Canon 12

LEGAL ETHICS

CANON 12
1. PEOPLE V JARDIN, 124 SCRA 167
FACTS:
Prosecutor filed a criminal action against respondent
Jardin for malversation of public funds thru falsification
of public documents on six counts. A series of
postponement of the preliminary investigation and
arraignment was repeatedly filed by the accused causing
further delays. During the arraignment on Sept 29, 1970
the accused pleaded not guilty, after which he requested
the trial be postponed and re-set for Oct. 12, 1970 with
noticed to both parties.
On Oct. 12, 1970, when the said criminal cases were
called for hearing, no one appeared for the prosecution
except a state witness from the Provincial Auditors
office, who remain silent during the proceedings.
Invoking his client constitutional right to speedy trial and
seizing the opportunity to take advantage of the
prosecutions failure to appear on that day, the
defendant counsel moves for dismissal of the cases. The
lower court granted the oral motion for dismissal for
reasons of constitutional rights of the accused Jardin.
ISSUE: WON, the lower court is correct in dismissing the
cases and in predicating the dismissal on the right of the
defendant to a speedy trial?
HELD: from a perusal of the fact, the court readily seen
that all the delays in the prosecution of the case were
caused by the accused himself, the defendant had
deliberately used all the available dilatory tactics he
could utilize and abused the principle that the accused

must be given every opportunity to disapprove the

criminal charge. Even as we rule that the lower court
acted with grave abuse of discretion, we also rebuke the
attorneys for both the defense and the prosecution and
to a certain extent, the court itself because of breach of
duties to
the courts and to the administration of justice in the
apparent case. The invocation of constitutional rights by
the respondent is without merit.
ISSUE: Whether the acts of the accused and his counsel
obstruct the administration of justice?
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the dilatory tactics of
the defense counsel and the failure of both judge and the
fiscal to take effective counter measures to obviate the
delaying acts constitute obstruction of justice. An attorney as
an officer of the court is called upon to assist in the due
administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is an
instrument to advance its cause. For this reason, any act on
the part of a lawyer that obstructs perverts or impedes the
administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies
disciplinary action against him. Acts which amount to
obstruction in the administration of justice may take many
forms. They include such acts as instructing a complaining
witness in a criminal action not to appear at the scheduled
hearing so that the case against the client, the accused,
would be dismissed. asking a client to plead guilty to a crime
which the lawyer knows his client did not commit, advising a
client who is detained for a crime to escape from prison
prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to drain the
resources of the other party and compel him to submit out of
exhaustion and filing multiple petitions or complaints for a
cause that has been previously rejected in the false
expectation of getting favorable action.
HELD: LEGAL ETHICS book by PINEDA

THE DILLATORY TACTICS OF THE DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE
FAILURE OF BOTH JUDGE AND FISCAL TO TAKE EFFECTIVE COUNTER
MEASURES TO OBVIATE THE DELAYING ACTS CONSTITUTE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AS APTLY STATED: OBSTRUCTING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a

case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.
2. GARCIA v. FRANCISCO, (A.C. No. 3923, March 30,
1993)
FACTS: In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on October
6, 1992, Concordia B. Garcia seeks the disbarment of Atty.
Crisanto L. Francisco. On March 9, 1964, Concordia B. Garcia
and her husband Godofredo, the Dionisio spouses, and Felisa
and Magdalena Baetiong leased a parcel of land to Sotero
Baluyot Lee for a period of 25 years beginning May 1, 1964.
Despite repeated verbal and written demands, Lee refused to
vacate after the expiration of the lease. Lee claimed that he
had an option to extend the lease for another 5 years and the
right of pre-emption over the property. In this disbarment
case, the complainant claims that Lees counsel, respondent
Francisco, commenced various suits before different courts to
thwart Garcias right to regain her property and that all these
proceedings were decided against Lee. The proceedings
stemmed from the said lease contract and involved the same
issues and parties, thus violating the proscription against
forum-shopping. The respondent, in his comment, says that
he asserted in defense of his clients rights only such
remedies as were authorized by law. That On March 29, 1989,
Lee, through Francisco, filed a complaint against Garcia and
the other lessors for specific performance and re-conveyance
with damages. Thus began more filing of complaints and
dismissals of cases as follows: On June 9, 1989, Garcia filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. The case was dismissed on
August 10, 1989. On May 29, 1989, Garcia and the other
lessors filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Lee. On
September 5, 1989, Judge Bautista issued a resolution
rejecting this allegation on the ground that the issues before
the two courts were separate and different. On October 24,
1989, Lee, through Francisco, filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction against Judge Bautista,
Garcia and the other lessors. On April 6, 1990, Lee through
Francisco filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
prayer for preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals
against Judge Vera, Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other
lessors. On June 14, 1990, Judge Singzon decided the case in
favor of complainant Garcia and the other lessors. Lee did not
appeal. Instead, on, June 21, 1990, through Francisco again,
he filed a petition against Judge Singzon and the other lessors
for certiorari and annulment of the decision of such case. On
September 27, 1991, Lee, through Francisco, filed a motion to
inhibit Judge Singzon and to defer the hearing of the motion
then finally, Lee, still through Francisco, filed a petition for
certiorari with preliminary injunction against Judge Singzon,
Garcia and the other lessors in the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City to set aside and declare the writs of execution in
Civil Case No. 1455. This was dismissed on August 4, 1992,
and Lee, through Francisco, filed a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Francisco abuses his right of recourse to
the courts.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer owes fidelity to
the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the
administration of justice. The cause of the respondents client
is obviously without merit. The respondent was aware of this
fact when he willfully resorted to the gambits summarized
above, continuously seeking relief that was consistently
denied, as he should have expected. By grossly abusing his
right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a
cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining
the obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or
proceedings as appear to him to be just and such defenses

