Case Digest: DE VICTORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

ISIDRA VDA. DE VICTORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

467 SCRA 78 (2005)

Every lawyer pledges to act with “candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

The Supreme Court granted petitioner Mario Victoria (Victoria) an extended period to file the petition, conditioned, however, on the timeliness of the filing of the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari. It is a basic rule of remedial law that a motion for extension of time must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. Where a motion for extension of time is filed beyond the period of appeal, the same is of no effect since there would no longer be any period to extend, and the judgment or order to be appealed from the will have become final and executory.

In the case at bar, an examination of the records reveals that the reglementary period to appeal had in fact expired almost 10 months prior to the filing of Victoria’s motion for extension of time on April 10, 2001. The Registry Return Receipt of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing the CA Certiorari Petition shows that the same was received by counsel for Victoria’s agent on June 5, 2000. Hence, Victoria had only until June 20, 2000 within which to file an appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration.

In the same Decision, the Court noted that Victoria, with the aid of his counsel, Atty. Abdul Basar (Atty. Basar), made misleading statements in his Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari and in his subsequent Petition respecting the timeliness of his appeal and the status of the Resolutions of the CA.

Consequently, the SC ordered Victoria and Atty. Basar, to show cause, within 10 days from receipt of the Decision, why they should not be held in contempt of court and disciplinarily dealt with for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Atty. Basar can be held liable in contempt of court and for misconduct

HELD:

As part of his or her oath, every lawyer pledges to act with ―candor, fairness and good faith to the court.‖ Thus, a lawyer is honor bound to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of litigation and in his relations with his client, the opposing part and his counsel, and the court before which he pleads his client’s cause.

Moreover, the Code of Professional Responsibility obligates lawyers to ―observe the rules of procedure and not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.‖
It is, therefore, lamentable that Atty. Basar, by misrepresenting the timeliness of an appeal from a final and executor Resolution of the Court of Appeals, chose to disregard the fundamental tenets of the legal profession. In fact, from his explanation, he was well aware that the reglementary period for appeal from the Decision of the RTC had already lapsed, but he nevertheless persisted in filing a petition for review on certiorari.