Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 138 views

    Allied Banking vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Erickson Agco
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter and counsel for the private respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by misquoting a decision. They cited a phrase from the syllabus of a case rather than the actual text of the decision. A syllabus is not the work of the Court and does not accurately state the Court's decision. Lawyers have a duty to cite rulings precisely. The Court admonished the Labor Arbiter and counsel for carelessly misrepresenting the text of the decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Allied Banking vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Erickson Agco
    138 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter and counsel for the private respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by misquoting a decision. They cited a phrase from the syllabus of a case rather than the actual text of the decision. A syllabus is not the work of the Court and does not accurately state the Court's decision. Lawyers have a duty to cite rulings precisely. The Court admonished the Labor Arbiter and counsel for carelessly misrepresenting the text of the decision.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter and counsel for the private respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by misquoting a decision. They cited a phrase from the syllabus of a case rather than the actual text of the decision. A syllabus is not the work of the Court and does not accurately state the Court's decision. Lawyers have a duty to cite rulings precisely. The Court admonished the Labor Arbiter and counsel for carelessly misrepresenting the text of the decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    138 views2 pages

    Allied Banking vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Erickson Agco
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter and counsel for the private respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by misquoting a decision. They cited a phrase from the syllabus of a case rather than the actual text of the decision. A syllabus is not the work of the Court and does not accurately state the Court's decision. Lawyers have a duty to cite rulings precisely. The Court admonished the Labor Arbiter and counsel for carelessly misrepresenting the text of the decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    144412 November 18, 2003


    Allied Banking Corporation, Petitioner
    Vs.
    Court of Appeals and Potenciano L. Galanida, Respondent

    Carpio, J:

    Facts: Private respondent Galanida was hired by the petitioner Allied Banking
    Corporation and rose from accountant-bookkeeper to assistant manager. His
    appointment was covered by a “Notice of Personnel Action” which provides as one of the
    conditions of employment the provision on petitioner’s right to transfer the employee.
    Private respondent was promoted several times and transferred to several
    branches. However, Private respondent manifested his refusal to be transferred to
    Bacolod City citing as reason parental obligations, expenses, and the anguish that would
    result if he is away from his family. Private respondent then filed a complaint before the
    Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal.
    Subsequently, the petitioner bank informed private respondent that he was to
    report in Tagbilaran City Branch. Private respondent refused. Petitioner warned and
    required a private respondent to follow the transfer order and his refusal may subject to
    a suspension to dismissal as penalty due to insubordination.
    After several hearing, Labor Arbiter held that the petitioner had abused its
    management prerogative in ordering the transfer of private respondent. Such refusal of
    private respondent to transfer did not amount to insubordination. However, the
    memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano, the counsel of the private respondent, and the
    assailed decision of Labor Arbiter use a phrase from one of the italicized lines in the
    syllabus of a jurisprudence, Dosch vs. NLRC, found in Supreme Court Reports
    Annotated (SCRA) and quoted as court’s decision.

    Issue: Whether or not Labor Arbiter and Atty. Durano violated a provision in the Code
    of Professional Responsibility.

    Ruling: Yes. Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a
    lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority.
    It is duty of all officers of the court to cite rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court
    accurately.
    The phrase “[r]efusal to obey a transfer order cannot be considered
    insubordination where employee cited reason for said refusal, such as that of being away
    from the family” does not appear anywhere in the Dosch decision. Such phrase, which
    used by Atty. Durano and the Labor Arbiter and quoted as the words of the Supreme
    Court, is one of the italicized lines in the syllabus of Dosch found in the SCRA.
    The syllabus of the cases in the official or unofficial reports of Supreme Court
    decisions or resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor does not it state this Court’s
    decision. The syllabus is simply the work of the reporter who gives his understanding of
    the decision. A syllabus is not part of the court’s decision. A counsel should not cite a
    syllabus in pace of carefully considered text in the decision of Court.
    The court admonish them for what is at the least patent carelessness.

    You might also like