Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33672)
Facts:
Vicente Munoz v. People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33672. September 26, 1973, First Division, Fernando, J., writing for the Court. The matter before the Court is a disciplinary resolution directed at respondent attorney Delia T. Sutton, a member of the bar affiliated with the firm of Salonga, Ordonez, Yap, Parlade & Associates, for misrepresentations in a petition for certiorari filed in connection with the underlying criminal case against petitioner Vicente Munoz.The underlying criminal prosecution (trial court) and the Court of Appeals both accepted the prosecution’s version of the facts and found the defense version unbelievable; the Court of Appeals’ decision was reviewed by a petition for certiorari filed by counsel for Munoz. In the Supreme Court’s resolution of July 12, 1971 denying the petition for review on the ground that the case was mainly factual and for lack of merit, the Court also observed that portions of the petition for certiorari mischaracterized and attributed as “findings” certain statements in the Court of Appeals decision that the Court of Appeals had not in fact so found. The July 12, 1971 resolution required counsel to show cause within ten days why they should not be held in contempt or otherwise disciplined.
The firm filed a "Compliance with Resolution" on August 14, 1971, and later a "Joint Apology" dated December 1, 1971, in which Delia T. Sutton and senior partner Sedfrey A. Ordonez explained the inaccuracies, attributed them principally to Sutton’s inexperience in preparing petitions for certiorari, and invoked the duty of candor in the Canons of Professional Ethics. The Court scheduled a hearing (September 14, 1971) at which Sutton appeared; the Court found her demeanor insufficiently contrite while Ordonez expressly acknowledged the reprehensibility of the misrepresentations and offered regret. After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court resolved to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Delia T. Sutton commit professional misconduct by misrepresenting the Court of Appeals’ findings in a petition for certiorari?
- If misconduct occurred, what disciplinary sanction is appropriate and what mitigating circumstances, if any, should...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)