Rule 12.

04 Court Processes
A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court
processes.

Malonzo v. Principe, 447 SCRA 1 (2004)

FACTS:
 Julian Malonso claimed that Atty. Pete Principe, without any authority entered his appearance
as Malonso's counsel in the expropriation proceedings initiated by the National Power
Corporation (NAPOCOR). In addition, he complained that Atty. Principe, after illegally
representing him in the said case, claimed forty (40%) of the selling price of his land to the
NAPOCOR by way of attorney's fees and, further, in a Motion to Intervene, claimed to be a co-
owner of Malonso's property
 Respondent replied that the services of his law office, Principe Villano Villacorta and Clemente
Law Offices, was engaged by Samahan ng mga Dadaanan at Maapektuhan ng NAPOCOR, Inc.
(SANDAMA), through its President, Danilo Elfa, as embodied in the Contract of Legal Services
providing for the percentage of the selling price of such sale.
 Respondent claimed that complainant Malonso is a member of SANDAMA and that said
member executed a special power of attorney in favor of Elfa, which served as the latter's
authority to act in behalf of Malonso.
 Malonso reiterated that he did not authorize Elfa to act in his behalf, considering that while the
Contract of Legal Services entered into by Atty. Principe and Elfa he special power of attorney he
executed bore a much later date, 27 November 1997. Moreover, he could not have authorized
Elfa to hire a lawyer In his behalf since he already had his own lawyer in the person of Atty.
Benjamin Mendoza.
 To counter this argument, Atty. Principe commented that the agreement entered into by
SANDAMA and his law 􀀸rm is a continuing one and hence, Malonso was within the coverage of
the contract even if he executed the special power of attorney on a later date.
 IBP Report found that the Contract of Legal Services is between SANDAMA, a corporate being,
and respondent's law firm. SANDAMA is not a party in all of the expropriation proceedings
instituted by NAPOCOR, neither does it claim co-ownership of the properties being
expropriated. Furthermore, the power of attorney was executed by Malonso in favor of Elfa and
not SANDAMA, and that said power of attorney was executed after SANDAMA entered into the
Contract of Legal Services. Thus, the Report concluded that the right of co-ownership could not
be derived from the said documents.
 Report noted that the right of legal representation could not be derived from the above-
mentioned documents. A contract for legal services between a lawyer and his client is personal
in nature and cannot be performed through intermediaries. Even Elfa, the attorney-in-fact of
Malonso, was never authorized to engage legal counsels to represent the former in the
expropriation proceedings. Moreover, SANDAMA is not a party litigant in the expropriation
proceedings and thus Atty. Principe has no basis to interfere in the court proceeding involving its
members
 IBP Investigation Commissioner concluded that Atty. Prinsipe was guilty of misrepresentation
and violated Canon 3, Rule 3.01, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 12.04. In representing himself
as Malonso's and the other lot owners' legal counsel in the face of the latter's opposition, Atty.
Principe was found to be guilty of gross or serious misconduct. Likewise, his act of falsely
claiming to be the co-owner of properties being expropriated and his filing of several actions to
frustrate the implementation of the decision approving the compromise agreement make his
conduct constitutive of malpractice. 2 years suspension was recommended.
  Respondent appealed stating that investigation continued b eyond the lapse of three monts
provided under Sec. 8 Rule 138-B without extension granted by SC. Moreover, subsequent
review of IBP Board of Governors, no actual voting took place but only a consensus.

ISSUE: W/N Respondent Atty. Principe violated CPR specifically Canon 12.04

HELD/RATIO: NO. SC favored respondent.

