Misconduct/Grave Abuse of Authority

To warrant dismissal from service, misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In order to differentiate grave misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard to established rule, must be manifest in the former. These acts are inimical to judicial service and constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as they violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the peoples faith in the Judiciary. 

Code of Professional Responsibility

The Lawyer's Oath is a source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and any violation thereof by an attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension or other disciplinary action. The Lawyer's Oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.

Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the legal causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Neither vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for resorting to the appropriate legal remedies. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others; A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. Being an officer of the court, a lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his clients and temper his client's propensities to litigate, so must he equally guard himself against his own impulses of initiating unfounded suits (A.C. 7474, September 09, 2014).

Judicial Errors

"A trial judge is not accountable for performing his judicial functions and office because such performance is a matter of public duty and responsibility. The judge's office and duty to render and administer justice, being functions of sovereignty, should not be taken for granted. No administrative charge for manifest partiality, gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law should be brought against him for the orders issued in the course of judicial proceedings." - Justice Bersamin

It is settled that a judge's failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.

If a party is prejudiced by the order of a judge, his remedy lies with the proper court for appropriate judicial action and not with the Office of the Court Administrator by means of an administrative complaint.

Charges against members of the bar

A complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brings the matter to the attention of the Court. It is basic that there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for determination in disbarment proceeding is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar. 

An affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case does not in any way exonerate the respondent-lawyer. A case may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. The person who called the attention of the Court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party and has generally no interest in the outcome. Hence, the lawyer may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of the complainant or withdrawal of the charge.

Respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded from members of the bar. The primary duty of lawyers is not to their client but to the administration of justice. Zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause must always be within the bounds of the law.

Employee of the Judiciary

It must be stressed that every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. As public servant, an employee of the judiciary must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his/her official duties but also in his/her personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the Court's good name and standing. The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. Court personnel have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice.

Time of taking

 

 

An Emancipation Patent (EP) constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the grantee - the Farmer Beneficiary. It is from the issuance of an Emancipation Patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner. The taking of private lands under the Agrarian Reform Program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding. The court (RTC) should take into consideration the value of the land at the time of the taking, not at the time of the rendition of judgment. Time of taking is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic. 

Special Agrarian Court not an appellate reviewer

The Regional Trial Court, acting as a Special Agrarian Court, has jurisdiction to determine just compensation at the very first instance, and the petitioner need not pass through the DAR for initial valuation. The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function, which is vested in the Regional Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian Court. The Special Agrarian Court is not an appellate reviewer of the DAR decision in administrative cases involving compensation. The Special Agrarian Court has jurisdiction over the complaint for determination of just compensation, despite the absence of summary administrative proceedings before the DAR Adjudication Board. Special Agrarian Court's jurisdiction vested by Section 57 of RA 6657, as amended, is limited only to petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657 (G.R. No. 163361, March 12, 2014). 

This April in History

The Supreme Court upholds the right of Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials in inquiries in aid of legislation by partially voiding Executive Order 464 but declared valid on its face the requirement for executive officials to secure the President's consent before appearing during the Question Hour.

The Supreme Court writes finis to Hacienda Luisita v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, ruling that there must be a total land distribution of the agricultural land of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. to its original farm worker-beneficiaries who, in turn, will pay just compensation based on the 1989 land valuation.

Proscription

Trial Court judges cannot notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize. 

Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 allows trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio and notarize documents only if connected with their official functions and duties. Affidavits of cohabitation are not connected with judge's official functions and duties as solemnizing officer. Judges cannot notarize ex officio affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized. Under the guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by members of the Judiciary, a judge duty is to personally examine the allegations in the affidavit of cohabitation before performing the marriage ceremony. Nothing in the guidelines authorizes judges to notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflect with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law (A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842).

Quantum Meruit

A principle in equity used as a basis for determining a lawyer's professional fees in the absence of contract.

The compensation of lawyers for professional services rendered is subject to the supervision of the court, not only to guarnatee that the fees they charge remain reasonable and commensurate with the services they have actually rendered, but to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession as well.

A Latin term which means, "as much as deserved."

Champertous Contract

An agreement whereby an Attorney undertakes to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce the client's rights in exchange for some bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute. Such a contract is contrary to public policy and is void. It is likewise contrary to the Code of Professional Responsibility. While lawyers may advance the necessary expenses in a legal matter they are handling in order to safeguard their client's rights, it is imperative that the advances be subject to reimbursement. The purpose is to avoid a situation in which a lawyer acquires a personal stake in the client's cause. No matter how dire the needs of the clients, a lawyer must always avoid any appearance of impropriety, to preserve the integrity of the profession.