[CANON 10] LEONARD W. RICHARDS, Complainant vs. PATRICIO A.ASOY, Respondent A.C. No. 2655, October 11,2010 FACTS: Respondent Asoy received from Complainant Richards, his client, compensation to handle his case in the trial court, but the same was dismissed for lack of interest and failure to prosecute. Asoy abandoned his client in violation of his contract ignoring the most elementary principles of professional ethics. Furthermore, Asoy ignored the processes of this Court and it was only after he was suspended from the practice of law of that he surfaced. On July 9, 1987, the Court resolved to DISBAR him and order him to reimburse Richards the sum of P16,300 within 30days from notice. On November 11, 1987, the Court received a letter dated November 3, 1987, complained that respondent had not reimbursed him the P16,300. Hence, the Court issued a resolution requiring Asoy to show cause why he failed to reimburse, however, Asoy still failed to comply. Complainant filed another letter informing the Court that Asoy still failed to comply with the order of reimbursement. Thirteen years after the promulgation, Asoy filed a Petition for “readmission to the practice of law” stating, among other things, that on January 2, 1996 or about nine years after his disbarment and directive to reimbursement complainant made, he effected payment of P16,300 via consignation with the Courts Office of the Cashier. The Court denied the petition for lack of merit. On August 2, 2010, Asoy filed another petition for “Reinstatement to the Bar” stating that he effected payment ofP16, 300 before the Office of the Cashier of the Supreme Court as complainant could no longer be found or located; that he had already suffered and agonized shortcomings; and that as “positive evidence of his repentance and rehabilitation” he attached testimonials of “credible institutions and personalities”. ISSUE: Whether or not Asoy violated the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Yes. Respondent Asoy violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 10 states that “A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.” Respondent denigrated the dignity of his calling by displaying a lack of candor towards this Court. By taking his sweet time to effect reimbursement –and through consignation with this Court at that—he sent out a strong message that the legal processes and orders of this Court could be treated with disdain or impunity. Respondents consignation could not even be deemed compliance with the Courts directive to reimburse because the Court does not represent the complainant; the latters address was readily ascertainable had respondent wished to communicate with the complainant for the purpose of making amends. Hence, respondents petition for reinstatements in the Roll of Attorneys is DENIED. his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.C. they craftily concealed the truth alleging that the accused had voluntarily surrendered. BATUEGAS. Hence. CONCEALED TRUTH RATIO: A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. YOUNG being a private prosecutor. BATUEGAS. YOUNG discovered that the accused surrendered on Dec 14. BATUEGAS. is not entitled to such as only the State and City prosecutors should be given notices. et al in their defense alleged that on Dec 13. However. As officer of the court.) Facts: YOUNG is the private prosecutor in People of the Phil v Arana. No. 2000. IBP Commissionon Bar Discipline in a resolution approved said recommendation. BATUEGAS filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and. are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Upon verification with the NBI. they arrived at NBI at 2am the next day. On Dec 13. He swore upon his admission that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. is now under detention. They immediately fetched accused from Cavite and brought him to NBI to voluntarily surrender. ISSUE: W/N BATUEGAS. they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail. upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client. BATUEGAS.[CANON 10] YOUNG VS BATUEGAS A. et al should be suspended for 6 months . That was why the Certificate of Detention indicated that the accused surrendered on Dec 14. Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension of 6 months. ET AL ARE GUILTY OF FALSEHOOD AND SHOULD BE SUSPENDED HELD: YES. In the case at bar. his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and facts of the case to aid it in arriving at the correct conclusion. 5379 May 9. 2000 and not 13. on the other hand. due to heavy traffic. 2000 (not 13). Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the Court found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused. As to lack of notice. 2000. BATUEGAS. To knowingly allege an untrue statement in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that the Court strongly condemns. as such. et al are the counsels for the accused in the said criminal case. et al violated their oath when they resorted to deception. His lawyer’s solemn duty is to defend his client. 2003 ( YNARES-SANTIAGO. et al feel short of the duties and responsibilities expected of the mass members of the bar. J. The courts. 11. Executive Secretary. Leonen. 13 of CPR.F. et al.V. calls for the resignation of Justice Mariano C.F.V. Attys. Del Castillo in the face of allegations of plagiarism in his work. Bagares against Justice Mariano C. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. They further attempt to educate this Court on how to go about the review of the case. the faculty of the UP College of Law. Leonen. Attys. and Atty.[FOR Canons 10 & 13] Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court. Jr. They went further by directly accusing the Court of perpetrating extraordinary injustice by dismissing the petition of the comfort women in Vinuya v. Harry L. Leonen. as members of UP College of Law are directed to SHOWCAUSE why they should not be disciplined for violation of Canons 10. as law professors and officers of the Court violates the CPR? HELD: YES. RULING: . headed by its dean. members of the faculty of the UP College of Law published a statement on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the Court’s decision in Vinuya v. Marvic M. ISSUE: WoN respondent Attys. 2010. Romel R. Roque. Del Castillo for his ponencia in the case of Vinuya v.” FACTS: Allegations of this intellectual offense were hurled by Atty. The allegations of plagiarism centered on Justice Del Castillo’s discussion of the principles of jus cogens and erga omnes.F. they expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s explanation on how he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the articles supposedly plagiarized. In particular. Marvic M. Essentially. On August 9. et al. Marvic M. Atty.V. 02 and 11. The publication of a statement by the faculty of the UP College of Law regarding the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court was totally unnecessary. Respondents lack of good moral character is only too evident. Of public knowledge is the ongoing investigation precisely to determine the truth of such allegations. fairness and good faith to the court" as well as Rule 1001 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to . This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court.05 of the CPR. Their actions likewise constitute violations of Canons 10. though. filed a Petition for Disbarment against respondent alleging. Complainant. and 13 and Rules 1. Trebonian Tabang contracted marriage performed under Article 76 of the Civil Code as one of exceptional character. he has violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. he was single. that they had not lived together as husband and wife. 11. [CANON 10] LEDA v TABANG Facts: Complainant Evangeline Leda and Respondent Atty. which provides that "a lawyer owes candor. and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. He has also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order to serve his purpose. Respondent averred that he and Complainant had covenanted not to disclose the marriage for the reason that said marriage was void from the beginning in the absence of the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code thus he could not have abandoned Complainant because they had never lived together as husband and wife and that when he applied for the 1981 Bar examinations. As if the case on the comfort women’s claims is not controversial enough. for having misrepresented himself as single when in truth he is already married in his application to take the bar exam and for being not of good moral character contrary to the certification he submitted to the Supreme Court. he honestly believed that in the eyes of the law. uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance. the UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not reverse the said decision. allegedly to ensure a stable future for them. He has resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit himself. Issue: Whether or not Respondent lacks of good moral character and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility Held: Yes. The parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after Respondent had finished his law studies and had taken the Bar examinations. thereafter. The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective comments except to discredit the Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s honesty. In so doing. integrity and competence. Complainant admits. to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken as attorneys. among others. They have also constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks. through his actuations. nor shall he mislead. set up kitchens and littered the place. union members of Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union. [CANON 11] NESTLE v SANCHEZ FACTS: From July 8-10. The Counsel of the union members apologized to the court and promised that the incident will not be repeated again . or allow the court to be misled by any artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. who filed a case in court intensified their pickets that they had been conducting since June 17 in front of the Padre Faura gate of the SC Despite of the warning given by the court to their leaders and counsel.the doing of any in Court. Respondent. HELD: The contempt charges were dismissed. has been lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court. Hence. the picketing continued The union members are obstructing the access to and egress from the courts premises. they took turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loudspeakers ISSUE: W/N the rallyists must be held with contempt. respondent is subjected to suspension from the practice of law until further Orders. [CANON 11] ROXAS V. Romeo G. Any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof and is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection. and that any such efforts to influence the court constitutes contempt of court. approved the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties. But the court will not hesitate in future similar incidents to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the court to acting one way or the other in any case pending before it.50 per square meter payable in NHA Bonds. the RTC. They also stipulated that in the event they get it for 11pesos per square meter. Roxas and Santiago N. The Compromise Agreement. stipulated among other things. JR Facts: The Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice. that the just compensation of the Zuzuarregui properties would be at P19. to represent them in the case. The picketing was actually done by the members of the PAMANTIK (Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Timog Katalugan). They also stipulated that their lawyer’s fees shall be in proportion to the cash/bonds ratio of the just compensation. The court is entitled to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner. A Compromise Agreement was executed between the Zuzuarreguis and the NHA. DE ZUZUARREGUI. and that any lower amount shall not entitle them to any atty’s fees. . Pastor. an unregistered loose allegiance of about 75 unions in the Southern Tagalog and not by either the Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union. wherein it was contained that the attorneys would endeavor to secure just compensation with the NHA and other government agencies at a price of 11pesos or more per square meter. This was sealed by a Letter-Agreement. their contingent fee shall be 30% of the just compensation. In a Decision dated 20 December 1985. 