58 Phil. 557 – Legal Ethics – Doing of Falsehood in Court
Atty. Jose Topacio Nueno was a board member of Manila. He filed a complaint against his fellow board member Atty. Pascual Santos for the latter’s alleged connection in illegal gambling particularly in the game of chance called “monte”; that he represented as client one Iñigo Hernandez who was charged for running this “monte” game; that he encouraged Hernandez to plead guilty in the crime charged (probably to protect the real guilty ones) even though Atty. Santos knew that Hernandez was merely a waiter in the house where the alleged “monte” was being operated. The investigating judge found that the evidence against Atty. Santos is strong hence he recommended to the Supreme Court that Santos be disciplined.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Santos should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Santos consented to the doing of a falsehood and deceived the court when he had an accused plead guilty to an offense which he had not committed. As a member of the Bar, he violated his oath of office by deceiving the court and consenting a falsehood to be committed. The Supreme Court however only suspended Atty. Santos for three months – this is because the said complaint against him by Nueno is tainted with political motives and that the complaint was filed two years after occurrence of the controversy involved.
