JUAN PABLO BONDOC v JUDGE DIVINA LUZ AQUINO-SIMBULAN, A.M.No. RTJ-09-2004 | October 26, 2009 | 604 scra 416

FACTS: This is a case filed by former Representative Bondoc charging Judge Aquino-Simbulan with partiality, gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct in the handling of Criminal case entitled “People v Totaan”. Complainant bewailed: (1) the respondent’s attempt to have the cases settled in an “off-the-record” huddle with the parties’ lawyers because she did not want the accused to be administratively suspended; (2) the respondent’s order to “fast track” the cases because the accused had been suspended upon the motion of the private prosecutors. The complainant then narrated the instances when his lawyers were alleged given a hard time and subjected to indignities by the respondent in her desire to fast track the criminal case. On the other hand, the respondent pointed out that an examination of the complaint would readily show that it was prepared by the private prosecutors, Attys. Stephen David and Lanee David, who wove a tale lies and distortions regarding the proceedings to cover up their own shortcomings as lawyers; had they performed their duty as officers of the court and members of the bar, they would have informed the complainant that they lost because of their blunders in the prosecution cases. In the manifestation and motion respondent prayed for the permanent dismissal of the present administrative matter and requested that her complaint against Attys. Stephen David and Lanee David be acted upon and given due course. The court resolved to dismiss the administrative complaint against the respondent and required Attys. Stephen and Lanee David to show cause why they should not be disciplined or held in contempt.

ISSUE:  WON Attys. Stephen and Lanee David guilty of contempt.

RULING: The SC dismissed the administrative complaint filed against the respondent and resolved the liability of the two Attorneys. The complainant (Bondoc) never appeared in court, it is reasonable to conclude that the two lawyers crafted the complaint and incorporated therein all the unfounded accusations against the respondent in order to conceal their inadequacies in the handling of their client’s case. To say the least, the complaint was most unfair to the respondent who, as the record shows, was simply keeping faith with her avowed objective of expediting the proceedings in her court by, among other measures, requiring lawyers to be prepared at all times and to be fair and candid in their dealings with the court. As the court held in Racines v Judge Morallos, et al., “a clients cause does not permit an attorney to cross the line between liberty and license. Lawyers must always keep in perspective that since they are administrators of justice, oath-bound servants of society, their first duty is not to their clients, as many suppose, but to the administration of justice. As a lawyer, he is an officer of the court with the duty to uphold its dignity and authority and not promote distrust in the administration of justice.”
Attys. Stephen and Lanee David miserably failed to come up to the standards of these rulings. They are liable and was held in indirect contempt under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more