Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > October 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-71177 October 28, 1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-71177. October 28, 1988.]

ERECTORS, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DANILO CRIS, Respondents.

Prescillano F. Adamos and Julian F. Barrameda for Petitioner.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL ETHICS; MISCONDUCT OF LAWYER; MISLEADING THE COURT BY FOISTING A NON-EXISTENT RULE; CASE AT BAR. — We note an utter lack of repentance or semblance thereof in the counsels’ repeated insistence despite the undeniable fact that the purported POEA rules do not exist. In their "Compliance/Manifestation" dated October 26, 1987, filed in compliance with our Resolution dated October 5, 1987 requiring them to furnish the Court with a copy of such rules, they prayed that we take "judicial notice" of the alleged fact that "it was only sometime in 1985 or specifically on the 21st day of May 1985 when the POEA adopted the present Philippine Overseas Employment Administrative Rules and Regulations which, among others, amended the ten (10) working days appeal period to ten (10) calendar days," knowing fully well that such a rule does not in fact exist or was never promulgated, as they would impliedly admit in their subsequent "Compliance" dated May 30, 1985, in which they would allege that their insistence was an effort to promote their client’s cause. What we find, instead, is a deliberation effort to mislead this Court. This deception is a clear misconduct, as well as a serious violation of the attorney’s solemn oath to do no falsehood.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; LAWYER’S DUTY TO CLIENTS; DOES NOT INCLUDE FREEDOM TO SET UP FALSE CLAIMS. — For a lawyer’s duty to his client does not mean freedom to set up false or fraudulent claims especially with respect to provisions of law or administrative rules and that while lawyers are bound to exert utmost legal skill in prosecuting their client’s cause or defending it, their duty, first and foremost, is to the administration of justice. The office of attorney does not permit, much less demand, to support a client’s case, violation of law or otherwise, fraud or chicanery. A lawyer must obey his own conscience and not that his client.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUSPENSION OF LAWYERS FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT. — Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Attys. Prescillano F. Adamos and Julian F. Barrameda SUSPENDED from the practice of law in the Philippine for a period of six months, effective immediately, for knowingly, deliberately, and repeatedly foisting non-existent POEA rules calculated to mislead the Court into deciding this case in their favor and for wilfully disregarding our previous warnings. Let a copy of this resolution be entered in their personal records.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:


A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was filed in this Court on June 27, 1985, assailing the dismissal by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC, for brevity) of the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA for short). The petitioner contended that its motion for reconsideration or appeal was seasonably filed within ten working days from receipt of the decision, allegedly pursuant to the 1984 POEA Rules and Procedures, specifically Rule XXIV, Sec. 1, and Rule XXV, Sec. 2 therefore. 1

In our resolution dated October 5, 1987, we required the counsels 2 for the petitioner to furnish us with the source of above-mentioned POEA rules. This order was reiterated in our subsequent resolution of December 2, 1987. In compliance with the foregoing, the petitioner manifested 3 that the said rules may be found under the 1984 Rules & Regulations of the POEA. Considering, however, that the 1984 rules of the POEA do not contain the alleged "ten working day rule," on December 14, 1987, we resolved to require the counsels to explain within five days why they should not be "disciplinary dealt with for fabricating rules for the purpose of trifling with court processes." 4 In reply, the petitioner’s counsels persisted in their claim of a "ten working day rule" for appeals from the POEA to the NLRC, again citing the alleged 1984 POEA Rules and Procedures, a supposed copy of which was then furnished to us: however, what they submitted was not a certified but a simple xerox copy of what they represented to be the said POEA rules. 5

Our decision in this case was promulgated on February 29, 1988, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Resolution of the public respondent, dated December 28, 1984. AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on July 10, 1985 is hereby LIFTED. The counsels for the petitioner are also admonished for foisting a non-existent rule with the warning that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. With triple costs against the petitioners. 6

In clear disregard of our warning, the counsels for the petitioner, in their Motion for Reconsideration filed on April 4, 1988, cited anew 7 the alleged 1984 POEA Rules and Procedures which we already categorically declared, as in fact they are, non-existent.

In our resolution dated April 25, 1988, we resolved "to deny with finality the Motion for Reconsideration, the basic issues raised therein having previously been duly considered and passed upon by the Court in the foregoing decision and no new substantial matters or reasons having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought." In the same resolution, 8 we directed the counsels for the petitioner to SHOW CAUSE why they should not be held in contempt for insisting on their misrepresentation of the pertinent rules of the POEA.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Subsequently, the counsels for the petitioner submitted a "Compliance" 9 dated May 30, 1988, stating, among other things, that their motion for reconsideration (anchored upon an inexistent POEA rule providing for an appeal period of "ten working days" rather than "ten calendar days" under the present rules) was "motivated by counsels’ desire to fully defend their client’s interest or cause with their utmost/best efforts and within legal bounds but never to defy or ignore any final pronouncement of this Honorable Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

We do not find the above explanation acceptable.

We note an utter lack of repentance or semblance thereof in the counsels’ repeated insistence despite the undeniable fact that the purported POEA rules do not exist. 10 In their "Compliance/Manifestation" 11 dated October 26, 1987, filed in compliance with our Resolution dated October 5, 1987 requiring them to furnish the Court with a copy of such rules, they prayed that we take "judicial notice" of the alleged fact that "it was only sometime in 1985 or specifically on the 21st day of May 1985 when the POEA adopted the present Philippine Overseas Employment Administrative Rules and Regulations which, among others, amended the ten (10) working days appeal period to ten (10) calendar days," knowing fully well that such a rule does not in fact exist or was never promulgated, as they would impliedly admit in their subsequent "Compliance" dated May 30, 1985, in which they would allege that their insistence was an effort to promote their client’s cause. What we find, instead, is a deliberation effort to mislead this Court. This deception is a clear misconduct, as well as a serious violation of the attorney’s solemn oath to do no falsehood. 12

For a lawyer’s duty to his client does not mean freedom to set up false or fraudulent claims especially with respect to provisions of law or administrative rules and that while lawyers are bound to exert utmost legal skill in prosecuting their client’s cause or defending it, their duty, first and foremost, is to the administration of justice. 13 The office of attorney does not permit, much less demand, to support a client’s case, violation of law or otherwise, fraud or chicanery. A lawyer must obey his own conscience and not that his client.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The counsel’s bare assertion, made in the same "Compliance" 14 dated May 30, 1988, that "they have no lease (sic) desire or intention to insist on their positions" is completely belied by the records. In truth the counsels’ contumacious insistence (both counsels, Prescillano F. Adamos and Julian F. Adamos and Julian F. Barrameda, signed various pleadings 15 foisting to the Court the non-existent "ten working day rule") on the "ten working day rule" was greatly responsible for the delay in the final disposition of the present case, not to mention the considerable amount of time and effort spent by the Court over this case, which could have been devoted instead to more urgent matters.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Attys. Prescillano F. Adamos and Julian F. Barrameda SUSPENDED from the practice of law in the Philippine for a period of six months, effective immediately, for knowingly, deliberately, and repeatedly foisting non-existent POEA rules calculated to mislead the Court into deciding this case in their favor and for wilfully disregarding our previous warnings.chanrobles law library : red

Let a copy of this resolution be entered in their personal records.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Petition, 3; Rollo, 4.

2. Attys. Prescillano F. Adamos and Andres R. Nacilla; the latter was later substituted by Atty. Julian F. Barrameda who, together with Atty. Adamos, alternately signed the pleadings for the petitioner.

3. Rollo, 77.

4. Id., 83-a.

5. Id., 83-c to 83-j.

6. Decision 6-7; Id., 90-91.

7. Id., 100.

8. Id., 185.

9. Id., 188.

10. In two communications dated March 18, 1988 and April 5, 1988, respectively, the POEA itself twice confirmed that the rules cited by the counsels are not included in the rules and regulations issued by it and effective in 1984, and that under the POEA rules and regulations, whether those effective in 1984 or those presently applicable, the period within which to file an appeal in a case involving employer-employee relationship is ten calendar days from receipt of the order or decision and not ten working day.

11. Id., 77.

12. Attorney’s Oath, Form 28, Appendix of Forms, Rules of Court. SEC. 27, Rule 138. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

13. In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, March 16, 1987, 148 SCRA 382, 422.

14. Rollo, 188.

15. Compliance/Manifestation dated October 26, 1987; Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated April 2, 1988; Compliance dated May 30, 1988; Manifestation and Full Compliance dated December 24, 1987; Compliance and Explanation dated Feb. 2, 1988; Manifestation dated April 22, 1988.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





October-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25350 October 4, 1988 - WILLIAM A. CHITTICK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38039 October 4, 1988 - GENEROSA CAWIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67785 October 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO CAPINPIN, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 3005 October 5, 1988 - EMILIA P. FORNILDA-OLILI v. SERGIO I. AMONOY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC October 5, 1988 - IN RE: RODOLFO U. MANZANO

  • G.R. No. L-36549 October 5, 1988 - FAR EAST REALTY INVESTMENT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40324 October 5, 1988 - JOSE O. SIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51625 October 5, 1988 - FRANCISCO DUMLAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70458 October 5, 1988 - BENJAMIN SALVOSA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72306 October 5, 1988 - DAVID P. FORNILDA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IVTH JUDICIAL REGION, PASIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75927 October 5, 1988 - LAND AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32215 October 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA

  • G.R. No. L-68117 October 17, 1988 - HEIRS OF FELINO T. SANTIAGO v. MANUEL M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39299 October 18, 1988 - ISAAC PANGAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41380 October 18, 1988 - ORLANDO LAGAZON v. VISIA P. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-44696 October 18, 1988 - JULIAN ESPIRITU v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46843 October 18, 1988 - VIRGILIA CABRESOS, ET AL. v. MEYNARDO A. TIRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50872 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PARAGOSO

  • G.R. No. L-53552 October 18, 1988 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55377 October 18, 1988 - BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. CECILIO F. BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61961 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS MARCIALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69679 October 18, 1988 - VIOLETA CABATBAT LIM, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69723 October 18, 1988 - APEX INVESTMENT AND FINANCING CORP., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70836 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO M. TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. L-74675 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REYES

  • G.R. No. 75198 October 18, 1988 - SCHMID & OBERLY, INC. v. RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 75311 October 18, 1988 - ROSITA ZAFRA BANTILLO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75336 October 18, 1988 - ANTONIO BORNALES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76633 October 18, 1988 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77242 October 18, 1988 - ROMEO ZOLETA v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77278 October 18, 1988 - IN RE: FELLY LEE FONG SHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-78133 October 18, 1988 - MARIANO P. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79237 October 18, 1988 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80231 October 18, 1988 - CELSO A. FERNANDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-82811 October 18, 1988 - CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AUGUSTO B. BREVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57937 October 21, 1988 - WILFREDO R. ANTONIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-64673 October 21, 1988 - A. CONSTEEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78391 October 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON G. ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-83996 October 21, 1988 - CITY FISCAL OF TACLOBAN v. PEDRO S. ESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-71404-09 October 26, 1988 - HERMILO RODIS, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73199 October 26, 1988 - RENATO SARA, ET AL. v. CERILA AGARRADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76737 October 27, 1988 - PANFILO OLIVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81470 October 27, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO TUNHAWAN

  • G.R. No. L-83767 October 27, 1988 - FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS, ET AL. v. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

  • G.R. No. L-84592 October 27, 1988 - ESTHER E. CUERDO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. L-39008 October 28, 1988 - PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JACINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49535 October 28, 1988 - ROMANA M. CRUZ v. FRANCISCO TANTUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51745 October 28, 1988 - RAMON F. SAYSON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55188 October 28, 1988 - JESUS LONTOC v. MINISTRY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60674 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PUTITO CAFE

  • G.R. No. L-62341 October 28, 1988 - JORGE WEE SIT, ET AL. v. OMAR U. AMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69875 October 28, 1988 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71177 October 28, 1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72281 October 28, 1988 - MACARIO LAGMAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72622 October 28, 1988 - VICTOR TORNO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75955 October 28, 1988 - MARIA LINDA FUENTES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76991 October 28, 1988 - HERMENEGILDO L. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77206 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON M. SOLOMON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79043 October 28, 1988 - DOMINGO T. ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-79369-70 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER A. QUIDILLA

  • G.R. No. L-79958 October 28, 1988 - EMILIANA BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. CAROLINA C. GRIÑO-AQUINO, ET AL.