GI study guide. Anatomy and physiology, Enzymes

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

MARCELINO MACOCO, complainant,

vs.

ESTEBAN B. DIAZ, respondent.

Esteban B. Diaz in his own behalf.

Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant

Attorney Barcelona for complainant.

MORAN,

J.:

A complaint for malpractice filed by one Marcelino

Macoco against Esteban B. Diaz, attorney-at-law, with

license to practice in Philippine courts.

In order to redeem a property belonging to his wife's

father, which had been levied upon sold at public

auction, complainant Marcelino Macoco deposited with

the provincial sheriff of Ilocos Norte the sum of P380.

As no redemption could be done, the money was

returned by the sheriff to one Alberto Suguitan, then

counsel for Marcelino Macoco. Suguitan used the

money according to himself and failed to turn it over

to Macoco; whereupon, the latter entrusted its

collection to respondent herein, Esteban B. Diaz. It

appears that Diaz succeeded in collecting P300 from

Suguitan, but he also misappropriated this amount.

Respondent admitted the misappropriation. He

averred, however, that he had an agreement with

Macoco for the payment of the money by him

misappropriated; that when this agreement failed, he

again entered into a similar arrangement with

Hermenegildo Galapia, Lope Ragragola and Pedro

Ragragola, who, as he attempted to prove, were the

persons to whom the sum of P300 was really due,

Macoco being merely a trustee thereof; and that in

pursuance of this arrangement whereby he would pay

the sum of P300, deducting therefrom 20 per cent for

his attorney's fees, he had already made partial

payments to said persons. Macoco, however, and Lope

Ragragola denied this agreement.

Whatever might have been the agreement and with

whomsoever respondent might have entered it into,

the undeniable fact remains that he misappropriated

the money in breach of trust. This makes him unfit for

the office of an attorney-at-law. And his being a deputy

fiscal and not law practitioner at the time of the

misappropriation, far from mitigating his guilt,

aggravates it. Want of moral integrity is to be more

severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a

responsible public office.

Wherefore, respondent Esteban B. Diaz is hereby

disbarred from the practice of law, and is hereby

ordered to surrender his certificate to the clerk of court

within five days from notice. This Solicitor General is

hereby ordered to investigate the conduct of Attorney

Alberto Suguitan and file later the corresponding

report.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion,

JJ., concur.

Aquilino Pimentel vs Attys. Llorenteand Salayon Adm.

Case No. 4680August 29, 2000Facts:

Petitioner, Aquilino Pimentel whowas then running for

Senator in the 1995elections filed a complaint for

disbarmentagainst respondents Antonio M.

Llorentea n d L i g a y a P. S a l a y o

n f o r g r o s s misconduct, serious breach of

trust, andviolation of the lawyer's oath. This is

inc o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e d i s c h a r g e of t h e i r d

u t i e s as m e m b e r s of t h e P a s i g C i t

y B o a r d of C a n v a s s e r s . S a l a y o n , t

h e n e l e c t i o n o f f i c e r of t h e C o m m i s s i o

n onEl e c t i o n s ( C O M E L E C ) , w a s d e s i g n a t e

d chairman of said Board, while Llorente,w h o

w a s t h e n C i t y P r o s e c u t o r of P a s i g City, served

as its

ex oficio

vice-chairmanas provided by law.Petitioner alleges

that, in violation of R.A.No. 6646, §27(b), respondents

tamperedwith the votes received by him,

throughi l l e g a l p a d d i n g . He m a i n t a i n s t h a t ,

bysigning the Statements of Votes (SoVs)and

Certificate of Canvass (CoC) despiterespondents'

knowledge that some

of thee n t r i e s t h e r e i n w e r e f a l s e , t h e l

a t t e r c o m m i t t e d a s e r i o u s b r e a c h of p

u b l i c trust and of their lawyers' oath.Respondents

denied the allegations andalleged that the

preparation of the SoVswas made by the

canvassing committeeswhich the Board had

constituted to assistin the canvassing. They claimed

that theerrors pointed out by complainant

couldbe a t t r i b u t e d t o h o n e s

t m i s t a k e , oversight, and/or fatigue. The

Integrated Bar of the Philippines,

tow h i c h t h i s m a t t e r h a d b e e n r e f e r r e

d,r e c o m m e n d e d t h e d i s m i s s a l o

f t h e c o m p l a i n t f o r l a c k of m e r i t . P e t i t i o

n e r f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n w a s

also denied. He then filed petition beforethis Court.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents wereguilty of

misconduct and violation of thelawyer’s oath.

Holding:

W h a t is i n v o l v e d h e r e is n o t just a case

of mathematical error in

thet a b u l a t i o n of v o t e s per p r e c i n c t b

ut a s y s t e m a t i c sc h e m e to p a d th e v o t e s

of c e r t a i n s e n a t o r i a l c a n d i d a t e s a

t t h e e x p e n s e of p e t i t i o n e r in

c o m p l e t e disregard of the tabulation in the

electionr e t u r n s . D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a

t t h e s e d i s c r e p a n c i e s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e

d o u b l e r e c o r d i n g of t h e r e t

u r n s f r o m 22p r e c i n c t s a n d

t h e v a r i a t i o n in t h e t a b u l a t i o n o

f v o t e s as r e f l e c t e d in t h e SoVs and CoC, were

apparent on the

faceof t h e s e d o c u m e n t s a n d

t h a t t h e variation involves substantial

number of votes, respondents nevertheless

certifiedthe SoVs as true and correct. T heir

actsconstitute

misconduct.As a l a w y e r w h o h o l d s a g o v e

r n m e n t p o s i t i o n m a y n o t be d i s c i p l

i n e d as a member of the bar for misconduct in

thedischarge of his duties as a

governmentofficial. However, if the misconduct

alsoc o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n of t h e C o d

e of P r o f e s s i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t

y or t h e lawyer's oath or is of such character as

toa f f e c t h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n as a l a w y e r

