Legal Ethics notes and cases

8/20/2019 Legal Ethics notes and cases

1/10

January 6, 1915

G.R. No. 9231

UY CHICO, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

THE UNION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, LIMITED, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Beaumont and Tenney for appellant.

Bruce, Lawrence, Ross and Block for appellees.

TRENT, J.:

An appeal from a ud!ment dismissin! t"e #omplaint upon t"e merits, $it" #osts.

%"e plaintiff see&s to re#over t"e fa#e value of t$o insuran#e poli#ies upon a sto#& of dry !oods destroyed 'y

fire. (t appears t"at t"e fat"er of t"e plaintiff died in 1)9*, at $"i#" time "e $as #ondu#tin! a 'usiness under

"is o$n name, +y ay#o. %"e plaintiff and "is 'rot"er too& over t"e 'usiness and #ontinued it under t"e same

name, +y ay#o. ometime 'efore t"e date of t"e fire, t"e plaintiff pur#"ased "is 'rot"er/s interest in t"e

'usiness and #ontinued to #arry on t"e 'usiness under t"e fat"er/s name. At t"e time of t"e fire +y ay#o

$as "eavily inde'ted and su'se0uent t"ereto t"e #reditors of t"e estate of t"e plaintiff/s fat"er. urin! t"e

#ourse of t"ese pro#eedin!s, t"e plaintiff/s attorney surrendered t"e poli#ies of insuran#e to t"e administrator

of t"e estate, $"o #ompromised $it" t"e insuran#e #ompany for one-"alf t"eir fa#e value, or 6,. %"is

money $as paid into #ourt and is no$ 'ein! "eld 'y t"e s"eriff. %"e plaintiff no$ 'rin!s t"is a#tion, maintainin!

t"at t"e poli#ies and !oods insured 'elon!ed to "im and not to t"e estate of "is de#eased fat"er and alle!es

t"at "e is not 'ound 'y t"e #ompromise effe#ted 'y t"e administrator of "is fat"er/s estate.

%"e defendant insuran#e #ompany sou!"t to s"o$ t"at t"e plaintiff "ad a!reed to #ompromise settlement of

t"e poli#ies, and for t"at purpose introdu#ed eviden#e s"o$in! t"at t"e plaintiff/s attorney "ad surrendered t"e

poli#ies to t"e administrator $it" t"e understandin! t"at su#" a #ompromise $as to 'e effe#ted. %"e plaintiff$as as&ed, $"ile on t"e $itness stand, if "e "ad any o'e#tion to "is attorney/s testifyin! #on#ernin! t"e

surrender of t"e poli#ies, to $"i#" "e replied in t"e ne!ative. %"e attorney $as t"en #alled for t"at purpose.

4"ereupon, #ounsel for t"e plaintiff formally $it"dre$ t"e $aiver previously !iven 'y t"e plaintiff and o'e#ted

to t"e testimony of t"e attorney on t"e !round t"at it $as privile!ed. ounsel, on t"is appeal, 'ase t"eir

ar!ument of t"e proposition t"at a $aiver of t"e #lient/s privile!e may 'e $it"dra$n at any time 'efore a#ted

upon, and #ite in suppo rt t"ereof Ross vs. Great Nort"ern Ry. o., 11 7inn., 1228 111 N. 4., 951. %"e #ase

of Natlee raft :orse o. vs. ripe and o. 1;2

?ur pra#ti#e A#t provides@ A la$yer must stri#tly maintain inviolate t"e #onfiden#e and preserve t"e se#rets of

"is #lient. :e s"all not 'e permitted in any #ourt, $it"out t"e #onsent of "is #lient, !iven in open #ourt, to testify

to any fa#ts imparted to "im 'y "is #lient in professional #onsultation, or for t"e purpose of o'tainin! advi#e

upon le!al matters. e#. 31, A#t No. 19 .

A similar provision is inserted in se#tion 3)3, No. ;, of t"e same A#t. (t $ill 'e noted t"at t"e eviden#e in

0uestion #on#erned t"e dealin!s of t"e plaintiff/s attorney $it" a t"ird person. ?f t"e very essen#e of t"e veil of se#re#y $"i#" surrounds #ommuni#ations made 'et$een attorney and #lient, is t"at su#" #ommuni#ations are

not intended for t"e information of t"ird persons or to 'e a#ted upon 'y t"em, put of t"e purpose of advisin!

t"e #lient as to "is ri!"ts. (t is evident t"at a #ommuni#ation made 'y a #lient to "is attorney for t"e epress

purpose of its 'ein! #ommuni#ated to a t"ird person is essentially in#onsistent $it" t"e #onfidential relation.

4"en t"e attorney "as fait"fully #arried out "is instru#tions 'e deliverin! t"e #ommuni#ation to t"e t"ird person

for $"om it $as intended and t"e latter a#ts upon it, it #annot, 'y any reasonin! $"atever, 'e #lassified in a

le!al sense as a privile!ed #ommuni#ation 'et$een t"e attorney and "is #lient. (t is plain t"at su#" a

#ommuni#ation, after rea#"in! t"e party for $"om it $as intended at least, is a #ommuni#ation 'et$een t"e

#lient and a t"ird person, and t"at t"e attorney simply o##upies t"e role of intermediary or a!ent. 4e 0uote

from 'ut one #ase amon! t"e many $"i#" may 'e found upon t"e point@

%"e proposition advan#ed 'y t"e respondent and adopted 'y t"e trial #ourt, t"at one, after fully aut"oriBin! "is

attorney, as "is a!ent, to enter into #ontra#t $it" a t"ird party, and after su#" aut"ority "as 'een ee#uted and

relied on, may effe#tively nullify "is o$n and "is duly aut"oriBed a!ent/s a#t 'y #losin! t"e attorney/s mout" as

to t"e !ivin! of su#" aut"ority, is most startlin!. A perilous fa#ility of fraud and $ron!, 'ot" upon t"e attorney

and t"e t"ird party, $ould result. %"e a ttorney $"o, on "is #lient/s aut"or ity, #ontra#ts in "is 'e"alf, pled!es "is

reputation and inte!rity t"at "e 'inds "is #lient. %"e t"ird party may $ell rely on t"e assuran#e of a reputa'le

la$yer t"at "e "as aut"ority in fa#t, t"ou!" su#" assuran#e 'e !iven only 'y impli#ation from t"e doin! of t"e

a#t itself. (t is $it" !ratifi#ation, t"erefore, t"at $e find over$"elmin! $ei!"t of aut"ority, a!ainst t"e position

assumed 'y t"e #ourt 'elo$, 'ot" in states $"ere t"e privile!e prote#tin! #ommuni#ations $it" attorneys is

still re!ulated 'y t"e #ommon la$ and in t"ose $"ere it is #ontrolled 'y statute, as in 4is#onsin.


2/10

1. %"e lo$er #ourt erred in not "oldin! t"at t"e sear#" $arrant, C"i'it =, issued in t"e #ase at 'ar is

un#onstitutional and void ab initio and "en#e #an #onfer no le!al ri!"t upon t"e Government to seiBe, mu#"

less to retain or open t"e filin! #a'inet in 0uestion, C"i'it 3.

2. %"e lo$er #ourt erred in not "oldin! t"at t"e sear#" $arrant, $"i#" is void ab initio may not 'e le!aliBed 'y

eviden#e se#ured su'se0uent to t"e issuan#e, or in #onse0uen#e, of said ille!al sear#" $arrant.

3. %"e lo$er #ourt erred in not "oldin! t"at t"e do#trine of t"e #ase of "eople #s. Rubio G. R. No. 355, 5*

"il., 3);, is not appli#a'le to t"e #ase at 'ar.

;. %"e lo$er #ourt erred in not "oldin! t"at t"e sear#" $arrant, C"i'it =, $as pro#ured in order to o'tain

eviden#e a!ainst t"e defendant antia!o y Ju#o.

5. %"e lo$er #ourt erred in not "oldin! t"at t"e sear#" $arrant, C"i'it =, $as issued solely a!ainst t"e

premised o##upied 'y t"e defendant antia!o y Ju#o, and "en#e #annot 'e used a!ainst t"e premises

o##upied 'y a stran!er, or t"e petitioner, %eopisto =. Remo.

6. %"e lo$er #ourt erred in not "oldin! t"at t"e filin! #a'inet, C"i'it 3, is t"e personal property of t"e

petitioner, %eopisto =. Remo, and not of t"e defendant antia!o y Ju#o.

*. %"e lo$er #ourt erred in not up"oldin! t"e inviola'ility of t"e #ontents of t"e filin! #a'inet, C"i'it 3, t"e

same 'ein! #onfidential do#uments entrusted to t"e "erein petitioner, Attorney %eopisto =. Remo, 'y "is

#lients, in "is professional #apa#ity and in #onne#tion $it" #ases pendin! 'efore t"e #ourts of usti#e and

administrative tri'unals.

). %"e lo$er #ourt erred in not "oldin! t"at t"e (nternal Revenue a!ents !ave infrin!ed t"e penal la$s not only

'y pro#urin! t"e sear#" $arrant, C"i'it =, a!ainst t"e premises of t"e defendant, antia!o y Ju#o, $it"out

ust #ause, 'ut also 'y e#eedin! t"eir aut"ority in enfor#in! said sear#" $arrant a!ainst t"e premises of t"e

petitioner, %eopisto =. Remo, $"o is stran!er to said sear#" $arrant, $"i#" a#ts also #onstitute a violation oft"e domi#ile of said petitioner8 and in not endorsin! t"e matter to t"e #ity fis#al for proper a#tion.

9. %"e lo$er #ourt erred in not orderin! t"e return of t"e filin! #a'inet, C"i'it 3, inta#t and unopened, to its

la$ful o$ner, t"e petitioner %eopisto =. Remo.

%"e pertinent part of t"e sear#" $arrant in 0uestion $as #ou#"ed in t"e follo$in! lan!ua!e@

roof 'y affidavit "avin! t"is day 'een made 'efore me, 7ariano Al'ert, Jud!e of t"e ourt of Dirst (nstan#e of

t"e ity of 7anila, "ilippine (slands, 'y t"e #omplainant on oat" of Nar#iso 7endiola, spe#ial investi!ator,

=ureau of (nternal Revenue, 7anila, t"at t"e defendant, antia!o y Ju#o, of No. ;)2 Juan una, 7anila,

&eeps ille!ally and feloniously fraudulent 'oo&s, #orresponden#e, and re#ords and t"at "e verily 'elieves upon

pro'a'le #ause t"at t"e said 'oo&s, #orresponden#e and re#ords at No. ;)2 Juan una, 7anila, and t"e said

personal property is no$ 'ein! used in t"e #ommission of fraud of t"e revenue of t"e Government.

Eou are t"erefore #ommanded to ta&e $it" you t"e ne#essary and proper assistan#e and to enter, in t"e

daytime, into t"e said premises and t"ere dili!ently sear#" for fraudulent 'oo&s, #orresponden#e and re#ords

and t"at you seiBe and 'rin! t"em 'efore t"e #ourt to 'e disposed of a##ordin! to la$.

Given under my "ands t"is *t" day of 7ar#", 1933, in t"e ity of 7anila.

FCA!d. 7AR(AN? A. A=CR%

$ud%e of &ourt of 'irst instance of (anila

%"e affidavit or deposition referred to in t"e $arrant a'ove-0uoted #ontained t"e follo$in! 0uestions and

ans$ers@

%C%(7?NE %A

;. :ad t"e #ourt aut"ority to order t"e openin! of t"e #a'inet in 0uestion for t"e purpose of determinin!, 'y aneamination of t"e 'oo&s, do#uments and re#ords #ontained t"erein, $"et"er or not same $ere used to

#ommit fraud a!ainst t"e Government>

1. A 0uestion $"i#" is very similar to t"e first one "erein raised 'y t"e appellant, "as 'een de#ided 'y t"is

#ourt in t"e ne!ative in its ud!ment rendered in t"e #ase of -l#are5 #s. &ourt of 'irst Instance of Tayabas and

-nti 6sury Board , p. 33, ante. A##ordin! to our la$s in for#e on t"e date in 0uestion, $"i#" do not differ

su'stantially from t"e provisions of t"e onstitution of t"e ommon$ealt" in matters re!ardin! sear#", in

order t"at a sear#" $arrant may 'e valid, t"e follo$in! re0uisites, amon! ot"ers, must 'e present@ %"at t"e

appli#ation upon $"i#" it is issued 'e supported 'y oat"8 %"at t"e sear#" $arrant parti#ularly des#ri'es not

only pla#e to 'e sear#"ed 'ut also t"e person or t"in! to 'e seiBed and t"at t"ere 'e pro'a'le #ause se#. 9*,

General ?rders, No. 5)@ se#. 3, Jones a$8 Arti#le (((, se#. 1, para!rap" 3, onstitution of t"e

ommon$ealt".

(n t"e a'ove-#ited #ase of -l#are5 #s. &ourt of 'irst Instance of Tayabas and -nti6sury Board, supra, and in

t"at of +nited tates #s. Addison 2) "il., 566, t"is #ourt "eld t"at t"e oat" re0uired must 'e su#" t"at it

#onstitutes a !uaranty t"at t"e person ta&in! it "as personal &no$led!e of t"e fa#ts of t"e #ase and t"at it

#onvin#e t"e #ommittin! ma!istrate, not t"e individual see&in! t"e issuan#e of t"e $arrant or t"e person

ma&in! t"e averment 'y "earsay, of t"e eisten#e of t"e re0uisite of pro'a'le #ause. (t "as li&e$ise 'een "eld

'y t"is #ourt t"at 'y pro'a'le #ause are meant su#" fa#ts and #ir#umstan#es ante#edent to t"e issuan#e

t"ereof. (t "as furt"ermore 'een "eld t"at t"e true test of t"e suffi#ien#y of an affidavit to $arrant issuan#e of a

sear#" $arrant is $"et"er it "as 'een dra$n in su#" a manner t"at perury #ould 'e #"ar!ed t"ereon in #ase

t"e alle!ations #ontained t"erein prove false ate vs. Roosevelt, 2;; a#., 2), and t"at t"e provisions of

t"e onstitution and t"e statutes relative to sear#"es and seiBures must 'e #onstrued li'erally in favor of t"e

individual $"o may 'e affe#ted t"ere'y, and stri#tly a!ainst t"e tate and a!ainst t"e person invo&in! t"em for

t"e issuan#e of t"e $arrant orderin! t"eir ee#ution Clardo vs. tate of 7isissippi, 1;5 o., 6158 Do$ler vs. +.

., 62 Ded. F2d, 6568 afori& vs. +. . Deed. F2d, )928 =oyd vs. +. ., 116 +. ., 6168 29 a$. ed., *;6, for

t"e simple reason t"at t"e pro#eedin!s of sear#" and seiBure are, 'y t"eir very nature, summary and drasti#

ones AlvareB vs. ourt of Dirst (nstan#e of %aya'as and Anti-+sury =oard, supra, and t"e aut"orities #ited

t"erein.

=y readin! t"e affidavit $"i#" !ave rise to t"e issuan#e of t"e sear#" $arrant in 0uestion, it $ill 'e seen t"at

t"e latter does not fulfill t"e ne#essary #onditions in support of its validity. (n t"e first pla#e, it is not stated in

said affidavit t"at t"e 'oo&s, do#uments or re#ords referred to t"erein are 'ein! used or are intended to 'eused in t"e #ommission of fraud a!ainst t"e Government and, not$it"standin! t"e la#& of su#" alle!ation, t"e

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr35500-people-v-rubio.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr35500-people-v-rubio.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr35500-people-v-rubio.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9951-u-s-v-addison.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9951-u-s-v-addison.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9951-u-s-v-addison.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9951-u-s-v-addison.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9951-u-s-v-addison.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr35500-people-v-rubio.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr35500-people-v-rubio.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9951-u-s-v-addison.html


3/10

$arrant avers t"at t"ey are a#tually 'ein! used for su#" purpose. (n t"e se#ond pla#e, it assumes t"at t"e

entire 'uildin! mar&ed No. ;)2 on Juan una treet is o##upied 'y antia!o y Ju#o a!ainst $"om t"e

$arrant $as e#lusively issued, $"en t"e only !round upon $"i#" su#" assumption is 'ased is Nar#iso

7endiola/s statement $"i#" is mere "earsay and $"en in fa#t part t"ereof $as o##upied 'y t"e appellant. (n

t"e t"ird pla#e, it $as not as&ed t"at t"e t"in!s 'elon!in! to t"e appellant and to ot"ers also 'e sear#"ed. (n

ot"er$ords, t"e $arrant in 0uestion "as !one 'eyond $"at "ad 'een applied for 'y Nar#iso 7endiola and t"e

a!ent $"o ee#uted it performed a#ts not aut"oriBed 'y t"e $arrant, and it is for t"is and t"e a'ove-stated

reason $"y it is unreasona'le, it 'ein! eviden#e t"at t"e purpose t"ereof $as solely to fis" for eviden#e or

sear#" for it 'y eploration, in #ase some #ould 'e found. (t is of #ommon &no$led!e t"at sear#" $arrants

"ave not 'een desi!ned for su#" purpose Gouled vs. +. ., 255 +. ., 29), . . R., 65 a$. ed., 6;*8 +y


4/10

?n 7ay 2*, 19*2, respondent u#ina amonte and %rinidad amonte 'rou!"t an a#tion 'efore t"e ourt of

Dirst (nstan#e of RiBal no$ R% do#&eted as ase No.

-2;;2, for t"e annulment of t"e final ud!ment rendered 'y t"e trial #ourt in avite in ase No. %7-223,

alle!in! t"e follo$in! matters@ t"at t"ey did not aut"oriBe anyone in#ludin! Atty. anilo ine to file an ans$er

in t"eir 'e"alf as defendants in ase No. %7 223, and t"at t"e filin! of t"e petition for #ertiorari $it" t"e ourt

of Appeals to annul t"e $rit of ee#ution in t"e same #ase $as $it"out t"eir &no$led!e and parti#ipation.

etitioners/ motion to dismiss t"e a#tion $as denied 'y t"e D( of RiBal. %"us, t"e instant petition $as filed.

%"e issue to 'e resolved in t"is #ase is $"et"er or not t"e ourt of Dirst (nstan#e of RiBal no$ R%

#ommitted !rave a'use of dis#retion or a#ted $it"out urisdi#tion in denyin! t"e petitioners/ motion to dismisst"e a#tion for annulment of t"e final and ee#utory ud!ment rendered 'y t"e D( of avite.

%"e appli#a'le la$ is Repu'li# A#t No. 296, as amended, ot"er$ise &no$n as %"e Judi#iary A#t of 19;),

$"i#" $as t"e la$ in for#e $"en t"e disputed a#tion for annulment $as filed on 7ay 2*, 19*2 in t"e D( of

RiBal. %"is is 'ased on t"e prin#iple t"at t"e fa#ts alle!ed in t"e #omplaint and t"e la$ in for#e at t"e time of

#ommen#ement of a#tion determine t"e urisdi#tion o f a #ourt um =in! v. ('aneB 92 "il. *998 Rodri!ueB v.

e#son, 92 "il. 1*28 alao v. risostomo, No. -291;6 , Au!ust 5, 19)5, 13) RA 1*8 %olentino v. o#ial

e#urity ommission No. -2))*, eptem'er 6, 19)5, 13) RA ;2)8 "ilippine ?verseas rillin!, et#. v.

7inister of a'or, G.R. No. 55*3, Novem'er 2*, 19)6, 1;6 RA *9.

e#tion ;;a of t"e Revised Judi#iary A#t of 19;) t"en vested ori!inal urisdi#tion in t"e ourts of Dirst

(nstan#e over all #ivil a#tions in $"i#" t"e su'e#t of t"e liti!ation is not #apa'le of pe#uniary estimation and an

a#tion for t"e annulment of a ud!ment and an order of a #ourt of usti#e 'elon!s to t"is #ate!ory da. de

+rsua v. elayo, 1* "il. 622. A #ourt of first instan#e o r a 'ran#" t"ereof "as t"e aut"ority and t"e

urisdi#tion as provided for 'y la$ to annul a final and ee#utory ud!ment rendered 'y anot"er #our t of firstinstan#e or 'y anot"er 'ran#" of t"e same #ourt. %"is $as t"e rulin! laid do$n in t"e #ases of ulap v. ourt

of Appeals, No. -2)36, e#em'er 1), 19*1, ;2 RA 53*8 Gianan v. (mperial, No. -3*963, De'ruary 2),

19*;, 55 RA *55 and Dran#is#o v. A0uino, Nos. -33235-36, July 29 , 19*6, *2 RA 1;9 $"i#" overturned

t"e #ontrary rulin!s in 7as v. umara-o! No. -16252, eptem'er 29,196;,12 RA 3;8 J.7. %uason K o. v.

%orres, et al., No. -2;*1*, e#em'er ;, 196*, 21 RA 11698 and terlin! (nvestment orporation, et al. v.

RuiB, et#. et al., No. -369;, ?#to'er 31, 1969, 3 RA 31). %"us, in an a#tion to annul a final ud!ment or

order, t"e #"oi#e of $"i#" #ourt t"e a#tion s"ould 'e filed is not left to t"e parties8 'y le!al mandate t"e a#tion

s"ould 'e filed $it" t"e ourt of Dirst (nstan#e. %"e 0uestion is in $"at pla#e $it" $"at parti#ular #ourt of first

instan#e t"e a#tion s"ould 'e #ommen#ed and tried ulap, supra. %"e issue t"erefore to 'e resolved in t"e

instant #ase is not one of urisdi#tion 'ut of venue-$"et"er it $as properly laid in t"e ourt of Dirst (nstan#e of

RiBal for t"e annulment of t"e ud!ment rendered 'y t"e D( of avite.

e#tion 2, Rule ; of t"e Rules of t"e ourt fies t"e venue in ourts of Dirst (nstan#e, as follo$s@

C. 2. 7enue in &ourt of 'irst Instance I a Real actions. I A#tions affe#tin! titleto, or for re#overy of possession, or for partition or #ondemnation of, or fore#losure of

mort!a!e on, real property, s"all 'e #ommen#ed and tried in t"e provin#e $"ere t"e

property or any part t"ereof lies.

' "ersonal actions. I All ot"er a#tions may 'e #ommen#ed and tried $"ere t"e

defendant or any of t"e defendants 'esides or may 'e found, or $"ere t"e plaintiff or

any of t"e plaintiffs resides, at t"e ele#tion of t"e plaintiff.

%"e #omplaint filed 'y respondent $it" t"e D( of RiBal for t"e annulment of ud!ment states t"at t"ey reside

at aloo#an ity and t"at petitioners, as defendants, reside at avite p. ;), Rollo. in#e t"e a#tion for

annulment of ud!ment is a personal one, t"e venue of t"e a#tion in t"is #ase s"ould 'e eit"er D( of

aloo#an or D( of avite at t"e ele#tion of t"e plaintiff. learly, venue $as improperly laid in t"e D( of RiBaland respondent ud!e s"ould "ave dismissed t"e a#tion for annulment of ud!ment on t"e !round of improper

venue.

(t is si!nifi#ant to state at t"is point t"at alt"ou!" t"e prevailin! rule 'efore =. . 129 $as t"at #ourts of first

instan#e and t"eir 'ran#"es "ave urisdi#tion to annul ea#" ot"er/s final ud!ments and orders as ruled in

ulap and su'se0uent #ases, fundamental prin#iples still di#tate t"at t"e 'etter poli#y, as a matter of #omity or

#ourteous intera#tion 'et$een #ourts of first instan#e and t"e 'ran#"es t"ereof, is for t"e annulment #ases to

'e tried 'y t"e same #ourt or 'ran#" $"i#" "eard t"e main a#tion sou!"t to 'e annulled Gianan v.

(mperial, supra.i8t8ca9sl 7oreover, despite t"e re-eamination 'y t"is ourt of t"e old rulin! in (as #.

Dumarao%, supra, re#ent de#isions still up"old its rationale t"at pursuant to udi#ial sta'ility, t"e do#trine of

non-interferen#e s"ould 'e re!arded as "i!"ly important in t"e administration of usti#e $"ere'y t"e ud!ment

of a #ourt of #ompetent urisdi#tion may not 'e opened, modified or va#ated 'y any #ourt of #on#urrent

urisdi#tion N!o =un %ion! v. ayo, No. -;5)25, June 3, 19)), 163 RA 23*8 Repu'li# v. Reyes, Nos.

-3263-65, ?#to'er 3, 19)*8 ar#o v. ourt of Appeals, No. -33152, January 3, 19)2, 111 RA 262.

4"ile t"e fore!oin! dis#ussion may no lon!er find any appli#ation at t"is time $it" t"e effe#tivity of =atas

am'ansa, =l!. 129, ena#ted on Au!ust 1, 19)1, $"i#" transferred t"e urisdi#tion over a#tions for

annulment of ud!ment to t"e ourt of Appeals, it $as deemed ne#essary if only to 'rin! li!"t and settle t"e

eistin! #onfusion and #"aos amon! ud!es of t"e different #ourts of first instan#e and t"eir 'ran#"es

#on#ernin! t"e appli#ation of t"e old la$s on urisdi#tion and venue over t"is &ind of a#tion. ro'a'ly, t"is

#onfusion $as t"e underlyin! reason of t"e e!islature 'e"ind t"e transfer of urisdi#tion over annulment of

ud!ments from t"e trial #ourts to t"e ourt of Appeals under =.. 129.

Cven if 4e $ere to disre!ard, for t"e sa&e of ar!ument, t"e issue on urisdi#tion of and venue in t"e ourt of

Dirst (nstan#e of RiBal in t"e annulment suit, 4e found, upon perusal of t"e re#ords, t"at no suffi#ient !rounds

eist to ustify t"e annulment of t"e final ud!ment of t"e avite #ourt. ertain re0uisites must 'e esta'lis"ed

'efore a ud!ment #an 'e t"e su'e#t of an a#tion for annulment. A ud!ment #an 'e annulled only on t$o

!rounds@ a t"e ud!ment is void for $ant of urisdi#tion or for la#& of due pro#ess of la$, or ' it "as 'een

o'tained 'y fraud antia!o v. eniBa, No. -1*322, June 3, 1962, 5 RA ;9;.

None of t"e aforementioned !rounds $as s"o$n to eist to support t"e annulment a#tion. %"e #ontention of

private respondents t"at t"ey $ere not served $it" summons in ase No. %7-223 in t"e avite #ourt is

untena'le. (n t"eir memorandum filed $it" t"is ourt, t"ey admit t"at t"ey $ere served $it" summons t"ru

t"eir #o-defendant Antonio amonte $"o a#&no$led!ed re#e ipt t"ereof. %"e re#eipt of summons is s"o$n 'y

t"e return su'mitted 'y t"e s"eriff to t"e ourt of Dirst (nstan#e of avite. Apart from t"e presumption t"at t"e

s"eriff "ad re!ularly performed "is fun#tions, re#ords amply s"o$ t"at all t"e defendants, in#ludin! private

respondents "ad filed t"eir ans$er in ase No. %7-223 t"ru #ounsel, Atty. anilo ine. And $"en final

ud!ment "ad 'een rendered 'y t"e D( of avite a!ainst respondents and a $rit of ee#ution issued 'y t"e

trial #ourt, t"e private respondents, t"ru t"e same #ounsel, Atty. ine even instituted a petition for #ertiorari and

mandamus to enoin t"e ee#ution of t"e ud!ment of t"e avite #ourt. Respondents no$ alle!e t"at t"ey "ave

not aut"oriBed Atty. anilo ine to appear in t"eir 'e"alf as defendants in ase No. %7-223 or to file t"e

petition for #ertiorari $it" t"e appellate #ourt. u#" alle!ation is devoid of merit.

An attorney is presumed to 'e properly aut"oriBed to represent any #ause in $"i#" "e appears, and no $ritten

po$er of attorney is re0uired to aut"oriBe "im to appear in #ourt for "is #lient e#. 21, Rule 13), Rules ofourt. %"e fa#t t"at private respondents "ad not personally appeared in t"e "earin!s of ase %7-223 in t"e

trial #ourt is immaterial. %"e filin! of t"e ans$er 'y and appearan#e of Atty. anilo ine in t"eir 'e"alf are

suffi#ient to !ive private respondents standin! in #ourt. (t is "ard to 'elieve t"at a #ounsel $"o "as no personal

interest in t"e #ase $ould fi!"t for and defend a #ase $it" persisten#e and vi!or if "e "ad not 'een aut"oriBed

or employed 'y t"e party #on#erned. (t is o'vious t"at sin#e t"e appellate #ourt "ad de#ided adversely a!ainst

private respondents in t"eir petition for #ertiorari, t"e latter filed t"e annulment suit for a se#ond #"an#e at

preventin! petitioners from enfor#in! t"e de#ision rendered 'y t"e avite #ourt in favor of t"e latter.

(t is an important fundamental prin#iple in ?ur udi#ial system t"at every liti!ation must #ome to an end.

A##ess to t"e #ourts is !uaranteed. =ut t"ere must 'e a limit t"ereto. ?n#e a liti!ant/s ri!"ts "ave 'een

adudi#ated in a valid final ud!ment of a #ompetent #ourt, "e s"ould not 'e !ranted an un'ridled li#ense to

#ome 'a#& for anot"er tr y. %"e prevailin! party s"ould not 'e "arassed 'y su'se0uent suits. Dor, if endless

liti!ations $ere to 'e en#oura!ed, uns#rupulous liti!ants $ill multiply in num'er to t"e detriment of t"e

administration of usti#e N!o =un %ion! v. ayo, supra8 a#0uin! v. ourt of Appeals, G.R. 52;9), July 19,

19)2, 115 RA 11*.


5/10

A?R(NGE, t"e petition is GRAN%C and t"e respondent ud!e of t"e ourt of Dirst (nstan#e of RiBal

no$ Re!ional %rial ourt is ?RCRC to dismiss ivil ase No. -2;;2. %"e temporary restrainin! order

issued 'y t"is ourt is "ere'y made permanent.

? ?RCRC.

LAND BAN7 OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 16*))6 etitioner, resent@

avide, Jr., &.$ . "airman,

- versus - Huisum'in!, Enares-antia!o,

arpio, and AB#una, $$.

PAMINTUAN DE'ELOPMENTCO., )2* 9" MARIANO romul!ated@PAMINTUAN, JR., Respondent. ?#to'er 25, 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J .@

%"is petition for revie$ on #ertiorari assails t"e April 15, 25 e#ision F1 of t"e ourt of Appeals in A-G.R. No. )5);3, $"i#" dismissed and =an& of t"e "ilippinesL AN=AN


6/10

t"e #lient are #onsidered #ounsels of t"e latter. All a#ts performed 'y t"em are deemed to 'e $it" t"e #lientLs#onsent.

%"e #ase of On% &hin% #. Ramolete,F2 is on all fours $it" t"e instant #ontroversy. %"e trial #ourt

t"erein "eld t"at t"e period to appeal "ad already lapsed renderin! t"e assailed de#ision final and ee#utory'e#ause petitionerLs motion for re#onsideration, t"ou!" presented $it"in t"e re!lementary period, is $it"outle!al effe#t "avin! 'een filed 'y a la$yer ot"er t"an petitionerLs #ounsel of re#ord. (t disre!arded petitionerLs$ritten aut"oriBation 'elatedly filed 'y said ne$ la$yer as t"e same $as not appended to t"e motion for re#onsideration previously filed. (n de'un&in! t"e rulin! of t"e trial #ourt, $e stressed t"at t"e ne$ #ounsel$"o filed t"e motion for re#onsideration in 'e"alf of t"e #lient is presumed to 'e aut"oriBed even if "e filed noformal noti#e of entry of appearan#e. :en#e, said motion effe#tively tolled t"e runnin! of t"e period to appeal. As eplained 'y t"e ourt@

%"e present #ase, "o$ever, does not involve a su'stitution of attorneys, 'utmerely t"e employment 'y petitioner of an additional #ounsel. %rue it is, as #laimed 'yrespondents, t"at t"e motion for re#onsideration filed 'y Atty. :ermosisima !ives noindi#ation t"at "e $as presentin! "is motion in #olla'oration $it" Atty. as0ueB8 'utneit"er $ould it indi#ate t"at 'y "is filin! of t"e pleadin! in t"e #ase, Atty. :ermosisima$as repla#in! Atty. as0ueB as #ounsel for petitioner. (n la$ it is assumed primafacie t"at every attorney $"o appears in #ourt does so $it" suffi#ient aut"ority. %"efa#t t"at a se#ond attorney enters an appearan#e on 'e"alf of a liti!ant does notaut"oriBe a presumption t"at t"e aut"ority of t"e first attorney "as 'een $it"dra$n.%"ere is no 0uestion t"at a party may "ave t$o or more la$yers $or&in! in#olla'oration as "is #ounsel in a !iven liti!ation. %"us in t"e #ase at 'ar t"e #ertifi#atedated 7ay 16, 19*2, ee#uted 'y Atty. as0ueB, is to t"e effe#t t"at "e, $it" t"e#onsent and aut"ority of petitioner $"o si!nified "is #onformity in $ritin! $asaut"oriBin! Atty. :ermosisima to #olla'orate $it" "im in t"e #ase due to "is ill "ealt".4"ile t"e said #ertifi#ate $as not atta#"ed to t"e motion for re#onsideration on 7ay 1*,19*2, 'ut $as presented in #ourt rat"er 'elatedly on June 16, 19*2 as an anne topetitionerLs MReoinder to ?pposition to 7otion for Re#onsideration, respondents "avenot s"o$n t"at t"e re#itals of fa#t #ontained t"erein did not refle#t t"e trut". At any rate,t"is #ase is different from +.. v. =orromeo, Doas, et al. v. Navarro, Ramos v.oten#iano, =a0uiran v. ourt of Appeals. :ere petitioner/s #ounsel, Atty. as0ueB,not only affirmed "is #ontinued #onne#tion $it" t"e #ase, 'ut also eplained Atty.:ermosisimaLs appearan#e as #olla'oratin! #ounsel. 4"ile it may 'e desira'le in t"einterest of an orderly #ondu#t of udi#ial pro#eedin!s, t"at a #ounsel for a party s"ouldfile $it" t"e #ourt "is formal $ritten appearan#e in t"e #ase, 'efore filin! a pleadin!t"erein, or mention in said pleadin! t"at "e is su'mittin! t"e same in #olla'oration $it"t"e #ounsel of re#ord, t"e mere #ir#umstan#e t"at su#" a#ts $ere not done does not$arrant t"e #on#lusion t"at t"e pleadin! filed 'y su#" #ounsel "as no le!al effe#t$"atsoever. (t is evident t"erefore t"at t"e ARA= !ravely a'used its dis#retion in denyin! due #ourse to t"e

noti#e of appeal seasona'ly filed 'y Attys. 7ontarde and 7esa, t"e duly aut"oriBed #ounsel of petitioner. (nt"e same vein, t"e affirman#e 'y t"e ourt of Appeals of t"e assailed order of t"e ARA= is a #lear disre!ardof t"e oft repeated prin#iple t"at #ourts s"ould not resort to a ri!id appli#ation of t"e rules $"ere t"e end result$ould frustrate t"e ust, speedy and inepensive determination of t"e #ontroversy. F21

HEREFORE, t"e petition is GRANTED and t"e April 15, 25 e#ision of t"e ourt of Appeals

dismissin! t"e petition in A-G.R. No. )5);3, is RE'ERSED and SET ASIDE. %"e epartment of A!rarian Reform Adudi#ation =oard is DIRECTED to !ive due #ourse to petitionerLs Noti#e of Cntry of Appearan#e and t"e Noti#e of Appeal.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-$$%-$# A/! #;, %&&0

RINCONADA TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., petitioner,

vs.

HON. CARLOS R. BUEN'IAJE, IRIGA TELEPHONE COMPANY INC. ()* FRANCISCO

IMPERIAL,respondents.

Ben:amin S. Santos for petitioner.

(ulry ". (ende5 for respondent &ompany.

MEDIALDEA, J.:

%"is petition for certiorari and mandamus is dire#ted a!ainst t"e order of respondent ud!e dated January 23,

19*), denyin! petitioner/s ri!"t to appeal from "is previous orders dated eptem'er 16 and 29, 19** orderin!

t"e dismissal of ivil ases No. (R-265 and (R-5*) 'ot" entitled Rin#onada %elep"one o., (n#., laintiff v.

(ri!a %elep"one o., (n#., and Dran#is#o (mperial, efendants.

%"e re#ord dis#loses t"e follo$in! fa#tual 'a#&drop@

Dor and in #onsideration of t"e sum of 12,5. in t"e form of s"ares of sto#&s totallin! 125 at 1. per

s"are, respondent Dran#is#o (mperial, on July 3, 19*1, orally #onveyed to petitioner, a #ertifi#ate of pu'li##onvenien#e and ne#essity to operate a telep"one #ompany in (ri!a ity issued to "im 'y t"e defun#t u'li#

ervi#e ommission no$ and %ransportation Dran#"isin! and Re!ulator y =oard. After t"e a!reement,

petitioner started to operate under t"e stren!t" of said #ertifi#ate. (t $as only on ?#to'er 1;, 19*1 t"at

petitioner and respondent (mperial, ee#uted t"e deed of sale pursuant to t"eir earlier a!reement .1 ?n

eptem'er 21, 19*2, respondent (mperial a!ain sold t"e same #ertifi#ate to "erein respondent (ri!a %elep"one

ompany, (n#. (%C? %"is se#ond sale $as approved 'y t"e t"en u'li# ervi#e ommission. =y reason

of t"e se#ond sale, petitioner #"ar!ed respondent (mperial of Cstafa 'efore t"e t"en D( no$ R% of 7anila.

etitioner also filed $it" t"e t"en D( of (ri!a ity t$o 2 a#tions a!ainst respondent (mperial, one for 'rea#"

of #ontra#t $it" dama!es, 2 do#&eted as ivil ase (R No. 265, and t"e ot"er, for annulment of eed of ale

$it" dama!es, 3do#&eted as ivil ase (R 5*). =ot" #ases $ere assi!ned to respondent ud!e and petitioner

$as represented 'y Atty. u#iano 7a!!ay.

=e#ause "is !uilt $as not proven 'eyond reasona'le dou't, respondent (mperial $as a'solved in t"e #riminal

#ase. ; :e t"en moved for t"e dismissal of t"e #ivil #ases pendin! 'efore respondent ud!e on t"e !round

of

res :udicata. 5 etitioner opposed t"e motion 6 'ut nevert"eless respondent ud!e !ranted t"e same in t$o

2 orders dated eptem'er 16 and 29, 19**.* etitioner, t"ru Atty. =enamin antos sou!"tre#onsideration ) 'ut respondent ud!e refused to re#onsider t"e orders of dismissal .9 %"us petitioner, t"ru t"e

same #ounsel, filed a noti#e of appeal and appeal 'ond. Respondent (mperial opposed t"e appeal 'e#ause

t"e same $as filed out of time. Respondent ud!e in an order dated January 23, 19*) denied t"e noti#e of

appeal. (n a!reement $it" respondent (mperial, t"e trial #ourt said.

%"is is so for t"e order of dismissal dated eptem'er 1), 19**

sic $as s"o$n to "ave 'een

re#eived 'y Atty. u#iano 7a!!ay for Rin#onada %elep"one o. on ?#to'er 11, 19**, and 2) days

t"ereafter, or on Novem'er ), 19*), Atty. =enamin antos, anot"er #ounsel for t"e same party

filed a 7otion for Re#onsideration $"i#" $as denied 'y proper order on January 23, 19*). %"e

aforesaid latest order $as re#eived for Rin#onada %elep"one o., (n#. t"rou!" Atty. 7a!!ay, $"o

"as 'een s"o$n in t"e re#ords to 'e still a #ounsel of re#ord for t"e same party on De'ruary 2,

19*). in#e t"e noti#e of Appeal and Appeal =ond appear to "ave 'een f iled on April 19, 19*) and

t"e Re#ord on Appeal only on June *, 19*), and not on De'ruary ;, 19*), $"i#" $as t"e last and

3t" day re!lementary period for interposin! t"e #ontemplated. p. 5), Rollo

etitioner is no$ 'efore +s #laimin! t"at respondent ud!e !ravely a'used "is dis#retion in denyin! it t"e ri!"t

to appeal. etitioner #ontends t"at it re#eived #ourt pro#esses t"ru Atty. antos $"en t"e latter entered "is

appearan#e in 'ot" #ases 'y "is filin! of a noti#e of appearan#e and a motion for re#onsideration of t"e orders

of dismissal $"i#" "e furnis"ed t"e #ounsel of respondent (mperial. pe#ifi#ally, it mentioned t"e order of

respondent ud!e sent to Atty. =enamin antos #onsiderin! t"e motion for re#onsideration su'mitted for

resolution. 1 (t epressed amaBement over t"e a#t of respondent ud!e in not sendin! to Atty. antos a #opy

of t"e order denyin! t"e motion for re#onsideration &no$in! fully $ell t"at t"e period to appeal t"erefrom

$ould lapse $it"out t"e &no$led!e of Atty. antos, its ne$ #ounsel. 4"ile admittin! t"at its noti#e of appeal

and appeal 'ond $as filed out of time8 petitioner #onsiders su#" fa#t as t"e result of t"e #ollusion 'et$een

respondent ud!e and respondent (mperial.

%"e ri!"t of #lient to terminate "is relations $it" "is #ounsel is universally re#o!niBed Cnos v. astin!, 6* AR

;3.0;wphi0 u#" termination may 'e $it" o r $it"out #ause Aro v. Nara$a -2;1;6, April 2), 1969, 21

RA 116. %"e li!"t of a #lient to terminate t"e aut"ority of "is #ounsel in#ludes t"e ri!"t to ma&e a #"an!e

or su'stitution at any sta!e of t"e pro#eedin!s. %o 'e valid, any su#" #"an!e or su'stitution must 'e made@ a upon $ritten appli#ation8 ' $it" $ritten #onsent of t"e #lient8 # upon $ritten #onsent of t"e attorney to 'e

su'stituted8 d in #ase t"e #onsent of attorney to 'e su'stituted #annot 'e o'tained t"ere must 'e at least a

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/167886.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/167886.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/167886.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/167886.htm#_ftn21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/167886.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/167886.htm#_ftn21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_l_49241_42_1990.html#rnt10


7/10

proof of noti#e t"at t"e motion for su'stitution "as 'een served upon "im in t"e manner pres#ri'ed 'y t"e rules

e#tion 26, Rule 13), Rules of ourt.

+ndisputedly, t"ere $as no valid su'stitution in #ases at 'ar. Neit"er #an it 'e said t"at Atty. 7a!!ay formally

$it"dre$ as #ounsel for petitioner in t"e #ases. %"erefore, "e #ontinued to represent petitioner and "e

remained t"e #ounsel of re#ord and $as for all le!al purposes, petitioners/ attorney upon $"om respondent

#ourt/s pro#esses may 'e served. 4"en a party is represented 'y #ounsel, noti#e s"ould 'e made upon t"e

#ounsel of re#ord Jalover v. Etorria!a, -359)9, ?#to'er 2), 19**, ) RA 1 at "is !iven address in t"e

a'sen#e of noti#e of #"an!e of address opeB v. de los Reyes, -236*1, January 3, 19*, 31 RA 21;.

in#e "e $as t"e last to appear 'efore any appli#ation for su'stitution $as filed, Atty. 7a!!ay remained

responsi'le for t"e #ondu#t of petitioner/s #ause ?livares v. eola, 9* "il. 3528 A'an v. Cna!e, -3666,

De'ruary 25, 19)3, 12 RA **).

espite t"e filin! of Atty. antos of a motion for re#onsideration, #opy of $"i#" "e furnis"ed t"e opposin!

#ounsel, Atty. 7a!!ay is still #onsidered #ounsel of re#ord A'an v. Galope -3666, De'ruary 25, 19)3, 12

RA **). Not "avin! formally $it"dra$n as #ounsel, t"e order denyin! t"e noti#e of appeal and appeal

'ond $as deemed properly ser ved upon Atty. 7a!!ay. Noti#e of t"e order to "im $as noti#e to petitioner and

for all le!al intents and purposes, t"e date of "is re#eipt is #onsidered t"e startin! point from $"i#" t"e period

to appeal pres#ri'ed 'y la$ starts to run u'ar v. 7endoBa, -5535, De'ruary 23, 19)3, 12 RA *6)8

=a0uiran v. ourt of Appeals, -1;551, July 31, 1961, 2 RA )*3.

:o$ever, to t"e mind of t"e ourt, t"ere are #ir#umstan#es present in t"ese #ases $"i#" $arrant a relaation

of t"e fore!oin! rule and urispruden#e. (t #annot 'e denied t"at respondent ud!e re#o!niBed Atty. antos as

petitioner/s ne$ #ounsel. %"is is apparent $"en t"e trial #ourt sent Atty. antos a #opy of t"e order #onsiderin!

t"e motion for re#onsideration for resolution and also $"en it referred to Attys. 7a!!ay and Raneses as

petitioner/s former #ounsels and Atty. antos as t"e ne$ #ounsel of petitioner in its orde r denyin!

re#onsideration. :avin! a#&no$led!ed Atty. antos as t"e ne$ #ounsel of petitioner, t"ere is a #lear #ase ofne!li!en#e $"en said la$yer $as not furnis"ed #opy of t"e order denyin! re#onsideration as a #opy of t"e

order #onsiderin! t"at motion for resolution $as furnis"ed to petitioner t"ru said la$yer.

(n vie$ of respondent ud!e/s re#o!nition of Atty. antos as ne$ #ounsel for petitioner $it"out even a valid

su'stitution or $it"dra$al of petitioner/s former #ounsel, said ne$ #ounsel lo!i#ally a$aited for servi#e to "im

of any a#tion ta&en on "is motion for re#onsideration. Respondent ud!e/s sudden #"an!e of posture in

insistin! t"at Atty. 7a!!ay is t"e #ounsel of re#ord is, t"erefore, a $"imsi#al and #apri#ious eer#ise of

dis#retion t"at prevented petitione r and Atty. antos from ta&in! a timely appeal from said orde r. learly,

respondent ud!e #ommitted !rave a'use of dis#retion, amountin! to la#& of urisdi#tion in denyin! petitioner/s

noti#e of appeal. 4"ile it is desira'le t"at t"e Rules of ourt 'e fait"fully and even meti#ulously o'served,

#ourts s"ould not 'e so stri#t a'out pro#edural lapses t"at do not really impair t"e administration of usti#e

espe#ially $"en su#" stri#t #omplian#e $as apparently relaed 'y t"e trial #ourt itself. (f t"e rules are intended

to insure t"e orderly #ondu#t of liti!ation it is 'e#ause of t"e "i!"er o'e#tive t"ey see& $"i#" is t"e prote#tion

of su'stantive ri!"t of t"e parties erina v. A, G.R. No. 2)661, De'ruary 21, 19)9. As $as "eld in several

#ases@

. . . =e#ause t"ere is no vested ri!"t in te#"ni#alities, in meritorious #ases, a li'eral, not literal,

interpretation of t"e rules 'e#omes imperative and te#"ni#alities s"ould not 'e resorted to in

dero!ation of t"e intent and purpose of t"e rules $"i#" is t"e proper and ust determination of

liti!ation. iti!ations, s"ould as mu#" as possi'le, 'e de#ided on t"eir merits and not on

te#"ni#ality. ismissal of appeals purely on te#"ni#al !rounds is fro$ned upon, and t"e rules of

pro#edure ou!"t not to 'e applied in a very ri!id, te#"ni#al sense, for t"ey are adopted to "elp

se#ure, not override, su'stantial usti#e, and t"ere'y defeat t"eir very aims. As "as 'een t"e

#onstant rulin!s of t"is ourt, every party-liti!ant s"ould 'e afforded t"e amplest opportunity for t"e

proper and ust disposition of "is #ause, free from t"e #onstraints of te#"ni#alities. . . Donse#a v

ourt of Appeals, G.R. No. -3635, Au!ust 3, 19))8 :ernandeB v. Huitain, G.R. No. ;);5*,

Novem'er 29, 19))8 16) RA 99.

