PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE - FULL TEXT

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

A.C. No. 4058 March 12, 1998
BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. vs. ERNESTO B. FLORES

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 4058 March 12, 1998

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. complainant, vs.ATTY. ERNESTO
B. FLORES, respondent.

PANGANIBAN, J.:
The profession of law exacts the highest standards from its members and brooks
no violation of its code of conduct. Accordingly, a lawyer who trifles with judicial
processes, engages in forum shopping and blatantly lies in his pleadings must be
sanctioned.
The Case
This is an administrative complaint against Atty. Ernesto Flores filed by Benguet
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO) before this Court on July 5, 1993, seeking
his removal or suspension from the bar for forum shopping, which amounted to
"grave misconduct, . . . unduly delaying the administration of justice, and violating
with impunity his oath of office and applicable laws and jurisprudence." 1
After the respondent submitted his Comment, dated August 21, 1993, we
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on September 27,
1993 for investigation, report and recommendation. On August 15, 1997, we
received a resolution from the IBP Board of Governors, finding respondent guilty
of violating Canons 10 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommending his suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months,
viz:
RESOLUTION NO. XII-97-149
Adm. Case NO. 4058
Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs.
Atty. Ernesto B. Flores

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and

APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, hereinmande [sic] part of this
Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and finding the recommendation therein to be
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
Respondent Atty. Ernesto Flores is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for six (6) months for violating the provision of Canon[s] 10 and 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. 2
The Facts
Because the parties 3 agreed to dispense with the presentation of testimonial

evidence, the case was submitted for resolution on the basis of their
documentary evidence. As found by Investigating Commissioner Plaridel
C. Jose, the facts are as follows:
. . . On February 25, 1993, Labor Arbiter Irenarco Rimando of the National
Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch, Cordillera
Administrative Region, Baguio City, issued a Writ of Execution (. . .) in
NLRC Case No. RAB-1-0313-84 to enforce the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court on May 18, 1992 in G.R. No. 89070 (Benguet Electric
Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, 209 SCRA 55). The Writ of Execution was
issued on motion of Benguet Electric Cooperative (BENECO for short) to
collect the amount of P344,000.00 which it paid to Peter Cosalan during
the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court, on the basis of its
decision ordering the respondent board members "to reimburse petitioner
BENECO any amount that it may be compelled to pay to respondent
Cosalan by virtue of the decision of Labor Arbiter Amado T. Adquilen."
After issuance of the writ of execution, the respondent, as new counsel for
the losing litigant-members of the BENECO Board of Directors, filed a
Motion for Clarification with the Third Division of the Supreme Court in G.R.
No. 89070, the minute resolution to wit: "to note without action the
aforesaid motion".
Thereafter, the respondent instituted a suit docketed as Civil Case NO.
2738-R (. . .) with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Baguio City, seeking
to enjoin the defendants Clerk of Court, et al. from levying on their
properties in satisfaction of the said writ of execution. That case, however,
was dismissed by the Presiding Judge Clarence Villanueva in his Order
dated March 18, 1993 (. . .).
Accordingly, the Office of the Clerk of Court, MTC, Baguio City, through
Sheriff III Wilfredo Mendez, proceeded to levy on the properties of the
losing board members of BENECO. Thus, a sale at public auction was set

on June 1, 1993, at 10:00 o'clock in the morning in front of the Baguio City
Hall, per Sheriff's Notice of Sale dated May 4, 1993 (. . .), of the properties
of Abundio Awal and Nicasio Aliping[,] two of the losing members of the
Board of Directors of BENECO in the aforementioned case.
Respondent claims in his comment (. . .) that Branch 7, motu proprio,
dismissed Civil Case No. 2738-R for lack of jurisdiction on March 18, 1993,
which dismissal was [sic] became final due to respondent's failure to
perfect an appeal therefrom which claim according to the complainant,
constitute[s] deliberate misrepresentation, if not falsehood, because the
respondent indeed interposed an appeal such that on May 11, 1993, the
RTC 7 of Baguio City transmitted the entire record of Civil Case No. 27388 to the Court of Appeals per certified machine copy of the letter transmittal
of same date (. . .).
While respondent "never essentially intended to assail the issuance by the
NLRC of the Writ of Execution . . . nor sought to undo it" (. . .) the
complaint in Civil Case No. 2738-R which he filed prays for the immediate
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary writ of
injunction for defendants Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio City Sheriff to cease
and desist from enforcing the execution and levy of the writ of execution
issued by the NLRC-CAR, pending resolution of the main action in said
court (. . .) which complainant likewise claims as an unprocedural
maneuver to frustrate the execution of the decision of the Supreme Court
in G.R. No. 89070 in complete disregard of settled jurisprudence that
regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and decide questions which
arise and are incidental to the enforcement of decisions, orders and
awards rendered in labor cases citing the case of Cangco vs. CA, 199
SCRA 677, a display of gross ignorance of the law.
On May 26, 1993, respondent again filed for Abundio Awal and Nicasio
Aliping with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, La Trinidad, Benguet,
separate complaints for Judicial Declaration of Family Home Constituted,
Ope Lege, and thus Exempt from Levy and Execution the subject
properties with Damages, etc. docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 93-F-0414
(. . .) and 93-F-0415 (. . .), which are essentially similar actions to enjoin
the enforcement of the judgment rendered in NLRC Case No. RAB-10313-84. He also filed an urgent Motion Ex-parte (. . .) praying for
temporary restraining order in these two (2) cases.
The complainant further alleges that respondent's claim for damages
against the defendant Sheriff is another improper and unprocedural
maneuver which is likewise a violation of respondent's oath not to sue on
groundless suit since the said Sheriff was merely enforcing a writ of

