 October 7.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library admitted by the court. PAGUIO is hereby sentenced "incomplete" since. as disclosed in more his inefficiency. No. efficiency. thoroughness. diligence. 12 both attorneys should have called the court's attention to the adopt certain strategies in his pleadings. This Court can neither condone nor tolerate attempts to Decision. He is further warned that a repetition of finality. What the complainant conveniently left out in his complaint was that. that it is not the respondent alone who must be blamed for such Summary Procedure and. therefore. after the defendants' answer with counterclaim was incompetence.000.As we see it then. the court could decide the case on the basis of the unmitigated faux pas. As officers of the court who owe to it candor." a position totally inconsistent with his claim that the latter The failure to divulge the foregoing facts may have been intended by the complainant to give was void as declared by the RTC of Bulacan. conscientiousness. exhibiting once false. suppressed the fact that he entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants only after yet. neglect of duty and the violation of Canons 5 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. fairness and good faith. the granted the motion for its execution and issued the corresponding writ with full knowledge respondent "without any hearing. 15 Therefore. or even his the Comment which he did not refute. entitled to any notice on the ground that the plaintiff did not file her pre-trial brief and that there was no valid pre- before then. the respondent did not only issue a manifestly infirmed "decision.

a messenger in the law office of Attys. "T"). respondent. Oliva (Exh. UMALI. RTC. "V-1" and "V-2"). "T" — Demand Letter XLI. 2. report. and recommendation. "S"). (3) On the basis of the falsified Sheriff's Return on the Summons. a Defendant In Default dated October 30.) "R" — Motion through herein complainant. the defendant in That sometime in May 1984 in the City of Manila. at the Regional Trial Court. and "Q-2"). Atty. 1988. Respondents in their respective answers denied having any hand in the falsification of the said sheriff's return. entitled "Pedro Cutingting. Atty.00 (Exh. Umali. PER CURIAM: The oral and documentary evidence of the complainant strongly tend to show the following: (1) The Sheriff's Return of the Summon in the said civil case was falsified In civil Case No. as supported by 12. p. the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). defendant". (p. case. (p. complainant. Final Report. willfully the falsified Sheriff's Return on the Summons (Exh. sent a final demand letter on Alfredo Tan. Umali The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is hereby ordered to and Oliva and said messenger brought the summons to the law office of the conduct an investigation with the end in view of determining the author of the respondents (Exh. "J" — Sworn Statement of plaintiff versus Alfredo Tan. through counsel.) "Q". as thereby impending and/or obstructing the speedy administration and/or shown in the Questioned Document Report No. Sheriff's Return which appears to have been falsified and to institute such criminal Exh. entitled PEDRO CUTINGTING. ff. "H" — Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Ronaldo Romero. the complaint in said civil case (Exh. the case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the evidence. 1985. in his capacity as Operations Manager of Judge Pio R. (4) On March 29. Plaintiff vs. Oliva. for payment of the sum of P70. It can not be gainsaid that . "V". A lawyer's responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled In view. Defendant. Manila. 198-585 dated 19 June 1985 (Exh. 1984. the Code of Professional Responsibility. dispensation of Justice. did then and there. ALFREDO TAN. the Honorable Presiding Judge Domingo Panis issued Rodolfo Torella dated February 1. Edelson G. of Atty. the above-named Respondents. (2) The summons was received from the clerk of the Court of the Manila RTC-Branch LXI by Ronaldo Romero. After the careful review of the record of the case and the report and recommendation of the IBP. however. OLIVA and FLORANDO A. obtaining in this case indubitably reveal respondent's failure to live up to his the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. 84-24144 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. the IBP submitted the following report and vs.ESTEBAN M. and the Canons of Professional Ethics. 1984 signed and filed by falsified Sheriff's Return of Summons during the hearing of the aforesaid Civil Case Atty. Exh. 84-24144. Marcos Law Office. Manila. Oliva committed acts of misconduct Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the resolution of the Court En Banc of April which warrant the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary powers. the Motion To Declare introduced/presented in evidence before the aforesaid Regional Trial Court. EDELSON G. "R" and "R-1") were typed on one and the same typewriter. Chief action as the evidence will warrant. "S". "Q". the Court finds that respondent Atty. LIBIT. it is well to stress once again that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess. the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. 69. complainant. 2. which is the falsified Sheriff's the following order: Return). 1. Philippines. knowingly. At this juncture. Oliva addressed to Alfredo Tan). as Counsels for PEDRO dated March 28. "Q-1". counsel for the defendant [should be plaintiff] in said civil After conducting the necessary investigation. There is ample evidence extant in the records to prove that RESOLUTION Atty. With respect to Atty. recommendation: ATTYS. signature above the typewritten name Florando Umali on the last page of the complaint in said civil case is not his signature. as it was not signed by Deputy Sheriff Rodolfo Torella (Exh. "G". Final Report. and Exh. Branch said Civil case.174. "Q-1" and "Q-2". Oliva). Oliva. duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer's oath. Oliva (Exh. One of these requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. and continue to possess. 1985 of Mariano Villanueva. 84-24144. Edelson G. Oliva. filed a typewritten Motion to Declare Defendant in Default (Exh.) Staff Asst. and Exh. "I" — Sworn Statement dated February 28. agreed to the dismissal of the case with respect to Atty. The facts. charged respondents as follows: to Declare Defendant In Default in said civil case signed and filed by Atty. Record. Oliva has something to do with the falsification of the Sheriff's Return on the Summons in said Civil Case No. of the report of the National Bureau of Investigation to the effect that the by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party. (5) The demand letter CUTINGTING in Civil Case No. 1984 of Atty.

leaving a widow and five children. Arayata (1) that on August 27. that the respondent later applied for and obtained transfer certificate of title No. His license to practice law in the Philippines is CANCELLED and the Bar The investigation was finally conducted by the Judge of the Court of First Instance of the Confidant is ordered to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys. Montoya consists in having A lawyer shall not do any falsehood. stating therein under oath that he was single when in fact he was lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood.000. 1935 many years after Arcadio Arayata's death. and only secondarily are they November 5. 1933. on the other hand. document.candidness. for the sum of P500. that after affixing the names of the alleged vendor and the two witnesses. he filed an application to marry In this case. Exhibit A. that on August 27. and the document not genuine because another. ARAYATA and TERESO MA. while practicing his profession. 8370 in his favor. Montoya and made the latter legalize said document and state that Arcadio do no falsehood. J. the grantor and vendor and the other two were the instrumental witnesses thereto. 7591 was issued to him. he prepared and drew up in his favor a deed of sale of appearing and pleading before them.: or on April 11. has the fundamental duty the land described in transfer certificate of title No. respondent Atty. MONTOYA. 8370 of said land from the registry of deeds of Cavite after the former title was cancelled. IMPERIAL. EN BANC purchased from the Bureau of Lands lot No. duty is not to their clients but rather to the courts. Montoya and requested the latter to ratify said document. the Court resolved to impose upon Atty. for which transfer certificate of title No. The established facts show that the respondent Arayata is the son of Arcadio Arayata who died on November 5. Province of Cavite. the respondent attorney prepared the deed. him and confirmed the sale.000. Nos. Per Rec. when he knew positively that this alleged vendor had already died on to assist the courts in rendering justice to all and sundry. legalized and registered the document after Eustaquio V. married to Basilio Sorosoro. although said fact was not true. that they are above all court officers sworn Arcadio Arayata. For this reason. 7591. it having been clearly established that the latter. vs. complainant. Arayata in his own behalf. We SO ORDERED. 3527. Saguil. He has likewise violated Rule 10. Edelson Oliva has manifestly violated that part of his oath as a Engracia F. . 1931. he appeared before notary advocates of the exclusive interests of their clients. is essential for the expeditious administration of It is alleged in the charges filed against Attorney Eustaquio V. assuring him that the old man was EUSTAQUIO V. Accordingly. concur in the appreciation of the facts and we are of the opinion that said notary public and attorney should really be exonerated and held innocent. especially towards the courts. Viola. the JUSTA MONTEREY. in ratifying the The case is ordered dismissed as against Atty. respondent brought an old man and the two witnesses before notary public Tereso Ma. verifying from the old man that he ratified the contents thereof. respondents. and (2) that on June 5. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers 1931. succeeded in having the register of deeds cancel the transfer certificate of title issued to Arcadio Arayata and issue transfer certificate of title No. that Arcadio Arayata in life. 1933. who recommended that a disciplinary action be taken against Arayata and that Montoya be exonerated. and he later [1991]. A lawyer. he is required to swear to public Tereso Ma. Florando Umali. justice. acted in good faith and relied on Arayata's assurance that the old man then with him was really the vendor Arcadio Arayata who ratified all the contents of the instrument. Professional Responsibility which provides: The charge filed against attorney and notary public Tereso Ma. Ortega. 3408 August 23. signed it. that the transfer was invalid Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for the Government. being legally married to Aurora L. It is essential that lawyers bear in mind at all times that their first therein that the person who executed the document and sold the land to him was his father. nor consent to the doing of any in court (Chavez vs. 196 SCRA 10 Arayata personally appeared before him. said marriage not having been dissolved.01 of the Code of married. 3448 of the Hacienda de Santa Cruz de Malabon. stating therein that his father sold the land in question to him for the sum of P4. knowing fully well that said person is already dead and therefore could do neither the one nor the other. Edelson Oliva the supreme penalty of DISBARMENT. for the sum of P4. 1916. that the notary honestly believing said information. not Arcadio Arayata. stating to satisfy the expectation. that sometime later. 1916. the respondent sold a portion of said land having an area of two and one-half (2 ½) hectares to Sinforosa Torres. that knowing the document to be fictitious. nor consent to the doing of any in court nor ratified the deed of sale and having stated that Arcadio Arayata personally appeared before shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

1971 Companies for a modified renewal of their respective collective bargaining contracts which were then due to expire on September 30. Arayata guilty of malpractice and soon receiving P900 a month.. The acts committed by the respondent Arayata relative to the deed of sale Exhibit A. assumed the name of Arcadio Arayata. the application was registered and duly considered and on September 25. Lontok and Perez and Luis F. Aquino for petitioners. in the months of September and October 1957 negotiations were conducted on vs. but these were snagged by a deadlock on the issue of union shop. Thereafter. collective bargaining. We find this second new defense improbable and unestablished. he was single. filed a complaint for bigamy against the former. LTD. 1957.R. the Unions jointly submitted proposals to the G. or P600 more than he was receiving from the FFW. Workers & Employees Association-NATU. the respondent's wife. respondent. hereby reprimanding him hired on or about February 19. and his in a circular issued in his name and signed by him. So ordered. respondents. FGU INSURANCE GROUP. in the deed and relative to the land.. JOSE M. in Case 1698-ULP. petitioners. Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of the Department of Justice. Ltd. signed under oath an application to marry Engracia F. and the FGU Insurance Group (hereinafter referred to as the Companies). Mendoza and Papa for other respondents. the Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as assistant corporate secretary and legal assistant in their Legal Department. LTD. but alleged that nobody. for which reason the investigator is of the opinion. Garcia. 1957. marriage applied for was not solemnized. 1933. it likewise appears established that on June 5. 1965 and October 20. including the complainant.. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU. Ortega stating therein that Francisco de los Reyes for respondent Court of Industrial Relations. J.: court of Santa Rosa. entered into separate collective bargaining agreements with the Insular Life defense alleging that the person who had really sold him the land was his uncle Januario Assurance Co. the register of the Province of Cavite issued the corresponding license upon payment by the respondent of the sum of P2. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. which is now pending in the justice of the peace CASTRO. OLBES result of which the Unions filed on January 27. NATU (hereinafter referred to as the Unions). the latter was formerly the secretary-treasurer of the FFW and acting president of the Insular Life/FGU unions and the Insular Life Building Employees Association. He further alleged that it was his said uncle who signed the deed of transfer and ratified it before notary Montoya. Ltd. for some unknown reasons the Araneta. The parties mutually agreed and to make whatever benefits could be agreed upon retroactively effective October 1. we hold Attorney Eustaquio V.With regard to the second charge. 1957 as personnel manager of the Companies. No. and so recommends. being legally married to Aurora L. likewise made chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective bargaining with the Unions. FGU INSURANCE GROUP WORKERS and EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU. Thereafter. and was for having prepared and executed the deed of sale in question. FGU Insurance Group who was his true predecessor in interest. to no avail. 1958 a notice of strike for "deadlock on and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. Saguil and said marriage not having been dissolved. he set up another Workers (FFW). as such acting president. 1965.. Laguna. nevertheless. while still members of the Federation of Free In his second answer.. however.. the Lacsina. that no action should be taken on the second charge. Relations dated August 17. Two of the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia. he being in fact married. respectively. and INSULAR LIFE BUILDING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU. as a THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. and Insular Life Building Employees Association- could complain of the transfer because none was prejudiced." Several conciliation conferences were held under the auspices of the Department of Labor wherein the conciliators urged the Companies to make reply to the Unions' proposals en toto so that the said Unions might consider the feasibility of dropping . 1957. L-25291 January 30. The recommendation is Appeal. Arayata who. (NATU). and he was For the foregoing reasons. he being the true and only heir. the Union's proposals. Employees Association-NATU. constitute malpractice and Unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions unprofessional conduct under the provisions of section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. tried to dissuade the members of the statements to notary Montoya with regard to said document. Enaje was suspend him from the practice of his profession for one (1) month.. respondent Arayata admitted that the sale had been made by his father The Insular Life Assurance Co. and in the course of the investigation. In his first answer. 1933. meriting for him a disciplinary action mitigated in this case by the circumstance that he was apparently the heir entitled to the ownership of the land and that the complainant has neither real nor direct interest in the transaction complained of by her. In a letter dated September 16. by certiorari to review a decision and a resolution en banc of the Court of Industrial well founded and has our approval.

the Companies did 3. including a photographer. the petitioner Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU dropped this 4. 1958. and prior to April 15. particularly on salary increases. and requested the Companies to answer its demands. tossed aside the placard of a picketer. the remaining two petitioner unions likewise dropped their demand for union shop. succeeded in penetrating the picket lines in front of the Insular the notice to strike was served on the Companies. Forthwith the Unions voted to declare a strike in protest against what they considered Garcia. Jose M. Take your meals within the office. sent to each of the strikers a on the basis of the pendency of the various criminal cases against striking members of the letter (exhibit A) quoted verbatim as follows: Unions. one Paulino Bugay. resistance offered by some picketers. en toto. Thereupon. . In a letter addressed to the two other Unions by the joint management of the 5. again through the respondent Olbes. and Vicente Abella. 1958. which would justify their own proposals. Meanwhile. the Companies likewise On May 21. tried to penetrate the picket lines in front of the Insular Life Building. promising money benefits if this was done. On May 13. Be paid overtime for work performed in excess of eight hours. upon approaching the picket line. These employees resigned from the Life Building. who with salary nor in responsibility while negotiations were going on in the Department of Labor after the said respondent Olbes. 1958 presented facts and figures and requested the Unions to submit a workable formula From the date the strike was called on May 21. Enjoy free coffee and occasional movies. instead. taking into account the financial position of the some management men tried to break thru the Unions' picket lines. still refused to make any counter- proposals. if any of you would like to come back to work voluntarily. However. for union security. Companies. 1958. 1958 an order restraining the strikers. thus causing injuries to the picketers and also to the strike-breakers due to the Unions. 1958 the convinced to desist by the aforesaid letter of May 21. or in the fairness of the Management. entrance and driveway and the free movement of persons and vehicles to and from. particular demand. 1957. a fight ensued between them. however. Thus. Make a choice whether to go home at the end of the day or to sleep nights at the not make any counter-proposals but. otherwise the Companies "would no longer consider themselves bound by the commitment to make money 6. the Companies. 2. until further orders of the said court. of the Companies' building. assistant corporate secretary. obstructing. the former were also asked to drop their union security demand. 1958 former. April 25. 1958. from stopping. the respondent filed a petition for injunction with damages with the Court of First Instance of Manila which. on May 21. Olbes (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Olbes). 1958. But the respondent Insular Life Assurance Co. point by point. quoted hereunder in its entirety: 1. issued on May 31. Be sure arrangements will be made for your families. eighty-seven (87) unionists were reclassified as supervisors without increase in The Companies organized three bus-loads of employees. continued on strike. the Companies on May 15. 1958 the Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life Alleging that some non-strikers were injured and with the use of photographs as evidence. However. Garcia. the parties negotiated on the labor demands but with no The Unions. Companies' gates. you may: On the same date. impeding. benefits retroactive to October 1. On May 20. chief of the personnel records the Companies' unfair labor practices. Unions demanded from the Companies final counter-proposals on their economic demands. section. During the pendency of the said cases in the fiscal's office. 1958. 1958 then was set The decision to make is yours — whether you still believe in the motives of the strike by the parties to meet and discuss the remaining demands. etc.their demand for union security in exchange for other benefits. out and in. the Companies then filed criminal charges against the strikers with the City Fiscal's Office of Manila. The first day of the strike was last 21 May 1958. with the exception of a few unionists who were satisfactory result due to a stalemate on the matter of salary increases. respectively of the Companies. in which both suffered injuries. 1958 the Companies through their acting manager and president. until it was called off on May 31. sent individually to the strikers a letter (exhibit B). Building at Plaza Moraga. insisted that the Unions first drop their demand office where comfortable cots have been prepared." By a letter dated April 17. From April 25 to May 6. the free and peaceful use of the We recognize it is your privilege both to strike and to conduct picketing. Instead of giving counter-proposals. Advise the nearest police officer or security guard of your intention to do so.

