Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Castillo Vs Padilla

    Uploaded by

    Irish PD
    1) Attorney Jose Castillo was representing defendants in a forcible entry case while Attorney Sabino Padilla Jr. represented the plaintiff. 2) During Castillo's presentation of evidence, Padilla said "bobo" which embarrassed and humiliated Castillo. 3) Padilla admitted saying "bobo" but claimed it referred to the way Castillo was presenting evidence, not Castillo himself.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Castillo Vs Padilla

    Uploaded by

    Irish PD
    45 views1 page
    1) Attorney Jose Castillo was representing defendants in a forcible entry case while Attorney Sabino Padilla Jr. represented the plaintiff. 2) During Castillo's presentation of evidence, Padilla said "bobo" which embarrassed and humiliated Castillo. 3) Padilla admitted saying "bobo" but claimed it referred to the way Castillo was presenting evidence, not Castillo himself.

    Original Description:

    case digest castillo

    Original Title

    Castillo vs Padilla

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Attorney Jose Castillo was representing defendants in a forcible entry case while Attorney Sabino Padilla Jr. represented the plaintiff. 2) During Castillo's presentation of evidence, Padilla said "bobo" which embarrassed and humiliated Castillo. 3) Padilla admitted saying "bobo" but claimed it referred to the way Castillo was presenting evidence, not Castillo himself.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    45 views1 page

    Castillo Vs Padilla

    Uploaded by

    Irish PD
    1) Attorney Jose Castillo was representing defendants in a forcible entry case while Attorney Sabino Padilla Jr. represented the plaintiff. 2) During Castillo's presentation of evidence, Padilla said "bobo" which embarrassed and humiliated Castillo. 3) Padilla admitted saying "bobo" but claimed it referred to the way Castillo was presenting evidence, not Castillo himself.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    JOSE M. CASTILLO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. SABINO.

    PADILLA, JR,
    Respondent.
    A.C. No. 2339, FIRST DIVISION, February 24, 1984, PLANA,J.

    FACTS:

    Atty. Jose M. Castillo (Complainant) was the counsel for the defendants in a cause for
    forcible entry before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan while Atty. Sabino Padilla
    Jr. (Respondent) was counsel for the plaintiff. At the hearing of the case, while
    complainant was formally offering his evidence, he heard respondent say “bobo”.
    When complainant turned toward the respondent, he saw the latter looking at him
    menacingly. Embarrassed and humiliated in the presence of many people, complainant
    was unable to proceed with his offer of evidence.

    In his defense, while respondent admitted the utterance, he denied that it was directed
    at the complainant, claiming that what he was “Ay, que bobo”, referring to “the
    manner complainant was trying to inject wholly irrelevant and highly offensive
    matter into the record” while in the process of making an offer of evidence.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not respondent may be held administratively liable for his utterance (YES)

    RULING:

    Among the duties of an attorney are to observe and maintain the respect due to the
    courts of justice; and to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
    prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice
    of the cause with which he is charged.

    Whether the remark was directed at the complainant or his manner of offering evidence,
    the remark “bobo” or “Ay, que bobo” was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent had
    no right to interrupt complainant which such cutting remark while the latter was
    addressing the court. In so doing, he exhibited a lack of respect not only to a fellow
    lawyer but also to the court. By the use of intemperate language, respondent failed
    to measure up to the norm of conduct required of a member of the legal
    profession.

    You might also like