78 To 88.docx

78. Cases of delay which can be considered condemnable 79. Gabriel vs. CA 80. Macias vs. CA 81, G.R. No. 86421 May 31, 1994 Fact: SPS. THELMA R. MASINSIN and MIGUEL MASINSIN, SPS. GILBERTO and ADELINA, ROLDAN vs. THE HON. ED VINCENT ALBANO Miguel and Thelma Masinsin received an ejectment case from private respondent Vicente Caneda at Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch X. The presiding judge was Vicente Albano and he had rendered a decision against them and no appeal was taken from the judgment. The judgment became final and executory and so later on, a Petition for certiorari was taken before RTC of Manila in order to annul and set aside the said judgment but it was instead dismissed and not appealed. a complaint for "Annulment of Judgment, Lease Contract and Damages" was filed by petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, asking for the judgment’s nullification, but it was dismissed on the ground of res judicata but this time they appeal to the court of appeals which ruled against them. At the same time, a writ of execution for the judgment was issued but it was disobeyed by the petitioners and they instead filed another petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court this time. The petition was however found to be without merit Whether the petitioner’s counsel is guilty of any misconduct? Yes, the court strongly CENSURED and WARNED the counsel that a similar infraction of the lawyer's oath in the future will be dealt with most severely. 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 simply evinces the deliberate intent of petitioners to prolong and delay the inevitable execution of a decision that has long become final and executory. Four times did the petitioners, with the assistance of counsel, try to nullify the same MTC decision before different branches of the court, trifling with judicial processes. Never, again, should this practice be countenanced. We have since emphasized in no uncertain terms that any act on the part of a lawyer, an 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 and warranting application of the contempt power 82 Explain the principle that the practice of law is a profession and not a money making trade Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. 83. What is the best form of advertisement for a lawyer?

"The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.) Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot Respondent had published a advertisement in the Sunday Tribune and so he faces a malpractice suit. The advertisement stated: Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Everything confidential. Legal assistance service 12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105 Tel. 2-41-60. He at first denied but later admitted to the publication. He asks the court’s mercy and claims that it was only published once and that no case of law was taken by reason of the said advertisement Issue: What is his penalty? Ruling He is merely reprimanded since he asked for leniency and promise to not repeat the said conduct It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.) 84. What should a lawyer firm do if a partner already died? If the firm wishes to continue using his name in the firm’s name in order to maintain the goodwill they had already fostered with the said name then they must indicate in all their communications that the said partner is already deceased. Otherwise, the name must be dropped from the firm name. 85. Can the defense of proper support to his children when the lawyer entered into a subsequent marriage while the first one still subsists? Cojuangco, Jr. Vs. Palma

Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, alleging as grounds “deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer and grossly immoral conduct.” Respondent Palma from ACCRA Law Office was employed by petitioner as his personal counsel and since he was trusted by him, he was introduced to his family. He then tutored petitioner’s 22 year old daughter, Lisa, who was a student of assumption convent and their relationship became intimate. At Hong Kong,he misrepsented himself as a bachelor and they were then married. The respondent was at that time married to Elizabeth Hermosisima with three children. He contends that there is no allegation that he act with “wanton recklessness, lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in serving complainant’s interest and that he did not act with immoral conduct since he married complainant’s daughter with “utmost sincerity and good faith” and that “it is contrary to the natural course of things for an immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely loves.”

The IBP recommend and ruled for merely a suspension of 1 year from the practice of law Issue: Whether or not respondent's acts constitutes gross immoral conduct so as to warrant his disbarment from the legal profession. Ruling: Suspension is not a sufficient penalty and so the respondent is disbarred

There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. He did not respect the sanctity of marriage since he was still married at the time of marriage. Professional Competency alone is not sufficient and there must also be good moral character. A gross immoral conduct, the Court said, is a conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.He acted immorally since First, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him. And third, he misrepresented himself as a “bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a foreign land. The circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse

of confidence. It was respondent’s closeness to the complainant’s family as well as the latter’s complete trust in him that made possible his intimate relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of complainant’s resources by securing a plane ticket from complainant’s office in order to marry the latter’s daughter in Hongkong. He did this without complainant’s knowledge.

