Scribd
Upload
506 views1 page

Casals vs. Cusi LEGAL ETHICS

1) This case involved a petition filed in court and several motions for extension of time filed by Atty. Delante on behalf of respondents to submit their comment on the petition. 2) Due to failure to file the comment, the court required Atty. Delante to explain. His explanation claimed he asked clients to hire another lawyer after taking on other commitments. 3) The court found Atty. Delante's explanation unsatisfactory and that he willfully disregarded his duty as a lawyer to be truthful to the court.

Uploaded by

Coleen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
506 views1 page

Casals vs. Cusi LEGAL ETHICS

1) This case involved a petition filed in court and several motions for extension of time filed by Atty. Delante on behalf of respondents to submit their comment on the petition. 2) Due to failure to file the comment, the court required Atty. Delante to explain. His explanation claimed he asked clients to hire another lawyer after taking on other commitments. 3) The court found Atty. Delante's explanation unsatisfactory and that he willfully disregarded his duty as a lawyer to be truthful to the court.

Uploaded by

Coleen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Casals vs. Cusi, Jr.

G.R. No. L-35766


July 12, 1973

Facts: Upon the filing of the petition at bar, the Court required respondents to comment within ten days from notice and to issue a
temporary restraining order restraining respondent court from proceeding with the hearing of the case. Atty. Leonido Delante, as
counsel for respondents, filed several motions for extension of time from receipt of such petition within which to submit respondents'
comment. The Court granted the said extensions. Due to respondents' failure to file their comment, the Court required Atty. Delante
to explain and show cause why they failed to file the required comment. Atty. Delante filed his explanation, wherein he claimed that
in view of his pressing professional commitments, he requested his clients to have the answer prepared by another lawyer for which
reason respondents took delivery of the records of the said case from his office and contracted the services of Atty. Antonio Fernandez.
Atty. Delante also claimed that it was only upon receipt of the Court's resolution requiring his explanation that he learned that Atty.
Fernandez underwent a surgical operation. Atty. Delante prays that his explanation be accepted and that he be given an opportunity
to prepare the necessary answer for the respondents.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Delante violated his duties to the court.

Held: Yes. The Court finds unsatisfactory Atty. Delante's explanation for his having allowed his extended period to lapse without
submitting the required comment nor extending to the Court the courtesy of any explanation or manifestation for his failure to do so.
His inaction unduly prevented and delayed the Court's prompt disposition of the petition. Worse, he gave an explanation that is devious
and unworthy of belief since it is contradicted by his own previous representations of record as well as by the supporting documents
submitted by him. The unsatisfactory explanation given by Atty. Delante evinces a willful disregard of his solemn duty as an attorney
to employ in the conduct of a case "such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead" the courts
"by an artifice or false statement of fact or law." A lawyer must do his best to honor his oath, as there would be a great detriment to, if
not a failure of the administration of justice if courts could not rely on the submissions and representations made by lawyers in the
conduct of a case.

You might also like