PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

THE PHILIPPINE BRITISH CO., INC. and THE CIBELES INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, THE HON. VICENTE S. OCOL in his capacity as Clerk of Court of First Instance of Quezon City and Ex-Oficio Sheriff of Quezon City and MULTIFIELD ENTERPRISES and MOISES M. TAPIA, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

BARREDO, J.:

Submitted for the consideration of the Court is the Compliance and Explanation filed by Atty. Alfonso Felix, Jr. pursuant to the dispositive portion of the decision in these cases requiring said counsel to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively in consequence of representations made by him in connection with the merits of the cases of his client and with the actuations of the trial judge and the personnel of his court in these cases.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

After going over the said explanation, the Court notes that counsel has not been able to make it clear why there was less than candor to the court in his allegations regarding the merits of his clients' cases, when it appears rather evident that he was in possession of adverse information or knowledge in regard thereto. Besides, the contention of counsel that he has not actually received the decision of the trial court, assuming it is factually true, is no warrant for his insistence that it did not exist when the trial judge ordered execution thereof.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Considering, however, that counsel has expressed his regrets and this is the first occasion that he has allowed his noted zeal in the protection of the interests of his clients to obscure his compliance with the duty to be strictly candid with the courts and to accord good faith thereto unless he has clearly demonstrable cause to act otherwise, the Court resolved to simply REMIND counsel to be more careful henceforth in his dealings with the courts.