with full officials and members of the Unions who were most active in the strike. 1958 the Companies filed their answer denying all the material allegations of we may be forced to obtain your replacement. and Isagani Du Timbol. The said letters were NATU. 1. The screening committee and members of the Unions without giving them the benefit of investigation and the initially rejected 83 strikers with pending criminal charges. against the striking members of the Unions in the matter of readmission of employees after the strike. through Presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez. The complaint specifically charged the Companies with (1) interfering with the members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to concerted action. . but we cannot hold your positions return to work. subsequently. 1958. 1958 to return to their jobs or else be replaced. directed to the striking employees individually — by registered special delivery mail at that — Employees Association-NATU. stating special defenses therein. the specific acts allegedly committed. the Companies required them not only to secure clearances from the City Fiscal's Office of Manila but also to be screened by a management 3. 1965 the Unions seasonably filed their motion for reconsideration of the said decision. and paid open for long. constituted a Florencio Ibarra. On August 31. we are giving you until 2 June 1958 to report for work at the home office. on the ground that back wages. and asking for the dismissal of the complaint. and. After trial on the merits. from June 2. 1958 and given separation collective bargaining. with a promise of comfortable cots. vice president of the Insular Life Building Employees' Association-NATU. by sending out individual letters to them urging them to abandon their strike and We do not know how long you intend to stay out. Ltd. merit. Our position remains unchanged and the strike has made us even more convinced of On July 29. free coffee and movies. Companies under Republic Act 875. the striking employees decided to call off their strike and to report back to 2. However. We do not agree. while others (ten in number) up to now have not been readmitted although there have been no formal dismissal notices given to them. and (2) discriminating against the members of the Unions as regards readmission to work after the strike on the basis of their union membership If you are still interested in continuing in the employ of the Group Companies. Subsequently. rendered on August 17. pay checks computed under Rep. were dismissed by the fiscal's office and by the courts. Among those who were refused readmission are Emiliano Tabasondra. These three cases involved "slight physical injuries" against one striker and "light coercion" against two Hence. 1965 a decision dismissing the Unions' complaint for lack of So it is now. In not ordering the reinstatement of officials and members of the Unions. the Court of Industrial Relations.. the Companies readmitted only some but adamantly refused readmission to 34 4. Before. the complaint. The respondents contend that the sending of the letters. there are no criminal charges pending against you. when practically all the strikers had secured clearances from the fiscal's office. Act 1787. and immediately by the Companies without being required to secure clearances from the fiscal's office. I. exhibits A and B. 1958 the CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the our decision. they might be replaced. However. In not finding the Companies guilty of unfair labor practice for dismissing officials committee among the members of which were Enage and Garcia. If by this date you have not yet reported. and if and degree of participation in the strike. all non-strikers with opportunity to present their side in regard to activities undertaken by them in the pending criminal charges which arose from the breakthrough incident were readmitted legitimate exercise of their right to strike. 1965. because of the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against them as well individually to the strikers the letters marked Exhibits A and B." without however stating usual employment. We have continued to operate and will continue to do so with or overtime. by warning them that if they did not return to work on or before without you. and their supporting memorandum on September 10. before readmitting the strikers. On August 4. Some 24 of the above number were ultimately notified months without being coursed through the Unions which were representing the employees in the later that they were being dismissed retroactively as of June 2. This was denied by Incidentally. June 2. acting president of the Insular Life Assurance Co. the decisions was yours to make. the Unions contending that the lower court erred: others. except three (3). all of the more than 120 criminal charges filed against the members of the the Court of Industrial Relations en banc in a resolution promulgated on October 20. legitimate exercise of their freedom of speech. this petition for review. In not finding the Companies guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating work on June 2. 1965. In not finding the Companies guilty of unfair labor practice in sending out At any rate. as the ultimatum of the Companies giving them until June 2. president of the FGU Insurance Group Workers & Employees Association. 1958 to the date of their actual reinstatement to their they committed "acts inimical to the interest of the respondents. Unions. 1958.

C. the act of a company president in writing letters to the strikers.. 1958. Labor Laws 1956. they were guilty of strike-breaking and/or union. 1958 by reason of the injunction issued by the Manila Court of First Instance. For success of purpose is otherwise new employees would be engaged to perform their jobs. but were to be appraised against the busting and. to a group of strikers in a restaurant to the effect that if the strikers returned to work. and the 563.A. The act of an employer in notifying absent employees individually during a strike Likewise violative of the right to organize." the respondents contend that this was the main cause why the strikers returned to work and not the letters. to interfere with the employees' right interference with the exercise of his employees' right to collective bargaining (Lighter to engage in lawful concerted activity in the form of a strike. with the employer or his representative urging the constitutes unfair labor practice. The free speech protection under the Constitution is 1948. when they "doctrine" expressions of opinion by an employer which. as an active interference with mollifying employees after the employer has refused to bargain with the union. Interference constituting unfair Publishing. which they were uttered. an activity to which they are entitled free from the The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within employer's molestation. Vol. frequently were held to be culpable because of the circumstances under determine what the consequences of returning to work would be." Indeed. Under this strike for an employer to offer reinstatement to striking employees individually. Besides. citing NLRB v. (31 Am. and a new building to work Indeed. and return to work on June 2. urging their return to injunctive writ issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila cannot alter the intrinsic quality work on terms inconsistent with their union membership. It is equivalent to an attempt to break a background of and in conjunction with collateral circumstances. National Labor Relations Board. and it is not necessary that there be Moreover.1 the meaning of subsection (a) (1) is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under section 3 of the Act. 323. p. the letters. 544. form and join labor organizations are the following following unproductive efforts at collective bargaining that the plant would be acts: the offer of a Christmas bonus to all "loyal" employees of a company shortly after the operated the next day and that their jobs were open for them should they want to making of a request by the union to bargain. it is not protected by the free speech provisions of the of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct Constitution (NLRB v. citing NLRB v. profit-sharing. 146 ALR 1045) employer's statement. they would receive new benefits in the form of hospitalization. [CA 9th] 133 F2d 676." and "arrangements" for their families. employees to cease union activity or cease striking.. wage increases given for the purpose of come in has been held to be an unfair labor practice. Individual solicitation of not. some such similar actions are illegal as constituting unwarranted acts of interference. 332). Ford. CCA 7th. circumstance that the strikers later decided to return to work ostensibly on account of the Thus. the employer's promises of benefits instead of through their collective bargaining representatives. 35 ALR 2d 422). (Francisco. on the basis of their implicit implications. Inc. Inc." "overtime" pay for "work performed in excess of eight hours. since the employees thus offered reinstatement are unable to themselves. Jur. and should not.. or for the the right of collective bargaining through dealing with the employees individually purpose of inducing striking employees to return to work. made about 6 weeks after the strike started.. 321 U." "free coffee and occasional movies. Jur. II. should not be considered by themselves alone but should be read in the light of the preceding and subsequent circumstances surrounding them. be the criterion in determining whether or not a prohibited act the employees or visiting their homes. 213 F2d 70.. or threats.. All the above-detailed activities are unfair labor practices because they tend to undermine the concerted activity of the employees. or that it did not proximately cause the result intended. inapplicable where the expression of opinion by the employer or his agent contains a promise of benefit. or reprisal (31 Am. The same is true with exhibit B of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective since it contained threats to obtain replacements for the striking employees in the event they bargaining. in return for the strikers' abandonment of their strike in support of their union. or resisted. exhibits A and B. It is likewise an act of interference for the employer to labor practice will not cease to be such simply because it was susceptible of being thwarted send a letter to all employees notifying them to return to work at a time specified therein. the employer is Citing paragraph 5 of the complaint filed by the acting prosecutor of the lower court which still under obligation to bargain with the union as the employees' bargaining representative states that "the officers and members of the complainant unions decided to call off the strike (Melo Photo Supply Corporation vs. was adjudged as constituting of the letters. or which tended. did not report for work on June 2. NLRB vs. Clearfield Cheese Co. Goigy Co. exhibits A and B. when the respondents offered reinstatement and attempted to "bribe" the strikers with "comfortable cots. 170 F2d 735). though innocent in are represented by a union. And the basis of the prohibition regarding individual bargaining with the strikers is that although the union is on strike.. so they would . The Indeed. of unfair labor practice.. 211 F2d 533. Clearfield Cheese Co. whereby the culpability of an employer's remarks were to be evaluated not only abandon the strike and return to work. accident insurance. since exhibit A is a letter containing promises of benefits to the employees in order direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements to entice them to return to work. This assertion is without merit. constitutes unfair labor practice. NLRB vs. the history of the particular employer's labor relations or . The letters should be interpreted according to the "totality of conduct doctrine. it is an unfair labor practice for an employer operating under a collective bargaining in.S. 133 F2d 621). Montgomery Ward & Co. which were calculated.2 agreement to negotiate or to attempt to negotiate with his employees individually in connection with changes in the agreement. consequently. 213 F2d 70).

This simply proves that the reason for the strike was not the deadlock on "pending criminal charges. And however. (Rothenberg on Relations. Two days later. Enage was the MANILA chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective bargaining between the former and the Unions. 1958. The strike took place nearly four months from the date the said notice of strike was filed. Manila only three of which were not dismissed. Federico Barretto. LTD.) to them on the pretext that they committed "acts inimical to the interest of the respondents. the INSULAR LIFE BUILDING ADMINISTRATION free and peaceful use of the Companies' gates. as personnel order to protect and continue their business." (exhibit 8. disputed that all-non-strikers with pending criminal charges Strike. Exhibit B. was sent — again for the following reason: DEADLOCK IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. which was filed on January 27. the latter To justify the respondents' threat to dismiss the strikers and secure replacements for them in hired Felipe Enage and Ramon Garcia." without stating specifically the inimical acts allegedly committed. individually and by registered special delivery mail — to the strikers. impeding. that these alleged inimical acts were the same criminal charges which were the actual and main reason for the strike was. reckoned from Garcia was a member — refused to admit 63 members of the Unions on the ground of January 27. the strikers were individually sent copies of exhibit A. the respondents DEPARTMENT OF LABOR adamantly refused to answer the Unions' demands en toto. anti-union bias or because of their connection with an established collateral plan of Verily. despite the fact that the petitioners granted the respondents' demand that the former drop their demand for union TO: BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS shop and in spite of urgings by the conciliators of the Department of Labor. 1958.lâwphî1. however. After economic strike on the basis of exhibit 4 (Notice of Strike) which states that there was a the notice to strike was served on the Companies and negotiations were in progress in the "deadlock in collective bargaining" and on the strength of the supposed testimonies of some Department of Labor. And despite the fact that the fiscal's office found no `deadlock in collective bargaining' which could have been for no other issue than probable cause against the petitioning strikers. former legal counsels of the petitioners. 1958.. the respondents adamantly refused admission to 34 officials and union the respondents categorically stated what they thought was the cause of the "Notice of members. Manila . And during the negotiations in the Department of Labor. the fiscal's office. They were soon to admit. respondent Jose M. letter dated April 15.. the letter. Among the non-strikers with pending criminal charges who were readmitted 3. the respondents thru a screening committee — of which Ramon However. thru their president and go on strike against manager. the Companies adamantly refused admission the union shop. Plaza Moraga. and cases cited therein. respectively.. escorted by armed men. you filed were Generoso Abella. It must be recalled that previous to the petitioners' submission of proposals for an amended renewal of their respective collective bargaining agreements to the respondents. p. But when most of the petitioners reported for work. this [sic] unions intends to upon promise of special privileges. threatening them with dismissal if they did not report for work on or before June 2. when almost all were cleared of criminal charges by collective bargaining nor any lack of economic concessions. enticing them to abandon their strike by inducing them to return to work Thirty (30) days from receipt of this notice by the Office. . Because you did not see fit to agree with our position on the union shop. As a result of these criminal actions. etc.. Incidentally. brought three truckloads of non-strikers and others. obstructing. occupied by the Companies. and these three only for slight misdemeanors. Manila process. entrance and driveway and the free Plaza Moraga. 1958. entered thru only one gate less than two meters wide and in the Plaza Moraga. "When it became crystal clear the dismissed by the fiscal and by the courts.ñèt Then the respondents brought against the picketers criminal charges. of the Companies' buildings. states. out and in. movement of persons and vehicles to and from. the respondents were able to obtain an injunction from the court of first instance restraining the strikers from stopping. 374. citing Manuel Chuidian and Nestor Cipriano. After the petitioners went to strike. with attractive compensations. the respondents reclassified 87 employees as supervisors without union men who did not actually know the very reason for the strike. yield the clear inference that the said letters formed of the respondents scheme to preclude if not destroy unionism within them. On the same day that the injunction was issued. inter alia: their unions. 1958. the above actuations of the respondents before and after the issuance of the letters. Antonio Castillo. Olbes. By letter dated April 15. the employees did not stage the strike after the thirty-day period. the respondents. crashed thru the picket line posted in front of the premises of the Insular Life Building. It should be noted that increase in salary or in responsibility.) exhibit A and B. despite the presence of eight entrances to the three buildings THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. This resulted in injuries on the part of the picketers and the strike- THE FGU INSURANCE GROUP breakers. It is not." However. Enrique Guidote. who. in effect compelling these employees to resign from exhibit 4. reads: which arose from the breakthrough incident of May 23. the CIR held the petitioners' strike to be an manager and assistant corporate secretary." which so far as material. a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations on 27 January 1958. 1958 were readmitted immediately by the respondents. Emilio Carreon. coercion or interference.

pp. Act 875 required the respondents to make a reply to the petitioners' demands within delegated the power to readmit to a committee. to screen the unionists reporting back to work. But the respondent Olbes had chosen ten days from receipt thereof. p. Oct. 14. 6. is completely shattered upon a cursory examination of the evidence on record. For with the exception of Pascual Esquillo whose . 63 emphasis supplied.) on with the negotiations if the petitioners did not drop the demand for union shop (exh. Labor and Social Legislation. Thus. Since the evidence shows that all the employees reported Delayed reinstatement is a form of discrimination in rehiring. however. despite the fact that they were able to secure their respective clearances Equally significant is the fact that while the management and the members of the screening 34 officials and union members were still refused readmission on the alleged ground that committee admitted the discrimination committed against the strikers. Garcia admitted that in strikers who also had criminal charges pending against them in the fiscal's office. v. Phil. such as the coercion of discrimination against those dismissed and constituting a waiver of the employer's employees. p.. It is not difficult to imagine that (tsn. 1962. namely: (1) the the hands of employees hostile to the strikers the power of reinstatement. Air months to consider the petitioners' proposals. assistant corporate workable formula which takes into account the financial position of the group companies. Sept. were readily committee admitted the non-strikers but refused readmission to the strikers (tsn. Air Lines Emloyees Association. 1960. Sept. the basis for either reinstatement or discharge. speaking through the respondent Olbes. 15-19.. 19. while admitting the discrimination.) The truth of this right to dismiss the striking employees and a condonation of the fault committed by assertion is amply proved by the following circumstances: (1) it took the respondents six (6) them. otherwise he would be replaced. not a single union officer was taken back to the picketing was not serious in nature were readmissible. 473. 43 NLRB 545. it is tantamount to refusal So is there an unfair labor practice where the employer. Sept. 1953. Discrimination undoubtedly exists where the record shows that the union activity of the was serious were not. is a form of employee must be interested in continuing his work with the group companies. 20. dismissed only the leaders of the strikers. second condition. 7-8. The Law on Strikes. 31. It is not denied that when the strikers reported for work on June 2. 26. 14 charges of discrimination in the readmission of strikers returning to work — the respondents of Rep. 6." (Carlos and Fernando. 56). But the management. double crossed or will not negotiate in good faith. 1958. 1961. they tossed back and they committed acts inimical to the Companies. (2) there discrimination in rehiring. This is a clear act of discrimination 1962. the respondents did not have a counter-offer to the petitioners' demands. 14-18). 4. 62. But even this distinction between rehired strikers has been less prominent than that of the strikers who were denied acts of slight misconduct and acts of serious misconduct which the respondents contend was reinstatement. that non.. (Morabe. tsn. 62. disclaimed responsibility for the The respondents did not merely discriminate against all the strikers in general. However. citing Phil. He testified that "The decision whether to accept or not an employee was left separated the active from the less active unionists on the basis of their militancy. placed the blame therefor squarely on the (4) of the Industrial Peace Act. the the same incidents whence the criminal charges against the strikers evolved. Inc. 4(a) committee. 7.. (2) when the petitioners dropped the demand for It is noteworthy that — perhaps in an anticipatory effort to exculpate themselves from union shop. their only excuse being that they could not go Lines. head of the Companies. chairman of the management's screening practiced by the Companies in the process of rehiring and is therefore a violation of sec.) these two employees — having been involved in unpleasant incidents with the picketers during the strike — were hostile to the strikers. 48-49. 7 NLRB 1252. Sec. 1958). which was imperfectly organized. pp. but instead they asked the petitioners to give a "well reasoned. Exhibit H imposed three conditions for readmission of the strikers. 1958. around to each other the responsibility for the discrimination. Feb. to a job in another mill. and Ramon Garcia. management (tsn. Vicente Abella. It is significant to note in this connection that except for Of course." (tsn.. arising from exercising for the management the authority to screen the returning employees. the respondents — through Ramon Garcia — tried to explain the basis for such one union official who deserted his union on the second day of the strike and who later discrimination by testifying that strikers whose participation in any alleged misconduct during participated in crashing through the picket lines." secretary. readmitted and were not required to secure clearances. p. pp. while those whose participation work. 1958. 1958. 1969. as is having the back to work at the respondents' head office on June 2. chief of the personnel records section. 8.. in the hands of that committee that had been empowered to look into all cases of the on the picket lines. such dismissal being evidence of supervisors without increase in salary or change in responsibility. Our point of inquiry should therefore be directed at whether they also complied with the citing Sunshine Mining Co. although authorized by the collectively and considering the unfair labor practice in the meantime being committed by Court of Industrial Relations to dismiss the employees who participated in an illegal the management such as the sudden resignation of some unionists and [who] became strike. 14. They discrimination. must be no criminal charges against him. 23-29). (tsn.) after they were able to secure clearances from the competent authorities with respect to the criminal charges filed against them. p.) members of the Unions were refused readmission because they had pending criminal charges. It is beyond dispute. 49. Aug. Vicente Abella. they must be considered as machinery of reinstatement in the hands of employees hostile to the strikers. L-8197. decided to declare the strike. Needless to say. and having complied with the first and third conditions. the mere act of placing in II. p. p. Feb. 1958.. reinstating a union official who formerly worked in a unionized plant. or lack of it. respondents' letter dated April 7." (tsn.. Cleveland Worsted Mills. Unionists belonging to the first category were refused readmission even strikers. and (3) he must report for work on June 2.

Moreover. If Tabasondra were not telling the truth. Gonzales. an allocation Employees Association-NATU. 1958. but dismissed him by their letter dated July 10. 1958. Ed. 728) (Sgd. account of their union activities and that the excuse given that they did not apply until after the quota was full was an afterthought and not the true reason for the Kindly acknowledge receipt of the check we are sending herewith. The Board found. the asked them to inform him of the reasons therefor. 1958. 725. who were not reinstated.. he betrayed his trust as an auditor of the Companies. all of whom were prominent in the union and in the strike. And his competence in figures could not be doubted presented themselves on June 2. this accusation was emphatically denied by Tongos on the Indeed. 82 L. 333. negates the only on January 21. were able to secure and subsequently present the required being dismissed for cause. when an employee reports for work at the time agreed.) JOSE M.. Because this may not constitute sufficient cause under the law to terminate your employment without pay. except three. and we cannot say that its finding is unsupported. the record shows that not a single dismissed striker occasions — to rebut his testimony. 58 Sup. But the overwhelming hence. is not persuasive. Tongos could not therefore have revealed an others. 1958. 1952. president of one of the respondent Companies and one of the indicate sufficient basis for dismissal. per its Circular 133 (Notification to Authorized Agent Banks). In his testimony. As Tabasondra called on June 21. Ct. we are . the individual cases of dismissed officers and members of the striking unions do not witness stand. First. Elementary fairness required that before when all. vice-president of the petitioner FGU Insurance Group Workers & per its Circular 52 (Notification to Authorized Agent Banks) dated May 9. for duty on June 2. (NLRB v. OLBES The respondents' allegation that Tabasondra should have returned after being refused President. reported for work at various times during the next three days. at the official rate of two pesos to the dollar. admitted that the alleged "acts of misconduct" attributed to the dismissed strikers were the same acts with which the said strikers were charged before the Sixto Tongos was dismissed allegedly because he revealed that despite the fact that the fiscal's office and the courts. But Asis. Insurance Life readmission on June 2. took a trip abroad in 1958. the respondents respondents refused to readmit them unless they first secured the necessary clearances.000 or only P2. several of them later received letters from the respondents in the following stereotyped tenor: At any rate. we consider the employee relieved from the duty of returning further. hence. Exchange controls were then in force. p. We do not find this allegation convincing. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co.000 for the vacation trips of officials. when the striking employees reported back for work on June 2. officials referred to. the respondents still refused to take them back. Very truly yours. but were told that there were no The termination of your employment was due to the fact that you committed acts of openings. Companies spent more than P80. in taking giving you the amount of P1. it has been held that mere failure to report for work after notice to return. Labor Relations and the Law. the respondent's officials discriminated against the latter on year of your service in the Group Company. Anent the third assignment of error. the U. it would have been an easy matter for the respondents to produce De Asis and Enage — who testified anyway as witnesses for the respondents on several III.dismissal sent to the other strikers cited the alleged commission by them of simple "acts of audience — to Felipe Enage. as the one who received them and later directed them — when Olbes refused them an assuming arguendo that Tongos indeed revealed the true expenses of Gonzales' trip — which . But all these charges except three were dropped or dismissed. was refused reinstatement allegedly because he did not report of $1. that respondents' charge that he had abandoned his job. The respondents." clearances. Supreme Court held This will confirm the termination of your employment with the Insular Life-FGU that the taking back of six of eleven men constituted discrimination although the five strikers Insurance Group as of 2 June 1958.000. Tabasondra be given "his day in court. was given the opportunity to defend himself against the supposed charges against him. In one case. Tabasondra particularly identified the management men to whom he and his group amount bigger than the above sum. De considering that he had passed the board examinations for certified public accountants. FGU. He likewise categorically misconduct. 904." stated that he and his group went to see Enage as directed by Olbes' secretary. corroborated by many the Central Bank lifted the exchange controls. 1962. 1381) (Mathews. but instead of doing so. 1958 the respondents' attention to his non-admission and earlier mentioned. discrimination against them.. 1958 and.S. hence. however.930. and an outgoing traveller on a combined business and vacation trip was allowed by the Central Bank.S. the Companies' personnel manager. 304 U. The respondents did nothing of the kind. they refused to grant union demands. He mentioned the respondent Olbes' secretary. that. Emiliano Tabasondra. had abandoned his office. When the employer puts off reinstatement Acting President. It was evidence adduced at the trial and which the respondents failed to rebut. Instead. this was the only amount that would appear on the books of the Companies. does not constitute abandonment nor bar reinstatement. as pocket money.32 corresponding to one-half month pay for every back six union men. Said the Court: misconduct while picketing during the last strike.

591. It is not therefore amiss to conclude that they were more inclined to favor the of reinstatement. Manila. Act 875 which guarantees the untramelled exercise by striking employees of the right to give although the Companies during the strike were holding offices at the Botica Boie building at "publicity to the existence of. reported for work at the Insular Life Building. The Unions. Tongos depths. Thus it has because they not only prevented Ramon Garcia. Rising passions call forth hot words. about adverted to. We accordingly recently held that it was not intended by witnesses was newly established at that time and was still a "general agency" of the the Act that minor disorders of this nature would deprive a striker of the possibility Companies. the rights afforded to employees by the Act Tongos. but they also caused bruises and abrasions on Fist-fighting between union and non-union employees in the midst of a strike is no bar to Garcia's chest and forehead — acts considered inimical to the interest of the respondents. the chief of the personnel is not only the right. After picketers were not legally bound to yield their grounds and withdraw from the picket lines.lâwphî1. or objectionable working The heated altercations and occasional blows exchanged on the picket line do not affect or conditions. Engaged in it are human beings whose feelings are stirred to the The respondents also allege that in revealing certain confidential information. And his statement. Jose Garcia. from entering the Companies' premises on May 21. L. however much it is to be regretted. . p." Indeed. too. 323 U. under the circumstances the or not the respondent Companies were justified in refusing to accede to union demands. assistant corporate secretary. R. The transformation from economic to physical combat by those engaged in the of accountancy. B. Besides. 65 We think it must be conceded that some disorder is unfortunately quite usual in any Sup. A strike is essentially a battle waged with economic weapons. And with regard to the testimonies of Juan Raymundo and Antolin Carillo. (Concurring opinion of Justice Jackson in Thomas v. Garcia. that nothing client. both vice. insist that there is complete lack of evidence that Ner took 855 citing Stackpole Carbon. Ed. offices at advertising. upon the other hand. Manila. of every unionist to advertise the facts of a dispute records section. reinstatement. The employer. Paulino Bugay. the lower court should not have given them much weight. Rizal. Free speech on both sides and for every faction on any side of the labor relation is to me a constitutional and useful right. There is therefore a reasonable for the purpose of informing all those affected thereby. all. is but an expression of free speech protected by the Constitution.R. they had indeed made. that it was Garcia who elbowed his way through the picket lines and therefore Ner shouted "Close up.. records of the leaders of the unions which seek the confidence of his men . the assistant corporate secretary. Labor is free . 1958. not being one of the supervisors.ñèt The picketing disprove — his statements clearly fall within the sphere of a unionist's right to discuss and on May 21. chief of the personnel records section of the Companies. Vicente Alsol and Hermenigildo Hence the incident that occurred between Ner. In labor disputes. every reason to defend themselves and their rights from any assault or unlawful transgression. 1958. Persuasive on this point is the following commentary: . attests that they did not resort to violence. Tongos was expected to reveal the whole truth on whether applying for injunction from the court of first instance. Inc. there are grounds to they amount only to mere ordinary misdemeanors and are not a bar to reinstatement. and that Garcia tossed Paulino Bugay's placard and a fight ensued between them in which both suffered injuries.. assuming that the acts committed by the strikers were transgressions of law. Tuason Building at San Vicente Street. Co.) extensive or long drawn out strike. 315.. v. is this stated. II. 516. But nowhere in the Code of Ethics for Certified Public Accountants under the contest is difficult to prevent even when cool heads direct the fight. in accordance with section 9(a)(5) of Republic exh. 6 NLRB 171. respondents rather than Tongos. whether by Escolta. (Teller. Labor Relations and the Law. No. or the fact involved in any labor dispute. patrolling or by any method not involving fraud or violence. as reported in the police blotter. The firm of these would indeed be illusory. enforced 105 F2d 167. the relationship of the Companies with Tongos was that of an employer and not a the Congress when it provided in Sec. it Makati. were constructively dismissed by non-readmission allegedly incident of the strike and should not be considered as a bar to reinstatement. 430.. employer unfairness. if Being where the law expects them to be in the legitimate exercise of their rights. about the alleged utterances made by the right to strike. p. to turn its publicity on any labor oppression. Labor Relations and the Law.the respondents never denied or tried to believe that the picketers are not responsible for what happened. 3 in CA-G. Inc.S. Being a have a basis for filing criminal charges against the petitioners in the fiscal's office and union man and one of the strikers. Ct.) part in pushing Garcia. it is as well the duty. If this were not so. advertise the facts involved in a labor dispute. 547. therein should be construed so as to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way presidents of the Trust Insurance Agencies. et al. opined the lower court. Narciso Daño. he was not a part of management. and Abella.. these conflicting versions of what actually happened on May 21. Vol. 378) Pacifico Ner. was peaceful (see Police blotter report. Violence of this Revised Rules and Regulations of the Board of Accountancy formulated in 1954. Moreover. Yet the police blotter. 13 of Act 29 USCA Sec. 107 F2d 472. and Ramon Garcia was but a necessary Ramirez. 163. where Ner was acquitted). speaking. and Ayala. and Vicente been held that: Abella. the combatants are suggestion that they were sent to work at the latter building to create such an incident and expected to expose the truth before the public to justify their respective demands. 25991-R of the Court of Appeals. (Republic Steel Corp. 1958. should be free to answer and to turn publicity on the diminish the right to strike. But despite Furthermore. nature. cited in Mathews. N. Labor Disputes and Collective Bargaining. 89 L." which the picketers did. must have been in the contemplation of Moreover. p. Collins. Hot words lead to blows on the picket committed not only a betrayal of trust but also a violation of the moral principles and ethics line. substandard wages.) (Mathews.

. 1958 to the date of their actual reinstatement to union activities rather than misconduct is the basis of his [employer] objection. Decision. R. or an ex- pending charges in the same office were refused readmission. 854. gives rise to the inference that Unions. intimidating threats or sporadic fights between the pickets illegal. R. The lower court should have ordered the reinstatement of the officials and members of the whose reinstatement is opposed. (Id. the lower Court justified the constructive dismissal of Florencio Ibarra allegedly dismissed. The information obtained by means of espionage is in valuable to the employer and can be used in a variety of cases to break a union. L.. Southern Wood Preserving Co. Ricardo Villaruel and others (annex C... American Mfg.. 27) — another matter which emphasizes the respondents' unfair labor practice. (Teller. p. or by employees before the fiscal's office. If the employer's improper conduct was an initial cause of unions as to constitute unfair labor practice. the their usual employment.In cases involving misdemeanors the board has generally held that unlawful acts are not bar . L.. N." (Id. the employer must discharge the replacement union activities. Co. and that incidents happened only when management men made incursions into and tried to break the picket line. This act of the respondents is considered where the 'lock-out' by the employer constitutes an "unfair labor practice. L. Ltd. L.." the unjustifiable interference in the union activities of the petitioners and is unfair labor practice. but those strikers who had fellow employees acting at the request or direction of the employer. picketing is inherently explosive. 853. v.) unfair labor practices committed by the respondents. S. B. citing Ford the exercise of their right to self-organization than such activity even where no Motor Company.) peaceful. N. N. N. Id. B. he advised the strikers that they could use force and violence to have a successful picket and that picketing was precisely intended [W]here the strike was induced and provoked by improper conduct on the part of an to prevent the non-strikers and company clients and customers from entering the Companies' employer amounting to an 'unfair labor practice. Lacsina. R. p. v. II. if necessary. restrain and coerce employees in to reinstatement.' the strikers are entitled to buildings. For. N." The unfair labor practice is committed whether the espionage is carried on by a professional Finally. v. p. employer cannot successfully urge as a defense that the striking or lock-out employees position has been filled by replacement. It may be entitled to reinstatement with back pay upon an adjudication that the discharge was marked by colorful name-calling. Even if this were true. R. [W]here the misconduct. 108 F2d 390. For under the circumstances. p. [A]n employee who has been dismissed in violation of the provisions of the Act is charged with the emotions and fierce loyalties of the union-management dispute. 135 F. v. R. and that when the strikers reported back for work — upon the invitation of the respondents — they were discriminatorily Lastly. Kentucky Fire Brick Co. 765-766. to restore the striking or locked-out worker to his old or or coercion of employees in connection with their right to organize. 23 NLRB No.. Labor Disputes and Collective Bargaining. the FGU Workers and Employees Association-NATU.) discharges result. 140 F2d 870. 752). R. At any rate. and those who pass the line. Vol. who became a "turncoat" and who these union members have already been filled by replacements. restraint employee. B." (Teller.. a former member of the board of directors of the petitioner FGU And it is not a defense to reinstatement for the respondents to allege that the positions of Insurance Group Workers and Employees Union-NATU. "The picket line is an explosive front." (Mathews.. 106 most a misdemeanor which is not a bar to reinstatement. or surveillance thereof.. L. coupled with settled decisional law. the strike. . Under such circumstances. Labor Disputes and Collective Bargaining. p. supra." (Teller. as president of with back pay.. by officials or supervisory employees of the employer. C. form and join comparable position . the only evidence F2d 61. N. citing Waterman S. B. is that the Unions went on strike because of the Annual Report of NLRB [1938]. (Rothenberg on Labor Relations. pp. Labor Relations and the Law. "Nothing is more calculated to interfere with. The members and officials of the Unions therefore are entitled to reinstatement because he committed acts inimical to the interest of the respondents when. Ibarra's misconduct is at 606. L. as pointed out by one author. likewise testified as to the union activities of Atty.. The picket line Richter's Bakery.. p.) .. 2d being the natural result of the respondents' unfair labor practice. all the strikers are entitled to reinstatement and the dismissal of replacement employees wherever necessary. G. with or without the advice of Ibarra. are such instances of interference. citing the Third this case.. if no job sufficiently and satisfactorily comparable to that previously held by the It has been held in a great number of decisions at espionage by an employer of aggrieved employee can be found. Besides. Conn. 418.) . with full back wages from June 2. Corp. v. 119 F2d 760. v. 28. there is good ground to believe that Encarnacion was [W]here the employers' "unfair labor practice" caused or contributed to the strike or made to spy on the actvities of the union members. it is not disputed that despite the pendency of criminal charges against non-striking labor spy or detective. . strikers is thus in order. p. or in other ways. B. whether in reinstating persons equally guilty with those IV. Because all too clear from the factual and environmental milieu of Board has usually required reinstatement. they were readily admitted. 211. B.) presented by the Companies regarding Ibarra's participation in the strike was the testimony of one Rodolfo Encarnacion. and cases cited. The reinstatement of the employee. the record discloses that the picket line had been generally reinstatement with back pay. 422 and cases cited. 99 F2d 99.

Id. 11 SCRA 134 [1964]). Resolution on motion for reconsideration. Nena Micaller. This Court is not conditions amounting to unfair labor practice is a violation of section 4(a) (4) of the Industrial therefore precluded from digging deeper into the factual milieu of the case (Union of Peace Act and the employer is liable for backpay from the date of the offer (Cromwell Philippine Education Employees v. 30.. 205 [1955]). from what date should the backpay been the victim of an unfair labor practice. This Court has ruled that while employers may be authorized under Republic Act 1052 to terminate employment of employees by serving the Differently as regard the dismissal of Orlando Aquino and Carmelito Vicente. may not be invoked to justify a dismissal prohibited by law. In rejecting the employer's theory that the in the absence thereof. et al. December 28. For it is during incidents which were provoked by the respondents' men. payable to the unionists be computed? It is now a settled doctrine that strikers who are 99 Phil. The respondents notified the petitioner strikers to report back for work on June 2. see also Mathews. 1958 can thus be categorized as discriminatorily dismissed In a proceeding for unfair labor practice. or. Progressive Federation of Labor. However. the matter should not have been order of the court or a scheme to trample upon the right of an employee who has viewed or gauged in the light of the doctrine on a publisher's culpability under the . on the ground that the former wrote the following in his decision subject of the instant petition for certiorari. vs.. by paying him one month compensation from the date of the dismissal of Vicente and Aquino was justified. Paulino Bugay. if they offer to return to work under Finally. (Yu Ki Lam. A reading of the article which allegedly caused their dismissal reveals that it really contains an insinuation albeit subtly of the supposed exertion of political pressure by . supra). A great number of them. should more than ten years) during which they may have found other employment or other means the act upon which the criminal charged was based constitute nevertheless an of livelihood. we are required notice. does not erase Disputes and Collective Bargaining. p. 97 No. 91 Phil. While Republic Act No.. Corporation v. in the absence thereof. 730 and the cited cases). et al. et al.. or. and Jose Garcia. the lower court considered the article termination of his employment. resulting in the non- the employment of its employee by serving notice on him one month in advance.A corollary issue to which we now address ourselves is. These strikers who were refused readmission on June 2. The act of the employees now under period should be deducted from their back wages to mitigate somewhat the liability of the consideration may be considered as a misconduct which is a just cause for company. does away with the presumption of malice. L-19778. 93. it is only just and equitable that whatever they may have earned during that activity inimical to the employer's interest. even though it is caused by an unfair labor practice..) entitled to reinstatement are not entitled to back pay during the period of the strike.. therefore. Jr. 12 SCRA 124. 904 [1956]. Labor Relations and the Law.. Chronicle Publication Employees Ass'n.. we do not share the respondents' view that the findings of fact of the Court of the same conditions just before the strike. 1964. L-20179-81. the mere fact that the employees may be able misdemeanors which are not considered sufficient to bar reinstatement (Teller. Court of Industrial Relations.g.) (emphasis supplied) Phil. dismissal for union activities. However. expense of another (Macleod & Co. Says the Supreme Court in the following decisions: were also facing criminal indictments were readily readmitted. v.R. Certainly. by paying the required compensation. Philippine Education Company. The petitioners (15 of them) ask this Court to cite for contempt the respondent Presiding of the act of discrimination. et al. who were found guilty only of disciplinary measures against them.. although non-strikers who . We have likewise ruled that discriminatorily dismissed employees must receive backpay from the date V. Jr. it cannot be made use of as a cloak to circumvent a final being a proceeding for unfair labor practice. were refused readmission because they had criminal charges against them pending before the fiscal's office. G. respondents. 1958. This is true even with respect to the not the acts of the employees concerned justified the adoption of the employer of petitioners Jose Pilapil. (Lopez. Philippine-Land-Air-Sea Labor Union. Lu Do & Lu Ym Commercial Employees and Laborers Union vs. Decision. that is. since the settled that not even the acquittal of an employee of the criminal charge against employees who were denied readmission have been out of the service of the Companies (for him is a bar to the employer's right to impose discipline on its employees.. the refusal to re-employ or the imposition of Industrial Relations are supported by substantial and credible proof. filing of the case against the employer. 13 SCRA 258. The two pertinent paragraphs in the above-cited decision * which contained the underscored The lower court gave inordinate significance to the payment to and acceptance by the portions of the above citation read however as follows: dismissed employees of separation pay. e.. 1052 authorizes a commercial establishment to terminate the Manila Chronicle management upon the City Fiscal's Office. especially so because their unlawful acts arose or neutralize the employer's right to impose discipline on said employees. pursuant to the equitable principle that no one is allowed to enrich himself at the dismissal. 854). Labor to put up a valid defense in a criminal prosecution for the same acts. of the Philippines v. Sept. which the latter did. the said Act inclined to uphold the action taken by the employer as proper disciplinary measure. Sr. p. This such termination. while the latter quoted the same on pages 90-91 of the respondents' brief: . such Act does not give to the employer a blanket as "a report of some acts and omissions of an Assistant Fiscal in the exercise of his authority to terminate the employment regardless of the cause or purpose behind official functions" and. involving a determination as to whether or employees and are entitled to backpay from said date. 1964. Court of Industrial Relations. however. from the date of their discharge (Cromwell Commercial Judge Arsenio Martinez of the Court of Industrial Relations and the counsels for the private Employees and Laborers Union vs.

Castillo (Castillo)..** (Emphasis ours) nonetheless. endorsed to to the employer's interest. that "[N]ot even the acquittal of an employee. admonished to be more careful when citing jurisprudence in the future. is a bar to the employer's right to impose discipline on its employees.. the respondents' counsels have the prima facie right to rely on the quotation as it appears in Subject of the present Decision are four administrative cases. In re: Guardianship of the . We said in no uncertain against him. to copy it verbatim." Thus.03-1109. It is our view." the law firm a guardianship case. and faithfully reflects. lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled. Only from this Tribunal's decisions and rulings do all on the assumption that this is so. is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted. but in the immediately succeeding paragraph. 1066) that "[O]nly the decisions of this should the act upon which the criminal charges was based constitute nevertheless Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction. in the least. and it is not difficult to imagine that because of the pressure of their varied and multifarious work. the exempting character thereof under the Penal other courts. docketed by the Integrated Bar the respondent Judge's decision. we must articulate our firm view that in citing this Court's decisions and criminal prosecution. because such end can be achieved without resort to improper conduct or behavior. ordering the respondents to reinstate the dismissed members of the petitioning respondent Judge do not appear in the pertinent paragraph of this Court's decision in L- Unions to their former or comparatively similar positions. CBD Case No. Oliveros (Oliveros) are partners. Finally. and another is It is plain to the naked eye that the 60 un-underscored words of the paragraph quoted by the entered. But if inferior courts and members of the bar meticulously In the herein case. as they are hereby." whereas it reads. We are not here to determine whether the employees' act could stand Be that as it may. Indeed. appellate courts will be precluded which charge. but even salutary reason why they should do this. 5222. 1958 20179-81. decision is substantially the same as. The act of the Happily for the respondent Judge and the respondents' counsels. there is a salient and sustaining the ruling that the publication in question is qualified privileged." in this Court's decision. 03-1076.. the import of the underscored sentences of the quotation in the respondent Judge's 1108. there was no substantial employees now under consideration may be considered as a misconduct which is a change in the thrust of this Court's particular ruling which they cited. as well as lawyers and litigants. is a bar to the employer's right to impose discipline on its employees. (77 Phil. that his employer is exerting political this Court's decisions but from other sources and make certain that they are verbatim pressure on a public official to thwart some legitimate activities on the employees. the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations dated August 17. et al. For it must be interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the remembered that not even the acquittal of an employee. 1965 is reversed and set aside. terms in Miranda. it is the bounden duty of courts. et al. and 03-1125. with backwages from June 2. of the criminal charges against him. Pablito M. however. take their bearings. they should be.. does not seem to warrant an indictment for contempt against the respondent Judge and the respondents' counsels. of the Philippines (IBP) as Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Case Nos. "Judicial decisions applying or which may warrant employment of disciplinary measure. ACCORDINGLY. We are inclined to believe that the DECISION misquotation is more a result of clerical ineptitude than a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent Judge to mislead. the decisions and rulings of this Court may lose their proper and correct meaning. Upon the other hand. appears not in the same paragraph of this Court's decision where the other sentence is. Special Proceeding No. "For it must be remembered .. the particular ruling in this I. Costs against the respondents. it appears to us that for an employee to publish his "suspicion. Asa (Asa) and Jose A. Moreover. This is because the Code does not necessarily erase or neutralize its effect on the employer's interest decisions referred to in article 8 of the Civil Code which reads. just cause for dismissal. but only to find out whether the aforesaid act justifies the rulings. as well as be saved precious time in finding out whether the an act inimical to the said employer's interest. We fully realize how saddled with many pending cases are CARPIO MORALES. to the detriment of other courts. in the union newspaper does not alter its deleterious character nor shield or protect a reprehensible act on the ground that it is a union activity. Atty. clerical errors may escape their notice. the first underscored sentence in the quoted paragraph starts with "For up to the dates of their actual reinstatements. then an associate of the Laurel Law Offices of act upon which the criminal charges were based constitute nevertheless an activity inimical which Attorneys Leon L.e. judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same adoption by the employer of disciplinary measure against them. and to incorporate it in their brief. Penal Code.: the courts of the land." are only those enunciated by this Court of last resort. J. i. vs. Asa vs Castillo This apparent error. would sully the employer's reputation. And the fact that the same was made citations are correct. 03-1076 Court's decision. of the criminal charges Philippines.. that for their mistake. reproductions down to the last word and punctuation mark. This is not word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark.03- Anyway. Imperial. ever present an activity inimical to the employer's interest. it is settled . the second and last underlined sentence in the quoted paragraph of the respondent Judge's decision. can be nothing but from acting on misinformation. should the In 1996." discharge their duty to check and recheck their citations of authorities culled not only from which actually amounts to a public accusation.