o r s h o w s m o r a l d e l i n q u e n c y on h i s pa

rt,such individual may be disciplined as

amember of the bar for such

misconduct.In t h i s c a s e , by c e r t i f y i n g as

t r u e a n d correct the SoVs in question,

respondentscommitted a breach of Rule 1.01 of

theCode which stipulates that a lawyer

shalln o t e n g a g e in " u n l a w f u l , d i s h o

n e s t , i m m o r a l or d e c e i t f u l co

n d u c t . " Bye x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n of Ca

n o n 6, t h i s ism a d e a p p l i c a b l e t

o l a w y e r s in t h e go v e r n m e n t s e r v i

c e . In a d d i t i o n , t h e y l i k e w i s e v i o l a t e d t h e

ir o a t h of of f i c e aslawyers to "do

no falsehood." T h e a b o v e c o m m i t t e d a c t s wo

u l d h a v e m e r i t e d s u s p e n s i o n w e r e it n o t f

or t h e fact that this is their first

administrativetransgression and in the case of

Salayon,af t e r a l o n g p u b l i c s e r v i c e . U n d e r ,

t h e circumstances the Court

find respondentsg u i l t y of m i s c o n d u c t a n d

i m p o s e s o n e a c h o f t h e m

a f i n e in t h e a m o u n t of P 1 0 , 0 0 0 .

00 w i t h a war n i n g t h a t co

mmission of similar acts will be dealt severly.

Trieste, Sr. vs Sandiganbayan

145 SCRA 508 Generoso Trieste, Sr., the Municipal

Mayor of Numancia, Aklan, was charged by the

Tanodbayan with 12 counts of alleged violations of

Section 3 (h) of the Anti-Graft Law for having financial

or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or

transaction in connection with which said accused

intervened or took part in his official capacity and in

which he is prohibited by law from having any interest,

to wit the purchases of construction materials by the

municipality from Trigen Agro-Industrial Development

Corporation, of which the accused is the president,

incorporator, director and major stockholder.

After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered the challenged

decision, convicting the petitioner in all the twelve

criminal cases.

After the petition for review was filed, petitioner filed

an urgent petition to lift the order of the

Sandiganbayan. There having no objection coming

from the Solicitor General, the petition was

granted, hence lifting the preventive suspension. A

supplemental petition was also filed by petitioner.

The former Solicitor General filed a consolidated

comment to the original petition and to the

supplemental petition filed by the petitioner. He argued

the dismissal of the petition (the urgent petition to lift

the order of the Sandiganbayan) on the ground that

the same raise factual issues which are, therefore, non-

reviewable.

In the briefs, however, the new Solicitor General, filed

a “Manifestation For Acquittal,” concluding that: (1)

petitioner has divested his interest with Trigen; (2)

Sales of stocks need not be reported to Sec; (3)

Prosecution failed to prove charges; (4) No evidence to

prove petitioner approved payment; (5) Testimonial

and documentary evidence confirms that petitioner

signed vouchers after payment; etc.

Issue: WON the Solicitor General made a conscientious

study and thorough analysis in the case.

Held: Yes. Considering the correct facts now brought

to the attention of the Court by the SolGen and in view

of the reassessment made by the Office of the issues

and the evidence and the law involved, the Court takes

a similar view that the affirmance of the decision

appealed from cannot be rightfully sustained. The

conscientious study and thorough ananlysis made by

the Office of the Solicitor General in this case truly

reflects its consciousness of its role as the People’s

Advocate in the administration of justice to the end that

the innocent be equally defended and set free just as

it has the task of having the guilty punished.

This court will do no less and, therefore, accepts the

submitted recommendation that the decision and

resolution in question of the respondent

Sandiganbayan be reversed and that as a matter of

justice, the herein petitioner be entitled to a judgment

of acquittal.

People of the Philippines vs Madera

57 SCRA 349 – Legal Ethics – Prosecutor Must

Recommend Dismissal of Case If There is No Ground

To Sustain It

End of Preview - Want to read all 7 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

MARCELINO MACOCO, complainant, vs. ESTEBAN B. DIAZ, respondent. Esteban B. Diaz in his own behalf. Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Barcelona for complainant. MORAN, J.: A complaint for malpractice filed by one Marcelino Macoco against Esteban B. Diaz, attorney-at-law, with license to practice in Philippine courts. In order to redeem a property belonging to his wife's father, which had been levied upon sold at public auction, complainant Marcelino Macoco deposited with the provincial sheriff of Ilocos Norte the sum of P380. As no redemption could be done, the money was returned by the sheriff to one Alberto Suguitan, then counsel for Marcelino Macoco. Suguitan used the money according to himself and failed to turn it over to Macoco; whereupon, the latter entrusted its collection to respondent herein, Esteban B. Diaz. It appears that Diaz succeeded in collecting P300 from Suguitan, but he also misappropriated this amount. Respondent admitted the misappropriation. He averred, however, that he had an agreement with Macoco for the payment of the money by him misappropriated; that when this agreement failed, he again entered into a similar arrangement with Hermenegildo Galapia, Lope Ragragola and Pedro Ragragola, who, as he attempted to prove, were the persons to whom the sum of P300 was really due, Macoco being merely a trustee thereof; and that in pursuance of this arrangement whereby he would pay the sum of P300, deducting therefrom 20 per c ...
Purchase document to see full attachment