ROXAS VS. CA NO. L-76549 DEC.

10, 1987
Facts:
On October 21, 1985, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. In the Resolution of October 25, 1985,
the court a quo directed the ventilation of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals as the notice
of appeal was filed within the reglementary period. On January 29, 1986, petitioners were
notified by the respondent Court of Appeals to pay the docket fee and on March 7, 1986,
petitioners were required to file appellants' brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof,
copy of which was received by petitioners on March 18, 1986.
On April 28, 1986, petitioners filed their first motion for extension of time for thirty (30) days
counted from May 2, 1986 within which to file their brief. Said motion was granted per
Resolution of May 7, 1986, counted from notice thereof copy of which was received by
petitioners counsel on May 14, 1986. On May 29, 1987, petitioners filed a second motion for
extension of time for another period of thirty (30) days on the ground that petitioners' counsel is
suffering from asthma and hypertension and that their brief has not yet been completely finished
in draft form. Per Resolution of June 6, 1986, respondent court granted the motion counted from
notice thereof copy of which was received by petitioners, counsel on June 23, 1986. Then, on
July 21, 1986, two (2) days before the expiration of the 30-day period granted, petitioners filed
their last motion for extension of time praying for fifteen (15) days counted from notice.
Issues: Whether or not there was delay on the part of the petitioners
Held: Yes. Let this serve as warning among members of the Philippine bar who take their own
sweet time with their cases if not purposely delay its progress for no cogent reason. It does no
credit to their standing in the profession. More so when they do not file the required brief or
pleading until their motion is acted upon. Not only should they not presume that their motion for
extension of time will be granted by the court much less should they expect that the extension
that may be granted shall be counted from notice. They should file their briefs or pleadings
within the extended period requested. Failing in this, they have only themselves to blame if their
appeal or case is dismissed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.






SAMBAJON VS. SUING AC NO. 7062 SEPT. 26, 2006
Facts:
Herein complainants are the complaints in a NLRC case entitled Microplast Inc Workers
Union v. Microplast Inc for ULP (Unfair labor practice) and illegal dismissal. Respondent was
the counsel for the respondents in the case. The labor arbiter dismissed the illegal strike case and
declared the employer-clients of respondent guilty of ULP.
On the basis of individual release waiver and quitclaims purportedly signed and sworn to
by 7 complainants, the labor arbiter dismissed said case insofar as the 7 complainants were
concerned.
Herein complainants, 4 of the 7 who allegedly executed the quitclaims, denied having
signed and sworn to before the arbiter the documents or having received the considerations
therefor. Complainants also filed a criminal complaint for falsification against respondent.
The IBP commissioner recommended that respondent be faulted for negligence and that
he be reprimanded with warning.
The IBP board of governors approved and adopted the recommendation of the
commissioner. One of the complainants assailed the IBP resolution. The petition was filed 3 days
after the 15 day period to assail the resolution.
Issues: Whether or not herein lawyer violated Canon 12 of the code of professional responsibility
Held: Yes. As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to assist in the administration of
justice. He is an instrument to advance its cause. Any act on his part that tends to obstruct,
perverts or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct. While the Commission
on Bar Discipline is not a court, the proceedings therein are nonetheless part of a judicial
proceeding, a disciplinary action being in reality an investigation by the Court into the
misconduct of its officers or an examination into his character.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Jose A. Suing, is found GUILTY of negligence and gross
misconduct and isSUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Six (6) Months,
with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.





Re: AGRIPINO A. BRILLANTES
On July 18, 1972, a complaint, docketed as Civil Case 657, was filed with the Court of First
Instance of Abra, by the spouses Melchor and Valentina Bernardez against the spouses Joaquin
and Angustia Balmaceda for recovery of a parcel of land which said complainants allegedly
acquired from Tranquilina Vda. de Pabalan under a deed of sale, dated September 18, 1969,
registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Abra on September 30, 1969.
At the pre-trial conference of the above Civil Case 657 on September 13, 1972, the defendants,
thru their counsel, the herein respondent Brillantes, claimed that they were not the real parties in
interest. They exhibited a duplicate copy of a deed of sale dated April 13, 1969 of the land in
dispute executed by Tranquilina Vda. de Pabalan in favor of Dr. Restitute Balmaceda, an alleged
son of the defendants, which was notarized by the respondent Brillantes. Due to that
manifestation, Dr. Balmaceda was named as an additional defendant in Civil Case 657.
On January 8, 1973, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts, based on that stipulation and
the various documentary evidences presented by both parties, the trial court, with Judge
Leopoldo B. Gironella presiding, rendered its decision, dated February 7, 1973, declaring the
plaintiffs as the true and lawful owners of the land in dispute. Based on his observations that the
second copy of deed of sale the acknowledgment of Atty. Agripino Brillantes is mutilated or cut-
off, making it appear as an unnotarized document.
Thereafter Atty Bringas, nephew of the defendants, filed two sworn complaints agains Atty.
Brillantes alleging that the latter notarized a deed of sale of real property without being
commissioned as a notary public. Prior to the filing of the charges by the fiscal, Atty. Bringas
filed an unverified motion in the sala of Judge Gironella praying that Atty. Brillantes be
suspended from the practice of law in view of the "strong prima facie cases" found against him.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Bringas was in violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of professional
responsibility.
Held: Yes. What made the respondent's pretensions unpardonable, however, was his act of
presenting to this Court spurious and falsified evidence of his alleged commission. Instead of
accepting his misdeeds and asking for leniency, the respondent chose to sow even more
falsehood. The alacrity of the respondent in foisting deception on this Court is, in the perspective
of his long years in the Bar, a manifest sign that as the respondent has gained in age, he has
veered further away from life's virtues. By his persistent disregard of the lawyer's credo "to do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court," the respondent has demonstrated beyond
cavil that he is not fit and worthy to continue in the distinguished and exalted calling of the Bar.
In view of all the foregoing, this Court does not consider it necessary to resolve the additional
issues raised in the supplemental complaints of Atty. Bringas.
ACCORDINGLY, Agripino A. Brillantes of Bangued, Abra is hereby disbarred. This decision
shall be immediately executory.