 Firstly, onto the the IBP Governors votation, The Court views with disapproval the fashion by
which the IBP Board of Governors, with a fellow lawyer and fellow governor's reputation and
good name at stake, cavalierly brushed aside the procedural rules outlined no less by this Court
for the discipline and protection of its members. The IBP, more than anyone, knows that the
success of a lawyer in his profession depends almost entirely on his reputation. Anything, which
will harm his good name, is to be deplored.
 It is clear that before a lawyer may be suspended from the practice of law by the IBP, there
should be (1) a review of the investigator's report; (2) a formal voting; and (3) a vote of at least
five (5) members of the Board. The rationale for this rule is simple: a decision reached by the
Board in compliance with the procedure is the official decision of the Board as a body and not
merely as the collective view of the individual members thereof. This is in keeping with the very
nature of a collegial body which arrives at its decisions only after deliberation, the exchange of
views and ideas, and the concurrence of the required majority vote. 24 Thus, the vote of the
majority would be necessary for the validity of the Board's resolution.
 As for the merits of the alleged violations, respondent had grounds to believe that he can
intervene and claim from the individual landowners. SANDAMA presented a unified front which
was far easier to manage and represent than the individual owners. In effect, respondent still
dealt with the members, albeit in a collective manner.
 Respondent relied on the representation of Danilo Elfa, former SANDAMA president and
attorney-in-fact of the members, with whom he entered into a contract for legal services.
Respondent could not have doubted the authority of Elfa to contract his firm's services.
 Contract for legal services clearly indicated a contingent fee of forty percent (40%) of the selling
price of the lands to be expropriated, the same amount which was reflected in the deed of
assignment made by the individual members of SANDAMA. Respondent could have easily and
naturally assumed that the same figure assigned to SANDAMA was the same amount earmarked
for its legal services as indicated in their service contract.
 Respondent's legal services were disengaged by SANDAMA's new President Yolanda Bautista
around the same time when the SANDAMA members abandoned and disauthorized former
SANDAMA president Elfa, just when the negotiations bore fruit. With all these circumstances,
respondent, rightly or wrongly, perceived that he was also about to be deprived of his lawful
compensation for the services he and his firm rendered to SANDAMA and its members
 Court cannot hold respondent guilty of censurable conduct or practice justifying the penalty
recommended. While filing the claim for attorney's fees against the individual members may not
be the proper remedy for respondent, the Court believes that he instituted the same out of his
honest belief that it was the best way to protect his interests. After all, SANDAMA procured his
firm's services and was led to believe that he would be paid for the same. There is evidence
which tend to show that respondent and his firm rendered legal and even extra-legal services in
order to assist the landowners get a favorable valuation of their properties.
 The fact that the contract stipulates a maximum of forty percent (40%) contingent fees does not
make the contract illegal or unacceptable. Contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. Its
validity depends, in large measure, upon the reasonableness of the amount fixed as contingent
fee under the circumstances of the case.
 Case DISMISSED and considered CLOSED
Saa v. IBP-CBD, 598 SCRA 6 (2009)

FACTS:
 Petitioner Rolanda Saa filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Freddie A.
Venida with this Court. In his complaint, Saa stated that Atty. Venida's act of filing two cases 1
against him was oppressive and constituted unethical practice.
 Atty. Venida was required to comment on the complaint against him. In his belated and partial
compliance, Atty. Venida averred that Saa did not specifically allege his supposed infractions.
 Despite receipt of a copy of the complaint, Atty. Venida still did not file his complete comment
within 10 days as required. Court issued resolution requiring Atty. Venida to show chause why
he should not be disciplinary dealth with or held in contempt for failure to comply to file his
comment.
 Finally, Atty. Venida filed his full comment which, without doubt, was a mere reiteration of his
partial comment. Atty. Venida also added that he was merely performing his duty as counsel of
Saa's adversaries.
 The matter was thereafter referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit. It found no evidence that the two cases filed by Atty. Venida against
Saa were acts of oppression or unethical practice.

ISSUE: W/N IBP committed grave abuse of discretion when it adopted and affirmed the report of the
commissioner the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Venida.

