VOL.

403, MAY 9, 2003 123

Young vs. Batuegas

*
A.C. No. 5379. May 9, 2003.

WALTER T. YOUNG, complainant, vs. CEASAR G. BATUEGAS,

MIGUELITO NAZARENO V. LLANTINO and FRANKLIN Q.
SUSA, respondents.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; A lawyer must be a disciple of truth.—A

lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar
that he will “do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court” and
he shall “conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients.”
He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to
correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it
in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other
hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing
and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his
client’s rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his
client’s cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; To knowingly allege an untrue
statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that the Court
strongly condemns.—Evidently, respondent lawyers fell short of the duties
and responsibilities expected from them as members of the bar. Anticipating
that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it found that it had
no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed the
truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in
authority and was under detention. Obviously, such artifice was a deliberate
ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to injustice. To knowingly
allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct
that we strongly condemn. They violated their oath when they resorted to
deception.
Criminal Procedure; Bail; Whether bail is a matter of right or
discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the
prosecutor or fiscal, or at least, he must be asked for his recommendation.—
In this jurisdiction, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, reasonable
notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal, or at
least, he must be asked for his recommendation.
 Same; Same; Motions; Although a motion may be heard on short
notice, the movant must show good cause to justify the non-observance of
the three-day notice rule.—In the case at bar, the prosecution was served
with

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

124

124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Young vs. Batuegas

notice of hearing of the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date.
Although a motion may be heard on short notice, respondents failed to show
any good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-day notice rule.
Verily, as lawyers, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not
to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Legal Ethics; Courts; Court Personnel; Clerks of Court; A clerk of
court should not hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or
conduct on the part of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of
procedure.—We are in accord with the Investigating Commissioner that
respondent clerk of court should not be made administratively liable for
including the Motion in the calendar of the trial court, considering that it
was authorized by the presiding judge. However, he is reminded that his
administrative functions, although not involving the discretion or judgment
of a judge, are vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice. Thus,
he should not hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or
conduct on the part of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of
procedure.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

RESOLUTION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

On December 29, 2000, Atty. Walter T. Young filed a Verified

Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Attys. Ceasar G.
Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino and Franklin Q. Susa for
allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the
1
lawyer’s oath.
Complainant is the private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 00-
187627 for Murder, entitled “People of the Philippines versus
Crisanto Arana, Jr.,” pending before the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 27. On December 13, 2000, respondents Batuegas
and Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed a Manifestation with
Motion for Bail, alleging that the “accused has voluntarily
surrendered to a person in authority. As such, he is now under
2
detention.” Upon personal verification with the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) where accused Arana allegedly surrendered,
complainant

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 1-2.
2 Id., p. 4.

125

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 125

Young vs. Batuegas

learned that he surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as shown

by the Certificate of Detention executed by Atty. Rogelio M.
Mamauag, Chief of the Security Management Division of the NBI.
Respondent Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila,
Branch 27, calendared the motion on December 15, 2000 despite the
foregoing irregularity and other formal defects, namely, the lack of
notice of hearing to the private complainant, violation of the three-
day notice rule, and the failure to attach the Certificate of Detention
which was referred to in the Motion as Annex “1”.
Respondents filed their respective comments, declaring that on
December 13, 2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was
issued against their client, they filed the Manifestation with Motion
for Bail with the trial court. Then they immediately fetched the
accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to voluntarily
surrender. However, due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the NBI at
2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the certificate of detention indicated
that the accused surrendered on December 14, 2000. They argued
that there was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject
pleading as their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained
at the NBI. As regards the lack of notice of hearing, they contend
that complainant, as private prosecutor, was not entitled to any
notice. Nevertheless, they furnished the State and City prosecutors
copies of the motion with notice of hearing thereof. Moreover, the
hearing of a motion on shorter
3
notice is allowed under Rule 15, Sec.
4(2) of the Rules of Court.
 For his part, respondent Susa argues in his comment that he was
no longer in court when his co-respondents filed the Manifestation
with Motion for Bail. Ms. Teofila A. Peña, Clerk III, received the
said Motion and noticed that it was set for hearing on December 15,
2000 and the Certificate of Detention was not attached. However, the
presiding judge instructed her to receive the Motion subject to the
presentation of the Certificate of Detention before the hearing. Thus,
the inclusion of the Motion in the court’s calendar on December 15,
2000 was authorized by the presiding judge and, thus, was done by
respondent Susa in faithful performance of his ministerial duty.

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 31-36, 70-85.

126

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Young vs. Batuegas

4
In a Resolution dated August 13, 2001, the instant case was referred
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation or decision.
On December 7, 2001, the Investigating Commissioner, Rebecca
Villanueva-Maala, submitted her report and recommendation as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully

recommended that Atty. Ceasar G. Batuegas and Atty. Miguelito Nazareno
V. Llantino be suspended from the practice of their profession as a
lawyer/member of the Bar for a period of six (6) months from receipt
hereof. The complaint against Atty. Franklin Q. Susa, upon the other hand,
5
is hereby recommended dismissed for lack of merit.”