execution as part of his job.

Recommendation of the IBP
As noted earlier, Investigating Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose recommended, and
the IBP Board of Governors concurred, that respondent be suspended from the
bar for six months for:
1. Falsehood, for stating in his comment before this Court that the order of the
RTC dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 2738-R was not appealed on
time
2. Failure to comply with Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 on forum shopping
Commissioner Jose ratiocinated:
A cursory glance of (sic) . . . the complaint filed by the respondent in Civil Case
No. 2738-R before the RTC of Baguio City, which complaint was signed and
verified under oath by the respondent, reveals that it lacks the certification
required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 which took effect on January 1,
1992 to the effect that "to the best of his knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or different
divisions thereof or any tribunal or agency. If there is any other action pending,
he must state the status of the same. If he should learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or pending before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals or different divisions thereof or any tribunal or agency[,] he should notify
the court, tribunal or agency within five (5) days from such notice."
Among the other penalties, the said circular further provides that the lawyer may
also be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for non-compliance thereof.
In sum, it is clear that the respondent violated the provisions of Canon[s] 10 and
12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility under which the lawyer owes
candor, fairness and good faith to the court and exert[s] every effort and
consider[s] it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. 4
This Court's Ruling
We adopt and affirm the recommendation of the IBP suspending the respondent
from the bar, but we increase the period from six (6) months to one (1) year and
six (6) months.
Forum Shopping
Circular No. 28-91, 5 dated September 4, 1991 which took effect on January

1, 1992, requires a certificate of non-forum shopping to be attached to

petitions filed before this Court and the Court of Appeals. This circular was

revised on February 8, 1994. The IBP found that the respondent had
violated it, because the complaint he filed before the RTC of Baguio City
"lack[ed] the certification required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91." 6
We distinguish. Respondent's failure to attach the said certificate cannot be
deemed a violation of the aforementioned circular, because the said requirement
applied only to petitions filed with this Court and the Court of Appeals. 7 Likewise

inapplicable is Administrative Circular No. 04-94 dated February 8, 1994

which extended the requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping to
all initiatory pleadings filed in all courts and quasi-judicial agencies other
than this Court and the Court of Appeals. Circular No. 04-94 became
effective only on April 1, 1994, but the assailed complaint for injunction was
filed on March 18, 1993, and the petition for the constitution of a family
home was instituted on May 26, 1993.
Be that as it may, respondent is still guilty of forum shopping. In Chemphil
Export and Import Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 8 this Court declared
that "(t)he rule against forum shopping has long been established and
subsequent circulars 9 of this Court merely formalized the prohibition and
provided the appropriate penalties against transgressors." The prohibition
is found in Section 1(e) of Rule 16 and Section 4 of Rule 2 of the 1964
Rules of Court, which provide:
Sec. 1. Grounds. Within the time for pleading, a motion to dismiss the
action may be made on any of the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the
same cause;
xxx xxx xxx 10
Sec. 4. Effect of splitting a single cause of action. If two or more
complaints are brought for different parts of a single cause of action, the
filing of the first may be pleaded in abatement of the other or others, in
accordance with section 1(e) of Rule 16, and a judgment upon the merits
in any one is available as a bar in the others. 11
The prohibition is also contained in Circular No. 28-91. This circular did not only
require that a certification of non-forum shopping be attached to the petitions filed
before this Court or the Court of Appeals; it also decreed that forum shopping
constituted direct contempt of court and could subject the offending lawyer to
disciplinary action. The third paragraph thereof reads:

3. Penalties.
(a) Any violation of this Circular shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of the
multiple petition or complaint.
(b) Any willful and deliberate forum shopping by any party and his lawyer wit the
filing of multiple petitions and complaints to ensure favorable action shall
constitute direct contempt of court.
(c) The submission of false certification under Par. 2 of the Circular shall likewise
constitute contempt of Court, without prejudice to the filing of criminal action
against the guilty party. The lawyer may also be subjected to disciplinary
proceedings. (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing were substantially reproduced in Revised Circular No. 28-91 12 and

Administrative Circular No. 04-94. 13

In a long line of cases, this Court has held that forum shopping exists when, as a
result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion
(other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, 14 or when he institutes two or

more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble

that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. 15 The most
important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the
"vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks
different courts to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs." 16
After this Court rendered its Decision 17 in Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc.

vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. 18 and upon motion of

BENECO, Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando issued a writ of execution 19
ordering the clerk of court and ex officio city sheriff of the Municipal Trial
Court of Baguio City to levy on and sell at public auction personal and real
property of the members of the Board of Directors of BENECO.
On March 18, 1993, Respondent Flores, acting as counsel for BENECO
Board Members Victor Laoyan, Nicasio Aliping, Lorenzo Pilando and
Abundio Awal, filed with the RTC an injunction suit praying for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order (TRO) "to preserve the status quo as now
obtaining between the parties," as well as a writ of preliminary preventive
injunction ordering the clerk of court and the ex officio city sheriff of the
MTC of Baguio to "cease and desist from enforcing by execution and levy
the writ of execution from the NLRC-CAR, pending resolution of the main
action raised in court." 20
When this injunction case was dismissed, Respondent Flores filed with another
branch of the RTC two identical but separate actions both entitled "Judicial

Declaration of Family Home Constituted, ope lege, Exempt from Levy and
Execution; with Damages, etc.," docketed as Civil Case Nos. 93-F-0414 and 93F-0415. 21 The said complaints were supplemented by an "Urgent Motion Ex

Parte" 22 which prayed for an order to temporarily restrain Sheriff Wilfredo V.

Mendez from proceeding with the auction sale of plaintiffs' property "to
avoid rendering ineffectual and functus [oficio] any judgment of the court
later in this [sic] cases, until further determined by the court."
Civil Case Nos. 93-F-0414 and 93-F-0415 are groundless suits.
Modequillo vs. Breva, 23 reiterated in Manacop vs. Court of Appeals, 24
shows the frivolity of these proceedings:
Under the Family Code, a family home is deemed constituted on a house
and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. There is no need
to constitute the same judicially or extrajudicially as required in the Civil
Code. If the family actually resides in the premises, it is, therefore, a family
home as contemplated by law. Thus, the creditors should take the
necessary precautions to protect their interest before extending credit to
the spouses or head of the family who owns the home.
xxx xxx xxx
The exemption provided as aforestated is effective from the time of the
constitution of the family home as such, and lasts so long as any of its
beneficiaries actually resides therein.
Adhering to the Court's declaration in said cases, the subject properties are
deemed constituted as family homes by operation of law under Article 153 of the
Family Code.
The suits for the constitution of a family home were not only frivolous and
unnecessary; they were clearly asking for reliefs identical to the prayer previously
dismissed by another branch of the RTC, i.e, to forestall the execution of a final
judgment of the labor arbiter. That they were filed ostensibly for the judicial
declaration of a family home was a mere smoke screen; in essence, their real
objective was to restrain or delay the enforcement of the writ of execution. In his
deliberate attempt to obtain the same relief in two different courts, Respondent
Flores was obviously shopping for a "friendly" forum which would capitulate to his
improvident plea for an injunction and was thereby trifling with the judicial
process. 25
We remind the respondent that, under the Code of Professional Responsibility, 26

he had a duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

27
The Code also enjoins him from unduly delaying a case by impeding the
execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. 28

and Garcia vs. Francisco, 30

respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for one year. In
Millare, the respondent filed with different courts a total of six appeals,
complaints and petitions which frustrated and delayed the execution of a
final judgment. Holding that "respondent 'made a mockery of the judicial
processes' and disregarded canons of professional ethics in intentionally
frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a judgment in the case was
rendered [and], thus, 'abused procedural rules to defeat the ends of
substantial justice,'" 31 this Court suspended the respondent from the
practice of law for one year.
In consonance with Millare vs. Montero

