Scribd
Upload
308 views1 page

Case Title Tolentino v. Millado Case No. Ponente Date Doctrine

Attorneys Millado and Sibayan were reprimanded for violating rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In their legal filings, they recklessly alleged that the Municipal Trial Court lacked expertise, experience, and was biased. Specifically, they attributed motives to the judge that were not supported by the record. While lawyers can criticize judges, it must be done with a fair basis and not use intemperate language. The Supreme Court warned that further similar violations will be severely punished.

Uploaded by

Rion Margate
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
308 views1 page

Case Title Tolentino v. Millado Case No. Ponente Date Doctrine

Attorneys Millado and Sibayan were reprimanded for violating rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In their legal filings, they recklessly alleged that the Municipal Trial Court lacked expertise, experience, and was biased. Specifically, they attributed motives to the judge that were not supported by the record. While lawyers can criticize judges, it must be done with a fair basis and not use intemperate language. The Supreme Court warned that further similar violations will be severely punished.

Uploaded by

Rion Margate
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/ 1

3E PALE (2020-2021)

CASE TITLE Tolentino v. Millado CASE NO. AC No. 10737


PONENTE J. Reyes DATE Nov. 9, 2015
DOCTRINE
 Recklessly alleging not only the MTCC's lack of expertise and experience, but bias
as well, is in violation of Rules 11.03 and 11.04 of Canon 11 of the CPR.
 Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case. (Italics ours)

FACTS In the October 28, 2013 elections, Tolentino and Manalo both ran as Punong Barangay
of Barangay Calingcuan, Tarlac City. Manalo was proclaimed winner with 441 votes
while Tolentino garnered 440 votes. Tolentino thereafter filed against Manalo an
Election Protest before the MTCC.

MTCC declared Tolentino the winner with 438 votes as opposed to 436 garnered by
Manalo. Manalo was represented therein by Atty. Millado. Atty. Sibayan, as
collaborating counsel for Manalo, filed before the COMELEC an Extremely Urgent
Manifestation/Motion for Issuance of Injunctive Relief and/or Status Quo Ante Order
with Entry of Appearance.

Tolentino filed before the Court a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Millado and
Atty. Sibayan alleging violation of Rules 10.01 and 10.2 of the CPR due to false
allegation that the MTCC had baselessly disregarded the conclusions of PNP Crime
Laboratory, among others.

Atty. Millado merely and honestly observed that the MTCC substituted with its own the
findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory even when the court lacked the expertise and
experience in analyzing handwritings. Tolentino presented an expert witness from NBI
testifying that several ballots were written by the same persons. Manalo, on his part,
offered an expert witness from the PNP saying that handwritings in the ballots
belonged to different persons. The MTCC favored the NBI's findings even when the
former "could not determine the difference between the arcaded and circular manner of
writing:" Atty. Sibayan made exactly the same allegation.

ISSUE/S Whether or not Atty. Millado and Atty. Sibayan violated Rule 11.03 and 11.04 of the
CPR?
RULING YES. Lawyers’ Petition for Certiorari and Extremely Urgent Manifestation/Motion for
Issuance of Injunctive Relief and/or Status Quo Ante Order with Entry of Appearance
recklessly alleged not only the MTCC’s lack of expertise and experience, but bias as
well, when the latter allegedly, with partiality, disregarded on the basis of mere
observation and nothing more, the findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
forum. Further, while lawyers are free to criticize judges, criticism sans fair basis,
grossly violates the duty to accord respect owing to the courts.

The Court notes that while Tolentino filed a complaint for violation of Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, their allegations herein clearly included the
respondents' unfair attribution of lack of expertise and experience, and impartiality of
the MTCC.

Respondents are hereby REPRIMANDED for breach of Canon 11, Rules 11.03 and


11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a STERN WARNING that
repetition of the same or similar offenses in the future will be severely dealt with by this
Court.

You might also like