The foregoing Report and Recommendation was adopted and

approved by the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline in Resolution
No. XV-2002-400, to wit:

“RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and

APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution/Decision as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and
in view of respondents’ commission of deliberate falsehood, Atty. Batuegas
and Atty. Llantino are hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six
(6) months. The complaint against Atty. Susa is hereby DISMISSED for
6
lack of merit.”
We agree with the findings and recommendations of the
Investigating Commissioner. Respondents Batuegas and Llantino are
guilty of deliberate falsehood. 7
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his
admission to the Bar that he will “do no falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any in court” and he shall “conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good
8
fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients.” He should bear in

_______________

4 Id., at p. 128.
5 Id., at p. 135.
6 Resolution No. XV-2002-400 dated August 3, 2002.
7 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores, A.C. No. 4058, 12 March 1998, 287
SCRA 449, 463.
8 Form 28, Appendix of Forms, Revised Rules of Court.

127

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 127

Young vs. Batuegas

mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly

inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case
9
and to aid it
in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on
the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete
10
honesty from
lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has
the solemn duty to defend his client’s rights and is expected to
display the utmost zeal in defense of11his client’s cause, his conduct
must never be at the expense of truth.
The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to
be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and good
demeanor,
12
thus proving unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court.
Evidently, respondent lawyers fell short of the duties and
responsibilities expected from them as members of the bar.
Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if
it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused,
they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had
voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under
detention. Obviously, such artifice was a deliberate ruse to mislead
the court and thereby contribute to injustice. To knowingly allege an
untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct
that we strongly condemn. They violated their oath when they
resorted to deception.
 Respondents contend that their allegation of the accused’s
detention was merely a statement of an ultimate fact which still had
to be proved by evidence at the hearing of the Motion. That they
were able to show that their client was already under the custody of
the NBI at the hearing held on December 15, 2000 does not
exonerate them. The fact remains that the allegation that the accused
was in the custody of the NBI on December 13, 2000 was false.

_______________

9 Artiaga, Jr. v. Villanueva, A.C. No. 1892, 29 July 1988, 163 SCRA 638, 643.
10 Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 703, 718; 297
SCRA 30 (1998).
11 Flores v. Chua, A.C. No. 4500, 30 April 1999, 366 SCRA 132, 151.
12 Tapucar v. Tapucar, 335 Phil. 66, 74; 293 SCRA 331 (1998).

128

128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Young vs. Batuegas

In Comia vs. Antona, we held:

It is of no moment that the accused eventually surrendered to the police

authorities on the same date “tentatively” scheduled for the hearing of the
application for bail. To our mind, such supervening event is of no bearing
and immaterial; it does not absolve respondent judge from administrative
liability considering that he should not have accorded recognition to the
application for bail filed on behalf of persons who, at that point, were devoid
13
of personality to ask such specific affirmative relief from the court.

In this jurisdiction, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion,

reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor
14
or fiscal, or at least, he must be asked for his recommendation.
In the case at bar, the prosecution was served with notice of
hearing of the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date.
Although a motion may be heard on short notice, respondents failed
to show any good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-
day notice rule. Verily, as lawyers, they are obliged to observe the
rules of15 procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.
Finally, we are in accord with the Investigating Commissioner
that respondent clerk of court should not be made administratively
liable for including the Motion in the calendar of the trial court,
considering that it was authorized by the presiding judge. However,
he is reminded that his administrative functions, although not
involving the discretion or judgment of a judge, are vital to the
16
prompt and sound administration of justice. Thus, he should not
hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or conduct on
the part of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of
procedure.

_______________

13 A.M. RTJ-99-1518, 14 August 2000, 337 SCRA 656, 667.

14 Te v. Perez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1286, 21 January 2002, 374 SCRA 130.
15 Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 10.03.
16 Escanan v. Monterola, A.M. No. P-99-1347, 6 February 2001, 351 SCRA 228,
234.

129

VOL. 403, MAY 9, 2003 129

Young vs. Batuegas

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Attys. Ceasar

G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino are found guilty of
committing deliberate falsehood. Accordingly, they are
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records
of Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas and Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino in
the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof be furnished the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Vitug, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ.,

concur.

Respondents Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas and Miguelito Nazareno

V. Llantino suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months for
committing deliberate falsehood, with a warning against repetition
of similar act.

Notes.—Candor in all dealings is the very essence of honorable

membership in the legal profession—a lawyer is obliged to observe
the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice. (Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297
SCRA 30 [1998])
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is
prohibited from counseling or abetting “activities aimed at defiance
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.” (Oronce
vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 133 [1998])

——o0o——
 130

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.