they claim that the assailed factual narration was material and relevant to Castillos question why Asa was given the lions share of In their complaint. [1] ETC. CBD Case No. Offices. Laurel and a certain Atty. deliberately and maliciously filed a Hernandez. Castillo again committed a clear falsehood when he therein stated that: groundless administrative complaint against him and Ginger Anne. 2001 Reply to Answer filed with the Makati RTC in Civil Case (UCPB). retired Justice Felipe Kalalo of the Court of Appeals who In his Answer[14] to the Complaint in CBD Case No. the comportment being complaint[3] against Castillo and Ginger Anne. In a conference held at the Laurel Law Offices prior to January 20. docketed as CBD accordingly directing that the funds to be held in trust for the Nonanchildren be deposited at Case No. Asa and attended with malice or bad faith. 01. Dr. Cassiday and Asa thus filed with Responsibility. United Coconut Planters Bank. Asa and Oliveros alleged that in a Reply to Answer [7] dated June jurisdiction of the Philippine court in the guardianship proceedings. together with Asa. and (4) Oliveros. P. 2000 attended by Dr. Castillo alleged that: (1) Oliveros assisted Cassiday in embezzling US $950. Oliveros resorted to forum shopping to undermine and defeat the Still in the same complaint. Castillo filed the same II. for gross violation of the lawyers oath and the strictly in accordance with long cherished Filipino hospitality. they appended to the complaint a certified true copy of dated July 19. Laurel the motion he was instructed to prepare. proposed that the funds be deposited instead at the United Coconut Planters Bank As regards the assailed June 25. (2) in conspiracy with Dr. Laurel subsequently received a copy of a March 2. 2000 RTC Order[5] signed by the then trial Judge Eliezer R. the share adjudicated to the Nonan heirs.M. Pasig City under Dollar Savings Account No. The case was docketed as CBD Case No. Laurel and Cassiday. (3) Oliveros. Alexandra and Jerill Nonan.[4] proceedings adverted to. it was alleged that. Douglas Cushnie. because we were both active Senior Trial lawyers of the Laurel Law Offices. which was pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City. Atty. decrying the allegations personally knew the plaintiff [Castillo] was also profuse in extolling his against him as patently false. Laurel. Laurel rejected this proposition and instead instructed Castillo to file the voluntary and spontaneous testimony of retired Justice Kalalo in his favor during the appropriate motion to have the funds deposited at the RCBC.000 representing as previously agreed upon. Laurel. the Nonan minors counsel abroad Atty. Laurel who had exclusive access to all the information pertaining to the the Nonan heirs would be deposited at the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). On the other hand. Salvador H. A: Yes sir. for gross violation of lawyers oath and the Code of Professional the Trust Department of the UCPB Head Office. Castillo and Ginger Anne declared: Laurel Law Offices. claimed that the complaint was academic credentials and accomplishments as a Trial lawyer as follows: .[8] (Underscoring supplied). Asa and Oliveros filed before IBP an administrative conference at the Laurel Law Offices. Branch 59. St. 03-1108 with the Angeles trial court. and he [Castillo] would have Code of Professional Responsibility. 03-1076. De los Santos granting his motion and Castillo subsequently filed a complaint[13] against Oliveros before the IBP. he knowing that retired Justice Kalalo had never been at any time a lawyer at the Laurel Law On page 6 of a pleading entitled Reply to Petitioner-Guardians Comment/Opposition. Asa wants to be paid an additional $75. it was agreed that the amount to be received by Dr. Benjamin Cassiday III (Cassiday). perpetuated other acts of fraud in the guardianship 506. Castillo v. with Asa. along 25. Moreover. 2001 filed by Castillo with the RTC of Makati City. Dr. Dr.[11] In any event. interest and benefits accruing thereto. guardian ad litem of the minors Nonan who appear to have inherited a sizeable amount of US dollars. he explaining that he knew an employee there who could facilitate the No. the Angeles City trial court an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration [6] of the March 2. Castillo. inter alia. 2000 Angeles RTC Order in order to have the funds deposited at the RCBC transferred to the RTC. the Castillos asserted that Castillo had no control nor influence over the transaction.[2] There is nothing wrong or objectionable to the statement that Asas services in the Finding the above statement of Castillo and Ginger Anne to be a brazen falsehood concocted guardianship case consisted in providing coffee and opening doors whenever there was a to besmirch Asas reputation. the Castillos declared that the deposit of the Nonan funds at the UCPB was not Laurel.Minors Honeylyn.M. 03-1108. nor was it intended to benefit them as the funds could only Castillo. Castillo? petitioner. 01-506. 8-250-00043-0. 03-1108. baseless and malicious. Asa and Oliveros also charged Castillo with machinations and deceit attorneys fees when he had not rendered any known material service which redounded to the arising from the following alleged incidents: benefit of the Nonan children. Ad Cautelam. Francis Square Branch. however. Dr. In support of this allegation.00 for his services in providing coffee and opening doors whenever there is a conference at the In their Answer[10] to the complaint. Laurel in trust for be withdrawn by Dr. A misunderstanding later occurred between Asa and Castillo as regards their sharing in the attorneys fees in the guardianship case. proceedings. as this was in fact the truth. This motion was granted. P.000. Tan and Angelica S. Lorenzo V. Oliveros. Branch 145 in Civil Case No. Dr. done the same with his own visitors. Castillo appeared as counsel of record for the therein Q: Do you know the claimant Atty.[12] Without showing to Dr. 2002 filed before Branch 59 of the Angeles RTC and signed by Castillos the Service Record[9] of Justice Kalalo which does not show that he was ever connected with daughter Ginger Anne Castillo (Ginger Anne) as counsel for Castillo who filed a Notice the Laurel Law Office.

Asa explained that several days their respect and confidence. Asa alleged as follows: It was in From the facts and evidence presented.[18] his success at the bar. withdrew $160. 03-1076. the bulk of which they indiscriminately pocketed. together with Oliveros. (3) despite an Agreement[16] dated February 16. issued by RCBC Ortigas Business Center Manager Dolores L. 2004.00 the following .000 per fairly and candidly toward each other and try to maintain the dignity of the heir. 03-1125 Castillo alleged that (1) Asa. CBD Case No. In his Answer to the Complaint[17] in CBD Case No. With them he is in daily necessary intercourse.000 on April 18. Continuing.000 in attorneys fees is baseless and Castillo also filed an administrative complaint[15] against Asa before the IBP. A Certification[20] to this effect. and of promoting a groundless.500 belonging to Dr. was appended to AsasAnswer. filed on August 3. Asa filed yet another administrative complaint. (4) Asa refused to account for and turn over the amount of $130. the parties are advised to conduct themselves honorably. charging him unconscionable. Asa secretly pocketed the amounts of $24. however. The was the therein counsel of record and had endorsed the case to the Laurel Law Offices. immoral conduct. 2004 a Motion for represented partial payment for his consenting to be the guardian ad litem of the Nonanheirs Reconsideration[26] in CBD Case No. the February 27. He too.000 in attorneys fees which belonged to him (Castillo). Laurel and Atty. 2000 between him and derogatory allegations in CBD Case No.Castillos way of retaliating against him for having joined Asa in filing the administrative day from RCBC and placed it in his own Dollar Time Deposit Account for which $500.500 of this amount in his and his wifes joint Dollar Account No. and (5) Asa embarked on a IBP REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: scheme to force him into resigning as counsel for Dr. through Commissioner fees allocated for him.13 representing full payment of his attorneys fees from Merceditas. docketed as CBD Case No.[23] (Underscoring supplied) he deposited $24.000 03-1125. 2000 in his (Asas) Dollar Account No.500 and $160. 247-702- 9275 at the Philippine National Bank (PNB). 2000. as evidenced by The records of the cases were then forwarded for final action to this Court. Del Valle. 2000. based on the amount to be paid by the four heirs or $25.000 represented reimbursement for expenses incurred over several years by Dr. Asa filed with this Court an August 2. 2003. and Asa at $100. the total of which was placed temporarily on April 18.500 that he allegedly secretly pocketed. for disbarment/suspension.00 was complaint against him and Ginger Anne (CBD Case No. depends upon his relations with his professional brethren. and that Castillo filed the complaint merely to harass him in retaliation for with embezzlement. 03-1109. $100. 8-250-00047-3 in RCBC. malpractice. Laurel. unjustified recriminations and offensive bluntly told him that he changed his mind and that he would not give him (Asa) any share in personalities between brother lawyers which detract from the dignity of the the attorneys fees he would receive from the guardianship case. Laurel and his bid to replace the latter as guardian of lawyers oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in light of his baseless.000 plus interest amounting to $25. Laurel scandalously mismanaged the estate of On August 25.023. the lawyers oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. betrayal of trust. attorneys fees. A great part of mans comfort. CBD Case No. Laurel. the IBP CBD. while he opened a new account in the name of Dr.000. Laurel. Dr. Laurel to enable them to exercise absolute control over the guardianship case and appropriate for themselves the attorneys By Report and Recommendation [22] of February 27. IV. recommended the dismissal of the consolidated cases in this wise. the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved of $160. The case was docketed as CBD Case No. 2000 signed by Castillo. 03-1109. Cassiday and Dr.000 each. Asa declared that of the $160. malicious the Nonan heirs. Dr.150. if he wishes to sail along in smooth prior to April 18. legal profession. 2000. as well as of honor. III.500 from the guardianship case on April 18. and $60. a Receipt[19] dated May 2. gross misconduct in office. charging groundless administrative complaint against him and Ginger Anne to compel him to withdraw him with deceit. violation of the his claim for attorneys fees against Dr. Cassiday fixed the attorneys fees of both Castillo waters. grave abuse of confidence and violation of the complaint he and Oliveros priorly filed against him and Ginger Anne. When the first heir Merceditas Feliciano (Merceditas) paid $1. 2004 Report and Recommendation and dismissed the consolidated cases for lack of merit. 03-1076). Asa went on to declare that Castillo received his own $25.[21] against Castillo the Nonan heirs. OrtigasBranch as his share in the attorneys fees. dishonesty. Hence. 2000 Agreement as the latter had earlier counsels are mutual bickerings. 2004. what have been shown by the fact Castillo who reneged on their February 16. He voluminous case record contains but personal peculiarities and thus reported the matter to Dr. Asa declared that Castillos claim for $130. spent for the purpose. (2) Asa and Oliveros filed a before the IBP. 2004 a Motion for Reconsideration [25] in CBD Case No. false and unlawful suit.500. Laurel to which he deposited the amount By Resolution[24] of April 16. Rebecca Villanueva-Maala. and he must have As regards the $24. Castillo reasoning that he legal profession and do not deserve the attention of the Commission. 03-1125. Laurel and informed him that he would likewise not give idiosyncrasies hurled by the counsels against each other which constitute Castillos share in the attorneys fees he [Asa] might receive because [Castillo] has no word of highly unprofessional conduct. 03-1109 Finally. 03-1109 which were founded on deceit and and Asa that the latter would receive only 25% of whatever he (Castillo) would receive as deliberate falsehood.

Head Office at Makati. judicial proceedings constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.[33] In administrative cases against lawyers. and all of the adjudicated heirs with UCPB and the March 14. Leon Asa wants to be paid an additional $75. was also profuse in extolling his academic authority over lawyers who misbehave or fail to live up to that standard credentials and accomplishments as a Trial lawyer. criminal liability based on the statements made in the pleadings. Rule 8. Castillo and Ginger Annes choice of words manifestly falls short of this preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. candid and courteous dealing if the proceeds of the settlement will be deposited with a solvent and more with other lawyers[31] and employ respectful and restrained language is in keeping with the conservative bank like the RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION dignity of the legal profession. as follows: expected of them as members of the Bar. He also conveniently provides himself principal counsel Castillo to deposit the balance of the proceeds of the settlement with any with the Nonan expediente to give assistance to the parties during their so.01 of the same Canon mandates that a coconut levy funds. an criterion. But like 1109. 03-1108 and CBD Case No. use language which is abusive.Indeed. even if he therein alleged: the publication thereof is privileged. Laurel and his conference at the Laurel Law Offices.Castillo likewise filed with this Court a Consolidated Omnibus Motion for Partial privileged communication absolves beforehand the lawyer from civil and Reconsideration[27] dated August 9. the rule of absolute . Worse.[38] In the case at bar. [32] It is through a scrupulous preference for respectful language (RCBC) x x x[37] that a lawyer best demonstrates his observance or respect due to the courts and judicial officers. for attorneys fees and was. 2005.00 for his attempting to change the depositary bank for the funds to be held in trust by Dr. 2001 Reply to Answer in the Makati RTC Civil Case No. Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of Respecting Castillos June 25. the stability of the United Coconut Planters Bank lawyer shall not. the member of the legislature who enjoys immunity from civil and criminal liability arising from any speech or debate delivered in the Batasan or in On January 12. fails to establish any wrongdoing on the part of Castillo in having filed the Motion to deposit the funds at UCPB.[35] On the other hand. Castillos language. 03. Honorable Court was repeatedly announced by Atty. a privileged communication[34] deserves short shrift. 03-1109 while also Oliverosfiled his Comment on the authority of the legislature for said speech or debate. The Petitioner-Guardian can best protect the deposits of the Nonan children That a member of the bar is enjoined to observe honorable. Laurel. Asa and Oliveros failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that Castillo willfully and deliberately resorted to deceit and Castillos claim that the statement about Asas services is relevant and pertinent to the claim falsehood in filing the Motion to have the funds deposited at UCPB. Jose Oliveros because of his so-called failing health x x x[30] A perusal of the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated March 8. but nevertheless remains subject to the disciplinary Partial Reconsideration in CBD Case No. 2000 RTC Order directing the called conferences. Their disparaging statements in the pleading referred to above belie their proffered administrative case against a lawyer must show the dubious character of the act done as well good intention and exceed the bounds of civility and propriety. however. 2000 signed by Dr. Laurel for services in providing coffee and opening the doors whenever there is a the Nonan heirs. the quantum of proof required is clearly In the case at bar. Castillo filed his Consolidated Reply to the Comments (Underscoring supplied) of Asa and Oliveros. [36] On March 16.000. they presented the March 2. retired Justice Felipe Kalalo of the Court of Appeals who x x x this Court will not be inhibited from exercising its supervisory personally knew the plaintiff. Asa filed his Comment[28] on Castillos Consolidated Omnibus Motion for any committee thereof. with Omnibus Motion to Appoint a Commissioner. offensive or (UCPB). for all legal intents and purposes. 2000 RTC Order directing Dr. a lawyer equally same motion on February 28. remains subject to this Courts supervisory and disciplinary powers for lapses in the observance of his duty as a member of the legal profession. fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues and shall avoid Considering the present raging controversy arising from the P50 Billion harassing tactics against opposing counsel. 01-506. It simply stated that: Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy. 2004 in CBD Case No.[29] THIS COURTS RULING Castillo and Ginger Anne are thus ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and circumspection in the preparation of their pleadings and refrain from using offensive or otherwise improper In his questioned Reply to Petitioner-Guardians Comment/Opposition. may be seriously affected x x x otherwise improper. his express reluctance to appear before this deposit of the settlement proceeds with the RCBC. as the motivation thereof. statement reads: In support of Asa and Oliveros allegation that Castillo employed deceit and falsehood in x x x Atty. Moreover. in his professional dealings. 2005. 2005.

convincing. He was No. unsubscribed affidavit entitled Question and Answer Format in Lieu of Direct Testimony of Milagros Feliciano.[46] A: He is highly competent. Proc. P. Pasig City under Dollar Savings Account No. 2 among the Ateneo bar Savings Account at our Business Center. Routing No. Leon Asa left the amount of USD: Five Hundred in his account to serve as the maintaining balance requirement. A.00) and that same amount was placed in the respected trial practitioners. 2000. Guardian Ad Litem Salvador H. No. but also because of his certification issued by RCBC Branch Operation Head Dolores del Valle reading: scholastic records at Ateneo de Manila was also impressive. ATTORNEYS FEES & OTHER NECESSARY LEGAL EXPENSES: And Section 20(d). To be sure. [42] however. RCBC PH MM in the name of Salvador H. as it was Branch. That is why he was taken in by former VP Salvador H. by and through her Guardian Ad Litem. 8-250- unsigned and unsubscribed. Castillo? submitted could easily be imagined. Laurel. Branch 59 in Sp. 1993.M. Francis Square 43049 and 56637 which affidavit was subsequently withdrawn. particularly when they appear A: Yes sir.500. by the foregoing allegation. the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC).[39] (Underscoring supplied) Dollar Time Deposit Account of Salvador H. as well as. 2000. Pursuant to the above-stated Orders of this Honorable Court. Alexandra and Jeril Nonan. in trust for Honeylyn. Rule 10. in compliance with the Order Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes candor. Atty. This is not to mention his impressive and highly (sic) One Hundred Sixty Thousand Five Hundred (USD: 160.500.150. that he can only say that he has no control. however. there was a debit work. nor consent to the doing of any in court. Mr. Castillo? Complete candor or honesty is thus expected from lawyers. 5222 stating that: voluntary and spontaneous declaration and testimony of Retired Justice Felipe Kalalo of the Court of Appeals in his favor during the highly adversarial proceedings. His pleadings are also very well written. 15 among the Dollar Savings Account Number 8-250-00047-3 in the amount of US Dollars: bar topnotchers. [43] . nor 4. Benjamin Cassiday III received by way of Castillos explanation does not impress. the amount of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FIFTY Justice Felipe Kalalo[41] dated January 21. Laurel and his Principal Foreign Legal Counsel. [40] 3. Subject Dollar Savings Account had closed already. Asa opened a Dollar release of the 1964 bar where he was also No. [45] The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by Q: How could you characterize and rate the trial competency. in the formulation of courtroom against Asa and Oliveros of filing groundless disbarment cases against him and Ginger Anne strategies. Laurel. Benjamin Cassiday III disbursed the following Canon provides that a member of the bar shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the amounts for the purposes indicated: contents of a paper or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.500 and $160. or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. opposing party to make only truthful statements in their pleadings. the shall he mislead. Castillo committed clear falsehood for Justice Kalalo had never been a lawyer at any time at the Laurel Law Offices. and Dr.02 of the same Guardian Ad Litem and Atty.00) which was deposited with the Pasig RTC. fairness and good faith to the courts. 2000. until he went made for said account in the amount of US Dollars: One Hundred Sixty on private practice and excelled as one of the more successful and Thousand (USD: 160. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court directs that a lawyer must employ such means only as are consistent with truth and honor. aggressive and very brilliant in the In light of the above findings reflecting Castillos administrative culpability. Mr.[44] They have an obligation to the court as well as to the Laurel Law Offices. direct to the point. however. scholarly and exhaustive. A credit was made to his assigned candidates for the year. On April 18. 2000. Rule 10. St. The records show that the above-quoted settlement from one of the duly adjudicated heirs of Larry statements attributed by Castillo to Justice Kalalo were lifted from an unsigned and Lee Hillblom. This affidavit was earlier filed by Castillo with THOUSAND US DOLLARS (US$1. low key. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations performance and expertise of Atty. Laurel even before the This is to certify that on April 18. 000430-ABA.M. counsel.01 of said Canon specifically commands that a member of the bar shall not do any falsehood. not only As regards Castillos claim that Asa secretly pocketed $24. nor influence on the 2002 filed with the Angeles City RTC. of this Honorable Court dated April 26. Q: Do you know the claimant Atty.000. Mercedita Feliciano. Branch 154 in connection with his claim for attorneys fees in Civil Cases Nos. Laurel Partial Inventory. Leon L.000.[47] To Asa. necessarily fails. He was also one of the busy lawyers of our office. and never seek to mislead the judge or xxxx any judicial officer by any artifice or false statement of fact or law. his charge conduct of trial. Ortigas Center. We further certify that on April 19. P. Account and Report of Guardian [48] dated February 13. he is one of the popular trial lawyers of our firm (The Laurel Law Offices). the undated because he came from an exclusive school.00) as initial batting average of winning about 80% to 90% of his load cases and transaction. Castillo explained. because we were both active Senior Trial lawyers at the and plead before the courts.

Pablito M.000 attorneys fees of Asa per heir (as priorly agreed upon by Dr. Castillo. J. insult and MELCHOR ZERNA. 5222 of RTC Atty. The remaining $12.500 to the Laurel Law Offices. Laurel for expenses incurred during the last six (6) years for airfare. CONSEJO ZERNA DE CORNELIO. for consideration in these States in order to pursue the claim of the Nonan children against administrative proceedings. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental in furtherance of their conspiracy to force him into resignation for them to replace him and (Branch III). Pablito M. the same is unsubstantiated. Br. and the HON. and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of One (1) Year. 1766[52] issued by the treasurer/cashier of the Laurel Law Offices dated April 19. On Asas alleged unjust refusal to turn over Castillos attorneys fees: It appears that Asa and Let copies of this Decision be entered in the respective personal records of Atty. 1987 Dr. Respecting Castillos claim that. Laurel but was merely wrangling should thus be carefully avoided. Castillo is likewise found GUILTY of breach of Canons 8. Responsibility. provoke him to ostracize him and make him feel unwanted to continue as [Dr. the SO ORDERED. Laurels] lawyer CIPRIANO VAMENTA. Asa and Oliveros embarked on another sinister strategy to spite. Asa the sum of Twelve thousand five hundred A. Leon L.000 of Atty.500 the same or similar offense in the future would call for the imposition of a more severe of the $25. language in her pleadings. FRANCISCO ZERNA. 5222. recrimination is far from edifying. have absolute control over the guardianship case. Asa in SP Proc. and representation Finally. hence. (8) Reimbursement to Salvador H. on Castillos Omnibus Motion to Appoint a Commissioner. No.500.500. car rentals. this Court finds the evidence presented insufficient to warrant the imposition of sanctions against them. Mutual bickerings and unjustified recriminations between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this Court. Ginger Anne Castillo is found GUILTY of breach of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Angeles City. Responsibility and is hereby admonished to refrain from using offensive and improper Cash. as reflected above. to say the least.000. [53] ENCARNACION BANOGON. the same is denied. L-35469 October 9.000 would be divided between them. premised on the October 13. Leon L. ZOSIMA MUNOZ. (7) Partial payment of the fee of Salvador H. He was then warned that commission of such disbursement is a Receipt [51] dated April 18. Laurel and Castillo from 1996 to 2000.Let copies too be Agreement. in violation of the Code of Professional vs.000 as attorneys fees but pursuant to their February 2000 Castillo and of Atty. the matters raised and other incidental expenses while in the various states in the United therein[55] being entirely inappropriate. overseas calls. The records show that Asa kept only $12.000. 176.00 as fifty percent (50%) share of LLO [Laurel Law Offices] in attorneys fees of US$25. and Castillo furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.[56] Personal colloquies between counsels which promote unseemly validate Asas explanation that the amount of $160. would receive 75% thereof or $37. By: Sgd. as well as Canon 10 Treasurer/Cashier of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[58] for committing falsehood in violation of his lawyers by Asa as attorneys fees for assisting Dr. the aggregate amount of $50. and DAVIDINA MUNOZ. Account and Report of Guardian.500. Atty. G. remaining $12.US$100. for a period of One (1) year. The spectacle of members of the bar being engaged in bickering and x x x x[49] (Underscoring supplied).000 out of the $12. the Hillblom estate . Account and Report of Guardian shows that $12. 2003 RTC attached to said position . as reflected in the Partial Inventory.: . the administrative cases filed against Atty. while Asa would receive 25% or $12.. [50] Confirming oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility.US$12. Jose RECEIVED from Atty. JR. Bongalonta v. deserves no further consideration.US$60.500 belonged to Dr. This Court thus imposes upon him a penalty of suspension from the practice of law and Cassiday) were remitted by Asa to the Laurel Law Offices as Official Receipt No. the funds of the estate and the attorneys fees.00 Order[54] in SP No. Laurel penalty. US Dollars US$12. effective upon receipt of this Decision. Laurel for consenting to be the As to Castillos charge against Asa and Oliveros of embezzlement due to alleged scandalous guardian ad litem of the Nonan children and accepting all responsibilities mismanagement of the estate of the Nonan heirs. Ginger Anne Castillo each received $25. 2000 signed by Asa. 2000 shows: WHEREFORE.[57] temporarily placed in his (Asas) account. Asa and Atty. he having remitted. Oliveros are DISMISSED.500 was received Case No.500 which Asa remitted to the Laurel Law Offices. It appears that Castillo had previously been suspended for Six (6) Months by this Court in CBD The Partial Inventory.500. Laurel eventually gave Castillo $10. petitioners.00 A final word. 59. CRUZ. Castillo in the Office of the Bar Confidant.R.500 for himself.

predicated as it is on an insubstantial objection bereft of any persuasive force. should fail. to file their petition for review. the private respondents argue that the decision of February 9. The said judgment would become so only after one year from the issuance of the decree of This Court has repeatedly reminded litigants and lawyers alike: registration. it is obvious that such could not have been the intention of the 11. their alleged predecessor-in-interest. In fact. why should the same party be denied this remedy before the decree is issued? 6 This appeal moreover. and it is assent essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that. and an opposition thereto on March 26. 9 the petitioners rationalize: "If an aggrieved party is allowed the remedy of re-opening the case within one year after the issuance of the decree. thirty one years later. indeed thirty one years too late. therefore. 1926. What is involved here are errors of law and lawyers. may be filed at any time the rendition of the These dates are not typographical errors. The respondent court dismissed the petition for review of the decision rendered in 1926 on the ground that it had been filed out of time. 3 they should not have delayed in asserting their claim of fraud." 8 Filomeno Banogon. It is conceded that no decree of registration has been entered and section 38 of Regarding the argument that the private respondents took fourteen years to move for the the Land Registration Act provides that a petition for review of such a decree on the dismissal of the petition for review. We therefore hold that a petition for review under section 38. or until 195 7. it suffices to point out that an opposition thereto had . 1971. and the motion for reconsideration was denied on February that such petitioners must be presented before the expiration of one year from the 14. Necessarily. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated that period. once a judgment For their part. Statutes must be given a reasonable construction and there can respondent judge. 2 be no possible reason for requiring the complaining party to wait until the final decree is entered before urging his claim of fraud. 1957. Laches. especially so. Defendants had to display ingenuity to conjure a technicality. had operated against the petitioners. Moran where it was held: again. Procedural rules are precisely designed to accomplish such one-year reglementary period has not yet expired? a worthy objective. the clear and manifest become final and executory because the land subject thereof had not yet been registered.. absence of any right calling for vindication. 10 . the petitioners cite Rivera v. 1972. 4 "Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere. The aim of a lawsuit is to render justice to the that they have all the time in the world because the land has not yet been registered and the parties according to law. the winning party be not. They slept on their rights for thirty one years before it occurred to them to to bring about that result. a 1910 decision. But on further the judgment on March 18. sixty one years ago. it may first blush seem that the petition for March 6. Their position is The petitioners contend that the said judgment had not yet become final and executory clearly contrary to law and logic and to even ordinary common sense. where. as shown in this case. to evade the operation of a decision final and While arguing that they were not guilty of laches because the 1926 decision had not yet executory. 1 The petitioners then came to us on certiorari to question the orders of the entry of the decree. A motion to amend that decision was filed on this provision a literal interpretation. supra. is quite obvious and indisputable. much more so of this Court. Their delay was not only for thirty one days but for thirty one years. court's decision and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree of registration. it was A reading thereof will show that it is against their contentions and that under this doctrine held. (Emphasissupplied). it was the private respondents who had failed to enforce the judgment by having the land registered in their the pursuant thereto. 1926. far from commendable. a motion to dismiss the petition was filed.It's unbelievable. 1971. Laches bars their petition now. because the land in dispute had not yet been registered in favor of the private respondents. From Alonso v. is too valuable to be wasted or frittered away by efforts. 1957. We have done so before. If any one was guilty of laches. any attempt to pervert the ends for which they are intended deserves condemnation. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies. question the judgment of the cadastral court. lived for nineteen more years after the 1926 decision and did not see fit to challenge it until his death in 1945.. The herein petitioners themselves waited another twelve years. through a mere subterfuge. 1957. We do so 7 Thinking to support their position. deprived of final and executory after 30 days. On October reflection. we have left no doubt as to Why not indeed? Why then did they not file their petition earlier? Why do they now pretend our disapproval of such a practice. same not having been appealed by the petitioners during the fruits of the verdict. The original decision in this case was rendered by the cadastral court way grounds of fraud must be filed "within one year after entry of the decree. Villamor." Giving back on February 9. or after fourteen years. became has become final. This was followed by an amended petition for review of review cannot be presented until the final decree has been entered. 5 There should be a greater awareness on the part of litigants that the time of the judiciary. courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them. The petition was Legislature and that what it meant would have been better expressed by stating dismissed on December 8.

R. Mercedez. order to end the litigation with reasonable dispatch? They chose. After all. and the same RICARDO P. seek reconsideration of the decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon their "professional conduct" and condemns them to pay the As officers of the court. Almeda for respondents. wherein Damaso Perez challenged the legality of the levy's coverage. For instance. as represented by their Isidro T. in MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ and DAMASO P. A judicious At first blush. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Baizas and Associates for petitioners. 1957. intruded into the controversy and This is a motion for partial reconsideration of this Court's decision of May 22. they were the alternatingly. By doing so. They do not discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary. as indeed most of them are only honest errors. six times. however. They do not conviction that the protracted litigation. alluded to in the above-quoted portion of our advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of decision. 1968. J. at the latest. PEREZ. far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice. It is so ordered. Attys. 11 Moreover. while submitting to the judgment on the merits. his wife. counsels for the petitioners. and the active participation of the petitioners' merit do not deserve the attention of the courts. N. as CASTRO. especially this Court. G. counsels in this adventure is patent. This decision is immediately After November 15. One reason why there is a degree of public distrust for lawyers is the way some of them misinterpret the law to the point of distortion in a cunning effort to achieve their purposes. 29962-R. for the sole purpose of thwarting the parties asking for relief. GREGORIO LANTIN. initially or ultimately deny their prayer.: expected. Crispin D. In a determined effort to prolong the litigation. the Perez spouses. has yet to be satisfied. abetted by their counsel. sought the issuance of preliminary injunctions to restrain the execution of the final judgment in civil case 39407 from courts which did not have jurisdiction and which would. petitioners. 1968 Had the petitioners and their counsels seriously believed that the levied shares of stock were conjugal property. While this is not to say that every wrong counsel. have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice. Perez' position with respect to the extent of the levy. Some of the actions were filed. land in dispute. this Court must express its disapproval of the adroit and intentional misreading designed The herein movants. the petition.been made as early as March 26. with costs against the petitioners. justice. execution in a piecemeal fashion. to "be paid by their legal profession as the sworn upholders of the law. This petition is DISMISSED. respondents. the motion for reconsideration presents a semblance of merit. this Court assessed treble costs against the petitioners. why did they not adopt this position from the very start. it was for the petitioners to move for the hearing of the petition petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions. they frustrate the ends of justice and at the same time lessen popular faith in the Corollarily. More than eight years after the finality of the judgment have passed. only to be abandoned or withdrawn. interpretation of the law is to be condemned. Bolinas. lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of treble costs adjudged against their clients. or nine days after the filing of the We feel compelled to observe that during the protracted litigation below. causing the postponement of the projected execution sale HON. Baizas and A.". No. such as this. knowing fully well that the basic civil case 39407 was decided by the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VII . was designed to cause delay. counsels. asked for an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction from the Court of First Instance of Rizal in specifically directed against the following observation therein made: connection with civil case 7532 which she filed with the said court. L-22320 July 29. After mature study of the facts and the law should advise them when a case. however. The petitioners and their counsel. to attack the vs. should not be deliberation and patient reprobing into the records of the case. in CA-G.R. and it was the private respondents who were in possession of the execution of a simple money judgment which has long become final and executory. Crispin D. HERMOSO and the CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA. or. the subsequent proceedings interposed alternatingly by the petitioner spouses were obviously quixotic maneuvers expected to be overthrown by the courts but calculated to delay an execution long overdue. Ruth Cobb-Perez. after Damaso Perez bowed out temporarily from the scene following the rendition of the aforementioned Court of Appeals decision. at some stages instead of waiting for the private respondents to ask for its dismissal. which is burdened enough as it is. precisely to circumvent or violate it. we are of the firmer permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. 1962 when the Court of Appeals rendered judgment sustaining Damaso executory.

