Citation: AC No.

2837 | October 7, 1994

Title: Libit vs Atty. Oliva

Principle: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court nor shall
he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

Facts:

Judge Domingo Panis in Pedro Cutingting v. Alfredo Tan ordered the NBI Director to conduct an
investigation to determine the author of the falsified Sheriff’s return in said case. As a result of
which, the NBI charged respondents Attys. Edelson Oliva and Florando Umali for obstruction of
justice. The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. In view of NBI’s
report that Umali’s signature in the complaint in the civil case was not his, the case was
dismissed with respect to him.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Oliva violated the CPR?

Ruling:

Yes.

Atty. Edelson G. Oliva committed acts of misconduct which warrant the exercise by the Court of
its disciplinary powers. The facts, as supported by the evidence, obtaining in this case
indubitably reveal respondent’s failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the
strictures of the lawyer’s oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of
Professional Ethics. A lawyer’s responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client
does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the
other party.

In this case, respondent Atty. Edelson Oliva has manifestly violated that part of his oath as a
lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood. He has likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.