ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS and POTENCIANO L.

GALANIDA

FACTS:

 Potenciano Galanida was hired by Allied Banking Corporation and rose from accountant-bookeeper to assistant
manager. His appointment was covered by a Notice of Personnel Action which provides as one of the conditions,
petitioners right to transfer employees.
 Petitioner listed respondent in the order of assistant managers to be assigned outside of Cebu City.
 Having been stationed in Cebu for 7 years already. Private respondent manifested his refusal to be transferred
to Bacolod City citing as reason parental obligations, expenses, and the anguish that would result if he is away
from his family. He then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal.
 Subsequently, petitioner bank informed private respondent that he was to report to the Tagbilaran City Branch
effective.Private respondent refused.
 In a letter, petitioner warned private respondent.
 Galanida received an inter-office communication (Memo) from Allied Banks Vice-President for Personnel, Mr.
Leonso C. Pe. The Memo informed Galanida that Allied Bank had terminated his services. The reasons given for
the dismissal were:
o Galanidas continued refusal to be transferred from the Jakosalem, CebuCity branch; and
o his refusal to report for work despite the denial of his application for additional vacation leave.
 After several hearings, the Labor Arbiter held that Allied Bank had abused its management prerogative in ordering
the transfer of Galanida. In ruling, the Labor Arbiter misquoted this Courts decision in Dosch v. NLRC, thus:
o While it may be true that the right to transfer or reassign an employee is an employers exclusive right and
the prerogative of management, such right is not absolute. The right of an employer to freely select or
discharge his employee is limited by the paramount police power xxx for the relations between capital and
labor are not merely contractual but impressed with public interest. xxx And neither capital nor labor shall
act oppressively against each other.
 On appeal, the NLRC likewise ruled that Allied Bank terminated Galanida without just cause
 The Court of Appeals held that Galanidas refusal to comply with the transfer orders did not warrant his
dismissal. The appellate court ruled that the transfer from a regional office to the smaller Bacolod or Tagbilaran
branches was effectively a demotion.

ISSUE:
 WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED THERE IS LEGAL BASIS IN PETITIONERS EXERCISE OF ITS
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE

HELD:
 The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of Supreme Court decisions is not the work of the Court, nor
does it state this Courts decision. The syllabus is simply the work of the reporter who gives his understanding of
the decision. The reporter writes the syllabus for the convenience of lawyers in reading.
 A syllabus is not a part of the courts decision. A counsel should not cite a syllabus in place of the carefully
considered text in the decision of the Court.
 The Labor Arbiter Almirante and Atty. Durano began by quoting from Dosch, but substituted a portion of the
decision with a headnote from the SCRA syllabus, which they even underscored. In short, they deliberately made
the quote from the SCRA syllabus appear as the words of the Supreme Court.
 We admonish them for what is at the least patent carelessness, if not an outright attempt to mislead the parties
and the courts taking cognizance of this case. Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority. It is the
duty of all officers of the court to cite the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court accurately.

 The rule is that the transfer of an employee ordinarily lies within the ambit of the employers prerogatives. The
employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the requirement of
its business, provided the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of the employees salary,
benefits and other privileges.
 Galanida was well aware of Allied Banks policy of periodically transferring personnel to different branches. As the
Court of Appeals found, assignment to the different branches of Allied Bank was a condition of Galanidas
employment.
 Neither was Galanidas transfer in the nature of a demotion. Galanida did not present evidence showing that the
transfer would diminish his salary, benefits or other privileges. Instead, Allied Banks assured Galanida that he
would not suffer any reduction in rank or grade, and that the transfer would involve the same rank, duties and
obligations
  The refusal to obey a valid transfer order constitutes willful disobedience of a lawful order of an employer.
Employees may object to, negotiate and seek redress against employers for rules or orders that they regard as
unjust or illegal. However, until and unless these rules or orders are declared illegal or improper by competent
authority, the employees ignore or disobey them at their peril.
 For Galanidas continued refusal to obey Allied Banks transfer orders, we hold that the bank dismissed Galanida
for just cause in accordance with Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code
 Galanida is thus not entitled to reinstatement or to separation pay.

RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR

FACTS:
 Judge Buyser inhibited himself from further trying the case because of the harsh insinuation of Senior Prosecutor
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo that he lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate, by allegedly suggesting the filing
of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the accused
 The case was transferred to the RTC of Surigao City, presided by Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan.
 Judge Tan favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond, and fixed the amount of the bond
at P40,000.
 Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order, which motion was denied for lack of merit.
Respondent appealed the Orders to the Court of Appeals (CA)

 Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused the publication of an article in the issue of
the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The article, entitled Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder
suspect to bail out.
 The RTC of Surigao City, directed respondent and the writer of the article, Mark Francisco, to appear in court to
explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the article which degraded the court and its
presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation.
 Mark Francisco disclosed that respondent, in a press conference, stated that the crime of murder is non-bailable.
When asked by the trial court why he printed such lies, Mr. Francisco answered that his only source was respondent.
 Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press conference, but refused to answer whether he
made the statements in the article. For his refusal to answer, the trial court declared him in contempt of court
pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court

 Despite the citation of indirect contempt, respondent presented himself to the media for interviews in Radio
Station DXKS, and again attacked the integrity of Judge Tan and the trial courts disposition in the proceedings
 The RTC of Surigao City required respondent to explain why he should not be held in contempt for his media
interviews that degraded the court and the presiding judge, and why he should not be suspended from the
practice of law for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 11.05 of Canon 11and Rule
13.02 of Canon 13.
 Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to Contempt alleging that he was
saddled with work of equal importance and needed ample time to answer the same. He also prayed for a bill of
particulars in order to properly prepare for his defense.
 The trial court denied the motion. It stated that a bill of particulars is not applicable in contempt proceedings
 The trial court received respondents Answer. Respondent denied the charge that he sought to be interviewed by
radio station DXKS. He, however, stated that right after the hearing, he was approached by someone who asked
him to comment on the Order issued in open court, and that his comment does not fall within the concept of
indirect contempt of court. He also admitted that he was interviewed by his friend, Tony Consing, at the latters
instance. He justified his response during the interview as a simple exercise of his constitutional right of freedom
of speech and that it was not meant to offend or malign, and was without malice.
 The trial court found respondents denials to be lame as the tape of his interview, duly transcribed, showed
disrespect of the court and its officers

 The RTC of Surigao City, transmitted to the Office of the Bar Confidant the Statement of Facts of respondents
suspension from the practice of law, together with the order of suspension and other relevant documents.
 The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended the implementation of the trial courts order of suspension, and that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a stern warning that therepetition of a similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.


ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Order of the Office of the Bar Confidant should be affirmed.
HELD:
 Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon
whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
 Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit
grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.
 Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference
where he made statements against the Order.
 Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in
the article of Mindanao Gold Star Daily.
 Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the
best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.
 Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and of violating the Lawyers Oath, for which he is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality of this Decision, with a STERN WARNINGthat the repetition
of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE, vs. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR;
ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO, vs. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR

FACTS:
 Brodett and Tecson ("Alabang Boys") were the accused in cases filed by the PDEA for the illegal sale and use of
dangerous drugs. In a Joint Inquest Resolution, the charges were dropped for lack of probable cause.
 Because of the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory questions during the evaluation of the
case, several media outlets reported on incidents of bribery and "cover-up" allegedly prevalent in investigations of
the drug trade.
 This prompted the House Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own congressional hearings. It was revealed
during one such hearing that respondent had prepared the release order for his three clients using the letterhead
of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the stationery of then Secretary Raul Gonzales.
 Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), sent a
letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.
o They stated that respondent had admitted to drafting the release order, and had thereby committed a
highly irregular and unethical act. They argued that respondent had no authority to use the DOJ
letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the bar
 For his part, Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on alleged violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote
respect for legal processes.
o Atty. Lozano contended that respondent showed disrespect for the law and legal processes in drafting the
said order and sending it to a high-ranking public official, even though the latter was not a government
prosecutor
 Officers of the IBP, Cebu City Chapter, issued a Resolution condemning the unethical conduct of respondent and
showing unqualified support for the VACC’s filing of disbarment proceedings.
 In his Comment, respondent alludes to the Joint Inquest Resolution dropping the charges against his clients for
lack of probable cause, arguing that the resolution also ordered the immediate release of Brodett and Tecson; yet,
"if the Secretary of Justice approves it, then everything may be expedited." In any case, respondent continues,
the drafted release order was not signed by the Secretary and therefore remained "a mere scrap of paper with no
effect at all."

ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

HELD:
 After a careful review of the records,we agree with the IBP in finding reasonable grounds to hold respondent
administratively liable. Canon 13, the provision applied by the Investigating Commissioner, states that "a lawyer
shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court." We believe that other provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility
likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling not limited to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in the
justice sector, where respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar.
  The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their clients’
success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to bythe lawyer,
even inthe pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical
 Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system." Further, according to Rule 15.06, "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able
to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body." The succeeding rule, Rule 15.07, mandates a lawyer
"to impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness."
 Zeal and persistence in advancing a client’s cause must always be within the bounds of the law. A self-respecting
independence in the exercise of the profession is expected if an attorney is to remain a member of the bar. In the
present case, we find that respondent fell short of these exacting standards. Given the import of the case, a
warning is a mere slap on the wrist that would not serve as commensurate penalty for the offense.
 Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. is found GUILTYof violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
effective immediately. This also serves as an emphatic WARNING that repetition of any similar offense shall be
dealt with more severely.

VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. HONTIVEROS, MR. SOCORRO F. MANAS, and TRINIDAD NORDISTA,
vs. ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS

FACTS:
 Veronica Santiago, Benjamin Hontiveros, Ma. Socorro Manas, and Trinidad Nordista were the President, Vice-
President, Treasurer, and Auditor, respectively, of the FEUFA. They allegedly expelled from the union Paulino
Salvador. The latter then commenced with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint to
declare illegal his expulsion from the union.
 Med-Arbiter Tomas Falconitin declared illegal Salvador's expulsion and directed the union and all its officers to
reinstate Salvador's name in the roll of union members with all the rights and privileges appurtenant thereto. This
resolution was affirmed in toto by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
 Subsequently, Paulino Salvador filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, a complaint against the
complainants herein for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fee
 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the said case on grounds of (1) res judicata by virtue of the final decision of
the Med-Arbiter and (2) lack of jurisdiction, since what was involved was an intra-union issue cognizable by the
DOLE. Later, he filed a supplemental motion to dismiss.
 Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, granted the motion and ordered the dismissal of the case. Upon Salvador's
motion for reconsideration, however, it reconsidered the order of dismissal, reinstated the case, and required the
complainants herein to file their answer
 Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case. This
motion having been denied, the respondent filed with this Court a petition for certiorari, which was later referred to
the Court of Appeals.
 Although that petition and his subsequent motion for reconsideration were both denied, the respondent still did not
file the complainants' answer. Hence, upon plaintiff Salvador's motion, the complainants were declared in default,
 The respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to stop the ex-parte reception of evidence
before the Clerk of Court, but to no avail
 Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the complainants herein to pay, jointly and severally,
plaintiff Salvador the amounts of P200,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages or
corrective damages; and P65,000.00 as attorney's fees; plus cost of suit.
 The complainants, still assisted by the respondent, elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which, however,
affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
 The respondent asserts that he was about to appeal the said decision to this Court, but his services as counsel
for the complainants and for the union were illegally and unilaterally terminated by complainant Veronica
Santiago.


ISSUE:
 Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for
the complainants an answer for which reason the latter were declared in default and judgment was rendered
against them

HELD:
 No lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He
has the right to decline employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and
champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.
 This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized
by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is
demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative
duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public.
 Certainly, "overzealousness" on the one hand and "volume and pressure of legal work" on the other are two
distinct and separate causes or grounds. The first presupposes the respondent's full and continuing awareness of
his duty to file an answer which, nevertheless, he subordinated to his conviction that the trial court had committed
a reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in issuing an order reconsidering its previous order of dismissal of
Salvador's complaint and in denying the motion to reconsider the said order. The second ground is purely based
on forgetfulness because of his other commitments.
 All told, the respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence and, more specifically, Rule 18.03
thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable."
 The respondent's negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a "losing
cause" for the complainants since the claims therein for damages were based on the final decision of the Med-
Arbiter declaring the complainants' act of expelling Salvador from the union to be illegal. This claim is a mere
afterthought which hardly persuades us. If indeed the respondent was so convinced of the futility of any defense
therein, he should have seasonably informed the complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case, neither overstating nor understanding the
prospects of the case.
 ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more careful in the
performance of his duty to his clients.