digests 2003 fjjcordon

7/27/2019 DIGESTS 2003 Fjjcordon

1/4

UP Law Acads BarOps 2010Legal Ethics

2003 DIGESTS

HECK VS. SANTOS

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1630 April 9, 2003

Facts : Heck prays that respondent Judge Anthony E.Santos be disbarred and penalized with other disciplinarysanctions for having (among others) authorized Atty.Samuel Jardin, counsel of the defendants in Civil Case No.94-334, Vinas Kuranstalten Gesmbh, BeartholdRindlefleisch and Candido Flor v. Lugait Aqua MarineIndustries and Heinz R. Heck, to draft a decision for his

approval, and thereafter rendered a decision copiedverbatim on the said draft decision, in violation of Sec. 1,Rule 36, Rules of Court.

Issue/s: WON respondent did violate the Code of JudicialConduct, in having rendered an order for the counsel of oneof the parties to draft the decision and his having adoptionverbatim of the said decision

Held/Ratio:YES. Respondent has violated Canons 2 and 3

of the Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to Sec. 1 of Rule36 of the Rules of Court. By such order, respondentabdicated a function exclusively granted to him by no lessthan the fundamental law of the land. It is axiomatic thatdecision-making, among other duties, is the primordial andmost important duty of a member of the bench. 21 He mustuse his own perceptiveness in understanding and analyzingthe evidence presented before him and his own discernmentwhen determining the proper action, resolution or decision.

Delegating to a counsel of one of the parties the preparationof a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect blatant judicialsloth.

Lack of malice or bad faith is not an excuse. It bearsemphasis that a judge must not only render a just, correctand impartial decision. He should do so in such a manner asto be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartialityand integrity.

JUDGE PAAS VS. ALMARVES

A.M. No. P-03-1690 April 4, 2003

Facts : This involves the consolidated cases of (1) Judge

Estrellita Paas against Edgar Almarves, a court aide/utilityworker, for discourtesy, disrespect, insubordination, neglectin performing his duties, disloyalty, solicitation of monetaryconsideration and gross violation of the Civil Service Law;(2) Almarves complaint against Judge Paas for beratingagainst him and forcing him to resign, for his not havinginformed her of her husbands illicit affairs; and (3) chargesagainst Judge Paas and Atty. Paas for the latters use of heroffice as his office in his private practice.

Issue/s: WON Judge Paas and Atty. Paas should be heldadministratively liable for the latters use of her office as his

law office

Held/Ratio: YES. Under paragraph 6 ofSC AdministrativeCircular No. 01-99, Enhancing the Dignity of Courtsas Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for theirOfficials and Employers, court officials and employeesmust never use their offices for any purpose other than forcourt or judicial functions. Likewise, Rule 2.03 of Canon 2 ofthe Code of Judicial Conduct provides that the prestige of


2/4


judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance theprivate interests of others, nor convey or permit others toconvey the impression that they are in a special position toinfluence the judge. SC Circular No. 3-92 also prohibits the

use of halls of justice for residential or commercial purposes.

A judge's official conduct should indeed be free from theappearance of impropriety; and his behavior not only in theperformance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday lifeshould be beyond reproach. This is premised on the truismthat a Judge's official life cannot simply be detached orseparated from his personal existence and that upon aJudge's attributes depend the public perception of theJudiciary.

On his part, Atty. Paas was guilty of using a fraudulent,misleading, and deceptive address that had no purposeother than to try to impress either the court in which hiscases are lodged, or his client, that he has close ties to amember of the juiciary, in violation of Rules 3.01, 10.01 and15.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The need for relying on the merits of a lawyer's case,instead of banking on his relationship with a member of thebench which tends to influence or gives the appearance ofinfluencing the court, cannot be overemphasized. It isunprofessional and dishonorable, to say the least, to misusea public office to enhance a lawyer's prestige. Publicconfidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by suchreprehensible and improper conduct.