86. Macarrubo vs. Macarrubo Florence Teves Macarrubo institutes a disbarment case against Atty. Edmundo Macarrubo. That he had deceived her into marrying him by claiming that he was a bachelor and not disclosing that he was married to Helen Esparza and that he had then abandoned her and their children by marrying another person, Josephine Constantino. Afterwards, Respondent claims that he was the one deceived or coerced into marrying her and that he did not abandon their children. He contends that he has provided for educational plans and the his marriage to her was subsequently annulled by final judgment. He further claimed that his first marriage was likewise annulled. The IBP then recommends that he be suspended for three months.

Issue: Whether the respondent should be disbarred?

Ruling: The marriage between complainant and respondent has been annulled by final judgment, this does not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of impropriety. He and complainant started living as husband and wife in December 1991 when his first marriage was still subsisting, as it was only on August 21, 1998 that such first marriage was annulled, rendering him liable for concubinage. Such conduct is inconsistent with the good moral character that is required for the continued right to practice law as a member of the Philippine bar. It imports moral turpitude and is a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage. Even assuming arguendo that respondent was coerced by complainant to marry her, the duress ceased after their wedding day, since respondent having freely cohabited with her and even begot a second child by her. It is not easy to believe that a lawyer like him could be easily coerced into marrying and the claim that he provides for support for his children by securing educational plans is also not correct since he only provides for intermittent support and not monthly support In sum, respondent has breached the following precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. He is found guilty of gross immorality and so disbarred from the practice of law 87. Can a lawyer be disciplined for unjustly refusing to satisfy the civil aspect of the judgment in a crime of frustrated murder? As seen in Soriano vs. Dizon, refusal to follow a final and executory judgment constitutes refusal to follow the laws of the land which falls under canon one and so he may be disciplined for not following the canons. 88. Soriano vs. Dizon Facts Dizon was driving his brown Toyota Corolla and was on his way home in Baguio City. Along Abanao Street, a taxi driver overtook the car driven by the him and so he tailed the taxi driver until the latter stopped to make a turn.The accused also stopped his car, berated the taxi driver and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, the taxi driver forced open his door causing the accused to fall to the ground. The taxi driver knew that the accused had been drinking because he smelled of liquor. Taking pity on the accused who looked elderly, the taxi driver got out of his car to help him get up. But the accused, by now enraged, stood up immediately and was about to deal the taxi driver a fist blow when the latter boxed him on the chest instead. The accused fell down a second time, got up again and was about to box the taxi driver but the latter caught his fist and turned his arm around. The taxi driver held on to the accused until he could be pacified and then released him. The accused went back to his car and got his revolver making sure that the handle was wrapped in a handkerchief. The taxi driver was on his way back to his vehicle when he noticed the eyeglasses of the accused on the ground. He picked them up intending to return them to the accused. But as he was handing the same to the accused, he was met by the barrel of the gun held by the accused who fired and shot him hitting him on the neck. He fell on the thigh of the accused so the latter pushed him out and sped off. The incident was witnessed by Antonio Billanes whose testimony corroborated that of the taxi driver, the complainant in this case, Roberto Soriano. Soriano was disabled and unable to work anymore and Dizon was convicted of frustrated homicide and even refused to pay for his civil liability. Issue: whether the accused should be disbarred? Ruling In the instant case, respondent has been found guilty; and he stands convicted, by final judgment, of frustrated homicide. Since his conviction has already been established and is no longer open to question, the only issues

that remain to be determined are as follows: 1) whether his crime of frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude, and 2) whether his guilt warrants disbarment. The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his conduct, respondent revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As it were, he acted like a god on the road, who deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted. Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. His overreaction also evinced vindictiveness, which was definitely an undesirable trait in any individual, more so in a lawyer. In the tenacity with which he pursued complainant, we see not the persistence of a person who has been grievously wronged, but the obstinacy of one trying to assert a false sense of superiority and to exact revenge and so he is disbarred.