[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
140 views2 pages

Foodsphere Vs Mauricio

A man named Alberto Cordero found worms in a can of liver spread he had purchased. His wife filed a complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFDA), which confirmed the presence of parasites. Cordero and the food company petitioner later signed an agreement to withdraw the complaint. Respondent attorney Melanio Mauricio Jr. witnessed the agreement but later wrote that he prepared the document. Criminal complaints were filed against Mauricio and others for libel. Despite a pending case and order to refrain from further publishing on the matter, Mauricio continued attacking the complainant and its products. The court found Mauricio in violation of rules prohibiting lawyers from making public statements in the media regarding pending cases and requiring them to

Uploaded by

Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
140 views2 pages

Foodsphere Vs Mauricio

A man named Alberto Cordero found worms in a can of liver spread he had purchased. His wife filed a complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFDA), which confirmed the presence of parasites. Cordero and the food company petitioner later signed an agreement to withdraw the complaint. Respondent attorney Melanio Mauricio Jr. witnessed the agreement but later wrote that he prepared the document. Criminal complaints were filed against Mauricio and others for libel. Despite a pending case and order to refrain from further publishing on the matter, Mauricio continued attacking the complainant and its products. The court found Mauricio in violation of rules prohibiting lawyers from making public statements in the media regarding pending cases and requiring them to

Uploaded by

Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

FOODSPHERE, INC vs. ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR.

FACTS:
A certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in
Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread.  As Cordero
and his relatives were eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the
spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the can. Cordero’s
wife thus filed a complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration
(BFAD). Laboratory examination confirmed the presence of parasites in the Liver
spread. After conciliation meetings between Cordero and the petitioner, the
Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their
complaint before the BFAD.  The BFAD thus dismissed the
complaint. Respondent, Atty. Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his signature to
the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a
tabloid that he prepared the document. Complainant filed criminal complaints
against respondent and several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel
under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City.  The complaints were pending at
the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint. Despite the pendency
of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order
restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter
relative to the complaint, respondent continued with his attacks against
complainant and its products.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
YES. The actuations of respondent are in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of
Professional Responsibility which reads: “A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion
for or against a party.” The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts
aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and all the
Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the
impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and did
not even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The
use by respondent of the language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon
11 and Canon 1 which mandates lawyers to “uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” Respondent
defied said status quo order despite his oath as a member of the legal profession to
“obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.”
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 which mandate, and by failing
to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal
profession. Respondent also violated Canon which directs a lawyer to “at all times
uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.”

You might also like