Friday, September 30, 2011

Misconduct and Malicious Complaint

Making false accusations and sowing intrigues are acts unbecoming of a public servant. They run against the principles of public service envisioned by the Constitution and by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Supreme Court stressed that these acts cannot be tolerated if we were to demand the highest degree of excellence and professionalism among public employees, and if we were to preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts.
The SC recently found three employees of a lower court liable for misconduct for tape recording a conversation with a litigant and his counsel regarding the receipt by their co-employee from the latter of money for safekeeping, and thereafter filing a complaint for the alleged illegal deposit against said co-employee before the court. The SC found the process server guilty of gross misconduct for disregarding the terms of the Anti-Wiretapping Act within court premises, tape recording a conversation to secure it as evidence, and using said taped conversation as basis for a complaint against a co-employee. On the other hand, the court stenographers were found guilty of simple misconduct for their participation in the illegal tape recording of the subject conversation.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

SC Penalizes Lawyer for Notarial Lapses

Notaries public must be mindful of the significance of a notarial seal affixed on documents. They must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
The Supreme Court found guilty a lawyer for violating the notarial law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. In a decision penned by Justice Arturo M. Brion, the Court found that the lawyer notarized documents "either without the presence of the affiants or with their forged signatures." By his own admission, the lawyer disclosed that he affixed his signature on documents prepared and drafted by his secretary without reading them and without ascertaining what the documents purported to be, and completely entrusted to his secretary the keeping and the maintenance of his Notarial Practice. The Supreme Court further held that the respondent's age and sickness cannot be cited as reasons to disregard the serious lapses he committed in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public. The lawyer cannot escape liability by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not his secretary, should be held accountable for these deeds.

Monday, September 5, 2011

TRO


To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the applicant must show that there exists a right to be protected which is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined. The applicant's right must be clear and unmistakable, otherwise the issuance of the writ despite the absence of a clear legal right constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights. There must exist an actual right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right.