February 1976 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1976 > February 1976 Decisions > A.C. No. 1222 February 27, 1976 - DAVID T. GADIT v. JOSE C. FELICIANO, SR., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 1222. February 27, 1976.]

DAVID T. GADIT, Complainant, v. ATTYS. JOSE C. FELICIANO, SR., JEROME V. PARAS & DONATO M. GUEVARA, Respondents.

David T. Gadit on his own behalf as complainant.

Jerome V. Paras on his own behalf & for respondent Jose C. Feliciano, Sr.

SYNOPSIS

Complainant sought to disbar Attys. Jose C. Feliciano, Sr. and Jerome V. Paras, and Judge Donato M. Guevara for alleged deceitful and irregular actuations in connection with an ejectment case, alleging that complainant was not served with summons as respondents Feliciano and Paras gave the wrong address in the complainant; that the complaint for ejectment was not verified and in spite of said defect, Judge Guevara gave due course thereto; and that respondent Paras and taken P600 cash from complainant’s drawer in the course of execution of the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as recommended by the Solicitor General. No prima facie case having been shown against Judge Guevara, the Supreme Court found no need to refer the case for investigation by any other official.


SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL ETHICS; ALLEGED DECEITFUL ACT NOT PROVEN. — Where it was shown that the address of defendant in an ejectment case indicated in the complaint was 2248-A San Anton, Sampaloc, instead of 2248 in the same street, and service of summons and decision was in fact made in the place of the residence of the defendant to persons not denied to be living with him, it is clear from the evidence that there was no improper, much less deceitful actuation on the part of respondents.

2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT IN EJECTMENT; EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE. — Where a complaint for ejectment was not verified in violation of Section 1 of Rule 70, but it does not appear that defendant was substantially prejudiced thereby, the facts alleged in the complaint having been duly proven at the trial ex parte after the defendant was declared in default and it is not claimed that those facts are materially false, such defect was merely formal - it did not affect the validity and efficiency of the pleading, much less the jurisdiction of the court. Counsel is however reminded to be more careful in the preparation of his pleading.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; QUESTION OF LACK OF VERIFICATION SHOULD NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. — The objection as to non-compliance with the requirement of Section 1, Rule 70 should be raised in the proceeding itself, not in the appellate court or in an administrative complaint for the first time.


R E S O L U T I O N


BARREDO, J.:


Complaint for disbarment against respondents Attys. Jose C. Feliciano, Sr., Jerome V. Paras and Donato M. Guevara for alleged deceitful and irregular actuations in connection with an ejectment case filed by respondent Paras in behalf of his co-respondent Feliciano with the other respondent Hon. Donato Guevara, judge of the City Court of Manila.

The complaint is a sequel of a judgment by default rendered by Judge Guevara against complainant ordering him to vacate the premises of respondent Feliciano. Allegedly, complainant was not served with summons because respondents Feliciano and Paras gave the wrong address in the complaint. It is also charged that the complaint for ejectment filed by respondent Paras was not verified, and in spite of said defect, Judge Guevara gave due course thereto. Thirdly, it is claimed that respondent Paras had taken P600 cash from the drawer of complainant in the course of or during the execution of the judgment complained of. Respondents denied all the charges in their answer.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The report, dated December 29, 1975, of the Solicitor General to whom the case has been referred for investigation is limited to the original complaint filed by petitioner Gadit whose supplemental complaint which relates to respondent Paras alone and wherein the acts complained of are different will be the subject of a subsequent report as soon as the investigation thereof is completed.

After a review of the record, We find the recommendation of the Solicitor General that this case be dismissed to be in order. It is clear from the evidence that there was no improper, much less deceitful, intention in Atty. Paras and Atty. Feliciano’s indicating in the complaint the address of complainant to be 2248-A San Anton, Sampaloc, instead of 2248 in the same street, for in fact the service of summons and the decision was made in the place of residence of said defendant to persons not denied to be living with him.

Anent the alleged irregularity that the complaint of Atty. Feliciano for ejectment against petitioner and prepared and filed with Judge Guevara was not verified in violation of Section 1 of Rule 70, it can be said that respondent Paras should have been more careful in the preparation of his pleading; but since it does not appear that complainant was substantially prejudiced thereby, the facts alleged in the complaint having been duly proven at the trial ex-parte after the defendant was declared in default and it is not claimed that those facts are materially false, such defect was merely formal — it did not affect the validity and efficiency of the pleading, much less the jurisdiction of the court, (Oshita v. Republic, 19 SCRA 700, 702-4) and should be raised in the proceeding itself not in the appellate court or in an administrative complaint for the first time, (Phil. Mfg. Co. and Gov’t v. Cabañgis, 49 Phil. 107, 112-113) there is no ground for taking any disciplinary action against any of herein respondents.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The Solicitor General has found that the charge of unauthorized taking of P600 levelled against Atty. Paras has not been proven. We agree with this finding.

In view of all the foregoing, this case is dismissed. No prima facie case having been shown against Judge Guevara, there is no need to refer his case for investigation by any other official.

Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1976 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30576 February 10, 1976 - ROBIN FRANCIS RADLEY DUNCAN v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL

  • G.R. No. L-26992 February 12, 1976 - LLANES & COMPANY v. JUAN L. BOCAR

  • G.R. No. L-40177 February 12, 1976 - LUCIO C. SANCHEZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-26782 February 16, 1976 - JOSE B. PANGILINAN v. OSCAR ZAPATA

  • A.C. No. 1000 February 18, 1976 - IN RE ATTY. SATURNINO PARCASIO

  • G.R. No. L-40902 February 18, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMANTE P. PURISIMA

  • G.R. No. L-41818 February 18, 1976 - ZOILA CO LIM v. CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-39833 February 20, 1976 - MICAELA AGGABAO v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-39877 February 20, 1976 - FIDELA C. LEGASPI v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-41609 February 24, 1976 - ARISTON MAQUI v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 268-MJ February 27, 1976 - CECILIO S. LIM, JR. v. FELIPE L. VACANTE

  • A.M. No. 776-MJ February 27, 1976 - AURELIO G. FRANCISCO v. BENEDICTO M. RAMOS

  • A.C. No. 1174 February 27, 1976 - LUZON MAHOGANY TIMBER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MANUEL REYES CASTRO

  • A.C. No. 1222 February 27, 1976 - DAVID T. GADIT v. JOSE C. FELICIANO, SR., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1270 February 27, 1976 - VICTORIANA BAUTISTA v. MACARIO G. YDIA

  • G.R. No. L-22202 February 27, 1976 - PEDRO TAPAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-24053 February 27, 1976 - BURROUGHS, LIMITED v. JESUS P. MORFE

  • G.R. No. L-26551 February 27, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WENCESLAO ALMUETE

  • G.R. No. L-27594 February 27, 1976 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. SALVADOR C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-27804 February 27, 1976 - CIRIACO RACIMO v. ARCADIO DIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-27824 February 27, 1976 - PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-27974 February 27, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SALILING

  • G.R. No. L-28380 February 27, 1976 - ENRIQUE A. DEFANTE v. ANTONIO E. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-28975 February 27, 1976 - VENANCIA B. MAGAY v. EUGENIO L. ESTIANDAN

  • G.R. No. L-31156 February 27, 1976 - PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY v. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAUAN

  • G.R. No. L-33154 February 27, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-37284 February 27, 1976 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NONA SALAZAR PADIERNOS

  • G.R. No. L-38212 February 27, 1976 - PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38655 February 27, 1976 - FELICIDAD H. TOLENTINO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-40337 February 27, 1976 - CATALINA PEREZ SUYOM v. GREGORIO G. COLLANTES

  • G.R. No. L-40500 February 27, 1976 - FAUSTO AUMAN v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-40587 February 27, 1976 - PEDRO ARCE v. MELECIO A. GENATO

  • G.R. No. L-40768 February 27, 1976 - JOSE P. TAMBUNTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-41053 February 27, 1976 - FELICISIMA DE LA CRUZ v. EDGARDO L. PARAS

  • G.R. No. L-41754 February 27, 1976 - AUSTIN HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-41949 February 27, 1976 - JACINTA J. RAMOS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES