20 Suarez v. Platon

Canon 6 - Lawyers in Government Service
Suarez v. Platon
G.R. No. 46371
February 7, 1940
Doctrine:
The Court cannot overemphasize the necessity of close scrutiny and investigation of prosecuting
officers of all cases handled by them, but while the Court averse to any form of vacillation by such officers
in the prosecution of public offenses, it is unquestionable that they may, in appropriate cases, in order to
do justice and avoid injustice, reinvestigate cases in which they have already filed the corresponding
informations.
Facts:
Lieut. Vivencio Orais of the Phil. Constabulary and one of the respondents, filed a complaint under
oath with the justice of peace of Calauag, Province of Tayabas, charging Fortunato Suarez, petitioner
herein, and one Tomas Ruedas, with sedition. While the preliminary investigation was pending, Lieut. Orais,
in obedience to an order of the Provincial Commander of Tayabas, moved for the temporary dismissal of
the case.
Thereafter, Suarez charged Lieut. Orais and Damian Jimenez in the same court with the crime of
arbitrary detention. Since the justice of peace of Calauag, Judge Platon, is one of the accused, the
preliminary investigation was conducted by the justice of peace of Lopez, Tayabas, who thereafter bound
the defendants over to the CFI. Motion for dismissal was objected and denied by Judge David of 2 nd Branch
CFI Tayabas. Subsequently, Fiscal Yamson, who was assigned by the DOJ to conduct the prosecution of
the case, moved for reconsideration, denying the motion for dismissal. Judge Servillano Platon, granted
the motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case holding that the evidence was insufficient to convict
the accused of the crime charged. Hence, the petitioner appealed to this Court praying for a peremptory
writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to reinstate the criminal case which had been ordered
dismissed.
Issue:
Whether there is sufficient ground to proceed with the criminal case for arbitrary detention against
Lieutenant Orais and Justice of Peace Jimenez.
Ruling:
The petition is dismissed.
Ratio:
The prosecuting officer “is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and
who interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that is shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.
As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two--‐ fold aim of which is
that guilt shall not escape nor innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor, indeed, he
should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his
duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every
legitimate means to bring about a just one.” (Mr. Justice Sutherland of the US SC)
21. Lahm v. Mayor
A.C. No. 7430; 15 February 2012
Facts:
On 5 September 2006, a certain David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before
the Labor Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission against the members of the Board
of Trustees of the International School, Manila. The case was raffled to the sala of the respondent, Labor
Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor, Jr. During the proceedings, Toze filed a Verified Motion for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, to which the complainants, Martin Lahm III and
James P. Concepcion, opposed. Thereafter, the respondent issued an Order directing the parties in the
said case to maintain the status quo ante, which consequently reinstated Toze to his former position as
superintendent of the International School Manila. Despite the complainants’ motion for an early resolution
of their motion to dismiss the said case, respondent maintained his Order. Thus, the complaint praying for
the respondent’s disbarment for alleged gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath.
Issue:
Is the respondent guilty for the gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court concurred with the conclusion of the Investigating Commissioner of the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline that respondent guilty for the gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s
oath. Gross misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person
concerned with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the
right determination of the cause. The motive behind this conduct is generally a premeditated, obstinate or
intentional purpose.
Under the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the labor arbiters no longer have the authority to
issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining orders. However, the respondent, in
violation of the said rule, vehemently insist that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction
and/or temporary restraining order.
Further, the unfounded insistence of the respondent on his supposed authority to issue writs of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, taken together with the delay in the resolution of
the said motion for reconsideration, would clearly show that the respondent deliberately intended to cause
prejudice to the complainants.
In stubbornly insisting that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order contrary to the clear import of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the
respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

20 Suarez v. Platon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20 Suarez v. Platon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20 Suarez v. Platon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canon 6 - Lawyers in Government Service

You might also like