29

In Garcia, the respondent was also suspended for one year from the
practice of law, for violating the proscription against forum shopping. This
Court held that "he deserve[d] to be sanctioned, not only as a punishment
for his misconduct but also as a warning to other lawyers who may be
influenced by his example." 32
Falsehood
The investigating commissioner also held respondent liable for committing a
falsehood because, in this administrative case, he stated in his comment that he
had not "perfected an appeal on the dismissal" of his petition for injunction. In his
said comment, the respondent stated:
Branch 7 (of the RTC) motu proprio, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on
March 18, 1993. Not having perfected an appeal on the dismissal, the order of
dismissal became final under the Rules 15 days after its receipt by respondent
on record, or before April 6, 1993. So that today this case is no longer pending.
xxx xxx xxx
It should be noted that when Civil Case Nos. 93-F-0414 and 93-F-0415 for family
homes and damages were filed in the court below on May 26, 1993, Civil Case
NO. 2378-R which seems to give basis to the present Complaint was deemed
terminated, there being no appeal formally taken and perfected in accordance
with the Rules.
xxx xxx xxx
And that precisely was the primal reason why respondent decided not to appeal
any further anymore [sic] the order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of the court
below in Civil Case No. 2738, and let it be deemed final by the Rules and
jurisprudence. 33 (Emphasis supplied.)
The indelible fact, however, is that respondent did file an appeal which was
perfected later on. The original records of the injunction suit had been transmitted

to the appellate court. 34 Moreover, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution

dismissing the appeal. 35 Thus, in denying that he had appealed the

decision of the RTC, respondent was making a false statement.
Respondent argues that the withdrawal of his appeal means that no appeal
was made under Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. The pertinent
provisions of Rule 50 36 read:
Sec. 2. Effect of dismissal. Fifteen (15) days after the dismissal of an
appeal, the clerk shall return to the court below the record on appeal with a
certificate under the seal of the court showing that the appeal has been
dismissed. Upon the receipt of such certificate in the lower court the case
shall stand there as though no appeal had ever been taken, and the
judgment of the said court may be enforced with the additional costs
allowed by the appellate court upon dismissing the appeal.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 4. Withdrawal of appeal. An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at
any time before the filing of appellee's brief. . . . The withdrawal of an
appeal shall have the same effect as that of a dismissal in accordance with
section 2 of this rule.
Respondent's explanation misses the point. True, he withdrew his appeal. But it
is likewise true that he had actually filed an appeal, and that this was perfected.
False then is his statement that no appeal was perfected in the injunction suit.
Worse, he made the statement before this Court in order to exculpate himself,
though in vain, from the charge of forum shopping.
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he owes candor, fairness and good faith to the courts. 37 He shall

neither do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any. He also has a
duty not to mislead or allow the courts to be misled by any artifice. 38
For this offense, we suspend the respondent from the practice of law for another
year. True, in Ordonio vs. Eduarte, 39 Porac Trucking, Inc., vs. Court of

Appeals 40 and Erectors, Inc. vs. NLRC, 41 we imposed a suspension of only

six months for a similar malfeasance. But in Flores' case, his falsehood is
aggravated by its brazenness, for it was committed in an attempt, vain as it
was, to cover up his forum shopping.
Before we close, we note that this simple case was referred to the IBP on
September 27, 1993. It was deemed submitted for resolution per the
investigating commissioner's order dated May 10, 1995. However, the
investigating commissioner submitted his report only on May 5, 1997.