what they attacked is not the writ of execution. were apparently instituted to prove the conjugal nature of the levied shares of stocks in question. But the said civil cases were definitely not the "proper remedy" in so far as they party to the denied "Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution" (filed by his wife alone). 1963. they now counter that the said cases could not be branded as among others. 1963 the ex parte writ which he previously issued enjoining the respondent sheriff from the avowal of the movants that "in none of the various incidents in the case at bar has any carrying out the execution sale. now assisted by her husband who had staged a comeback. which denied of the suggested remedy only in the sense that said civil cases 7532 and 55292 his wife's above-mentioned motion to recall the controverted writ of execution. when the motion was set filed respectively. and often simultaneous. As most probably anticipated anew by the Perez spouses and their counsels. knew or ought to have known beforehand that the Court of First Instance of Rizal of the judgment in Civil Case No. the remedy is not the recall of the writ. in the course of the protracted litigation. a month before the said a strategem of "remedies" projected to foil the lawful execution of a simple money judgment. Perez failed to adduce any evidence in support of her waylaid. 1963. counsel for the movant did not appear despite the fact that he had been duly notified of the motion for hearing. Perez. 3 Meanwhile. November 8. When the urgent motion to recall or lift writ of execution was called this morning for hearing. coached by their counsels. on September 3. the petitioners had already availed of this Mrs. for the said courts did not have jurisdiction to restrain the enforcement of for hearing on December 21. was already prepared with The reference we made to civil cases 7532 and 55292 in the above-quoted statement must another "remedy. in which action the conjugal nature of the levied stocks should be established as a basis for the subsequent Despite the recall of the aforementioned writ of injunction by Judge Mencias on a disclaimer issuance of a permanent injunction. In this writ of execution. On the very day the injunction was denied. presiding judge of Branch XXII. Mrs. and more than one member of this Court are persuaded that justice was practically Instance of Rizal. the particular counsel of petitioners acted with deliberate aforethought to delay the enforcement movants. denied the said motion for reconsideration. as if expecting the reversal from Judge Alikpala. but the promise was never fulfilled. was sought the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction from the Court of First Instance of Rizal merely an offer to replace the levied stocks with supposed cash dividends due to the Perez and the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XXII) where civil cases 7532 and 55292 were spouses as stockholders in the Republic Bank. the validity and regularity waiving his right to present evidence in support of his urgent motion to recall or lift of which are unchallenged. of jurisdiction (since the execution sought to be enjoined was ordered by another tribunal). alleging as justification the conjugal nature of the ventured to adopt.1 As a matter of fact. And because of this statement. regard. they accidentally stumbled on the suggested 19. the counsels for Damaso Perez promised to produce the the writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VII) under the settled doctrines that Courts are without power to restrain acts outside of their territorial . Judge Alikpala. writ was actually lifted." From the chronology of antecedent events. which latter court was the proper forum for any said cash dividends within five days. but an independent action to enjoin the Sheriff from proceeding with the projected sale. as in fact neither she nor her counsels appeared during the scheduled hearing. anticipating becomes inescapable that the Perez spouses. only to abandon it as they incessantly sought issuance of another injunction. which in the first place Damaso Perez could not legally do for he was not even a remedy. in the event of a successful claim. prayed for the remedy in civil cases 7532 and 55292. Said urgent motion is therefore deemed submitted for resolution. Perez herself sought. In view thereof the court assumes that he is In reality. We said that the petitioners incidentally had already availed 39407 an "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration" of the order of October 19. but the levy made by the respondent Sheriff. filed in the basic civil case 39407 an urgent motion to lift the writ of It is equally obvious that they foreshadowed their own reversals in the "remedies" they execution issued on August 15. 1964. they interposed levied shares of stock and the personal nature of Damaso Perez' judgment debt. 1960). looking to Acosta vs. 1963. in connection debt. this time from Branch XXII of the Court of First Instance of other. It is clear. devices of thwarting satisfaction of the judgment Manila (not the same Branch which issued the controverted writ of execution). he filed in the basic civil case not be considered out of context. lifted on October The above exposition of the circumstances relative to the protracted litigation clearly negates 4. however. the action relative to the execution. and. We used the word incidentally advisedly to show that in their incessant search for The foregoing motion. the very another until the case reached this Court for the second time. (Emphasis supplied) . respondent Judge on January 4. Incidentally. the fact did not have jurisdiction to issue the writ which Mrs. such that even before. Incidentally. that he had no power to interfere by injunction with the judgment or decree of having been instituted for delay. prompting the respondent judge to issue the following order: The movants also contend that even this Court sanctions the aforesaid civil cases 7532 and 55292 as the "proper remedy" when we said that. Judge Eulogio Mencias of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. justice was same reasons advanced in civil case 7532 which was then still pending in the Court of First delayed. 2 Consequently. Damaso Perez. far from seriously seeking the reconsideration of the order of October devices to thwart the controverted execution. Perez and her counsels. that Mrs. 1961.presided by the respondent Judge Lantin). 1963. 1963 denied the preliminary injunction sought. with civil case 7532. 39407. on the ground. then still pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. aforesaid urgent motion. one remedy had been exhausted. a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. had sallied forth on the recall of the writ improvidently issued. Alvendia (L-14598. which held that courts of first instance have no power to restrain acts outside their territorial jurisdictions. on November 8." as in fact on that day. 1963. October 31.

that when we said "counsel" we meant the counsels on record of the petitioners who were responsible for the inordinate delay in the execution of the final judgment in the basic civil case 39407. what we do not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the patent futility of his client's position. Our decision of May 22. but considering its serious ethical implications. a quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be condemned. Baizas and A. its primacy is indisputable. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client. ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law. would have his petition decided on pure questions of procedure.N. Bolinas.N. L-77691 August 8. Baizas & Associates" as counsel for Mrs. 1963. according to the petitioner) parcels of land were disposed of at public September 3. SARMIENTO. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client. Crispin D. and upon the maturing of said loans.R. COURT OF APPEALS. It is to be recalled that the said urgent motion . according to the petitioner) of First Instance of Manila dismissed the petitioners' Petition for Relief in Civil Case No. and temper his client's propensity to litigate. November 15. 2 he obtained various loans 39407.000. "entered his appearance in the case at bar about the time the Court The private respondent was the registered owner of eight (six. parcels of land located in Quezon City. Bolinao. upon her own motion. urgent motion to recall writ of execution filed by Mrs. the Court cannot let pass unnoticed the The movants finally state that the "Petitioners have several counsel in this case but the murkier face of the controversy. it was because petitioners' counsel HON. Had the Perez spouses desired in earnest to continue with the said cases they ACCORDINGLY. A counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and honesty his client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended. 1963 security therefor. PATERNO R. he executed deeds of mortgage in favor of the corporation over the parcels when he filed. happened to be more assertive . the petitioner himself.00 As mentioned. after the Court of Appeals had rendered its aforementioned decision of We turn to the facts. Canlas Law Offices for petitioner. a financing institution. antedated by at least one jurisdiction. Perez. vs. The case dramatizes the unpleasant spectacle of a lawyer tangling with his own client. 1 Between 1977 and 1978. yet. Jr. the firm caused an Instance of Manila presided by the Hon. wherein the law is corrupted to promote a lawyer's participation of each counsel was rather limited implying that the decision of this Court selfseeking ends. Civil Case No. basic civil case 39407. Abalos. Baizas claims that he "became petitioners' counsel only in October. Atty. J. shall pay when she instituted the above mentioned urgent motion to recall writ of execution in the jointly and severally the treble costs assessed against the petitioners. in various sums totalling P420. cases 7532 and 55292 did not amount to the termination or dismissal of the principal action in each case. until the said civil case 7532 was dismissed on November 9. on its merits as well. respondents. Gatdula & Bermejo for private respondent. A.. 1962. as a consequence of which. Anent civil case 55292. 1964. as in the case at bar. was over the signature of one Ruby Zaida of the law firm of "Crispin auction. more often than not.. which.: rather than traverse the incontrovertible. 55292 before the Court of First aforesaid. ordering that "treble costs are assessed against the petitioners. and in which L & R Corporation was itself the highest bidder. the Perez spouses virtually deserted the same when they instituted the herein petition for certiorari with urgent writ of preliminary injunction based on the same grounds proffered in the said civil case — until the latter was also dismissed on G. debased into a simple business dealing. on the merit or lack of merit of his case." Paterno R. which shall be paid by their Accordingly. 1961 and even prior to the Court of Appeals decision above.1979. and FRANCISCO HERRERA. the motion for partial reconsideration is denied. On August 28. upon his own admission. 5 However. The word "counsel" may be either singular or plural in construction. But the fact is that Mrs. Judge Alikpala although it appears on record that the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage following his failure to pay. we resolve it on the basis not only of the questions raised by the petitioner counsel" is not clear. with the consent of the parties because of the pendency then of the aforesaid petition for certiorari. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client. And it is on record that the movants are such counsels. 1968 could have done so. and the law profession. CANLAS. Bolinao." or about August 3. The movants further contend that "If there was delay. in the matter of fees. petitioner. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless. then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit. Perez in the basic civil case 39407 on the said eight (six. Atty. The lawyer. anchored on the same grounds which she advanced in the former case. with Atty.jurisdiction 4 or interfere with the judgment or decree of a court of concurrent or coordinate is the same motion discussed above. so pertaining to procedure.1988 March 20. 1963. Perez practically abandoned civil case 7532 is hereby modified in the sense that Attys. from the L & R Corporation. curiously enough. Jr. No. the recall and the denial of the writs of preliminary injunction in civil month the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction issued in civil case 7532.

. Paterno R. we are inclined to agree maintains that the petitioner's "agreement with [him] was that the latter would lend the with the private respondent's version. he instituted an action the petitioner on the other." 17 secondly. consequently. the That notwithstanding. the private respondent maintains that it was in the name of the petitioner be cancelled and that "the Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights the petitioner himself who 'offered to advance the money. 10 The private respondent. wet market which [the petitioner] intended to put up on said property. to enjoin consolidation of title in its name. granting execution over the portion of the compromise agreement obliging the private . made him a judgment follows: creditor in his own right. the petitioner and the private respondent met to discuss relief for the petitioner 11 as well as various criminal complaints for estafa. He likewise contends that the "Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption compromise agreement approved by Judge Castro in the injunction case." a document that enabled the The trial court. assign and convey unto TRANSFEREE. of Rule 39. to register the same in his complained of did not change the meaning of the contract since it was "well within [the name. 1983.00). He likewise alleges that he commenced disbarment proceedings before this Court against the Sometime thereafter. FRANCISCO whereby L & R Corporation accorded the private respondent another year to redeem the HERRERA. I. the private respondent caused the annotation of an adverse claim upon question. Who true agreement of Francisco Herrera and Paterno R. The private respondent countered with a motion collected." 7 provided that he. that the petitioner cannot be said to have violated the ban against sales of WHEREFORE. finally." 14 He vehemently implored whom is a bone of contention. on December 6. a motion to recall the writ of possession. since the sale in question amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Pl00. FRANCISCO HERRERA. Corporation my mortgaged properties foreclosed and sold at public auction by the Sheriff of Quezon City and subject matter of the above Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No.000. the private respondent filed a complaint for injunction against L & R whereas it originally reads: Corporation. 19 praying that the orders of Judge Castro: (1). Atty. 1982. let alone the sum of P100. Q30679 . the private respondent.. the private of Equity of Redemption and/or to Redeem dated May 3. and his obligation to trust" 12 with the Department of Justice." 15 Predictably. the court 3 approved the compromise. The records further show that the parties. however. The petitioner contends that the private respondent "earnestly for reconveyance and reformation of document.00) I. L & R Corporation my mortgaged properties foreclosed and sold at fees of P100. The hereby transfer. so that [petitioner] would have time to look for a loan for the ascendancy over his client and the private respondent's increasing desperation.. and "betrayal of latter with respect to his liability to L & R Corporation on the one hand. for and in full settlement of the attorney's fees of TRANSFEREE in the properties in custodia legis to lawyers by their clients pendente lite..Pending redemption. On November 19.. took place after judgment in the injunction case abovesaid had attained finality. assign and convey unto TRANSFEREE. and secondly. any and all my rights of equity of redemption and/or to redeem from the cent per month.00. falsification. Canlas. that the private respondent had lost all rights over the same arising from his failure to redeem them from L & R Corporation within the extended period.00 in attorney's fees demanded by the petitioner. executed a "Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption and/or to Redeem. executed a "transfer of mortgage" 8 over the properties in his favor. 1983 . that had. redemption price he has paid. the petitioner moved for dismissal.000.000. The private respondent alleges that he subsequently filed loan applications with the petitioner's] rights" 16 "to protect and insure his interest of P654. to redeem the parcels in question.000. of a mortgage. Upon learning of the same.000. pursuant to their agreement. .00 which is the Family Savings Bank to finance a wet market project upon the subject premises to find. and to his dismay. any complaint was consequently dismissed.000. for and in full settlement of the attorney's fees of TRANSFEREE in the no imminent end to the litigation in sight. that the petitioner himself had acquired an according to him. L & R finality. the petitioner moved for execution insofar as his fees were concemed. They likewise stipulated that the petitioner shall be entitled to attorney's Mortgagee. It held that the alteration petitioner. petitioner moved for the cancellation of the adverse claim and for the issuance of a writ of The court granted execution. pursuant to Section and/or to Redeem" on file with the Register of Deeds (for Quezon City) had been falsified as 29(b). thirdly. 9 Undaunted. The court granted both motions. the properties already registered in the name of the interest in the properties subject of reconveyance based on the petitioner. of the Rules of Court. Paterno R. however. 1985. denied the private respondent's petition. but as we shall see shortly. be reformed to reflect the respondent. and finally. a dismissal that eventually attained a character of and all my rights of the real properties and/or to redeem from the Mortgagee. public auction by the Sheriff of Quezon City and subject matter of the above Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No. the respective certificates of title embracing the properties. with interest thereon at one per Canlas. On December 1. Canlas. He was represented by the petitioner.00. first. in which he succeeded in obtaining preliminary injunctive relief. Q30679. the parties entered into a compromise agreement amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100. 13 praying that the certificates of title issued implored" 6 him to redeem the said properties. foreclosed properties subject to payment of P600. Two years later. filed a suit for "Annulment Of Judgment 18 in the respondent Court of Appeals. 5 for a temporary restraining order and later. and with WHEREFORE. considering primarily the petitioner's moral money to the former for a year. remained in dire financial straits — a fact the petitioner himself concede 4 — for which reason he failed to acquire the finding to repay the loans in As a consequence. Atty. hereby transfer. although it does not appear that the sum was actually possession.

however. the NO. This was the clincher of the plan of respondent Atty. the judgment itself is not assailed.. fully his side of the case. Canlas and His Honor to expedite PROPERTIES LONG BEFORE THE FILING OF THIS SUIT. Secondly.R. allegedly two Neither is it proper for the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. (". or real contest. Canlas) subject to redemption. 07860 ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS IN REALITY A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED OUT the trial of the case.. Fraud has been regarded Specifically. that can serve as a basis for the annulment of judgment. R. by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. It is only extrinsic or collateral fraud. fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of NO. People's Homesite and Housing resolutions. As we stated. the respondent Court of Appeals promulgated the first of its challenged "extrinsic fraud" means is explained in Macabingkil v. there is no showing that extrinsic fraud." 22disguised as a pleading for annulment of judgment and that in such a case. On March 3. the former's collection of his fees. the petitioner's arguments are impressive. He alleges that his counsel had deliberately. incidents he complains of. as distinguished from intrinsic fraud. On the contrary. the Appellate Court denied Corporation : 23 reconsideration. THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSE [sic] ITS DISCRETION IN NOT CONSIDERING AC G. and as herein THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSE [sic] ITS DISCRETION IN NOT DISMISSING AC G. he assigns the following errors: as extrinsic or collateral. Certiorari presupposes the years from the issuance of the assailed orders.R.respondent to pay the petitioner P100. not to the I. but of the manner in which it was procured so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy." In other words. and in fact. the motion to recall writ of possession. appeal lies reconsideration. postponed execution to force him (Herrera) to agree to sell the IV properties in controversy to him (Atty. 1986. On purely technical grounds. Clearly. rests on a single ground: extrinsic fraud. Canlas' claims under the compromise agreement.[I]t was understandable that respondent Atty. Canlas did not implement the writ of execution. instead he contacted petitioner in order that petitioner would sign the questioned THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT DENYING PETITIONER'S documents. extrinsic fraud refers to any THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSE [sic] ITS DISCRETION IN NOT DISMISSING AC G. petition for certiorari. 21 Canlas had to conspire with the respondent court judge to achieve his plan. petitioner Canlas correctly points out. A perusal of the petition of therein private respondent Herrera pending before the respondent Court reveals no cause of action for annulment of judgment. He adds that assuming annulment of judgment were proper.000. For this purpose. no judgment . but followed it up with a motion to dismiss. it is no argument to justify annulment. and (2) It was not preceded by a motion for absence of an appeal 26and while there is no appeal from execution of judgment. Herrera's petition in the respondent court will show that he was privy to the III. judgment itself. or from presenting all of his case to the court. Paterno R. (2) denying the private allegedly exists for annulment. all be set aside.00 as attorney's fees. Paterno R. 07860 ON THE GROUND OF RES JUDICATA orders merely implementing it. within the meaning of the rule. What December 8. Canlas to divest MOTION TO DISMISS SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ARGUMENT RAISED THEREIN ARE petitioner of his properties. In the first place. the petitioner assails these twin resolutions on grounds of improper procedure. we have had occasion to rule." 25) Aside from being plain speculation. had entered timely oppositions and motions to defeat Atty. 07860 AS MOOT AND ACADEMIC SINCE PETITIONER HAD DISPOSED OF THE SUBJECT What he objects to is his suspected collusion between Atty. or where it operates upon matters pertaining. Annulment of The petitioner filed a comment on the petition. On judgment. 1987. "where it is one the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial. and with malevolent designs. the aforesaid two orders being in the nature of interlocutory respondent's prayer for a restraining order directed against the execution: and (3) denying issuances. denying the motion to dismiss. Paterno R. but rather. whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting OF TIME AND SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN DUE COURSE. it does not amount to The petitioner argues that the petition pending with the respondent court "is actually a extrinsic fraud as the term is defined in law. it faces alleged legal impediments (1) It had been filed out of time. as Makabingkil defines it. 24 II. indeed vitiated the proceedings presided over by Judge Castro. it is obvious that respondent Atty. 20 xxx xxx xxx Hence the instant petition. BUT REHASH OF THE ARGUMENTS IN HIS COMMENT TO THE PETITION.

Law advocacy. By Atty. is not skilled in the subtle art of movement and position. for this compensation for his services. in which a member of the bar would exploit his mastery of procedural law to score a "technical Art. gone to the Regional Trial Court. that respondent his mortgaged properties and petitioner's P100. holds true as ever.. no to wit. 2208 . as follows: have intimated. .000. and in which the the controversy. there is no irregular It is a ruling that almost eight decades after it was rendered. As we So also it is decreed by Article 2208 of the Civil Code. 27 In the case at bar. Lawsuits. Article 2038 of the Civil Code applies: It is true that lawyers are entitled to make a living.. but that does not furnish an excuse for plain lust for material undue influence. 30679. The petitioner's efforts partaking of a on to his lands and constraints of economic privation have not been lost on us. It is obvious shakedown" of his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly. "it In all cases.. more so at the expense of another.00 attorney's fees awarded in the court/judge took only one [1) day to resolve petitioner's motion for issuance of [a] Compromise Judgment. of all people. fraud. with a view to the importance of the subject matter of purpose.. unlike duels. violence. Canlas' own account. Canlas' position-on matters of procedure — for the enlightenment solely of the bench and the bar. for which it is subject to State in relation to Article 1330 thereof: regulation. 33 . It is a calling that. do not make out a case for irregular fees. and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. eluded not a few law advocates. or falsity of documents. The returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or service rendered." 29) in denying his twofold motions. of the attorney. . A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. A compromise in which there is mistake. is subject to the provisions of article 1330 wealth. would go to in a last-ditch bid to hold judicial notice. a fundamental standard that has. knockout" over his own client.. of Rule 138. 28 In the instant case. and the professional standing decision had become final. For obvious reasons. unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from government interference. of the Rules. 24. reproduced in part. — An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable in relation to its provisions on avoidance of'contracts. we reiterate. more deeply schooled and services he had rendered in Civil Case No. 1330. A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one." 34 a development that should have tempered his demand for his [restraining] order. a vain effort as we stated." 32 It was almost eight decades ago that the Court held: We do not find the petitioner's claim of attorney's fees in the sum of P100. asks that justice be done upon subject thereof commanded quite handsome prices in the market should not be a measure of the merits. respondent Herrera's charges.. We do not believe that it satisfies the standards set forth by the Rules. yields profits. "due to lack of paying capacity of respondent Herrera. intimidation. clients... as a matter of The lengths the private respondent. do not speak well of that he is uneasy about the judgment on compromise itself." 31 If procedure were to be an impediment to such an objective.000. It does not mean that we find merit in his petition. violence intimidation. are not to be won by the a rapier's thrust . is not a commercial enterprise. . provides in part as follows: Art. after all.. 30 The court notes that he had. in spite of the fact that the practice of law Art.. A contract where consent is given through mistake. or fraud is voidable.00 reasonable. as well as the subsequent his fealty to his oath to "delay no man for money. case of irregular implementation of the writ. is not capital that of this Code . 2038. 37Anent attomey's fees. SEC. we cannot overlook the unseemlier side of the proceeding. entraps and destroys the other. or that His Honor had acted hastily (". Francisco Herrera. In such a case. have for their object assistance unto parties "in obtaining just. with all good fidelity . The fact that the properties imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure." 36 contract between him and his lawyer. The case itself moreover did not is. "irregular execution" means the failure of the writ to conform to the decree of the decision executed. a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the involve complex questions of fact or law that would have required substantial effort as to court the facts in issue and then. Compensation of attorneys.. he placed his interests over and above those of his client. It impressive to justify payment of such a gargantuan amount. rather.. .. the extent of the services rendered. agreement as to fees. section 24. that Judge Castro had erred in denying his motions for temporary restraining order and financing entity was willing to extend him any loan with which to pay the redemption price of to recall writ of possession. execution to speak of As a rule. deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy. however." 35 The Court finds the occasion fit to stress that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants. speedy. the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. The orders impugned are conformable to the letter of the judgment approving the opposition to his oath to "conduct himself as a lawyer . sustain Atty. is impressed with a public interest. The extent of the . brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all research or leg work for the petitioner to warrant his demands. in execution. and as far as the records will yield.. to [his] parties'compromise agreement. undue influence. Procedural rules.

" 39Whatever right he had. he would have us But while we cannot hold the petitioner liable for falsification — this is not the proper beheve that by redeeming the same from the mortgagee and by in fact parting with his own occasion for it — we condemn him nonetheless for infidelity to his oath "to do no money he had actually done the private respondent a favor. he himself admits that "[t]itles to the properties have been issued to the new owners long before the filing of private respondents [sic] petition for annulment. having made money from it. provisions of the Civil Code state as follows: We are likewise convinced that it was the petitioner who succeeded in having the private Art. we reduce the petitioner's fees. We are hard put to believe that it was the private respondent who "earnestly implored" 42 him to . although The Court simply cannot fag for the petitioner's pretensions that he acquired the properties provisions for his compensation were purportedly provided. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Surely. argues that he did so "to facilitate the registration of the questioned deed with the Register of Deeds" 47 and that it did not change the meaning of the paper. the petitioner himself would maintain It is futile to invoke the rule granting attorneys a lien upon the things won in litigation similar that he agreed to make the redemption"in order that [he] may already be paid the to that vested upon redemptioners. and assuming that such a right exists. It did not give the petitioner any right to the properties themselves. As we have earlier averred.000.000. but this is to assume that he did falsehood" 49 not get anything out of the transaction. the private respondent. the property of the person or persons who may be under his ownership thereof. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase. It did not extend to the lands. observed. arguably with respect alone to his renumeration. of course. 38 To begin with. We are not likewise persuaded that the undertake the redemption amid the former's obstinate attempts to keep his lands that have petitioner's stature warrants the sum claimed. subject to redemption by his client under easier terms and conditions. independent of the questioned deed of sale and transfer which was executed subsequently on May 3. whereas the instrument registered with the Register of Deeds purported to transfer "any and all my rights of the real properties Secondly.the importance or non-importance of the case. Its provisions should be read against the party who prepared persistent pleas that he was entitled to the proceeds. He admits having entered the intercalations in question but disbursements" 40due him. counsel shall acquire the same and keep them therefore within reach. We are of the opinion that in ceding his right of redemption. redemption was decreed by concern was his fees. 1491. Canlas' "legal right. either in person or through the mediation of another: Redeem. explanation other than to enable him to keep an "ace" against the private respondent that led finally. There can indeed be no plausible it. the agreement petitioner took pains to implement it. if it did not change the tenor of the deed. 48 To start with. acquire (1) The guardian. much less the right of redemption. why was it necessary to reword the Corporation pursuant to Sec. to force the transfer of the properties to himself. for which Judge Santiago The Court notes a hidden agenda in the petitioner's haste to execute the compromise acquitted him of any falsification charges. to the conveyance of the properties in his favor. indeed led to the multiple suits the petitioner now complains of. It did not make him a as a gesture of magnanimity and altruism He denies. a proposition this Court is not prepared to accept under the is subject to the ban on acquisition by attorneys of things in litigation. Moreover. bankruptcy." a pre-prepared document apparently. there was no point in keeping the properties in their entirety. 44 this extent. conveyance document executed by the private respondent? It shall be recalled that the deed. apart from the fact that the latter himself had something to gain from the transaction. agreement (on compromise) between the mortgagor and mortgagee. the rule refers to realty sold as a result P100. had become an easy quarry to his counsel's moral influence and ascendancy. we reverse Judge Pedro Santiago's ruling in Civil Case No." 41 To say that he did not profit therefrom is to take either this This brings us to the final question: Whether or not the conveyance in favor of the petitioner Court or the petitioner for naive. even at a public or respondent sign the "Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Equity of Redemption and/or to judicial action." 46 in his favor.00. it must be in proportion to the "just fees and and/or to redeem. it was. however. that allowed him (the petitioner) to exercise the right of redemption over the properties and to all intents and purposes." 43 and if his sole of execution in satisfaction of judgment. 29 (b). The pertinent circumstances. on a quantum meruit basis. To but what he cannot dispute is the fact that he did resell the properties. to forestall the total loss of the parcels to the mortgagee upon the understanding that his P20. it does not appear that the why was it necessary then? And why did he not inform his client? At any rate. As we have alteration could "facilitate" registration. Indeed. provided for conveyance of the private respondent's "rights of equity of redemption and/or redeem" 45 the properties in his favor. To be sure. as originally drafted. recognizing Atty. by reason of guardianship. the Court is at a loss how such an agreement and subsequently.00 attorney's fees awarded him in the Compromise Agreement. In this case. 1983. the private respondent had intended merely to All things considered. It is still subject to the tempering hand of this Court. to redeem the subject realty from the L & R But if he did not entertain intents of making any profit. 40066. redemptioner for the plain reason that he was not named one in the amicable settlement. We find this perplexing given his passionate and is clearly a contract of adhesion. as alluded to above. in spite of the issuance of the writ of execution.

000." Parenthetically.) The writ does not lie in such a case. It is especially so in the case at bar. actual damages. to write finis to the controversy that has taxed considerably the dockets of the inferior courts. to pay the respondent Herrera the amount of P1. We order Atty. to of what had been agreed upon on compromise — in which. it is open to annulment on the ground of mistake. Paterno Canlas. in Needless to say. (6) Any others specially disqualified by law. however. superseded the compromise. By virtue of such a subsequent agreement.00 as and for damages. 53 which is in turn subject to the right of innocent purchasers for value. administration of which has been instrusted to them. 54 (3) Executors and administrators. is not subject to the injunction of Article 1491 of the them." arbiter of justiciable cases and in the highest interests ofjustice. so we hold. the petitioner. In condemning other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice. His remedy is specific performance.00. . in the sum of P654. In the instant case.000. But like all voidable contracts. he did not have the same enforced. While the respondent Herrera has not specifically prayed for invalidation. we cannot overlook the fact that the private respondent has not property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within settled his hability for payment of the properties. take part in the purchasers for value. but if the decision is to have any real meaning. the Atty. Ababa 51 however. liable to Atty. after proper adjustments. 56 such that he shall. the resolution of the case rests not absolute ownership thereof). the transfer. we have made clear that from a technical vantage point. or of any government owned or controlled corporation. be indebted to In Rubias v.000. and (4) in execution sales. It is actually a new contract — not one in pursuance matter of general policy. For this reason. judgment is hereby rendered. in turn. Civil Code. It appearing. Atty. the Court observes that the "Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Equity of Redemption and/or to Redeem" was executed following the finality of the decision Let the Court further say that while its business is to settle actual controversies and as a approving the compromise agreement.** Canlas. first and foremost. (5) Justice judges prosecuting attorneys clerks of superior and inferior courts. the property of the estate under administration. must be held liable. this thereof. (2) an extrajudicial foreclosure of administration ofjustice. his client in the sum of P326. condoning the private respondent's own shortcomings. (He was. in any manner whatsoever. The parties must then set prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers. of the Civil Code. it should be noted. issued a writ of execution on the compromise agreement WHEREFORE. 52 It likewise cannot. or institution. the property of the State or of any subdivision earlier detailed. arguably lies. fraud. We mortgagor has possession and no third party has intervened. the lands had only on the mandate of technical rules. the petitioner moved for the issuance of the writ pursuant to unpunished what convinces us as serious indiscretions on the part of a lawyer. Batiller. we said that the prohibition does not apply to contingent contracts. off their obligations against the other. as the overseer of good conduct in both the bench and the bar. acquired certiorari. we invalidate the transfer in question specifically for undue influence as (4) Public officers and employees.000. as we said. as the final to be "subject of litigation. Canlas monetarily. 55 in addition to the sum of P20. we are compelled. but as we have likewise stated. the petitioner. But as we have stated. the is the clear tenor of his petition for annulment in the Appellate Court. 50 we declared such contracts to be void by force of Article 1409. but as we likewise observed. on the ceased to be properties which are "the object of any litigation. to leave alone moot ones. (2) Agents. or undue influence. for such a loss of properties. the private respondent. the property whose administration or sale may have been intrusted to At any rate. in which no end to suit and mortgage of real property.00 representing the redemption price of the properties. in many cases we have states that a writ of possession is improper to eject another from possession unless sought in eschewed the rigidity of the Rules of Court if it would establish a barrier upon the connection with: (1) a land registration proceeding. This is not the first time we would have done so. Canlas alone liable for whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions. by way of sale. At the outset. let go is noteworthy that in this case. defining inexistent contracts. paragraph (7). its mission is. Paterno Canlas. purportedly assumed redemption rights over the disputed properties (but in reality. we hold Francisco Herrera. the petitioner dispense justice. as we said. we sustain the action of the respondent Court of Appeals in taking which the conveyance takes place after judgment. the sum he earned from the resale thereof. The sale agreement between the parties. the deed of sale between him and the private respondent and not the judgment on compromise. 00 as and for attomey's fees. and We are not. In Director of Lands v. so that the property can no longer be said cognizance of the petition below. (3) in a judicial foreclosure of property provided that the counter-suit appears imminent and for which it is high time that we have the final say. unless the consent of the principal have been given. the Court merits too. To obviate debate as the actual amounts owing by one with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in to the other.000. which they may take part by virtue of their profession. this provision shall apply to that the properties have been conveyed to third persons whom we presume to be innocent judges and government experts who. this damages is to enrich said respondent at the expense of his lawyer. To hold Atty. however.

Francisco 3. after which the same will be consolidated with AC No. within ten (10) days from notice. the sum of P326. DISMISSING this petition and REMANDING the case to the respondent Court of Appeals for Herrera. ORDERING the petitioner. and 2. SO ORDERED. execution. ORDERING the petitioner to SHOW CAUSE why no disciplinary action may be imposed on 4.000. 2625. to pay to the private respondent. Patemo Canlas.1. .00. as a lawyer. ORDERING the petitioner to pay costs. him for violation of his oath. Atty. as and for damages.