G.R. No. L-71177 - OCTOBER 1988 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-71177October 28, 1988Erectors, Inc. vs. National Labor Relation Commission G.R. No. L-72281October 28, 1988Macario Lagman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-72622October 28, 1988Victor Torno vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-75955October 28, 1988Maria Linda Fuentes vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-76991October 28, 1988Hermenegildo L. Santos vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-77206October 28, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Ramon M. Solomon G.R. No. L-79043October 28, 1988Domingo T. Arcega vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-79958October 28, 1988Emiliana Bautista vs. Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, et al. G.R. No. L-39008October 28, 1988Pedro Bautista vs. Municipality of San Jacinto G.R. No. L-49535October 28, 1988Romana M. Cruz vs. Francisco Tantuico, et al. G.R. No. L-51745October 28, 1988Ramon F. Sayson vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-55188October 28, 1988Jesus Lontoc vs. Ministry of Labor G.R. No. L-60674October 28, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Putito Cafe G.R. No. L-62341October 28, 1988Jorge Wee Sit vs. Omar U. Amin G.R. No. L-69875October 28, 1988Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. National Labor Relation Commission G.R. Nos. L-79369-70October 28, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Alexander A. Quidilla G.R. No. L-76737October 27, 1988Perlita Oliva vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-81470October 27, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Tunhawan G.R. No. L-83767October 27, 1988Firdausi Smail Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal G.R. No. L-84592October 27, 1988Esther E. Cuerdo vs. Commission on Audit G.R. No. L-73199October 26, 1988Renato Sara vs. Cerila Agarrado G.R. Nos. L-71404-09October 26, 1988Hermilo Rodis, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-78391October 21, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Ramon G. Enriquez G.R. No. L-83996October 21, 1988The City Fiscal of Tacloban vs. Pedro S. Espina G.R. No. L-57937October 21, 1988Wilfredo R. Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-64673October 21, 1988A. Consteel Construction Company vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-70836October 18, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Timoteo M. Tolentino G.R. No. L-74675October 18, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Juan Reyes G.R. No. L-75198October 18, 1988Schmid & Oberly Inc. vs. Rjl Martinez Fishing Corporation G.R. No. L-75311October 18, 1988Rosita Zafra Bantillo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-75336October 18, 1988Antonio Bornales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-76633October 18, 1988Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Philippines Overseas Employment Administration G.R. No. L-77242October 18, 1988Romeo Zoleta vs. Franklin Drilon, et al. G.R. No. L-77278October 18, 1988Felly Lee Fong Sheng vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-78133October 18, 1988Mariano P. Pascual vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-79237October 18, 1988University of San Carlos vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-80231October 18, 1988Celso A. Fernandez vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-82811October 18, 1988Consolidated Plywood Industries Inc. vs. Augusto B. Breva G.R. No. L-39299October 18, 1988Isaac Pagnan vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-41380October 18, 1988Orlando Lagazon vs. Visia P. Reyes G.R. No. L-44696October 18, 1988Julian Espiritu vs. Court of First Instance of Cavite G.R. No. L-46843October 18, 1988Virgilia Cabresos vs. Meynardo A. Tiro G.R. No. L-50872October 18, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Paragoso G.R. No. L-53552October 18, 1988Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-55377October 18, 1988Benjamin Del Rosario vs. Cecilio F. Balagot G.R. No. L-61961October 18, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Marciales G.R. No. L-69679October 18, 1988Violeta Cabatbat Lim vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-69723October 18, 1988Apex and Financing Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-32215October 17, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Santiago O. Tañada G.R. No. L-68117October 17, 1988Felino T. Santiago vs. Manuel M. Lazaro G.R. Nos. L-79690-707October 7, 1988Enrique A. Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-72306October 6, 1988David P. Fornilda vs. Regional Trial Court Ivth Judicial Region, Pasig A.M. No. 3005October 5, 1988Emilia P. Fornilda-Olili vs. Sergio I. Amonoy A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTCOctober 5, 1988Rodolfo U. Manzano G.R. No. L-70458October 5, 1988Benjamin Salvosa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-75927October 5, 1988Land and Housing Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-36549October 5, 1988Far East Realty Investment Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-40324October 5, 1988Jose O. Sia vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-51625October 5, 1988Francisco Dumlao vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-25350October 4, 1988William A. Chittick vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-38039October 4, 1988Generosa Cawit vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-67785October 4, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Federico Capinpin, Jr. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Erectors, Inc. vs. National Labor Relation CommissionMacario Lagman vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtVictor Torno vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Maria Linda Fuentes vs. National Labor Relations CommissionHermenegildo L. Santos vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Ramon M. SolomonDomingo T. Arcega vs. Court of AppealsEmiliana Bautista vs. Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, et al.Pedro Bautista vs. Municipality of San JacintoRomana M. Cruz vs. Francisco Tantuico, et al.Ramon F. Sayson vs. People of the PhilippinesJesus Lontoc vs. Ministry of LaborPeople of the Philippines vs. Putito CafeJorge Wee Sit vs. Omar U. AminBatangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. National Labor Relation CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Alexander A. QuidillaPerlita Oliva vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Virgilio TunhawanFirdausi Smail Abbas vs. Senate Electoral TribunalEsther E. Cuerdo vs. Commission on AuditRenato Sara vs. Cerila AgarradoHermilo Rodis, Sr. vs. SandiganbayanRepublic of the Philippines vs. Ramon G. EnriquezThe City Fiscal of Tacloban vs. Pedro S. EspinaWilfredo R. Antonio vs. SandiganbayanA. Consteel Construction Company vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Timoteo M. TolentinoPeople of the Philippines vs. Juan ReyesSchmid & Oberly Inc. vs. Rjl Martinez Fishing CorporationRosita Zafra Bantillo vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtAntonio Bornales vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtEastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Philippines Overseas Employment AdministrationRomeo Zoleta vs. Franklin Drilon, et al.Felly Lee Fong Sheng vs. Republic of the PhilippinesMariano P. Pascual vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueUniversity of San Carlos vs. Court of AppealsCelso A. Fernandez vs. Court of AppealsConsolidated Plywood Industries Inc. vs. Augusto B. BrevaIsaac Pagnan vs. Court of AppealsOrlando Lagazon vs. Visia P. ReyesJulian Espiritu vs. Court of First Instance of CaviteVirgilia Cabresos vs. Meynardo A. TiroPeople of the Philippines vs. Roberto ParagosoPhilippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. National Labor Relations CommissionBenjamin Del Rosario vs. Cecilio F. BalagotPeople of the Philippines vs. Nicolas MarcialesVioleta Cabatbat Lim vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtApex and Financing Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Santiago O. TañadaFelino T. Santiago vs. Manuel M. LazaroEnrique A. Zaldivar vs. SandiganbayanDavid P. Fornilda vs. Regional Trial Court Ivth Judicial Region, PasigEmilia P. Fornilda-Olili vs. Sergio I. AmonoyRodolfo U. ManzanoBenjamin Salvosa vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtLand and Housing Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionFar East Realty Investment Inc. vs. Court of AppealsJose O. Sia vs. Court of AppealsFrancisco Dumlao vs. Court of AppealsWilliam A. Chittick vs. Court of AppealsGenerosa Cawit vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Federico Capinpin, Jr.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-71177 October 28, 1988
ERECTORS, INC.,petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DANILO CRIS,respondents.
Prescillano F. Adamos and Julian F. Barrameda for petitioner.
Citizens Legal Assistance Officee for private respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
A petition for certiorari tinder Rule 65 was filed in this Court on June 27, 1985, assailing the dismissal by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC, for brevity) of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA for short). The petitioner contended that its motion for reconsideration or appeal was seasonably filed within ten working days from receipt of the decision, allegedly pursuant to the 1984 POEA Rules and Procedures, specifically Rule XXIV, Sec. 1, and Rule XXV, Sec. 2 thereof.1
In our resolution dated October 5, 1987, we required the counsels2for the petitioner to furnish us with the source of the above-mentioned POEA rules. This order was reiterated in our subsequent resolution of December 2, 1987. In compliance with the foregoing, the petitioner manifested3that the said rules may be found under the 1984 Rules & Regulations of the POEA. Considering, however, that the 1984 rules of the POEA do not contain the alleged "ten working day rule," on December 14, 1987, we resolved to require the counsels to explain within five days why they should not be "disciplinarily dealt with for fabricating rules for the purpose of trifling with court processes.4In reply, the petitioner's counsels persisted in their claim of a "ten working day rule" for appeals from the POEA to the NLRC, again citing the alleged 1984 POEA Rules and Procedures, a supposed copy of which was then furnished to us: however, what they submitted was not a certified but a simple xerox copy of what they represented to be the said POEA rules.5
Our decision in this case was promulgated on February 29, 1988, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Resolution of the public respondent, dated December 28, 1984. AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on July 10, 1985 is hereby LIFTED. The counsels for the petitioner are also admonished for foisting a nonexistent rule with the warning that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. With triple costs against the petitioners.6
In clear disregard of our warning, the counsels for the petitioner, in their Motion for Reconsideration filed on April 4, 1988, cited anew7the alleged 1984 POEA Pules and Procedures which we already categorically declared, as in fact they are, non-existent.
In our resolution dated April 25, 1988, we resolved "to deny with finality the Motion for Reconsideration, the basic issues raised therein having previously been duly considered and passed upon by the Court in the foregoing decision and no new substantial matters or reasons having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought." In the same resolution,8we directed the counsels for the petitioner to SHOW CAUSE why they should not be held in contempt for insisting on their misrepresentation of the pertinent rules of the POEA.
Subsequently, the counsels for the petitioner submitted a "Compliance"9dated May 30,1988, stating, among other things, that their motion for reconsideration (anchored upon an inexistent POEA rule providing for an appeal period of "ten working days" rather than "ten calendar days" under the present rules) was "motivated by counsels' desire to fully defend their client's interest or cause with their utmost/best efforts and within legal bounds but never to defy or ignore any final pronouncement of this Honorable Court."
We do not find the above explanation acceptable.
We note an utter lack of repentance or semblance thereof in the counsels' repeated insistence despite the undeniable fact that the purported POEA rules do not exist.10In their "Compliance/Manifestation11dated October 26, 1 987, filed in compliance with our Resolution dated October 5, 1987 requiring them to furnish the Court with a copy of such rules, they prayed that we take "judicial notice" of the alleged fact that "it was only sometime in 1985 or specifically on the 21 st day of May 1985 when the POEA adopted the present Philippine Overseas Employment Administrative Rules and Regulations which, among others, amended the ten (10) working days appeal period to ten (10) calendar days," knowing fully well that such a rule does not in fact exist or was never promulgated, as they would impliedly admit in their subsequent "Compliance" dated May 30, 1985, in which they would allege that their insistence was an effort to promote their client's cause. What we find, instead, is a deliberate effort to mislead this Court. This deception is a clear misconduct, as well as a serious violation of the attorney's solemn oath to do no falsehood.12
For a lawyer's duty to his client does not mean freedom to set up false or fraudulent claims especially with respect to provisions of law or administrative rules and that while lawyers are bound to exert utmost legal skill in prosecuting their client's cause or defending it, their duty, first and foremost, is to the administration of justice.13The office of attorney does not permit, much less demand, to support a client's case, violation of law or otherwise, fraud or machinery. A lawyer must obey his own conscience and not that of his client.
The counsels' bare assertion, made in the same "Compliance"14dated May 30, 1988, that "they have no least (sic) desire or intention to insist on their positions" is completely belied by the records.ℒαwρhi৷In truth the counsels' contumacious insistence (both counsels, Prescillano F. Adamos and Julian F. Barrameda, signed various pleadings15foisting to the Court the non- existent "ten working day rule") on the "ten working day rule" was greatly responsible for the delay in the final disposition of the present case, not to mention the considerable amount of time and effort spent by the Court over this case, which could have been devoted instead to more urgent matters.
Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Attys. Prescillano F. Adamos and Julian F. BarramedaSUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law in the Philippines for a period of six months, effective immediately, for knowingly, deliberately, and repeatedly foisting non-existent POEA rules calculated to mislead the Court into deciding this case in their favor and for wilfully disregarding our previous warnings.
Let a copy of this resolution be entered in their personal records.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Footnotes