RSS

Ramos vs. Pallugna [AC 5908. October 25, 2004]

24 Sep

Ponente: CALLEJO, SR., J.

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Pallugna, with the use of the Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals, filed a Motion to Restore Possession with Motion to Appoint a New Sheriff.  Petitioner alleged it is very clear that the Motion to Restore Possession is a misplaced attempt to deceive the Court as to the correct import and interpretation of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Respondent also requested police assistance for the implementation of what he maliciously termed as a “TRO” allegedly issued by the Court of Appeals. The complainants maintain, the illegal and unjust maneuverings of the respondent were made in utter violation to his oath of office as a lawyer and officer of the court, for which he should be disbarred.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Pallugna violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: 

YES. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.

RATIO:

Atty. Alejandro Jose C. Pallugna is found guilty of violating Canon 10, Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which read as follows:

CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

[T]he respondent’s actuations render him administratively liable for failing to observe the candor, fairness and honesty required of him as a member of the bar.  It was his duty to inform the appellate court, as well as his client, of the factual developments in the case, and otherwise to bring the case to an end if the court thereafter determines that the issues had thereby been rendered moot and academic.  The appellate court could then have devoted its efforts to the study and adjudication of meritorious controversies pending decision. The respondent’s bad faith is evident, as he applied for a restraining order in the Court of Appeals when he very well knew that the orders of the trial court which were sought be enjoined had already been implemented.  The respondent’s insistence that he was merely “assisting in the implementation of the Order of the Higher Court” deserves scant consideration.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 24, 2012 in Case Digests, Legal Ethics

 

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: