Scribd
Upload
259 views2 pages

108 - Libit v. Oliva Adm Case No. 2837 October 7, 1997

1) Attorney Edelson Oliva was charged with knowingly presenting a falsified Sheriff's Return of Summons in a civil case in 1984. 2) An investigation by the Commission on Bar Discipline found evidence that Atty. Oliva was involved in falsifying the sheriff's return, including documents he signed using the falsified return. 3) The court ruled that Atty. Oliva violated his oath as a lawyer and ethical rules by committing falsehood. He was disbarred and his license to practice law was cancelled. The case against the other attorney, Florando Umali, was dismissed.

Uploaded by

November Lily Opleda
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
259 views2 pages

108 - Libit v. Oliva Adm Case No. 2837 October 7, 1997

1) Attorney Edelson Oliva was charged with knowingly presenting a falsified Sheriff's Return of Summons in a civil case in 1984. 2) An investigation by the Commission on Bar Discipline found evidence that Atty. Oliva was involved in falsifying the sheriff's return, including documents he signed using the falsified return. 3) The court ruled that Atty. Oliva violated his oath as a lawyer and ethical rules by committing falsehood. He was disbarred and his license to practice law was cancelled. The case against the other attorney, Florando Umali, was dismissed.

Uploaded by

November Lily Opleda
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/ 2

ESTEBAN M.

LIBIT, complainant,
vs.
ATTYS. EDELSON G. OLIVA and FLORANDO A. UMALI, respondent.

A.C. No. 2837 October 7, 1994

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), through complainant, charged respondents that
sometime in May 1984 in the City of Manila, at RTC, Branch XLI, Manila, Philippines, the
above-named Respondents, as Counsels for PEDRO CUTINGTING in Civil Case No. 84-
24144, entitled PEDRO CUTINGTING, Plaintiff vs. ALFREDO TAN, Defendant knowingly
and willfully introduced/presented in evidence before the aforesaid Regional Trial Court, a
falsified Sheriff's Return of Summons during the hearing of the aforesaid Civil Case thereby
impending and/or obstructing the speedy administration and/or dispensation of Justice.

Respondents in their respective answers denied having any hand in the falsification of the
said sheriff's return.

Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

The IBP found that there is ample evidence to prove that Atty. Oliva has something to do
with the falsification of the Sheriff’s Return on the Summons.

1. The Sheriff’s Return of the summons was not signed by the Deputy Sherif.
2. A messenger in the law office of Attys. Umali and Oliva and said messenger brought
the summons to the law office of the respondents.
3. On the basis of the falsified Sheriff's Return on the Summons, Atty. Oliva filed a
typewritten Motion to Declare Defendant in Default.
4. Atty. Oliva sent a final demand letter on Alfredo Tan, the defendant in said Civil case,
for payment of the sum of P70,174.00.
5. All said documents were signed by Atty. Oliva.

ISSUES:

WON respondent Atty. Edelson G. Oliva committed acts of misconduct which warrant the
exercise by the Court of its disciplinary powers? (YES)

RULING:
Yes.

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.

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.

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.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements is the observance of honesty and
candor.
It is essential that lawyers bear in mind at all times that their first duty is not to their clients
but rather to the courts, that they are above all court officers sworn to assist the courts in
rendering justice to all and sundry, and only secondarily are they advocates of the exclusive
interests of their clients. For this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to impose upon Atty. Edelson Oliva the supreme penalty of
DISBARMENT. His license to practice law in the Philippines is CANCELLED and the Bar
Confidant is ordered to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

The case is ordered dismissed as against Atty. Florando Umali.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like