HELD/RATIO: NO. IBP did not commit any grave abuse. But, Atty. Venida found to violate 12.04 for
only filing a partial comment thus delaying the proceeding further.
 There was no grave abuse of discretion in this case. There was in fact a dearth of evidence
showing oppressive or unethical behavior on the part of Atty. Venida. Without convincing proof
that Atty. Venida was motivated by a desire to file baseless legal actions, the findings of the IBP
stand.
 Nonetheless, we strongly disapprove of Atty. Venida's blatant refusal to comply with various
court directives. As a lawyer, he had the responsibility to follow legal orders and processes. Yet,
he disregarded this very important canon of legal ethics when he filed only a partial comment
on January 26, 1993 or 11 months after being directed to do so in the February 17, 1992
resolution. Worse, he filed his complete comment only on June 14, 1995 or a little over three
years after due date. In both instances, he managed to delay the resolution of the case, a clear
violation of Canon 12 and Rules 1.03 18 and 12.04 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Atty. Venida apologized for the late filing of both his partial and full comments. But tried to
exculpate himself by saying he inadvertently misplaced the complaint and had a heavy workload
(for his partial comment). He even had the temerity to blame a strong typhoon for the loss of all
his files, the complaint included (for his full comment). His excuses tax the imagination.
Nevertheless, his apologies notwithstanding, we find his conduct utterly unacceptable for a
member of the legal profession. He must not be allowed to evade accountability for his
omissions.
 Petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The charge of oppressive or unethical behavior against
respondent is dismissed. However, for violation of Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the lawyer's oath, Atty. Freddie A. Venida is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective immediately from receipt
of this resolution. He is further STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Plus Builders, Inc. v. Revilla, Jr., 578 SCRA 432 (2009)

FACTS:
 This case is for the MR for the SC’s decision finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for
committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing court procedure and
processes to delay the execution of a judgment and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal
practice of law resulting in suspension from the practice of law for 2 years.
 Decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein
complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, Heirs of
Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco,
Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra, who were the clients of respondent, Atty.
Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.
 PARAD found that respondent's clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners
of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court
sustaining complainant's rights over the land.
 Continuing to pursue his clients' lost cause, respondent was found to have committed
intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of
the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders,
and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed
non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law — holding themselves out as his
partners/associates in the law firm.
 Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of. He believes that the
courses of action he took were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and
interests of Leopoldo de Guzman, et al. He stresses that he was not the original lawyer in this
case. The lawyerclient relationship with the former lawyer was terminated because Leopoldo de
Guzman, et al. felt that their former counsel did not explain/argue their position very well,
refused to listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As the new counsel, respondent
candidly relied on what the tenants/farmers told him in the course of his interview. They
maintained that they had been in open, adverse, continuous and notorious possession of the
land in the concept of an owner for more than 50 years. Thus, the 􀀵ling of the action to quiet
title was resorted to in order to determine the rights of his clients respecting the subject
property. He avers that he merely exhausted all possible remedies and defenses to which his
clients were entitled under the law, considering that his clients were subjected to harassment
and threats of physical harm and summary eviction by the complainant.

ISSUE: W/N Respondent MR be granted.

HELD/RATIO: Partially granted. Suspension shortened to 6 months.

 It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give his full attention,
diligence, skill and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts
it for a fee or for free.
 A lawyer's devotion to his client's cause not only requires but also entitles him to deploy every
honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to present every defense
provided by law to enable the latter's cause to succeed.
 In this case, respondent may not be wanting in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that
the respondent's acts complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and misguided
desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated.
 We are not unmindful of his dedication and conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking
the cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent should
not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court. We stress what we have
stated in our decision that, in support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to
present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law.
  This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of truth and justice. This is the
criterion that must be borne in mind in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case.
 Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding
execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.
 Certainly, violations of these canons cannot be countenanced, as respondent must have realized
with the sanction he received from this Court. However, the Court also knows how to show
compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing the appropriate penalties in the
presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondent's length of service, acknowledgment of
his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, and respondent's advanced age, among other things, which have varying
significance in the Court's determination of the imposable penalty.

