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

Uy Vs Atty Depasucat

Uy filed an administrative complaint against two lawyers, Depasucat and another, alleging libel for claims made in a pleading filed in a pending case. The pleading alleged that Uy attempted to bribe judges, citing two past cases involving bribery. The Supreme Court found the lawyers violated the rule against using offensive language and making prejudicial claims without cause. While the lawyers' intent was to help their clients, the court noted the language used was unbecoming of lawyers and the claims were made after the case was already submitted for decision and not relevant to the issues. The court ordered the lawyers be reprimanded by the IBP for their violation.

Uploaded by

chrystel
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
302 views2 pages

Uy Vs Atty Depasucat

Uy filed an administrative complaint against two lawyers, Depasucat and another, alleging libel for claims made in a pleading filed in a pending case. The pleading alleged that Uy attempted to bribe judges, citing two past cases involving bribery. The Supreme Court found the lawyers violated the rule against using offensive language and making prejudicial claims without cause. While the lawyers' intent was to help their clients, the court noted the language used was unbecoming of lawyers and the claims were made after the case was already submitted for decision and not relevant to the issues. The court ordered the lawyers be reprimanded by the IBP for their violation.

Uploaded by

chrystel
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

Uy vs Atty.

Depasucat
Principle:
A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the Courts. It must be remembered that the language vehicle does not run short of
expressions which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating
but not offensive. It has been said that a lawyers language should be dignified in keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession.

Facts:
Complainant is a party to a then pending case of action for reconveyance of real property
wherein the respondents are the legal counsels of the other party.
During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents filed a pleading entitled Manifestation of
Usurpation of Authority of the Hon. Court of Appeals. The pleading alleged that the
complainant is blackmailing the judges through illegally taped conversation when the judges
refused to give in to the bribery. This respondents cited a case against a certain Judge
Abastillas wherein the said judge was dismissed due to the admission of Uy that he
negotiated with the judge for a favourable outcome. They are of belief that the manifestation
was relevant to prevent Uy from making the same bribery as he was adamant to win the
case. They also cited another case which led to the disbarment of Uy’s previous legal
counsel for the same case of bribery.
The complainant denied the claim and filed an administrative complaint against the attorneys
alleging that the attorneys committed libel upon the filing of their pleading. He also prayed
that the lawyers be punished for putting him in a bad light by the unmindful wordings in the
Manifestation and even furnishing copies of the same to persons that are not parties to the
case.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent lawyers violated Canon 8 of CPR and should be disciplined
for having authored and file the Manifestation?

Ruling:
Yes, they made a violation for having authored and filed the Manifestation.
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that it is the duty of the
respondents as members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance
no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the
justice of the cause with which he is charged.
In the case at bar, it was observed that the Manifestation was only filed after the appealed
case was already been submitted for decision. This makes their claim of having good
intentions by informing the Court of Appeals of the complainant’s tendency to bribe, doubtful.
The Supreme Court decided that it was a clear attempt to influence the mind of the court
against the complainant. This is a blatant violation of the above-mentioned canon since the
Manifestation was shown to be prejudicial to the honor and reputation of the complainant
and it was without just cause. The submission was not justified since it was not relevant to
the pending case of lis pendens. Furthermore, the Supreme Court also noted that regardless
of the intent of the lawyers, the foul wordings of Manifestation was unbecoming for lawyers
who have taken oath to abstain from having an offensive personalities.
The court imposed to the IBP to reprimand the lawyers and nothing more serious since it
was also clear to the Court that the respondents were merely over-zealous in ensuring the
victory of their clients.

You might also like