790.878. under pain of administrative. Roxas and Pastor are to receive contingent fees for their professional services. Verily. a letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis’ new counsel.36 square meters property of the Zuzuarreguis was expropriated at a total price of P34. its existence.00.000. the 1. It is a deeply-rooted rule that contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law.50 per square meter. Out of this amount.500. Jose F. the yield on the bonds.500. Romeo G. In the presence of a contract for professional services duly executed by the parties thereto. The difference of P19. the records show that the amount turned over to the Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Contracts shall be obligatory.520. A contract for contingent fee.583. fully gave their consent thereto.000. The honorable court of appeals gravely erred on a question of law in holding that the letter-agreement re: contingent fees cannot be allowed to stand as the law between the parties Held: A contract is a meeting of the minds between two persons whereby one binds himself. for the purpose of confirming all the matters which they had agreed upon previously. in entering into the Letter-Agreement. Computed at P19. There is absolutely no evidence to show that anybody was forced into entering into the Letter-Agreement. Roxas in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis amounted to P54. in whatever form they may have been entered into. with respect to the other. Roxas and Pastor. Under the contract in question. The Zuzuarreguis. public policy or public order. it was them (the Zuzuarreguis) who sent the said letter to Attys. provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present.00 is. Roxas and Pastor.122. although this amount is bigger) in NHA bonds. to Attys. undoubtedly. In fact. Gonzalez. Roxas amounted to P30. where sanctioned by law. civil and/or criminal action.00 (representing the actual just compensation. Attys.00.916. The total amount released by the NHA was P54. On 25 August 1987. due execution and contents were admitted by the Zuzuarreguis themselves. to give something or to render some service. should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the .000. demanding that the latter deliver to the Zuzuarreguis the yield corresponding to bonds paid by the NHA within a period of 10 days from receipt. They are sanctioned by Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.00. good customs.The total amount in NHA bonds released to Atty.570. the same becomes the law between the said parties is not absolute but admits an exception – that the stipulations therein are not contrary to law. good morals. It is only necessary that it be reduced when excessive and unconscionable. The yield on the NHA bonds amounted to P19. The complainant paid the amount after three installments but respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the installments.987. for as we said earlier. .980.compensation. BELLEZA v ATTY. Indubitably entwined with the lawyer’s duty to charge only reasonable fees is the power of this Court to reduce the amount of attorney’s fees if the same is excessive and unconscionable. In the instant case. contingency fees are not per se prohibited by law.078. [CANON 12] DOLORES C. that power to determine the reasonableness or the.878. undeniably.500.with an agreement that the respondent will handle the case for P30. the 44% is. Attys. Roxas and Pastor. unconscionable and excessive under the circumstances.000. Facts: Complainant availed respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her son. decency or reasonableness.00. MACASA.000 as Attorney’s Fees.583. Its reduction is. ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement. Roxas and Pastor. It becomes axiomatic therefore. Roxas and Pastor.00 of the P54. Attorney’s fees are unconscionable if they affront one’s sense of justice.75 On the issue of moral and exemplary damages. as to its reasonableness. which we have already done. or an amount equivalent to P23. unconscionable character of attorney's fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts. Roxas and Pastor must be equitably reduced. and Attys. The division must be pro rata. were not shortchanged for their efforts for they would still be earning or actually earned attorney’s fees in the amount of P6. we cannot award the same for there was no direct showing of bad faith on the part of Attys. This amount must therefore be divided between the Zuzuarreguis. but should always be subject to the supervision of a court. in order. the yield that corresponds to the percentage share of the Zuzuarreguis in the P19. on the one hand.50 per square meter just compensation paid by the NHA must be returned by Attys. in the opinion of this Court. It is imperative that the contingent fees received by Attys. Roxas and Pastor. on the other. therefore. Attys.00.000. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which was equal to forty-four percent (44%) of the just compensation paid (including the yield on the bonds) by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis. ALAN S. In the opinion of this Court. Considering that there was no full blown hearing in the expropriation case. respondent did not issue any receipt.000 and P18. Alan S.03 of the CPR. respondent also received P18. In view of the foregoing. Further. Moreover.000 with interests. Again. However. Macasa was found GUILTY not only of dishonesty but also of professional misconduct. JR. PENALTY: The Court ordered that he be DISBARRED from the practice of law and to return to complainant the amounts of P30.000 from respondent on several occasions but the latter ignored her. Complainant then demanded the return of the P18. respondent failed to act on the case of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense. Indeed. ANASTACIO REVILLA.000 from complainant as a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son. [CANON 12] CONRADO QUE vs ATTY. he was given more than enough opportunity to answer the charges against him. the disbarment case. it did not only prejudice complainant’s son. Issue: Whether or not the respondent violates CPR? Held: YES.Aside from this. she later