G.R. No. L-43301-45665 - APRIL 1980 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-43301-45665April 1, 1980 Emeterio Magat vs. Pedro T. Santiago G.R. No. L-46766-7April 1, 1980 Balaquezon Employees vs. Ronaldo B. Zamora G.R. No. L-35787April 11, 1980 Fausta Francisco vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-50184April 11, 1980 Citibank Phils. Employees Union-Natu vs. Min. of Labor G.R. No. L-29073April 18, 1980 Espiritu Bunagan vs. Court of First Instance of Cebu G.R. No. L-52129April 21, 1980 John Gokongwei, Jr. vs. Securities and Exchange Com. G.R. No. L-48488April 25, 1980 Gloria D. Menez vs. Employees' Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-48528April 25, 1980 Prisco Ibasan vs. Republic of the Phil. G.R. No. L-49227April 25, 1980 Buenaventura J. Barga, Jr. vs. Employees' Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-53622April 25, 1980 Jovito R. Salonga vs. Rolando Hermoso G.R. No. L-27197April 28, 1980 National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority vs. Municipality of Libmanan G.R. Nos. L-27425 & L-30505April 28, 1980 Converse Rubber Corp vs. Jacinto Rubber & Plastics Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-32508 & L-42104April 28, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Catindihan G.R. No. 32605April 28, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Acejo G.R. No. L-39511April 28, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Jovito Mercado G.R. No. L-43389April 28, 1980 Glenia Uy vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-45473April 28, 1980 Butuan Bay Wood Export Corp. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-45910April 28, 1980 Eligio P. Mirasol vs. Employee's Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-46579April 28, 1980 Julia Reyes vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-46692April 28, 1980 Felicitacion A. Guillen vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-46802April 28, 1980 Rustico L. Cenabre vs. Employee's Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-49671April 28, 1980 Pantaleon Pingkian, et al. vs. Hon. J. Melecio A. Genato, et al. G.R. No. L-50003April 28, 1980 Ramon Codilla vs. Numeriano G. Estenzo A.M. No. P-2230April 30, 1980 Antonio Bautista vs. Pastor De Castro, Jr. G.R. No. L-25788April 30, 1980 Pacifico C. Del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-30912April 30, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Agapito De La Cruz G.R. No. L-32475April 30, 1980 Jesus Dayao vs. Shell Company of the Phil., Ltd. G.R. No. L-34508April 30, 1980 Josefina D. Tanalgo vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-39201April 30, 1980 Amparo Monfort vs. Hon. Court of Appeal G.R. No. L-45566April 30, 1980 Daniel A. Betts vs. Eva Matias G.R. No. L-46151April 30, 1980 Lourdes L. Fetalvero vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-47519April 30, 1980 Roberto Rantael vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-48593April 30, 1980 Marta D. Avendaño vs. Employees' Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-49280April 30, 1980 Luz G. Cristobal vs. Employees' Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-51626April 30, 1980 Emma Turqueza vs. Harold Hernando The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Emeterio Magat vs. Pedro T. Santiago Balaquezon Employees vs. Ronaldo B. Zamora Fausta Francisco vs. Court of Appeals Citibank Phils. Employees Union-Natu vs. Min. of Labor Espiritu Bunagan vs. Court of First Instance of Cebu John Gokongwei, Jr. vs. Securities and Exchange Com. Gloria D. Menez vs. Employees' Compensation Com. Prisco Ibasan vs. Republic of the Phil. Buenaventura J. Barga, Jr. vs. Employees' Compensation Com. Jovito R. Salonga vs. Rolando Hermoso National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority vs. Municipality of Libmanan Converse Rubber Corp vs. Jacinto Rubber & Plastics Co., Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Catindihan People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Acejo People of the Philippines vs. Jovito Mercado Glenia Uy vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Butuan Bay Wood Export Corp. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. Eligio P. Mirasol vs. Employee's Compensation Com. Julia Reyes vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Felicitacion A. Guillen vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Rustico L. Cenabre vs. Employee's Compensation Com. Pantaleon Pingkian, et al. vs. Hon. J. Melecio A. Genato, et al. Ramon Codilla vs. Numeriano G. Estenzo Antonio Bautista vs. Pastor De Castro, Jr. Pacifico C. Del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Agapito De La Cruz Jesus Dayao vs. Shell Company of the Phil., Ltd. Josefina D. Tanalgo vs. Court of Appeals Amparo Monfort vs. Hon. Court of Appeal Daniel A. Betts vs. Eva Matias Lourdes L. Fetalvero vs. Employees' Compensation Commission Roberto Rantael vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. Marta D. Avendaño vs. Employees' Compensation Com. Luz G. Cristobal vs. Employees' Compensation Com. Emma Turqueza vs. Harold Hernando The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-43301-45665 April 1, 1980
EMETERIO MAGAT,petitioner,
vs.
HON. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, Judge, Court of First Instance of Bataan, Br. II, JOVITA T. GANZON and PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BATAAN,respondents;
EMETERIO MAGAT,petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and JOVITA T. GANZON,respondents.
ANTONIO,J.:
For delaying for quite a long time the termination of an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 3438, CFI-Bataan) by filing multiple petitions before this Court, involving the same subject matters and cause of action, which were attempts "by the same party and his counsel to delay the enforcement of a judgment that has long become final and executory", this Court, on October 28, 1977, suspended Atty. Ceferino R. Magat from the practice of law effective immediately and until further orders from this Court. There is no question that a lawyer not only owes to his client the duty of fidelity, but, more important, he also owes the duty of good faith and honorable dealing to the judicial tribunal before whom he practices his profession.1Inherent in that duty is the obligation to assist the Court in the speedy disposition of cases: Excessive delay causes hardships, may force parties into unfair settlements, and, more significant, it may nurture a sense of injustice and breed cynicism about the administration of justice itself. Thus, the Constitution provides the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies.2
We are now, however, confronted with the plea of Atty. Ceferino R. Magat and the members of his family for judicial clemency, expressing their profound regret for his past misconduct and his avowal to mend his ways, and invoking this tribunal's compassion. in view of the said family's financial and economic difficulties due to his inability to earn his livelihood as a lawyer. These requests for compassion and clemency from Atty. Magat and his children were reiterated several times for a period of more than two years since his suspension.
The suspension of a lawyer is not intended primarily as a punishment, but as a measure of protection of the public and the profession.ℒαwρhi৷We are satisfied that Atty. Magat appreciates the significance of his dereliction and he has assured Us that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law.
WHEREFORE,in view of the foregoing, the Court resolved to terminate the suspension of Atty. Ceferino R. Magat from the practice of law. with the warning that any subsequent acts of misconduct will be more severely dealt with.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Footnotes