Programme Inc. v. Bataan, G.R. No. 144635, 525 Phil. 604 (2006) - costs vs. lawyer

FACTS:
 BASECO was the owner of Piazza Hotel and Mariveles Lodge, both located in Mariveles, Bataan.
On May 14, 1986, BASECO granted petitioner a contract of lease over Piazza Hotel at a monthly
rental of P6,500 for three years,i.e., from January 1, 1986 to January 1, 1989, subject to renewal
by mutual agreement of the parties.  After the expiration of the three-year lease period,
petitioner was allowed to continue operating the hotel on monthly extensions of the lease.
 In April 1989, however, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) issued a
sequestration order against BASECO pursuant to Executive Order No. 1 of former President
Corazon C. Aquino. Among the properties provisionally seized and taken over was the lot on
which Piazza Hotel stood.On July 19, 1989, however, Piazza Hotel was sold at a public auction
for non-payment of taxes to respondent Province of Bataan.  The title of the property was
transferred to respondent. BASECO’s Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-59631 was
cancelled and a new one, TCT No. T-128456, was issued to the Province of Bataan.
  On July 21, 1989, petitioner filed a complaint for preliminary injunction and collection of sum of
money against BASECO (Civil Case No. 129-ML).  Respondent, as the new owner of the property,
filed a motion for leave to intervene on November 22, 1990. After its motion was granted,
respondent filed a complaint-in-intervention praying, inter alia, that petitioner be ordered to
vacate Piazza Hotel and Mariveles Lodge for lack of legal interest. 

ISSUE: W/Not the petitioner is a possessor in good faith of the Piazza Hotel and Mariveles Lodge.
(Look into the waste of time of filing this appeal at the first place)

HELD/RATIO:
 The evidence clearly established respondent’s ownership of Piazza Hotel. First, the title of the
land on which Piazza Hotel stands was in the name of respondent. Second, Tax Declaration No.
12782 was in the name of respondent as owner of Piazza Hotel. Third, petitioner was
doubtlessly just a lessee.  In the lease contract annexed to the complaint, petitioner in fact
admitted BASECO’s (respondent’s predecessor-in-interest) ownership then of the subject
property.
 Furthermore, petitioner’s reference to Article 448 of the Civil Code to justify its supposed rights
as “possessor in good faith” was erroneous.  The benefits granted to a possessor in good faith
cannot be maintained by the lessee against the lessor because, such benefits are intended to
apply only to a case where one builds or sows or plants on land which he believes himself to
have a claim of title and not to lands wherein one’s only interest is that of a tenant under a
rental contract, otherwise, it would always be in the power of a tenant to improve his landlord
out of his property.  Besides, as between lessor and lessee, the Code applies specific provisions
 designed to cover their rights. Hence, the lessee cannot claim reimbursement, as a matter of
right, for useful improvements he has made on the property, nor can he assert a right of
retention until reimbursed.  His only remedy is to remove the improvement if the lessor does
not choose to pay its value; but the court cannot give him the right to buy the land.
 Petitioner’s assertion that Piazza Hotel was constructed “at (its) expense” found no support in
the records. Neither did any document or testimony prove this claim. At best, what was
confirmed was that petitioner managed and operated the hotel. There was no evidence that
petitioner was the one which spent for the construction or renovation of the property. And
since petitioner’s alleged expenditures were never proven, it could not even seek
reimbursement of one-half of the value of the improvements upon termination of the lease
under Article 1678 of the Civil Code.
 Finally, both the trial and appellate courts declared that the land as well as the improvement
thereon (Piazza Hotel) belonged to respondent.  We find no reason to overturn this factual
conclusion.
 Since this petition for review on certiorari was clearly without legal and factual basis,
petitioner's counsel should not have even filed this appeal. It is obvious that the intention was
merely to delay the disposition of the case.

Manila Pest Control. Inc. v. WCC, 25 SCRA 700 (1968)

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD/RATIO:


Rule 12.05 Proper Behavior

A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness
is still under examination.

Rule 12.06 Proper Behavior

A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.

Rule 12.07 Proper Behavior

A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.

PD No. 1829 Penalizing Obstruction of Justice

Rule 12.08 Not to Testify on Behalf of Client

A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the
like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.

PNB v. Uy Teng Piao, 57 Phil 337 (1932)

FACTS:

ISSUE:
HELD/RATIO:
