Digests For Ccanons 11 14
Digests For Ccanons 11 14
Digests For Ccanons 11 14
CASES:
JIMMY T. GO and ATTY. GREGORIO D. CAEDA
JR., complainants, vs. JUDGE ZEUS C. ABROGAR,
Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 150, Makati
City,respondent.
FACTS: Petitioners, Jimmy Go and Atty. Gregorio
Caneda alleged Judge Zeus C Abrgogar for Gross
Ignorance of the Law because of the decision he rendered
in a civil case (No. 98-791) where Jimmy Go together
with Alberto Looyuko were one of the defendants, and
also for the judges order dismissing their appeal from the
decision of the said civil case. They allege that
respondent Judge did not possess the authority to do so
nor rule that the judgment was ripe for execution, the
same being reserved in the Court of Appeals. The
petitioners also asserted that the judgment against Go was
not yet final and executory in view of the filing of a
petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition
assailing the dismissal of their appeal. In support of their
claim, they cite the principle ofjudicial courtesy.
In the respondent Judges defense, his writ of
execution in Civil Case No. 98-791 was directed only
against defendant Alberto T. Looyuko who had
withdrawn his notice of appeal and conveyed his
acquiescence to the execution of the Decision against his
properties involved in the said civil case. Judge Abrogar
claims that the reference of the writ todefendants was a
mere clerical mistake, as it should have read defendant,
that was not corrected when the writ was issued.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Judge acted with
Gross Ignorance of Law.
RULING: NO. Obviously, on the basis of the foregoing
case scrutiny, there is no basis to hold respondent
Judge liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The
allegations of complainants and the proffered evidence
thereof do not prove the elements of this administrative
offense, i.e., that the subject order or actuation of the
judge in the performance of his official duties must
not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence
but more importantly must be attended by bad faith,
fraud, dishonesty or corruption. It may even be said
confidently that respondent Judge did not deviate from
established rules on the execution of judgments.
Moreover, the court finds that the fault is at the
complainants own doing. Irresponsibly, they set the
hearing thereof a period of fourteen (14) days from the
date of its filing, and thereafter postponed their own
setting to a date seven (7) days later. Eventually, after
their self-induced delay of twenty-one (21) days,
complainants moved for the cancellation of the scheduled
hearing upon a measly one (1) days notice. For a
supposedly pressing and imperative motion, the hearings
set by complainants do not indicate a bona fide intention
to correct an earnest injustice as the dates were
CANON 12 CASES:
ANTONIO VILLASIS, MATERNIDAD V.
VILLASIS and SANTIAGO ORENDAIN,
petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF
RULE 12.03
NOT TO DELAY CASE: A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting to the same or offering an explanation for
his failure to do so.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition at bar is dismissed with
costs against petitioners.
FRANCISCO A. ACHACOSO, in his own behalf
and in behalf of Capital Insurance & Surety Co.,
Inc., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, COTRAM, S.A., CAPITAL LIFE
ASSURANCE CORP., and JOAQUIN G.
GARRIDO, respondents.
FACTS: The court reprimanded Atty. Rodrigo Nera for
repeatedly filing extensions of time to file pleadings
and thereafter simply let the period lapse without
submitting the pleading to even an explanation or
manifestation of their failure to do so. His explanations
in the extensions of time were: (1) Dated Feb12 (Feb
27)- March 14: in order that this Honorable Court
may be fully and completely informed of the nature
of the controversy which gave rise to the instant
petition; (2) Dated Mar14 (Mar20)- Mar 29: due to the
pressure of urgent professional work and daily trial
engagements of the undersigned counsel during the
original period granted, he has not had sufficient
material time to complete the preparation of
petitioner's reply and; (3) Dated Mar 29 (Apr6) April
13- due to the pressure of urgent professional work
and daily trial engagements of the undersigned
counsel during the original period granted, he has
not had sufficient material time to complete the
preparation of petitioner's reply. The undersigned
counsel humbly apologizes that in view of his
crowded schedule, he has been constrained to ask
for this extension, but respectfully assures the
Honorable Court that this will be the last one
requested.
Atty Neras defensively stated that he failed to
submit the required pleadings because of the
CANON 13 CASES:
DOMINGO V. AUSTRIA, petitioner, vs. HON.
ANTONIO C. MASAQUEL, in his capacity as
the Presiding Judge of Branch II of the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan, respondent
FACTS: Petitioner, Domingo Austria filed an instant
petition for certiorari for having been punished
summarily for direct contempt of court because he
prayed for the disqualification of judge Masaquel for
two (2) main reasons, specifically: (1) The lawyer of
the other party was the judges former assistant and
(2) the defendant Pedro Bravo himself that he is
boasting in San Carlos that because he has a new
lawyer, that surely he is going to win this case. The
petitioner stated that he had not committed an act of
contempt against the court and the respondent judge
had acted win excess of his jurisdiction and with
grave abuse of discretion when he declared the
petitioner in direct contempt of court and imposed on
him the fine of Php 50.00 as penalty.
The respondent judge, on the other hand said that the
actuation of the petitioner, in the premises, is
offensive, insulting, and a reflection on his integrity
and honesty and it shows lack of respect to the court.
He considered that the petitioner was not justified
and had no reason to entertain doubts in his fairness
and integrity simply because the defendant's counsel
was his former associate. And that the act of the
CANON 14 CASES:
OLEGARIA BLANZA and MARIA PASION,
complainants, vs. ATTY. AGUSTIN
ARCANGEL, respondent..
FACTS: Complainants Olegaria Blanza and Maria
Pasion ask the Court to take disciplinary action
against respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel for
professional non-feasance. They complain that way
back in April, 1955, respondent volunteered to help
them in their respective pension claims in
connection with the deaths of their husbands, both
P.C. soldiers, and for this purpose, they handed over
to him the pertinent documents and also affixed
their signatures on blank papers. But subsequently,
they noticed that since then, respondent had lost
interest in the progress of their claims and when
they finally asked for the return of their papers six
years later, respondent refused to surrender them.