found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the court. it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel. on account of respondent’s continued inaction. Yet he showed indifference to the orders of the Commission of Bar Discipline for him to answer. Hence. Respondent disrespected the legal processes. he failed to observe Rule 12. Facts: . Respondent Atty. respondent also failed to return the money of the complainant despite several demands. His failure to return the money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by complainant. In doing so. He also grossly neglected the cause of client after accepting the criminal case against latter and receiving his attorney’s fees by doing nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. Atty. but his obvious objective as well of preventing the execution of MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case against his clients. the less fortunate. wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure. as well as the rule against forum shopping. Hence. is found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons of Professional Responsibility and should be disbarred from the practice of law. Respondent is guilty of forum shopping. the respondent declared that he is a member of the Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC) that handles pro bono cases for the underprivileged. While the filing of a petition for certiorari to question the lower courts’ jurisdiction may be a procedurally legitimate (but substantially erroneous) move. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of forum shopping.02 and Rule 12. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP Committee on Bar Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. . obstruct. the homeless and those marginalized sector in Metro Manila. Anastacio Revilla. both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the same objective.04. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes they tend to degrade the administration of justice. Complainant alleged the respondent’s commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases in order to impede.In a complaint for disbarment Conrado Que (complainant) accused Atty. Held: YES. and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case. both geared towards preventing the execution of the unlawful detainer decision. Anastacio Revilla Jr. Investigating Commissioner ruled that the act of the respondent in filing two petitions for annulment of title. long after this decision had become final. and add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. He agreed to take over the cases formerly handled by other KDC members. This intent is most obvious with respect to the petitions for annulment of judgment and declaratory relief . Respondent violated Rule 12. Jr. the respondent’s subsequent petitions involving the same property and the same parties not only demonstrate his attempts to secure favorable ruling using different for a. In his Answer. Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. a petition for annulment of judgment and later on a petition for declaratory relief were all done to prevent the execution of the final judgment in the unlawful detainer case and constituted prohibited forum-shopping. RA 3019. Supreme Court issued another Resolution on June 14. Venida. Venida was motivated by a desire to file baseless legal actions. the findings of the IBP stand. Venida guilty of violation the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: Supreme Court upholds the decision of the IBP that there was no grave abuse of discretion in this case. Without convincing proof that Atty. Freddie Venida. Saa filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. No. he has the responsibility to follow all legal orders and processes. Venida’s refusal to comply with the directives of the court. ISSUE: Is Atty.R. Nevertheless. In both instances.03 and 12. the Supreme Court strongly disapproves Atty. he managed to delay the resolution of the case. Worse. 1997 which the IBP Board adopted. Venida apologized for the late filing of both his partial and full comments. 1993. IBP G. There was in fact a dearth of evidence showing oppressive or unethical behavior on the part of Atty. Supreme Court referred the matter to the IBP. a clear violation of Canon 12 and Rules 1. filed criminal and administrative cases against petitioner Saa containing the same facts and allegations – violation of Sec 3.[CANON 12] SAA vs. he filed his complete comment only on June 14. we find his conduct utterly unacceptable for a member of the legal profession. However. 1991 stating that Venida’s act of filing two cases against him was oppressive and constituted unethical practice. His excuses tax the imagination. when Venida filed his full comment which is just a reiteration of his partial comment. almost 3 years late. He must not be allowed to evade accountability for his omissions. As a lawyer. his apologies notwithstanding. Venida was required to comment on the complaint within 10 days. 132826 FACTS: Atty. 1992 resolution. 1995. However. In a report dated August 17. 1992. 1995 requiring Venida to show costs why he should not be dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply with the February 17. But tried to exculpate himself by saying he inadvertently misplaced the complaint and had a heavy workload (for his partial comment). herein private respondent. 1995 or a little over three years after due date. He even had the temerity to blame a strong typhoon for the loss of all his files. Venida did not comply and just submitted a partial comment January 26. It was not until September 4. Atty. Saa filed a disbarment complaint against Venida in the Supreme Court on Dec 27. Commisioner Briones the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit since it found no evidence of unethical practice and that it was not oppressive. the complaint included (for his full comment). . In a Resolution dated February 17. effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client.C.M. However. The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court’s processes and improper conduct that tends to impede. Atty.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied. Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier. NO. be suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res judicata. Atty. Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines. He is further STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be . The charge of oppressive or unethical behavior against respondent is dismissed. Aurelio the senior partner of A. Jr. JR. despite the judgment. 8481 FACTS: In March 2001. On July 5.03 and 12. Relamida is . 2002. Aurelio and Ebanen. Incorporated in the NLRC. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer.A. He then argued that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void. but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. thus. he had no choice but to represent the latter. the Court’s Resolution dated August 4. Venida is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. He maintained that he did not violate the lawyer’s oath by serving the interest of his client. The IBP -CBD recommended that Atty. However. filed a second complaint on August 5. 2004 has already become final and executory. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. as well as the lawyer’s oath. for violation of Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1. they opined that the dismissal did not amount to res judicata. he stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due to the denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition and holding that there was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned. praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum shopping and res judicata. stating that Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Relamida. Moreover. thru counsel. Ebanen through Atty.not a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. 2005. Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to Atty. there was no res judicata. However. Relamida.DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Petition is granted in part. 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier. Servier. RELAMIDA. Jr. 2005. Sison Jr. Atty. ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: During the IBP hearing. on October13. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed decision.. Thus. On February 17. Freddie A. since the decision was null and void for lack of due process since the motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter. Jr. filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide. thus. [CANON 12] ALONSO VS. Resolution No. runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ibaro B.punished as contempt of court. Relamida. and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor. as well as a lawyer’s mandate "to delay no man for money or malice. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law. 2008. XVIII-2008-286. which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. in violation of the doctrine of res judicata. Atty. is AFFIRMED. Jr. Needless to state. of the IBP. the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions(which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts. which found respondent Atty. guilty of violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping. dated June 5. The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter.04 of the Code. respondent also violated Rule 12. effective upon the receipt of this Decision . DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE. By his actuations.02 and Rule 12. [CANON 13] RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. Issue: Should the respondent be reprimanded or sanctioned by the Court for his contemptuous remark against the court thus violating CANON 13. punishable with reclusion perpetua. Bagabuyuo said he was not afraid of being cited in contempt by Judge Tan. The case was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Buyser. BAGABUYO. FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR. He said that this is the only way that the public would know that there are judges there who are displaying judicial arrogance. Judge Buyser declared that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder. Bagabuyo.02 of the CPR? . Judge Buyser inhibited himself from further trying the case. Judge Tan favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. The case was transferred to Judge Jose Manuel P. Facts: This administrative case stemmed from the events of the proceedings of a criminal case (People v. Rogelio Z. Respondent appealed. Consequently." Bagabuyo said he would contest Tan's decision before the Court of Appeals and would file criminal and administrative charges of certiorari against the judge. ROGELIO Z. the counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. Tan. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City. Rule 13. Luis Bucalon Plaza) presided by Judge Jose Manuel P. objected thereto mainly on the ground that the original charge of murder. and fixed the amount of the bond. Respondent Atty. The article was entitled "Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out. then Senior State Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case. Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies. 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondent moved to reconsider which was denied for lack of merit. Tan. respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting bail to the accused in the August 18. was not subject to bail under the Rules of Court. Held: YES. Respondent's statements in the article. which were made while Crim. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. without such respect. Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear. The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so. would be resting on a very shaky foundation. respondent should have set the example of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. according to the oath he has taken. . prosecute and defend. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court. precisely because respect for the institution must always be maintained. responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. violated Rule 13. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity. and upon whom peculiar duties. which states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court.02 of Canon 13. As an officer of the court.