Canon 2 Rule 12- Canon 13 Rule 13.03 ( 03 Ed)

8/21/2019 Canon 2 Rule 12- Canon 13 Rule 13.03 ( 03 Ed)

1/25

CANON 2 RULE 12.03

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-35867 June 28, 1973

FRANCISCO A. ACHACOSO, in his on !eh"#$ "n% in !eh"#$ o$ C"&i'"# Insu("n)e * Su(e'+ Co.,In).,vs.H HON. COR OF A//ALS, CORA0, S.A., CA/IAL LIF ASSRANC COR/.,JOAIN G. GARRIO, respondents.

Rodrigo M. Nera for petitioner.

Norberto J. Quisumbing & R.P. Mosqueda for private respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

HAN, J.:

The Court censures the practice of counsels who secure repeated extensions of time to file theirpleadins and thereafter simpl! let the period lapse without su"mittin the pleadin or even anexplanation or manifestation of their failure to do so. The Court herein reprimands petitioner#s counselfor such misconduct with the warnin that a repetition thereof will "e dealt with more severel!.

Upon the filin on $ecem"er %&' %()* of the petition at "ar for review of the Court of +ppeals#decision dismissin petitioner#s petition for mandamus filed with said court to compel the ,anila courtof first instance to allow petitioner#s proposed appeal from its adverse -udment dismissin plaintiff#scomplaint' the Court per its resolution of $ecem"er **' %()* reuired respondents to commentthereon.

Respondents filed on /e"ruar! 0' %()1 an extensive eihteen pae comment and petitioner#scounsel' Rodrio ,. Nera' filed on /e"ruar! %*' %()1 a motion for leave to file repl! within %& da!s from notice allein that there was need for such repl! 2in order that this 3onora"le Court ma! "efull! and completel! informed of the nature of the controvers! which ave rise to the instant petition.2The Court ranted such leave per its resolution of /e"ruar! *1' %()1 and notice of such leave wasserved on counsel on /e"ruar! *)' %()1.

On the last da! for filin of the repl!' vi4' ,arch %5' %()1 counsel as6ed for an additional %& da!saverrin that 2due to the pressure of urent professional wor6 and dail! trial enaements of theundersined counsel durin the oriinal period ranted' he has not had sufficient material time tocomplete the preparation of petitioner#s repl!.2 The Court ranted the reuested extension per itsresolution of ,arch *7' %()1.

On the last da! of the extended period for filin of the repl!' viz' ,arch *(' %()1 counsel aain as6edfor still another %&8da! extension statin that 2due to the pressure of urent professional wor6 anddail! trial enaements of the undersined counsel' he has not had sufficient material time tocomplete the preparation of petitioners repl!. The undersined counsel hum"l! apoloi4es that inview of his crowded schedule' he has "een constrained to as6 for this extension' "ut respectfull!assures the 3onora"le Court that this will "e the last one reuested.# +s per its resolution of +pril 9'%()1' the Court ranted counsel#s motion for such third and last extension.


2/25

The period for the filin of petitioner#s repl! lapsed on +pril %1' %()1 without counsel havin filed an!repl! manifestation explainin his failure to do so.

+ccordinl!' the Court in its resolution of ,a! *5' %()1 den!in the petition for review for lac6 ofmerit' further reuired petitioner#s counsel to show cause wh! discipline action should not "e ta6enaainst him for failure to file the repl! after havin o"tained such leave and three extensions timewithin which to do so.

Counsel filed in due course his verified Explanation dated :une )' %()1 statin that he was retainedin the ease 2on a piece8wor6 "asis on the ver"al understandin that all expenses for the preparationof pleadins and the cost of services of stenorapher8t!pist shall "e furnished in advance "! petitionupon "ein notified thereof'2 that when he as6ed for a third extension on ,arch *(' %()1' he soinformed petitioner and reuested him to remit the expenses for the preparation of repl! as perareement2 and that he tried to contact petitioner "efore the expiration of the extended period "utfailed to do as petitioner 2was then most of the time out of his office.2

Counsel relates that it was onl! on ,a! 17' %()1 when he received notice of the Court#s resolution of,a! *5' %()1 den!in the petition and reuirin his explanation ; lon after the expiration on +pril%1' %()1 of the extended period for the filin of the repl! ; that he wrote petitioner and in turn as6ed

the petitioner to explain the latter#s failure to compl! with his reuest for a remittance of ' the Court here"! administers a reprimand on +tt!. Rodrio ,. Nera' with thewarnin that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall "e dealt with more severel!. Let a cop! ofthis resolution "e filed in his personal record.


3/25

CANON 2 RULE 12.04


Manila

FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 3923. March 30, 1993.

CONCORDIA B. ARCIA! co"plainant! #s. ATT$. CRISANTO %. FRANCISCO! &espon'ent.

S$%%AB(S

). %EA% ET*ICS+ MISCOND(CT OF CO(NSE%+ VIO%ATION OF OAT* NOT DE%A$ AN$ MAN ORMONE$ OR MA%ICE+ S(SPENSION FOR ONE $EAR FROM PRACTICE OF %A, FOR ROSS AB(SEOF RI*T OF RECO(RSE TO T*E CO(RTS B$ AR(IN A CA(SE T*AT IS OBVIO(S%$,IT*O(T MERIT. - The cause of the &espon'ents client is ob#iousl/ 0ithout "e&it. The &espon'ent 0asa0a&e of this fact 0hen he 0ilfull/ &eso&te' to the 1a"bits su""a&i2e' abo#e! continuousl/ see3in1 &elief that0as consistentl/ 'enie'! as he shoul' ha#e e4pecte' . . . B/ 1&ossl/ abusin1 his &i1ht of &ecou&se to the cou&tsfo& the pu&pose of a&1uin1 a cause that ha' been &epeate'l/ &ebuffe'! he 0as 'is'ainin1 the obli1ation of thela0/e& to "aintain onl/ such actions o& p&ocee'in1s as appea& to hi" to be 5ust an' such 'efenses onl/ as hebelie#es to be honestl/ 'ebatable un'e& the la0. B/ #iolatin1 his oath not to 'ela/ an/ "an fo& "one/ o&"alice! he has bes"i&che' the na"e of an hono&able p&ofession an' has p&o#e' hi"self un0o&th/ of the t&ust&epose' in hi" b/ la0 as an office& of the Cou&t . . . Fo& this se&ious t&ans1&ession of the Co'e of P&ofessional

Responsibilit/! he 'esees to be sanctione'! not onl/ as a punish"ent fo& his "iscon'uct but also as a 0a&nin1to othe& la0/e&s 0ho "a/ be influence' b/ his e4a"ple. Acco&'in1l/! he is he&eb/ S(SPENDED fo& ONE$EAR f&o" the p&actice of la0 an' f&o" the en5o/"ent of all the &i1hts an' p&i#ile1es appu&tenant to"e"be&ship of the Philippine ba&.

R E S O % ( T I O N

PER C(RIAM! p6

In a s0o&n co"plaint file' 0ith the Cou&t on Octobe& 7! )889! Conco&'ia B. a&cia see3s the 'isba&"ent ofAtt/. C&isanto %. F&ancisco.

On Ma&ch 8! )87:! Conco&'ia B. a&cia an' he& husban' o'of&e'o! the Dionisio spouses! an' Felisa an'Ma1'alena Baetion1 leashe' a pa&cel of lan' to Sote&o Balu/ot %ee fo& a pe&io' of 9; /ea&s be1innin1 Ma/ )!)87:. Despite &epeate' #e&bal an' 0&itten 'e"an's! %ee &efuse' to #acate afte& the e4pi&ation of the lease. %eeclai"e' that he ha' an option to e4ten' the lease fo& anothe& ; /ea&s an' the &i1ht of p&eue2on Cit/. This 0as'oc3ete' as Ci#il Case No. >


4/25

1&oun's of failu&e to state a cause of action! laches an' p&esc&iption. The case 0as 'is"isse' b/ ?u'1e Feli"onMen'o2a on Au1ust )@! )8=8.

9. On Ma/ 98! )8=8! a&cia an' the othe& lesso&s file' a co"plaint fo& unla0ful 'etaine& a1ainst %ee in theMet&opolitan T&ial Cou&t of >ue2on Cit/. This 0as 'oc3ete' as Ci#il Case No. ):;;. Th&ou1h F&ancisco! %eefile' an ans0e& alle1in1 as special an' affi&"ati#e 'efense the pen'enc/ of Ci#il Case no. >


5/25

#aluable ti"e. *e also cause' "uch incon#enience an' e4pense to the co"plainant! 0ho 0as obli1e' to 'efen'he&self a1ainst his e#e&/ "o#e.

B/ 1&ossl/ abusin1 his &i1ht of &ecou&se to the cou&ts fo& the pu&pose of a&1uin1 a cause that ha' been &epeate'l/&ebuffe'! he 0as 'is'ainin1 the obli1ation of the la0/e& to "aintain onl/ such actions o& p&ocee'in1s as appea&to hi" to be 5ust an' such 'efense onl/ as he belie#es to be honestl/ 'ebatable un'e& the la0. B/ #iolatin1 hisoath not to 'ela/ an/ "an fo& "one/ o& "alice! he has bes"i&che' the na"e of an hono&able p&ofession an' hasp&o#e' hi"self un0o&th/ of t&ust &epose' in hi" b/ la0 as an office& of the Cou&t.

Att/. C&isanto l. F&ancisco too3 his oath as a la0/e& on Ma&ch 9! )8;7. Consi'e&in1 his a1e an' e4pe&ience inthe p&actice of the la0s! he shoul' ha#e 3no0n bette& than to t&ifle 0ith it an' to use it as an inst&u"ent fo&ha&ass"ent of the co"plainant an' the "isuse of 5u'icial p&ocesses. Fo& this se&ious t&ans1&ession of the Co'eof P&ofessional Responsibilit/! he 'esees to be sanctione'! not onl/ as punish"ent fo& his "iscon'uct but alsoas a 0a&nin1 to othe& la0/e&s 0ho "a/ be influence' b/ his e4a"ple.

Acco&'in1l/! he is he&eb/ S(SPENDED fo& ONE $EAR f&o" the p&actice of la0 an' f&o" the en5o/"ent ofall the &i1hts an' p&i#ile1es appu&tenant to "e"be&ship in the Philippine ba&.

%et a cop/ of this Resolution be see' i""e'iatel/ on the &espon'ent an' ci&cula&i2e' to all cou&ts an' the

Inte1&ate' Ba& of the Philippines.

SO ORDERED.


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6294 Fer!ar" 10, 1911

T#E UN$TE% STATES,plaintiff


6/25

pe&5u&/. (pon this co"plaint the 'efen'ant 0as 'ul/ t&ie'! foun' 1uilt/! an' sentence' to si4 "onthsi"p&ison"ent! to pa/ a fine of P;@@! to the co&&espon'in1 subsi'ia&/ i"p&ison"ent is case of insol#enc/! to theaccesso&/ penalties p&o#i'e' fo& b/ la0! an' to pa/ the costs. F&o" this sentence an' 5u'1"ent the 'efen'antappeale'! an' no0 insists that the testi"on/ b/ 1i#en b/ Estefania Ba&&u1a in that pe&5u&/ case 0as i""ate&ialto the issues in#ol#e' the&ein. If this contention be t&ue! the 'efen'ant is not 1uilt/.

The&e a&e ce&tain 0elluote' 0ith app&o#al in (. S. #s. Est&aa!supra.H

In the c&i"inal case in 0hich the 0itness Ba&&u1a 1a#e that false testi"on/! the "ain uestion in#ol#e' 0as0hethe& o& not Ana Ra"i&e2 testifie' befo&e the p&o#incial fiscal that he& husban' 'ie' as a &esult of the blo0sinflicte' b/ Ci&iaco Pelle5e&a! as she ha' testifie' in the t&ial of the case a1ainst Pelle5e&a that she 'i' not sotestif/ befo&e the fiscal. It is clea& that the false testi"on/ of Ana Ra"i&e2 a1ainst Pelle5e&a 0as "ate&ial. In thet&ial of the case a1ainst Ana fo& pe&5u&/ the&e 0as p&esente' a uestion of fact as to 0hethe& o& not Ana testifie'!un'e& oath! befo&e the fiscal in that in#esti1ation that he& husban' 'i' in fact 'ie as a &esult of the 0oun'sinflicte' b/ Pelle5e&a. The cou&t foun' this to be t&ue. It 0as i"po&tant to 3no0 0hethe& o& not the fiscal! at theti"e Ana testifie' befo&e hi"! atte"pte' to &ape he& o& as3e' he& "othe& fo& pe&"ission to "a&&/ he&. If thefiscal ha' co""itte' these acts the/ 0oul' ha#e constitute' a st&on1 ci&cu"stance sho0in1 the innocence of

Ana. The fiscal 0as the "o#in1 pa&t/ in the pe&5u&/ case an' it 0as upon his s0o&n co"plaint that Ana 0asp&osecute'. If he shoul' ha#e atte"pte' to p&osecute Ana afte& ha#in1 co""itte' these acts the cou&t 0oul' notonl/ ha#e 'isbelie#e' the fiscal! testif/in1 as a 0itness! but it 0oul' ha#e loo3e' upon the 0hole p&osecution asa fab&ication.

The 5u'1"ent appeale' f&o" bein1 in acco&'ance 0ith the la0 an' the "e&its of the case! sa"e is he&eb/affi&"e'! 0ith costs a1ainst the 'efen'ant. So o&'e&e'.

Arellano, . !., Mapa, arson and Moreland, !!.,conc&

CANON 2 RULE 12.04


Manila


7/25

EN BANC

C.A. No. 226 Fer!ar" 23, 1946

T#E PEOPLE OF T#E P#$L$PP$NES,plaintiff


8/25

ART. =. %imple seduction. - The se'uction of a 0o"an 0ho is sin1le o& a 0i'o0 of 1oo' &eputation!o#e& t0el#e but un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e! co""itte' b/ "eans of 'eceit! shall be punishe' b/ arrestomayor.

To 'ete&"ine 0hethe& the accuse' is 1uilt/ of ha#in1 se'uce' the co"plainant! i. e.,of ha#in1 ha' ca&nal3no0le'1e of he& 0hile she 0as a #i&1in o#e& t0el#e /ea&s an' un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e! onl/ the p&oofs ofthe alle1e' cohabitation bet0een the co"plainant an' the accuse' 'u&in1 the fi&st pe&io' e"b&ace' in theco"plaint can be consi'e&e'. In othe& 0o&'s! p&oofs of the alle1e' cohabitation subseuent to Au1ust );! )8:@!

0hich &esulte' in co"plainants p&e1nanc/! cannot be ta3en into consi'e&ation fo& the &eason that she 0as thenal&ea'/ o#e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e. As a "atte& of la0! the pate&nit/ of the &esultin1 offsp&in1 coul' not e#en bethe sub5ect of 5u'icial inui&/.

Thus! a&ticle )9 of the Ci#il Co'e p&o#i'es6

ART. )9. ,hen the ac3no0le'1"ent is "a'e sepa&atel/ b/ the fathe& o& the "othe&! the na"e of thechil's othe& pa&ent shall not be &e#eale' b/ the pa&ent ac3no0le'1in1 it! no& shall an/ ci&cu"stance be"entione' b/ 0hich such pe&son "i1ht be &eco1ni2e'..

No public office& shall authenticate an/ 'ocu"ent '&a0n in #iolation of this p&o#ision an' shoul' he 'o

so not0ithstan'in1 this p&ohibition shall be liable to a fine of f&o" )9; to ;@@ pesetas! an' the 0o&'scontainin1 such &e#elation shall be st&ic3en out.

(n'e& a&ticle ):) of the sa"e Co'e! 0ith t0o e4ceptions not pe&tinent he&ein! no cou&t shall pe&"it the filin1of an/ co"plaint! the pu&pose of 0hich "a/ be to in#esti1ate! eithe& 'i&ectl/ o& in'i&ectl/! the pate&nit/ ofille1iti"ate chil'&en 0ho ha#e not the le1al status of the natu&al chil'&en.

In the case of(nfante vs. $i#uerasG: Phil.! =H! 0hich 0as an action to co"pel the 'efen'ant to &eco1ni2e anatu&al 'au1hte& as his! the t&ial cou&t pe&"itte' the "othe& an' the "ate&nal 1&an'"othe& of the chil' an'anothe& 0itness to testif/! a1ainst the ob5ection e4ception of the 'efen'ant! to the &elations 0hich e4iste'bet0een the 'efen'ant an' the "othe& of the sai' chil' p&io& to the bi&th of the latte&! an' that the 'efen'ant 0as

the fathe& of the chil'. The plaintiff in that case conten'e' that in actions to co"pel ac3no0le'1"ent of anatu&al chil' a&isin1 eithe& un'e& pa&a1&aph ) o& pa&a1&aph 9 of a&ticle ); of the Ci#il Co'e! e#i'ence of the&elationship an' e#i'ence ten'in1 to sho0 that 'efen'ant is in fact the fathe& of the chil' is co"petent an'a'"issible as th&o0in1 li1ht upon his subseuent con'uct in the t&eat"ent of the chil'. But this Sup&e"e Cou&t!o#e&&ulin1 such contention an' &e#e&sin1 the 'ecision of the t&ial cou&t! sai'6

. . . It is #e&/ clea& that in e#e&/ case such e#i'ence 0oul' ha#e 1&eat 0ei1ht. E#i'ence ha#in1 been&ecei#e' in this case to sho0 that the 'efen'ant 0as in fact the fathe& of the chil'! the cou&t 0as easil/le' to the 'ecision that the 'efen'ant ha' so t&eate' the chil' as to 1i#e the latte& the continuouspossession of the status of a natu&al chil'. Its influence 0as un'oubte'l/ p&epon'e&atin1 upon this point!but the uestion is! Can it un'e& the la0 ha#e such influence Does the la0 allo0 the 5u'1e! in his

'ecision on the uestion of the e4istence of a 0&itin1 un'e& pa&a1&aph )! o& the possession of statusun'e& pa&a1&aph 9! to be influence' b/ e#i'ence sho0in1 that the 'efen'ant in fact 0as the fathe& of thechil' %et us suppose that the facts sho0in1 the possession of the status of a natu&al chil' a&e inthe"sel#es insufficient to p&o#e such possession! but 0hen p&oof of the pa&enta1e is int&o'uce' fo& thepu&pose of e4plainin1 the e#i'ence in &e1a&' to the possession of the status of a natu&al chil'! the latte&e#i'ence beco"es sufficient fo& that pu&pose. In such case it is seen! of cou&se! that the 5u'1"ent a1ainstthe 'efen'ant &ests! not upon the e#i'ence that the chil' possesse' the status of a natu&al chil'! but uponthe e#i'ence that the 'efen'ant 0as in fact its fathe&! an' the effect of such a hol'in1 0oul' be toco"pel the 'efen'ant to &eco1ni2e the chil'! not because the chil' ha' possesse' continuousl/ the statusof a natu&al chil'! but because the plaintiff ha' p&o#e' that the 'efen'ant 0as in fact its fathe&. This is a&esult 0hich the Ci#il Co'e 'oes not autho&i2e. If it ha' been the intention of the le1islato&s to ha#e

allo0e' this 3in' of e#i'ence to tu&n the scale! the co'e "i1ht as 0ell ha#e p&o#i'e'! as 0as 'one in thecase of the "othe&! that p&oof of this fact 0oul' co"pel a &eco1nition. In this pa&ticula& case e#i'ence0as int&o'uce' to sho0 that the 'efen'ant ha' sent "one/ an' "e'icine to P&esentacion Infante! the"othe&. That e#i'ence! stan'in1 b/ itself! has no si1nificance. It acui&es all its fo&ce b/ &eason of thee#i'ence p&e#iousl/ int&o'uce' to the effect that the 'efen'ant 0as the fathe& of P&esentacions chil'.GPa1es :l! :9H.

%ee also Borres and Bar)a vs. Municipality of PanayG:9 Phil.! 7:H! an' cases the&ein cite'.


9/25

It is a&1ue' in the b&ief fo& the appellee that the ca&nal &elations ha' afte& the co"plainant ha' &eache' the a1e ofei1hteen /ea&s constitute a continuation of the c&i"inal offense be1un befo&e. This #ie0 is untenable. The&e isno such thin1 as a continuin1 offense o& a continuation of the offense of se'uction. The loss of #i&1init/ 'u&in1the "ino&it/ of the offen'e' pa&t/ Gi. e.! 0hile un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1eH)consu""ates the offense! an' the#i&1init/ of one cannot be lost t0ice. St&ictl/ spea3in1! the ca&nal &elations subseuent to the fi&st coition a&ebe/on' the pale of the la0 0hich penali2es se'uction. It is plain that cohabitation 0ith a 0o"an 'u&in1 he&"a5o&it/! 0hethe& fo& the fi&st o& a subseuent ti"e! cannot an' 'oes not constitute an offense un'e& the la0 inuestion..

,ith the issue in #ie0 as thus cla&ifie'! to 0it6 0hethe& the accuse' ha' ca&nal 3no0le'1e of the co"plainant inan' bet0een Ma/ )88 an' Au1ust );! )8:@! 0e p&ocee' to e4a"ine the e#i'ence fo& the p&osecution on thatpoint.

The co"plainant Conco&'ia Ba&uilla testifie' on 'i&ect e4a"ination in substance as follo0s6 On the ni1ht ofMa/ )=! )88! Docto& Bautista an' his 0ife left the house sa/in1 that the/ 0e&e 1oin1 to so"e place. A 0hilelate& Docto& Bautista &etu&ne' an' loc3e' the 'oo&. The co"plainant 0as then ta3in1 ca&e of Docto& Bautistasbab/. Docto& Bautista then an' the&e e"b&ace' an' 3isse' he& an' t&ie' to &aise he& '&ess an' la/ he& 'o0n onthe be'. She tol' hi"6 Dont 'o that because /ou a&e a "a&&ie' "an! to 0hich he &eplie'6 Dont tal3+ I 0illta3e ca&e of /ou because I a" not "a&&ie' to ?osefina. *e 0ent on 0ith his a'#ances an' fo&ce' the

co"plainant an' succee'e' in ha#in1 se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith he&! an' 0hen she be1an to shout he stuffe' he&"outh. The ni1ht afte& that he ha' anothe& se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith "e! an' afte& the lapse of one 0ee3 hesuccee'e' in ha#in1 se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith "e e#e&/ ni1ht. Docto& Bautistas 0ife! acco&'in1 to theco"plainant! 'oes not sta/ in the house the 0hole 'a/. She 1oes out afte& b&ea3fast an' co"es bac3 at ni1ht!usuall/ at t0el#e ocloc3 "i'ni1ht! because she usuall/ sta/s in the sto&e of he& f&ien' M&s. A#an2a'o. Theco"plainant sai' she 1a#e bi&th on ?une =! )8:).

(pon c&oss. Do /ou &e"e"be& the 'ate of /ou& bi&th -

A. $es! si&.

>. ,hen 0e&e /ou bo&n -

A. Au1ust )7! )899.

>. ,hen 'i' /ou concei#e that chil' -

A. In Octobe&! )8:@.

>. So f&o" Au1ust )7! )879! to Octobe& )8:@! b/ "athe"atical calculation! /ou 0e&e )= /ea&s ol'!an' 9 "onths -

A. No! because it see"s to "e that I concei#e' t0ice! at "/ fi&st conception I 0as 1i#en "e'icine b/Docto& Bautista.

>. I &efe& to /ou& chil'. $ou sai' /ou concei#e' of he& in Octobe& )8:@! is that &i1ht -

A. Befo&e I concei#e' a1ain I 0as 1i#en "e'icine.

>. But f&o" Octobe& )8:@! that 0as the ti"e 0hen /ou concei#e' of /ou& p&esent chil' -

A. $es! Si&.

>. So at the ti"e of /ou& conception of that chil' /ou 0e&e )= /ea&s an' 9 "onths because /ou sai'/ou 0e&e bo&n on Au1ust )7! )899 -


10/25

A. Ma/be.

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

>. ,ill /ou state to the cou&t 0hat 'ate in Ma/! )88! 0hen Docto& Bautista ha' se4ual inte&cou&sefo& the fi&st ti"e 0ith /ou -

A. I 'ont &e"e"be& the e4act 'ate but I &e"e"be& the "onth an' /ea&.

CO(RT6 - >. Di' /ou not state Ma/ )=! )88 -

A. I 'i' not sa/ that. GPa1es =! 8! )@! t.s.n.H

She fu&the& testifie'6 The succee'in1 ni1ht I &esiste' but he tol' "e to 3eep "/ "outh shut because "/ pa&entsha' a 'ebt to hi" an' tol' "e that if I 'i' not acce'e to his 'esi&e he 0oul' file a co"plaint a1ainst "/ fathe&!so that I acce'e' to his 'esi&e.

>. An' f&o" that 'ate afte& GuntilH /ou left the house of Docto& Bautista! al"ost e#e&/ ni1ht Docto&Bautista ha' se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith /ou -

A. $es.

>. That is! co#e&in1 a pe&io' of one /ea& an' si4 "onths! al"ost -

A. $es.

>. The fi&st ni1ht Docto& Bautista ha' se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith /ou! /ou sai' /ou 0e&e hol'in1 achil' of Docto& Bautista! is that t&ue -

A. $es.

>. $ou 0e&e sittin1 o& stan'in1 at that ti"e -

A. I 0as sittin1 'o0n.

>. ,hat is the a1e of that chil' /ou 0e&e hol'in1 -

A. I 'ont &e"e"be& if that chil' 0as one /ea& ol' o& less.

>. An' Docto& Bautista as soon as he app&oache' /ou! t&ie' to e"b&ace an' 3iss /ou an' &aise' /ou&'&ess -

A. $es.

>. An' 0hat 'i' /ou 'o -

A. I 0as t&/in1 to 'isentan1le "/self f&o" hi" because he 0as e"b&acin1 "e! but he 0oul' notallo0 "e an' fo&ce "e to lie in be'.

>. ,ill /ou sho0 to the cou&t 1&aphicall/ ho0 Docto& Bautista e"b&ace' /ou 0hen he app&oache'that ni1ht of Ma/! )88 -

A. *e e"b&ace' "e li3e this G0itness e"b&aces he& "othe&! 3isses he& an' hu1s he&H.

>. As /ou t&ie' to sho0 1&aphicall/ to the cou&t the b&east of Docto& Bautista 0as touchin1 /ou&b&east at the ti"e he 0as 3issin1 /ou -

A. $es.

>. $ou sai' /ou 0e&e hol'in1 a chil' of Docto& Bautista at the ti"e 0hen Docto& Bautistaapp&oache' /ou. *o0 0as it possible that it happene' in the 0a/ /ou 1&aphicall/ 'e"onst&ate'! an'0hat happene' 0ith the chil' -


11/25

A. I 0as not hol'in1 the chil' then. I 0as onl/ hol'in1 a "il3 bottle! an' 0hen Docto& Bautista "a'ehis a'#ances I '&oppe' the bottle. GPa1es )9! )! t. s. n.H.

She also &e#eale' fo& the fi&st ti"e on c&oss. That &oo" is a sleepin1 &oo"! o& a 'inin1 &oo" -

A. Sleepin1 &oo" of Docto& Bautista.

>. ,as the 'oo& of the &oo" open o& close' 0hen /ou sa0 the t0o -

A. It 0as close'.

>. *o0 coul' /ou see the" if the 'oo& of the &oo" 0as close' -

A. I opene' the 'oo& because I 0as 1oin1 to 1et so"e &ice.

>. ,as the &ice insi'e that &oo" -

A. It 0as in that &oo". GPa1es 9! 9=! t.s.n.H

Acco&'in1 to this 0itness! afte& the la0 of one 0ee3! at noonti"e an' in the sa"e &oo"! she a1ain sa0 theaccuse' e"b&acin1 the co"plainant! 0ho 0as then hol'in1 a chil'+ that 0hen she sa0 the" she a1ain 0ent'o0n+ an' that she 0ent up that &oo" that secon' ti"e to 1et the coffee pot.

On c&oss


12/25

A. I 'i' not sta/ lon1 in the seice afte& I sa0 those inci'ents.

>. But Ma/ of 0hat /ea& -

A. In the "onth of Ma/ that sa"e /ea&.

>. )88 -

A. $es Si&. GPa1e 9! t. s. n.H.

(pon anal/2in1 the testi"on/ of the co"plainant an' he& 0itness Ma&ia Ve&i'iano! one is st&uc3 b/ theappa&ent lac3 of can'o& of the fo&"e& an' the "anifest inhe&ent inc&e'ibilit/ of the testi"on/ of the latte&. If 0ea&e to belie#e the fi&st pa&t of the testi"on/ of the co"plainant! she 0as &ape' b/ the accuse' on the ni1ht ofMa/ )=! )88. But in anothe& pa&t of he& testi"on/ she 1a#e the cou&t to un'e&stan' that she acce'e' to thea'#ances of the accuse' because the latte& p&o"ise' to 1i#e he& P)!@@@ an' to "a&&/ he&. %ate& on shep&acticall/ nullifie' those alle1e' p&o"ises b/ sa/in16 I acce'e' to all his 'esi&es because of his th&eats that he0oul' file a co"plaint a1ainst "/ pa&ents. I pit/ "/ pa&ents. Asi'e f&o" that! it 0ill be &ecalle' that at thebe1innin1 of he& testi"on/ on 'i&ect e4a"ination she cate1o&icall/ state' that the fi&st se4ual inte&cou&se 0ithhe& occu&&e' on the ni1ht of Ma/ )=! )88+ but on c&oss


13/25

the close' 'oo& of his be'&oo"! the pu&pose clai"e' b/ he& in 1oin1 to that &oo" on the t0o occasions - to 1et&ice on the fi&st! an' to 1et the coffee pot on the secon' - is "anifestl/ false. The be'&oo" 0as on the thi&'floo& of the house 0hile the li#in1 &oo"! the 'inin1 &oo"! an' the 3itchen 0e&e on the secon' floo&. Thebe'&oo" is not the place 0he&e the &ice an' the coffee pot a&e usuall/ 3ept. In this connection the 0ife of theaccuse' testifie' that Ma&ia Ve&i'iano ente&e' he& seice as a laun'&ess in Octobe& )88 an' sta/e' in theseice fo& onl/ about t0o 0ee3s+ that sai' 0o"an 0as ne#e& thei& coo3 an' ne#e& coo3e' &ice+ that in )88 sheGM&s. BautistaH 3ept he& &ice on the secon' floo&! in the 'inin1 &oo"! b/ the stai&s lea'in1 to the thi&' floo&+an' that she ne#e& 3ept &ice in the be'&oo".

,e "ust the&efo&e &e5ect the testi"on/ of the 0itness Ma&ia Ve&i'iano as co"pletel/ inc&e'ible. *ence the&e&e"ains onl/ the unco&&obo&ate' testi"on/ of the co"plainin1 0itness Conco&'ia Ba&uilla as to he& alle1e'se'uction b/ the accuse' in Ma/ )88. F&o" an anal/sis of he& testi"on/ as he&einbefo&e "a'e! 0e cannot butente&tain se&ious 'oubts as to its #e&acit/. In the case ofPeople vs. $austoG;) Phil.! =;9! =;7H! this cou&t sai'6

On "o&e than one occasion in the past this cou&t has ha' occasion to point out that! in c&i"es a1ainstchastit/! the testi"on/ of the in5u&e' 0o"an shoul' not be &ecei#e' 0ith p&ecipitate c&e'ulit/+ an' 0henthe con#iction 'epen's at an/ #ital point upon he& unco&&obo&ate' testi"on/! it shoul' not be accepte'unless he& since&it/ an' can'o& a&e f&ee f&o" suspicion.

,e &eaffi&" that p&onounce"ent as soun' an' in consonance 0ith the 0is'o" of the a1es an' the e4pe&ience of"an3in' on the sub5ect. In the Sc&iptu&es it is 0&it6 The&e be th&ee thin1s 0hich a&e too 0on'e&ful fo& "e! /ea!fou& 0hich I 3no0 not6 The 0a/ of an ea1le in the ai&+ the 0a/ of a se&pent upon a &oc3+ the 0a/ of a ship in the"i'st of the sea+ an' the 0a/ of a "an 0ith a "ai'. Such is the 0a/ of an a'ulte&ous 0o"an+ she eateth! an'0ipeth he& "outh! an' saith! I ha#e 'one no 0ic3e'ness. GP&o#e&bs! @6)=


14/25

RULE 12.08

NO PNB vs Tieng Piao

CANON 13


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-22)36 A!*!+ 31, 196

%OM$NGO . AUSTR$A,petitione&!#s.#ON. ANTON$O C. MASA/UEL, h+ caac" a+ he Pre+* !*e o5 &rach $$ o5 he Co!r o5

Fr+ $+ace o5 Pa*a+a,&espon'ent.

Primicias, Del astillo and Macarae# for petitioner.

Antonio . Masa3uel for respondent.

'AL%$AR, J.:

This is a petition fo& a 0&it of certiorari to annul o& set asi'e the o&'e& of &espon'ent ?u'1e Antonio Masauel!'ate' Feb&ua&/ )@! )87:! in Ci#il Case No. )9;= of the Cou&t of Fi&st Instance of Pan1asinan! 'ecla&in1petitione& Do"in1o V. Aust&ia 1uilt/ of conte"pt of cou&t an' i"posin1 upon hi" a fine of P;@.@@.

The facts that 1a#e &ise to the inci'ent in uestion a&e not 'ispute'. Petitione& 0as one of the plaintiffs in theabo#e


15/25

calle' fo& hea&in1 in open cou&t! the follo0in1 t&anspi&e'! as sho0n b/ the t&ansc&ipt of the steno1&aphic notesta3en 'u&in1 sai' hea&in169

APPEARANCE6

ATT$. DANIE% C. MACARAE6

appea&e' in behalf of plaintiffs. GAfte& the case 0as calle'H

CO(RT6

$ou& client is he&e

ATT$. MACARAE6

$es! $ou& *ono&.

CO(RT6

,he&e is he

ATT$. MACARAE6

*e is he&e! $ou& *ono&.

CO(RT6

,hat is /ou& na"e

P%AINTIFF6

Do"in1o Aust&ia! si&.

CO(RT6

$ou a&e one of the plaintiffs in this case

DOMINO A(STRIA6

$es! si&.

CO(RT6

Att/. Maca&ae1 app&oache' "e in cha"be&s &euestin1 "e to 'isualif/ "/self in hea&in1 this case. Di'/ou autho&i2e Att/. Maca&ae1 to app&oach "e #e&ball/ to 'isualif/ "/self f&o" hea&in1 this casebecause the la0/e& of the othe& pa&t/ 0as "/ fo&"e& assistant

DOMINO A(STRIA6

$es! si&.

CO(RT6

Is that /ou& &eason 0h/ /ou &eueste' Att/. Maca&ae1 to app&oach "e! &euestin1 "e to 'isualif/"/self si"pl/ because the la0/e& of the othe& pa&t/ 0as "/ assistant

DOMINO A(STRIA6

$es! si&.

CO(RT6


16/25

All &i1ht. Do /ou 'oubt the inte1&it/ of the p&esi'in1 ?u'1e to 'eci'e this case fai&l/ an' i"pa&tiall/because the la0/e& of the othe& pa&t/ 0as "/ fo&"e& assistant Do /ou 'oubt ?ust ans0e& the uestion

DOMINO A(STRIA6

$es! si&.

CO(RT6

The Cou&t he&eb/ fin's /ou 1uilt/ of conte"pt of Cou&t an' /ou a&e he&eb/ o&'e&e' to pa/ a fine ofP;@.@@.

ATT$. MACARAE6

,ith 'ue in'ul1ence of this *ono&able Cou&t - I ha#e lea&ne'! afte& I ha#e confe&&e' 0ith /ou incha"be&s! anothe& 1&oun' of the plaintiffs fo& thei& &euestin1 "e to as3 fo& the 'isualification of $ou&*ono& in this case! an' this 1&oun' consists of the &a"pant &u"o& co"in1 f&o" the 'efen'ant Pe'&oB&a#o hi"self that he is boastin1 in San Ca&los that because he has a ne0 la0/e&! that su&el/ he is 1oin1to 0in this case.

CO(RT6

,h/ 'i' /ou not 0ait until the case is finall/ 'eci'e' an' fin' out if that is t&ue o& not

ATT$. MACARAE6

An' "a/be! that is 0h/ the plaintiffs &eueste' "e to app&oach $ou& *ono& because of that &a"pant&u"o& that Pe'&o B&a#o is sp&ea'in1.

CO(RT6

$ou "ean to sa/ because of that &u"o&! /ou a&e 1oin1 to 'oubt "/ inte1&it/

ATT$. MACARAE6

As fo& "e! I ente&tain no 'oubt! $ou& *ono&.

CO(RT6

$ou& client e4p&esse' openl/ in Cou&t his 'oubts on the inte1&it/ of the Cou&t si"pl/ base' on &u"o&san' that is a 1&oun' fo& conte"pt of cou&t! if onl/ to "aintain the faith of the people in the cou&ts.

ATT$. MACARAE6

Ta3in1 into consi'e&ation that these plaintiffs a&e la/"en an' 0e cannot e4pect f&o" the" the thin3in1of a la0/e&! I a" "ost &espectfull/ p&a/in1 that the O&'e& of this Cou&t be &econsi'e&e'.

CO(RT6

Denie'. $ou& client shoul' pa/ a fine of P;@.@@. ,e 0ill hea& this case this afte&noon.

ATT$. MACARAE6

$es! $ou& *ono&.

The &espon'ent ?u'1e fo&th0ith 'ictate' the follo0in1 o&'e&6

Befo&e this Cou&t opene' its sessions this "o&nin1! Att/. Daniel C. Maca&ae1! counsel fo& the plaintiffs!app&oache' the p&esi'in1 ?u'1e of this Cou&t in his cha"be&s an' "anifeste' the 'esi&e of his clients fo&the ?u'1e to 'isualif/ hi"self f&o" t&/in1 the abo#e


17/25

info&"e' the latte& that such fact alone 'oes not in itself constitute a le1al 1&oun' to 'isualif/ theP&esi'in1 ?u'1e of this Cou&t! f&o" t&/in1 this case.

,hen the abo#e


18/25

the pa&t of his a'#e&sa&/+ an' that the petitione& "a'e his &euest in a "anne& that 0as not 'is&espectful! "uchless insultin1 o& offensi#e to the &espon'ent ?u'1e o& to the cou&t.

,e a&e in acco&' 0ith the state"ent of &espon'ent ?u'1e in his "e"o&an'u" that the ci&cu"stance in#o3e' b/petitione& in as3in1 hi" to inhibit hi"self f&o" fu&the& t&/in1 the case - that Att/. Sicat 0as his fo&"e&associate in his p&actice of la0 - is not one of the 1&oun's enu"e&ate' in the fi&st pa&a1&aph of Section )! Rule) of the ne0 Rules of Cou&t fo& 'isualif/in1 a 5u'1e. ,hile it is t&ue that &espon'ent ?u'1e "a/ not beco"pelle' to 'isualif/ hi"self! the fact that Att/. Sicat! a'"itte'l/ his fo&"e& associate! 0as counsel fo& a

pa&t/ in the case bein1 t&ie' b/ hi"! "a/ constitute ajust or valid reason fo& hi" to #olunta&il/ inhibit hi"selff&o" hea&in1 the case on a &et&ial! if he so 'eci'es! pu&suant to the p&o#ision of the secon' pa&a1&aph of Section) of the sai' Rule ).;

The app&ehension of petitione& &e1a&'in1 the p&obable bias of &espon'ent ?u'1e 'oes not appea& to be1&oun'less o& enti&el/ 'e#oi' of &eason. The &espon'ent ?u'1e ha' 'eci'e' the case in fa#o& of petitione& an'his co


19/25

the 'ut/ of 'oin1 it in a "anne& that 0ill not a&ouse an/ suspicion as to its fai&ness an' the inte1&it/ ofthe ?u'1e. Conseuentl/! 0e ta3e it to be the t&ue intention of the la0 - state' in 1ene&al te&"s - thatno 5u'1e shall p&esi'e in a case in 0hich 1e is not 51olly free, disinterested, impartial and independentG@ A". ?u&.supraH . . . .6GE"phasis supplie'H.

It is in line 0ith the abo#e


20/25

o&'e& to &etain that &espect 0ithout 0hich the a'"inist&ation of 5ustice "ust falte& o& fail. )9The po0e& topunish fo& conte"pt! bein1 '&astic an' e4t&ao&'ina&/ in its natu&e! shoul' not be &eso&te' to unless necessa&/ inthe inte&est of 5ustice. )

,he&efo&e! the o&'e& of &espon'ent ?u'1e 'ate' Feb&ua&/ )@! )87:! in Ci#il Case No. )9;8 of the Cou&t ofFi&st Instance of Pan1asinan! 'ecla&in1 petitione& in 'i&ect conte"pt of cou&t an' o&'e&in1 hi" to pa/ a fine ofP;@.@@! is he&eb/ annulle' an' set asi'e+ an' it is o&'e&e' that the su" of P;@.@@! pai' un'e& p&otest b/petitione& as a fine! be &efun'e' to hi". No costs. It is so o&'e&e'.

oncepcion, .!., "eyes, !.B.L., Di)on, Makalintal, Ben#)on, !.P., %anc1e), astro, An#eles and $ernando, !!.,

concur.

Foooe+

RULE 13. 02


Manila

EN BANC

Ma" 16, 1922

$ re FEL$C$ANO GOME',atto&ne/


21/25

inte1&it/ of the cou&t "a/ be assaile'! 5u'1es! li3e othe& pe&sons! a&e &ele1ate' to the cou&ts fo& &e'&ess. As so"eone has 0ell sai'! 0he&e the libe&t/ of the p&ess an' f&ee'o" of public co""ent en's! the&e t/&&an/ be1ins.GPatte&son vs.Colo&a'o )8@J! 9@; (.S.! :;:! 7 R.C.%.! pp. ;)9! et se3.Hl4vvp1:;n1e petitioner !ose ?. >orres as complainant in t1is case.Attorney-General !aranilla for t1e Government.

%everino M. Lo)ano and Anastacio 'uevedo in t1eir o5n +e1alf.

MALCOLM, J.:

The no#el uestion he&e p&esente' &elates to the po0e& of the Sup&e"e Cou&t to punish fo& conte"pt! the e'ito&an' the &epo&te& of a ne0spape&! fo& publishin1 an' inaccu&ate account of the in#esti1ation of a ?u'1e of Fi&stInstance not0ithstan'in1 the in#esti1ation 0as con'ucte' behin' close' 'oo&s! an' not0ithstan'in1 a &esolutionof this cou&t 0hich "a3es such p&ocee'in1s confi'ential in natu&e. The uestion a&ises on the petition of theAtto&ne/


22/25

It appea&s that it 0as so"e th&ee "onths a1o that the in#esti1ation 0as be1un in the office of theSolicito&


23/25

pe&tinent 'ecisions! 0e 'esi&e to uote f&o" the 'ecision of the Sup&e"e Cou&t of ,isconsin in Bu&ns #s. StateG)8))J! ):; ,is.! + ):@ A". St. Rep.! )@=)H! 0he&e! in &efe&&in1 to the co""en'ation "ete' out to thecou&ts of En1lan'! it 0as sai'6 ?u'icial p&ocee'in1s! in a case 0hich the la0 &eui&es to be con'ucte' in sec&etfo& the p&ope& a'"inist&ation of 5ustice! shoul' ne#e& be! 0hile the case is on t&ial! 1i#en publicit/ b/ the p&ess.

,ith &efe&ence to the applicabilit/ of the abo#e autho&ities! it shoul' be &e"a&3e' fi&st of all that this cou&t is notboun' to accept an/ of the" absolutel/ an' unualifie'l/. ,hat is the best fo& the "aintenance of the ?u'icia&/in the Philippines shoul' be the c&ite&ion. *e&e! in cont&ast to othe& 5u&is'ictions! 0e nee' not be o#e&l/ sensiti#e

because of the stin1 of ne0spape& a&ticles! fo& the&e a&e no 5u&ies to be 3ept f&ee f&o" outsi'e influence. *e&ealso 0e a&e not &est&aine' b/ &e1ulato&/ la0. The onl/ la0! an' that the 5u'1e "a'e! 0hich is at all applicable tothe situation! is the &esolution a'opte' b/ this cou&t. That the &espon'ents 0e&e i1no&ant of this &esolution is noe4cuse! fo& the #e&/ a&ticle publishe' b/ the" in'icates that the hea&in1 0as hel' behin' close' 'oo&s an' thatthe info&"ation of the &epo&te& 0as obtaine' f&o" outsi'e the sc&een an' f&o" co""ents in social ci&cles. Thenin 0&itin1 up the in#esti1ation! it ca"e about that the testi"on/ 0as "utilate' an' that the &epo&t &eflecte' uponthe action of the co"plainant to his possible 'isa'#anta1e.

The O&1anic Act 0isel/ 1ua&antees f&ee'o" of speech an' p&ess. This constitutional &i1ht "ust be p&otecte' inits fullest e4tent. The cou&t has he&etofo&e 1i#en e#i'ence of its tole&ant &e1a&' fo& cha&1es un'e& to %ibel %a00hich co"e 'an1e&ousl/ close to its #iolation. ,e shall continue in this chosen path. The libe&t/ of the citi2en

"ust be p&esee' in all of its co"pletenes. But license o& abuse of libe&t/ of the p&ess an' of the citi2en shoul'not be confuse' 0ith libe&t/ in its t&ue sense. As i"po&tant as is the "aintenance of the ?u'icia&/. Respect fo&the ?u'icia&/ cannot be ha' if pe&sons a&e p&i#ile1e' to sco&n a &esolution of the cou&t a'opte' fo& 1oo'pu&poses! an' if such pe&sons a&e to be pe&"itte' b/ subte&&anean "eans of 'iffuse inaccu&ate accounts ofconfi'ential p&ocee'in1s to the e"ba&&ass"ent of the pa&ties an' the cou&ts.

In &ecent Fe'e&al case G(. S. #s. Sullens )898J! 7 Fe'. 9'J! 9@! 9=! 98H! ?u'1e *ol"es #e&/ app&op&iatel/sai'6

The a'"inist&ation of ?ustice an' the f&ee'o" of the p&ess! thou1h sepa&ate an' 'istinct! a&e euall/sac&e'! an' neithe& shoul' be #iolate' b/ the othe&. The p&ess an' the cou&ts ha#e co&&elati#e &i1hts an'

'uties an' shoul' coope&ate to uphol' the p&inciples of the Constitution an' la0s! f&o" 0hich the fo&"e&&ecei#es its p&e&o1ati#e an' the latte& its 5u&is'iction. The &i1ht of le1iti"ate publicit/ "ust besc&upulousl/ &eco1ni2e' an' ca&e ta3en at all ti"es to a#oi' i"pin1in1 upon it. In a clea& case 0he&e it isnecessa&/! in o&'e& to 'ispose of 5u'icial business unha"pe&e' b/ publication 0hich &easonabl/ ten' toi"pai& the i"pa&tialit/ of #e&'icts! o& othe&0ise obst&uct the a'"inist&ation of 5ustice! this cou&t 0ill nothesitate to e4e&cise its un'oubte' po0e& to punish fo& conte"pt. . . . .

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

This cou&t "ust be pe&"itte' to p&ocee' 0ith the 'isposition of its business in an o&'e&l/ "anne& f&eef&o" outsi'e inte&fe&ence obst&ucti#e of its constitutional functions. This &i1ht 0ill be insiste' upon as

#ital to an i"pa&tial cou&t! an'! as a last &eso&t! as an in'i#i'ual e4e&cises the &i1ht of selfue#e'o a&e 1uilt/ ofconte"pt of cou&t! an' it is the o&'e& of the cou&t that the/ be punishe' fo& such conte"pt b/ the pa/"ent of a

no"inal su" b/ each of the" in the a"ount of t0ent/ pesos GP9@H! to be tu&ne' into the office of the cle&3 ofcou&t 0ithin the pe&io' of fifteen 'a/s f&o" &eceipt of notice! 0ith the a'"onition that if the/ fail to co"pl/!fu&the& an' "o&e '&astic action b/ the cou&t 0ill be necessa&/.

Avance7a, .!., *strand, !o1ns, "omualde) and Villa-"eal, !!., concur.


Manila


24/25

FIRST DIVISION

A.0. No. 188 No4e!e( 29, 1976

RICARA GARIL 0ANGLAG, complainant'vs.SAN . 0ANGLAG, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

HAN, J.:

In the Court#s decision of Septem"er *5' %()1' the Court found respondent uilt! of ross immoralconduct and ordered his suspension from the practice of law for a period of two A*B !ears.Respondent filed several motions for reconsideration' all of which were denied per the Court#sResolutions of Novem"er *7' %()1' $ecem"er %(' %()1' :anuar! (' %()5 and Octo"er 17' %()5.

On ,arch 1%' %()&' the Cler6 of Court received a %st Indorsement dated /e"ruar! *%' %()& fromthen +ssistant Executive Secretar! Ronaldo ?. amora 2reuestin comment andDor appropriateaction2 on the therewith enclosed petition of respondent to the


25/25

vs. Catolico and earlier cases' this remar6 of respondent exposes his lac6 of appreciation ordisreard of the time8honored usae of the Court that minute resolutions' summons and processes ofthe Court' upon "ein dul! adopted and recorded are transmitted to the interested parties "! andupon the sinature of the Cler6 of Court who is dul! authori4ed to do so. ith the thousands ofresolutions approved monthl! "! the Court' it would undul! tax the time and attention of the Chief:ustice and mem"ers of the Court to the pre-udice of the administration of -ustice if all such papers'other than decisions' could "e released onl! upon their own sinatures.

+CCOR$IN@L>' respondent is here"! administered a reprimand for ross inorance of the law andof the Constitution in havin as6ed the

Documents

Canon 2 Rule 12- Canon 13 Rule 13.03 ( 03 Ed)