only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
By violating his oath not to delay any man for money or
malice, he has besmirched the name of an honorable
profession and has proved himself unworthy of the trust
reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court.
*** A LAWYER MUST NOT ABUSE HIS RIGHT OF

RECOURSE TO THE COURTS
3. VDA. DE BACALING V LAGUNA 54 SCRA 24
VDA. DE BACALING v. LAGUNA & HON. ROVIRA
(G.R. No. L-26694, December 18, 1973)
FACTS:
The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari with preliminary
injunction to annul an Order of Ho. Rosendo Baltazar, ordering
the demolition of the residential house of petitioner, likewise
to assail an Order, approving said demolition. The filing of
said case spawned by various court suits from many years
back 1962 and decided 1973. Private respondent Hector
Laguda is the registered owner of a residential land

where petitioner and her late husband, Dr. Ramon
Bacaling, constructed a residential house Unable to pay
the lease rental an action for ejectment. The filing of
said case spawned various court suits such as petition
for certiorari, which further prolong the litigation
process.
ISSUE: WON, the petitioners counsel deserved
condemnation before SC?
Held: Yes. The present petition smacks of a dilatory
tactic and a frivolous attempt resorted to by petitioner to
frustrate the prompt termination of the ejectment case
and to prolong litigation unnecessarily. Such conduct on
the part of petitioner and her counsel deserves the

vigorous condemnation of this Court, because it evinces
a flagrant misuse of the remedy of certiorari which
should only be resorted to in case of lack of jurisdiction
or grave abuse of discretion by a inferior court. A
recourse of this kind unduly taxes the energy and
patience of courts and simply wastes the precious time
that they could w well devote to really meritorious cases.
JULIUS V. AGUSTIN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ENRIQUE S. EMPLEO, Respondent.
FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment 1 filed by
complainant Julius V. Agustin against respondent Atty. Enrique
S. Empleo for the latters failure to comply with a court order
while acting as the formers counsel, thereby resulting in the
outright dismissal of a case and the complainants
counterclaim therein. Records reveal that complainant was
the defendant in Civil Case. In the course of the proceedings
in that case, the MCTC issued an Order on September 25,
1998,2 giving the parties to the case a period of fifteen (15)
days from receipt thereof within which to submit their
compromise agreement or amicable settlement for the
approval of the court. With no compromise agreement having
been submitted by the parties within the period thus given or
thereafter, the MCTC, some four (4) years later, or on August
5, 2002, issued an Order Blaming his counsel for the dismissal
of the case and his counterclaim therein, complainant filed on
October 18, 2004, an administrative complaint against
respondent with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
ISSUE: WON, inaction of the counsel for 4 years caused
unnecessary delay in the disposition of said cases?
HELD: In the case at bar, the period of almost four (4) years
of waiting constitutes inaction that caused unnecessary delay
in the disposition of said cases. The fact that no damage or
prejudice was sustained by the complainant, he being the
defendant in that case, is of no moment. As an officer of the
court whose primary function is to assist the court in the
impartial and speedy adjudication of cases, respondent ought
to be vigilant and avoid any act or omission that only impedes
and obstructs speedy disposition of cases. First and foremost
among the duties of a lawyer is his duty to the court. The
chief mission of an attorney is to assist in the administration
of justice and to this end, his clients success in the case is
subordinate. As mandated in Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS
DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Moreover, by respondents inaction to the court order in Civil
Case No. B-259, he has very well violated his Attorneys Oath
to "obey the laws and legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities."
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Enrique Empleo is hereby
REPRIMANDED with WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely

Canon 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canon 12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canon 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL ETHICS

must be given every opportunity to disapprove the

HELD: LEGAL ETHICS book by PINEDA

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a

proceedings as appear to him to be just and such defenses

*** A LAWYER MUST NOT ABUSE HIS RIGHT OF

Laguda is the registered owner of a residential land

the part of petitioner and her counsel deserves the

You might also like