Moreover, the IBP transmitted its recommendation to the Court only

through a letter dated July 31, 1997, which was received by the Office of
the Bar Confidant on August 15, 1997. Why it took the IBP almost four
years to finish its investigation of the case and over two years from the
date the parties filed their last pleadings to resolve it escapes us. After all,
the case did not require any trial-type investigation, and the parties
submitted only documentary evidence to prove or rebut their respective
cases. Thus, we find it opportune to urge the IBP to hasten the disposition
of administrative cases and to remind it that this Court gives it only ninety
days to finish its investigation, report and recommendation. Should it
require more time, it should file with the Court a request for extension,
giving the reason for such request.
WHEREFORE, for trifling with judicial processes by resorting to forum
shopping, Respondent Ernesto B. Flores is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR and, for violating his oath and
the Canon of Professional Responsibility to do no falsehood, he is
SUSPENDED for another period of ONE (1) YEAR, resulting in a total
period of TWO (2) YEARS, effective upon finality of this Decision. He is
WARNED that a repetition of a similar misconduct will be dealt with more
severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be included in his files which are with the Office
of the Bar Confidant, and circularized to all courts and to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,
Kapunan, Mendoza, Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Complaint, p. 4; records, Vol. 1, p. 4.
2 See Notice of Resolution; records, Vol. 1.
3 BENECO was represented by Atty. Emiliano L. Gayo while Respondent Flores
appeared as counsel for himself. Before the IBP commissioner, Flores filed a
one-page Memorandum dated February 15, 1995, while Gayo submitted a sixpage Memorandum dated February 13, 1995. The case was deemed submitted
for resolution by the IBP on May 10, 1995. (Records, p. 63.)
4 Report of IBP Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose, pp. 4-5.
5 Re: "Additional Requisites for Petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the

Court of Appeals to Prevent Forum Shopping of Multiple Filing of Petitions and

Complaints."
6 Report of IBP Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose, p. 4.
7 Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 192, 196, July 18, 1994. See also
Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator, 238 SCRA 721, 770, December 5, 1994.
8 251 SCRA 257, 291, December 12, 1995; per Kapunan, J.
9 Revised Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
10 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
11 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
12 Paragraph 2.
13 Paragraph 2.
14 First Philippine International Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259, 283,
January 24, 1996 and Washington Distillers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA
821, 835, August 22, 1996. See also Bugnay Construction and Development
Corporation vs. Laron, 176 SCRA 240, 252, August 10, 1989.
15 Chemphil Export & Import Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 257,
291, December 12, 1995.
16 Borromeo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 255 SCRA 75, 84 March 15,
1996.
17 The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is GIVEN DUE COURSE, the comment
filed by respondent Board members is TREATED as their answer, and the
decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 21 November 1988
in NLRC Case No. RAB-1-0313-84 is hereby SET ASIDE and the decision dated
5 April 1988 of Labor Arbiter Amado T. Adquilen hereby REINSTATED in toto. In
addition, respondent Board members are hereby ORDERED to reimburse
petitioner Beneco any amounts that it may be compelled to pay to respondent
Cosalan by virtue of the decision of Labor Arbiter Amado T. Adquilen."
(209 SCRA 55, 66, May 18, 1992.)
18 Composed of (1) Victor Laoyan, (2) Nicasio Aliping, (3) Abundio Awal, (4)
Antonio Sudang Pan, and (5) Lorenzo Pilando.
19 Writ of Execution, pp. 1-7; records, Vol. 1, pp. 8-14.

20 Complaint for Injunction, p. 8; records, Vol. 1, p. 22.

21 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 26-37. Emphasis found in the original.
22 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 44-45.
23 185 SCRA 765, 770-771, May 31, 1990; per Gancayco, J.
24 215 SCRA 773, 781-782, November 13, 1992.
25 See First Philippine International Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259,
283, January 24, 1996; Millare vs. Montero, 246 SCRA 1, 8, July 13, 1995; and
Limpin, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 83, 98, May 5, 1988.
26 Promulgated by the Supreme Court on June 21, 1988.
27 Canon 12.
28 Rule 12.04 of Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility.
29 246 SCRA 1, July 13, 1995.
30 220 SCRA 512, March 30, 1993.
31 246 SCRA 1, 9, July 13, 1995 per Quiason, J..
32 220 SCRA 512, 516, March 30, 1993, per curiam.
33 Comment, pp. 2, 7 and 9; records, Vol. 1, pp. 53, 58 and 60.
34 The transmittal letter reads:
In connection with the appeal interposed by the plaintiffs in the above entitled
case, we are transmitting herewith the original records of the same consisting of
the following:
Page in Record
1. Motion for Immediate Raffle 1-2
2. Complaint (including Annexes) 3-48
3. Order dated May 18, 1993 48-49
4. Notice of Appeal 50
5. Approval of Appeal 52
xxx xxx xxx

(Records, Vol. 2, p. 24.)

35 It reads:
Considering plaintiffs-appellants' "Withdrawal of Appeal" dated August 19, 1993,
the same is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
xxx xxx xxx
(Records, Vol. 2, p. 30.)
36 This was prior to the effectivity of the 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court.
37 Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
38 Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility.
39 207 SCRA 229, March 16, 1992.
40 202 SCRA 674, October 15, 1991.
41 166 SCRA 728, October 28, 1988.