AQUINO VS. ATTY. MANESE

A.C. No. 4958 April 3, 2003

Facts : Fidel D. Aquino charged Atty. Oscar Manese withfalsification of public document for preparing and notarizinga Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 15, 1994 thatcould not have been executed and sworn to by Lilia D.Cardona, one of the therein three vendors-signatories, forshe had died on November 25, 1990 or 4 years earlier.

Issue/s: WON respondent was remiss in his duties asnotary public

Held/Ratio: A notary public must ascertain that the personswho signed the document are the very same persons whoexecuted and personally appeared before him.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Itis invested with substantive public interest, such that onlythose who are qualified or authorized may act as notariespublic. By respondent's reckless act of notarizing the Deedof Absolute Sale without ascertaining that the vendors-

signatories thereto were the very samepersons who executedit andpersonally appearedbeforehim to attest to the contents and truth of what were statedtherein, he has undermined the confidence of the public onnotarial documents and he thereby breached Canon I of theCode of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyersto uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land andpromote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule


3/4


1.01 thereof which proscribes lawyers from engaging inunlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

ISIP VS. JUDGE NOGOY

A.M. No. MTJ-03-1485 April 1, 2003

Facts : Fidel Isip charged Judge Valentino Nogoy with grossignorance of the law, gross inefficiency for failing to act onhis case despite the lapse of more than 5 months, and grossmisconduct in giving his opponent undue advantage, forhaving found probable cause for usurpation of authorityagainst Isip and issued against him a warrant of his arrest,in the context of a dispute as to who is the duly-elected

Vice-Mayor of Macabebe, Pampanga in the 1998 elections.Subsequently, the newly constituted Municipal Board ofCanvassers proclaimed Isip as the winner and sought anewthe dismissal of the said criminal case. However, therespondent judge failed to resolve it, hence, the filing ofcomplainants charge against him.

Issue/s: WON respondent judge is liable for grossinefficiencyHeld/Ratio:YES. When circumstances arise which preventa judge from deciding a case or an incident thereof withinthe reglementary period, all he has to do is to file an

application with this Court for a reasonable extension oftime within which to decide or resolve the same. However,respondent has made no such request.Judges must promptly and expeditiously decide casesincluding all incidents therein. Failure to do so constitutesgross inefficiency which warrants administrative sanctions.

FULGENCIO VS. ATTY. MARTIN

A.C. No. 3223 May 29, 2003

Facts : Fulgencio sued Atty. Bievenido G. Martin forfalsifying and notarizing 2 documents of sale on June 1,

1983 purportedly executed by her husband, Kua Se Beng,who died on July 5, 1983, because he was then confined atthe Makati Medical Center, among others. Respondenthowever maintains that he notarized the said documentsupon the express request of Kua.

Issue/s: WON respondent is liable for having falsified andnotarized said documents, without the affiant personallyappearing before him

Held/Ratio: YES. For having stated in the

Acknowledgement portion of each of the documents thatKua personally appeared before him on June 1, 1983, Atty.Martin made an untruthful statement, thus violating Rule10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oathas a lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood.

A notary public should not notarize a document unless thepersons who signed the same are the very same personswho executed and personally appeared before him to attestto the contents and truth of what are stated therein.

Respondent also breached the injunction of the notarial lawnot to do any notarial act beyond the limits of hisjurisdiction.

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. VS. WMCRESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PTY, LT.


4/4


G.R. No. 153885 September 24, 2003

Facts : This case concerns the determination of whichbetween Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. and Tampakan

Companies is the proper transferee of Western MiningCorporation (Philippines), Inc.s FTAA.

Issue/s : WON the petition for certiorari broughtby the respondents before the CA should have beendismissed for not having been properly verified by WMC.

Held/Ratio: NO. Since the verification and certificationagainst forum shopping of the petition was signed by a dulyauthorized officer of WMC (Chairman of the Board andPresident of WMCP), who was also the signingrepresentative of WMC, the petition was properly signed.

digests 2003 fjjcordon

Documents