OCTOBER 2010

BERNARDO vs. MONTOJO

A.M. No. MTJ 10 1754 | October 20, 2010
Judges; Speedy Disposition of Cases; The suffering endured by just one person whether
plaintiff, defendant or accused while awaiting a judgment that may affect his life, honor, liberty
or property, taints the entire judiciarys performance in its solemn task of administering justice
inefficient, indolent or neglectful judges are as equally impermissible in the judiciary as the
incompetent dishonest ones.
Canons 2, 6 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, provide, respectively, that the
administration of justice should be speedy and careful; that judges should be prompt in
disposing of all matters submitted to them, remembering that justice delayed is often
justice denied; and that in the discharge of his judicial duties, a judge should be
conscientious and thorough. Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
expressly directs that a judge should dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases
within the required periods. The court cannot overstress the policy on prompt disposition or
resolution of cases. Delay in case disposition is a major culprit in erosion of public faith and
confidence in the judiciary and the lowering of its standards. Needless to say, any delay in the
determination or resolution of a case, no matter how insignificant the case ma seem to a judge, is,
at bottom, delay in the administration of justice in general.
Respondent judge Montojos reason for the delay in resolving the Criminal Case Nos.
4173 4176, i.e., complainant Bernardos insistence on being represented by a PAO lawyer, is
not acceptable. A judge should not be at the mercy of the whims of lawyers and parties for it
is not their convenience which should be the primordial consideration but the
administration of justice. Respondent Judge Montojos duty was to ascertain that complainant
Bernardo was properly represented during trial and Respondent Judge Montojo could have
complied therewith by appointing a counsel de oficio for complainant Bernardo.
Respondent Judge Montojos delay in acting on pending cases clearly demonstrated his
inefficiency. He failed to control the proceedings or course of the cases; to impose deadlines in
the submission of documents or performance of acts incident to the disposition of cases; and to
resolve pending incidents on time.
______________________________________
NOVEMBER 2010
LABAO vs. FLORES
G.R No. 187984 | November 15, 2010
Judgments; Attorneys; Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the
neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his
right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.

Legal Ethics Reality Mae S. Tabernero Page 1

The general rule is that a client is bound by acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the
realm of procedural technique. The exception to this rule is when negligence of counsel is so
gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. The failure of a
partys counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment, to enable him to appeal therefrom,
is negligence that is not excusable. We have repeatedly held that notice sent to counsel of
record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an
adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside
a judgment valid and regular on its face.
Under Sec.4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari should be
instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to
be assailed. The 60- day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would
violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.
Respondents were security guards assigned to the National Power Corporation (NPCMindanao). Petitioner issued a memorandum requiring all security guards to submit their
updated personal data files, security guard professional license, and other pertinent documents.
When respondents failed to comply with the petitioners directive, despite several notices to do
so, the petitioner relieved them. Respondents filed individual complaints with Labor Arbiter
(LA) for illegal dismissal and money claims, claiming they were constructively dismissed when
they were not given new assignments for a period of over 6 months, despite their repeated
requests. Petitioner countered that the respondents relief from duty was a valid exercise of its
management prerogative. Furthermore, petitioner issued a notice directing the respondents to
report to SMPSAs main office for new assignments, but the latter failed or refused to comply
without any valid reasons. The LA ruled in favor of the petitioner. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed
the LA decision. Counsel for the respondents appealed with the Court of Appeals (CA) outside
the reglementary period, yet the ruling was in favor of respondents. The petitioner and SMPSA
moved for reconsideration, arguing that the CA should have dismissed the petition outright for
late filing, and that there was no compelling reason for the reversal of the LA and the NLRCs
factual findings. CA considered the respondents petition as timely filed and also opined that
disregarding any procedural lapses best served substantial justice.
The Court cannot sustain the respondents argument that they cannot be bound by Atty.
Plandos negligence since this would set a dangerous precedent. It would enable every partylitigant to render inoperative any adverse order or decision of the courts or tribunals, through the
simple expedient of alleging his/her counsels gross negligence.
______________________________________
YUHICO vs GUTIERREZ
A.C. No. 8391 | November 23, 2010
Attorneys; Disbarment; Court has held that deliberate failure to pay just debts
constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the
practice of law.
We have held that deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for
which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are
instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are
Legal Ethics Reality Mae S. Tabernero Page 2

expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also high moral standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system
is ensured.
In this case, Petitioner and respondent became good friends. Later on, respondents asked
financial assistance from Yuhico for the hospitalization of his mother in the amount of P30,
000.00. He promised to pay it as soon as possible but again after several months, respondent
borrowed from petitioner an amount of P60,000.00 now for the hospitalization of his sick wife.
Respondent assured that he will pay it shortly because he was expecting an amount of four
million pesos from a Japanese client as attorneys fees. After demand, Yuhico was not paid which
prompted him to file the complaint against respondent before the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline. It would appear however that the respondent had been earlier disbarred for gross
misconduct in view of his failure to pay his debts and issuance of worthless checks. The IBPCBD found the respondent guilty of misconduct and ordered him to return the amount due him to
the complainant. It also recommended that the respondent be disbarred again even if he was
actually already disbarred.
______________________________________
LUGARES vs. GUTIERREZ TORRES
A.M. No. MTJ 08 0 1719 | November 23, 2010
Failure of a judge to resolve a case within prescribed period constitutes gross dereliction
of duty.
Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose
of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the period fixed by law. This is
supplemented by Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, requiring judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and
with reasonable promptness. Failure of a judge to resolve a case within the prescribed
period constitutes gross dereliction of duty.
In this case, despite repeated follow-ups and notwithstanding the lapse of more than a
year, no decision was rendered by Judge Torres in Civil Case No. 19887. This prompted Atty.
Lugares to file a motion for early rendition of judgment on July 12, 20065 and, later, a
manifestation6 dated July 24, 2006, praying that judgment be rendered considering that the case
had been deemed submitted for decision as early as April 2005.
More than a year, or specifically six months, after the denial of the motion to admit
responsive pleading, on August 9, 2006, Judge Torres issued an order7 admitting defendants
answer and setting the case for preliminary conference. Atty. Lugares posited that the issuance of
the August 9, 2006 Order, which was in contradiction with the April 12, 2005 Order, was
obviously intended to accommodate the defendants. He added that the failure to immediately
decide the case in accordance with the Rules on Summary Procedure aggravated the conflict
between the parties which resulted in the filing of several cases between them.
______________________________________

Legal Ethics Reality Mae S. Tabernero Page 3

Legal Ethics Reality Mae S. Tabernero Page 4