G.R. No. 132365 – 354 Phil. 262 – 292 SCRA 264 – Legal Ethics – Duty of Lawyers To Properly Quote The Supreme Court
Judicial Ethics – Duty of the Judge to be Studious of the Principles of Law
In 1996, the Commission on Elections filed criminal cases against certain individuals for violations of the Omnibus Election Code. The cases were filed with a Regional Trial Court in Samar presided over by Judge Tomas Noynay. Judge Noynay however dismissed the said cases as he ruled that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the said cases because said criminal offenses were punishable with less than six years imprisonment. He said that said cases should be filed with the MTC.
Atty. Jose Balbuena, member of COMELEC’s legal department, filed a motion for reconsideration. He cited a case entitled: “Alberto Naldeza vs Judge Juan Lavilles, Jr., A.M No. MTJ-94-1009, March 5, 1996 (245 SCRA 286).” According to Atty. Balbuena, in the said case he cited, the Supreme Court has already settled the issue and Atty. Balbuena even copied in toto the said ruling by the Supreme Court in his motion.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Tomas Noynay is correct in dismissing the case.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court admonished Judge Noynay for dismissing the case as the same was contrary to Section 32 of B.P. 129 as well as Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that election cases are within the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts except certain cases (which were not the cases filed by COMELEC in this case).
Section 32 of B.P. 129, on the other hand, provides that as a rule, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine EXCEPT otherwise provided by special law. The Omnibus Election Code is a special law which provides that election offenses, regardless of penalties, are under the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.
Judge Noynay was not able to follow these rules. It is a judge’s duty to be studious of the principles of law, to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself, to be faithful to the law, and to maintain professional competence.
On the other hand, Atty. Balbuena is also admonished for being reckless in citing cases. The Supreme Court said that the passage cited by Balbuena in his Motion was not the actual decision of the Supreme Court in the said case cited but rather the memorandum of the court administrator which was quoted in the said case. Further, his citation of “Naldeza vs Lavilles, Jr.” was wrong. Not only did he spell Naldeza wrong (as the correct spelling was NALDOZA), he also cited the wrong SCRA. It should have been 254 SCRA 286 and not 245 SCRA 286.
Balbuena is reminded of Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority.