A?R(NGE, t"e $rits prayed for are GRAN%C. Respondent trial #ourt is "ere'y ordered to allo$ t"e

appeal of petitioner from t"e orders dismissin! ivil ases No. (R-265 and (R-5*).

? ?RCRC.

A.C. No. $08 S2


8/10

#lient8 3 an attempt 'y t"e respondent to indu#e t"e #omplainant/s #ommon la$-$ife to ee#ute an affidavit

and state t"erein t"at t"e #omplainant intended to &ill, t"e respondent if t"e latter $ould not return t"e

do#uments8 and failin!, in t"is attempt, t"e respondent su##eeded in indu#in! for a #onsideration t"e

#omplainant/s #ommon-la$ $ife to run a$ay $it" t"e trun& 'elon!in! to t"e #omplainant #ontainin! valua'les

relative to "is 'usiness Anne G8 and ; #onspirin! $it" t"e 7uni#ipal %reasurer of


9/10

$ere filed 'y respondent and !ranted 'y t"e ommission. F5 ?n Novem'er 1;, 199;, respondent filed a motion

to dismiss,F6 instead of an ans$er.

(n said motion, respondent ar!ued t"at Atty. Navarro "ad no le!al personality to sue "im for and in

'e"alf of an-Asia (nternational ommodities, (n#. 'e#ause "is le!al servi#es $ere retained 'y Dran&$ell

7ana!ement and onsultant, (n#.8 t"at Navarro "ad not represented an-Asia (nternational ommodities, (n#.

in any #ase nor "ad 'een aut"oriBed 'y its 'oard of dire#tors to file t"is dis'arment #ase a!ainst respondent8

t"at t"e retainer a!reement 'et$een "im and Dran&$ell 7ana!ement and onsultant, (n#. "ad 'een

terminated as of e#em'er 31, 1993 a##ordin! to t"e ver'al advi#e of its Administrative ?ffi#er Cstrellita

aldeB8 t"at t"e #ase of Art"ur =retaa $as not part of t"eir retainer a!reement, and =retaa $as not an

employee of Dran&$ell 7ana!ement and onsultant, (n#. $"i#" retained "im as its le!al #ounsel8 and t"at t"e

settlement of said #ase #annot 'e #on#luded 'e#ause t"e same $as ar#"ived and a##used =retaa ispresently out of t"e #ountry.

:erein #omplainant, in "is opposition to t"e motion to dismiss, F* stresses t"at respondent 7eneses is

resortin! to te#"ni#alities to evade t"e issue of "is failure to a##ount for t"e amount of 5,. entrusted

to "im8 t"at t"e respondentLs ar!uments in "is motion to dismiss $ere all desi!ned to mislead t"e ommission8

and t"at "e $as fully a$are of t"e interrelations"ip of t"e t$o #orporations and al$ays #oordinated "is le!al

$or& $it" Cstrellita aldeB.

?n Novem'er 2), 199;, (nvesti!atin! ommissioner i#tor . DernandeB resolved to deny said motion

to dismiss for la#& of merit and dire#ted respondent to file "is ans$er. F) ?n January 2, 1995, respondent filed a

manifestation t"at "e $as adoptin! t"e alle!ations in "is motion to dismiss "is ans$er. F9 4"en t"e #ase $as

set for "earin! on De'ruary 9, 1995, respondent failed to attend despite due noti#e. :e t"ereafter moved to

postpone and reset t"e "earin! of t"e #ase several times alle!edly due to pro'lems $it" "is "ealt".

?n t"e s#"eduled "earin! on June 15, 1995, respondent a!ain failed to attend. %"e #ommissioner

a##ordin!ly re#eived an e> parte t"e testimony of #omplainantLs sole $itness, Cstrellita aldeB, and ot"er

do#umentary eviden#e.F1 %"ereafter, #omplainant rested its #ase. Respondent filed a so-#alled M+r!ent>

parte 7otion for Re#onsideration $it" 7otion to Re#all omplainantLs 4itness for ross-Camination F11 $"i#"

$as !ranted 'y t"e ommission.F12 Cstrellita aldeB $as dire#ted 'y t"e ommission to appear on t"e

s#"eduled "earin! for #ross-eamination.

everal postponement and resettin! of "earin!s $ere later re0uested and !ranted 'y t"e

ommission. 4"en t"e #ase $as set for "earin! for t"e last time on 7ay 31, 1996, respondent failed to

attend despite due noti#e and repeated $arnin!s. onse0uently, t"e ommission #onsidered "im to "ave

$aived "is ri!"t to present eviden#e in "is defense and de#lared t"e #ase su'mitted for resolution. F13

?n De'ruary ;, 199*, t"e ommission on =ar is#ipline, t"rou!" its (nvesti!atin! ommissioner i#tor

. DernandeB, su'mitted its Report and Re#ommendationF1; to t"e =oard of Governors of t"e (nte!rated =ar of

t"e "ilippines. %"e ommission ruled t"at t"e refusal andOor failure of respondent to a##ount for t"e sumof 5,. "e re#eived from #omplainant for t"e settlement of t"e aforestated #ase of ai "an


10/10

for alternative penalties,F2; not #an su#" penalty 'e su'e#t to a #ondition. F25 %"ere is no reason $"y su#" le!al

prin#iples in penal la$ s"ould not apply in administrative dis#iplinary a#tions $"i#", as in t"is #ase, also

involve punitive san#tions.

=esides, if t"e purpose $as to etenuate t"e lia'ility of respondent, t"e only possi'le and e0uivalent

rule is in malversation #ases "oldin! t"at t"e restitution of t"e pe#ulated funds $ould 'e analo!ous to

voluntary surrender if it $as immediately and voluntarily made 'efore t"e #ase $as instituted. F26 %"e evidently

is not t"e situation "ere. Also t"e implementation of t"e penalty provided in t"e resolution $ill involve a

#um'ersome pro#ess sin#e, in order to arrive at t"e final a#tion to 'e ta&en 'y t"is ourt, it $ill "ave to $ait for

a verified report on $"et"er or not respondent #omplied $it" t"e #ondition su'se0uent.

HEREFORE, Atty. Rosendo 7eneses ((( is "ere'y (=ARRC. et a #opy of t"is de#ision 'e

atta#"ed to respondentLs personal re#ords in t"is ourt and furnis"ed t"e (nte!rated =ar of t"e "ilippines,

to!et"er $it" all #ourts in t"e #ounty.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/cbd_ac_313.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/cbd_ac_313.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/cbd_ac_313.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/cbd_ac_313.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/cbd_ac_313.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/cbd_ac_313.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/cbd_ac_313.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/cbd_ac_313.htm#_edn26

Documents

Legal Ethics notes and cases