G.R. No. 147550 . August 16, 2005.
ISIDRA VDA. DE VICTORIA (Substituted by MARIO VICTORIA), Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUANITA T. GUERRERO, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 37, Calamba, Laguna; HON. FLORENCIO P. BUESER, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Calauan, Laguna; EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALAMBA, LAGUNA and/or HIS DEPUTIES; SPOUSES LUIS GIBE and ZENAIDA GIBE and ALL PERSONS ACTING ON THEIR BEHALEF, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from an ejectment proceeding. After adverse decisions from the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court, petitioner Mario Victoria, through his counsel Atty. Abdul A. Basar, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed this petition. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed two days late and was thus denied. Subsequently, petitioner, assisted by Atty. Basar, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, followed by the Petition itself.
In these pleadings, petitioner and his counsel made material misrepresentations. They claimed a timely motion for reconsideration was filed with the CA and that notice of its denial was received only on March 28, 2001, making the appeal timely. Records, however, proved the motion for reconsideration was filed late and the denial notice was actually received on September 20, 2000. The reglementary period to appeal had expired almost ten months before the motion for extension was filed. The Supreme Court, in a prior Decision, dismissed the petition for being filed out of time and required petitioner and Atty. Basar to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and disciplined, respectively.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Mario Victoria and his counsel, Atty. Abdul A. Basar, should be held liable for contempt and for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for making false statements of material dates in their pleadings to mislead the Court.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Abdul A. Basar is liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, but petitioner Mario Victoria is not held in contempt.
The Court found that Atty. Basar violated his duty of candor and good faith to the court under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, he breached Rules 10.01 and 10.03 by making false statements regarding the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration and the date of receipt of the CA Resolution. These misrepresentations were intended to conceal the fact that the appeal period had long expired and to mislead the Court into accepting the belated petition. An attorney, as an officer of the court, has a paramount duty not to mislead the court by any artifice. Atty. Basar’s actions constituted a willful disregard of this duty and an abuse of procedural rules to defeat the ends of justice. He is suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Regarding petitioner Mario Victoria, the Court considered his explanation. He is a farmer with limited education and resources who relied completely on his lawyer’s advice and representation. His sworn explanation, while not a model of clarity, expressed remorse and a lack of intent to disrespect the court. The Court found that his actions were not willfully contumacious but were the product of ignorance and reliance on counsel. Therefore, he is absolved from the charge of contempt. The ruling emphasizes that while litigants are accountable for their pleadings, a finding of contempt requires a will