BLITZ & brilliancy notes in LEGAL ETHICS FOR THE 2014 OCTOBER BAR EXAMS: The duties of an attorney found in Rule 138, Section 20 include: - xxx xxx xxx (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor,... xxx xxx xxx (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any mans cause, from any corrupt motive or interest. xxx xxx xxx The dilatory tactics of the defense counsel and the failure of both the judge and the fiscal to take effective counter measures to obviate the delaying acts constitute obstruction of justice. As aptly stared: 12.09 Obstructing the administration of justice An attorney as an officer of the court is called upon to assist in the due administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is an instrument to advance its cause. (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, G.R. No. 11071, Jan. 9, 1972, 31 SCRA 1; In re Climaco, G.R. Adm. Case No. 134-J, Jan. 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 107) For this reason, any act on the part of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him. (Cantorne vs. Ducasin 57 Phil, 23 [1932]; De los Santos vs. Sagalongos 69 Phil. 406 [1940]). Acts which amount to obstruction in the administration of justice may take many forms. They include such acts as instructing a complaining witness in a criminal action not to appear at the scheduled hearing so that the case against the client, the accused, would be dismissed. (Cantorne vs. Ducasin supra) asking a client to plead guilty to a crime which the lawyer knows his client did not commit, (Nueno v. Santos, 58 Phil. 557 [1933]) advising a client who is detained for a crime to escape from prison, (Cf. Medina v. Yan, G.R. No. 30978, Sept. 30, 1974) employing dilatory tactics to frustrate satisfaction of clearly valid claims, Pajares vs. Abad Santos, G.R. No. 29543, Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 748) prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to drain the resources of the other party and compel him to submit out of exhaustion (Samar Mining Co. vs. Arnado, G.R. No. 22304. July 30, 1968) and filing multiple petitions or complaints for a cause that has been previously rejected in the false expectation of getting favorable action. (Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43757, July 30, 1976, 72 SCRA 173; Ramos vs. Potenciano, G.R. No. 27104, Dec. 20, 1976, 74 SCRA 345; Macias v. Uy Kim, G.R. No. 31174, May 30, 1972, 45 SCRA 251) Acts of this or similar nature are grounds for disciplinary action. Agpalo Legal Ethics, U.P. Law Center, 1980 Edition, pp. 405-406)(TACORDA BIDO BERNABE DE LA VEGA NAPAY - LITUSQUEN ISIDORO & ABAD USB-MICRO FILM FILES/OFFICE)
Posted on: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:06:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015