A.THE LEGAL PROFESSION Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor).

President Marcos signed it and it became RA 6397. In 1972, the CBI

A. SUPERVISION AND CONTROL submitted its Report with the earnest recommendation to ordain the
integration of the Philippine Bar through the adoption and
promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. The Report, alongside the
ART VIII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT proceedings in Administrative Case 526 and the views and sentiments
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: of the Board of Consultants and the Philippine Bench and Bar, prayed
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of for such integration.
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal ISSUE/S: WON the integration of the Bar is constitutional.
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
HELD: Yes. The integration of the Bar is constitutional.
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall
be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, RATIO: The CBI Report defines the Bar Integration as the official
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines, requiring
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless membership and financial support of every lawyer as sine qua non to
disapproved by the Supreme Court. the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of
ARTICLE XII Attorneys. It is based on the recognition that a lawyer is an officer of
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY the court. It improves the position of the Bar as an instrument of
Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national justice and rule of law. It fosters cohesion among lawyers and ensures
talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession. The
managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and constitutionality of the Bar Integration hinges on the constitutional
craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech. As the
encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the practice of law is a privilege vested with public interest, it can best
national benefit. discharge its public responsibilities through collective action.
Collective action can only be done through an organized body.

The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to

Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law. To compel a lawyer to be a member of an Integrated Bar does not
violate his constitutional freedom to associate because integration
does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not
In the Matter of Petitions for Admission to the Bar of already a member. Integration only provides an official national
Unsuccessful Candidates (1946-1953); CUNANAN organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive
group of which every lawyer is already a member. Also, an Integrated
Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known Bar serves to elevate the educational and ethical standards of the Bar
as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” In accordance with the said law, with the goal of improving the quality of the State‘s legitimate interest.
the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those Even assuming that a lawyer is compelled to join the Integrated Bar, it
candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it is still a justified compulsion as it is an exercise of the police power of
to 75 percent. the State in regulating and controlling the legal profession. Also, the
inherent power of the Supreme Court to regulate the Bar includes the
authority to integrate it.
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed
petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while other
motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending NOTE: This case falls under Canon 7 but this Canon is not explicitly
also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. provided for in the case. However, the relation can be seen. Canon 7
There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of provides that ―a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions integrated bar.‖ In using the word ―shall,‖ this Canon makes it
for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked mandatory for all lawyers to: (1) uphold the integrity and dignity of the
Republic Act No. 972. legal profession, and (2) support the activities of the Integrated Bar. In
being a member of the Integrated Bar, a lawyer has certain
responsibilities, which, if complied with, will uphold the integrity and
Issue: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.
dignity of the legal profession. Therefore, it is neither unlawful to have
a Bar Integration nor be a member of an Integrated Bar.
Held: RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit
to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of
II. PRACTICE OF LAW (RULE 138)
reading materials and inadequate preparation.

Attorneys and Admission to Bar

In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the
admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at
law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been A. CONCEPT
indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in
the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, PEOPLE v VILLANUEVA
suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the
practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
In 1959, Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in the
municipality of Alaminos in Laguna. In said case, the private offended
On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the party asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule to prosecute said case.
functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the Apparently, Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna. Villanueva the
government. opposed the appearance of Fule as counsel for the offended party as
he said that according to the Rules of Court when an attorney had
It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City
practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage
by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other in private law practice.
authorities may say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the
license. ISSUE: Whether or not Ariston Fule is engaged in private law
practice.
Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.
HELD: No. Private practice of law implies that one must have
B.POWER TO INTEGRATE THE PHILIPPINE BAR presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the
In The Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, January legal profession and that his professional services are available to the
9, 1973 public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in
consideration of his said services. In the case at bar, Fule is not being
FACTS: In 1970, the Supreme Court created the Commission on Bar compensated but rather he’s doing it for free for his friend who
Integration (CBI) to ascertain the advisability of unifying the Philippine happened to be the offended party. Practice is more than an isolated
Bar. In 1971, the Congress passed HB 3277 (An Act Providing for the appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a
succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent
habitual exercise. Further, the fact that the Secretary of Justice 1. Habituality. The term “practice of law” implies customarily or
approved Fule’s appearance for his friend should be given credence. habitually holding one’s self out to the public as a lawyer (People vs.
Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Boyen, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C.
Counsel for the accused presented a “Motion in inhibit Fiscal Fule 644) such as when one sends a circular announcing the
from Acting as Private prosecutor in this case, “this time invoking sec. establishment of a law office for the general practice of law (U.S. v.
32, Rule 127, now sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules, which bars Ney Bosque, 8 Phil. 146), or when one takes the oath of office as a
certain attorneys from practicing. lawyer before a notary public, and files a manifestation with the
Supreme Court informing it of his intention to practice law in all courts
in the country (People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968).
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Fule violate sec. 32 of Rule 127 now
Sec. 35, Rule 138, revised Rules of Court, which bars certain
attorneys from practicing. Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in
frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind.
In other words, it is a habitual exercise (People v. Villanueva, 14
RULING: The Court holds that the appearance of Attorney Fule did SCRA 109 citing State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan, 864).
not constitute private practice, within the meaning and contemplation
of the Rules. Practice is more than isolated appearance, for it
consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the 2. Compensation. Practice of law implies that one must have
same kind. The word private practice of law implies that one must presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the
have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of legal profession and that his professional services are available to the
the legal profession and that his professional services are available to public for compensation, as a service of his livelihood or in
the public for compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. (People v. Villanueva, supra).
consideration of his said services. It has never been refuted that City Hence, charging for services such as preparation of documents
Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate involving the use of legal knowledge and skill is within the term
supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complainant in “practice of law” (Ernani Paño, Bar Reviewer in Legal and Judicial
the case at bar, who is a relative. Ethics, 1988 ed., p. 8 citing People v. People’s Stockyards State
Bank, 176 N.B. 901) and, one who renders an opinion as to the
proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is to that
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the extent, practicing law (Martin, supra, p. 806 citing Mendelaun v.
Commission on Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the Gilbert and Barket Mfg. Co., 290 N.Y.S. 462) If compensation is
Commission on Appointments. Monsod’s appointment was opposed expected, all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters
by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he connected with the law; are practicing law. (Elwood Fitchette et al., v.
failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the Arthur C. Taylor, 94A-L.R. 356-359)
chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice
law for at least ten years.
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls
for legal knowledge, training and experience is within the term
Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod “practice of law”. (Martin supra)

Monsod’s track record as a lawyer: 4. Attorney-client relationship. Engaging in the practice of law
presupposes the existence of lawyer-client relationship. Hence, where
Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%. Immediately after a lawyer undertakes an activity which requires knowledge of law but
passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one year. Thereafter, until involves no attorney-client relationship, such as teaching law or
1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and held writing law books or articles, he cannot be said to be engaged in the
various positions in various foreign corporations. practice of his profession or a lawyer (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1989 ed.,
p. 30).
In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for
various local corporations until 1986. In 1986, he became a member Monsod did not habitually practice law. It may be granted that he
of the Constitutional Commission. performed activities which are related to the practice of law like
drafting legal documents and giving legal advice, but he only did so as
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the isolated incidents.
COMELEC. What constitutes practice of law?
Justice Gutierrez dissenting:
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a Monsod did not practice law save for the one year he spent in his
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich father’s law office. The Chairman of the COMELEC should have
and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The deliberate
— that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten choice of words shows that the practice envisioned is active and
years. regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental,
seasonal, or extemporaneous. To be “engaged” in an activity for ten
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to years requires committed participation in something which is the result
court appearances. The members of the bench and bar and the of one’s decisive choice. It means that one is occupied and involved in
informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed the enterprise; one is obliged or pledged to carry it out with intent and
societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law attention during the ten-year period.
offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do
both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases What kind of Judges or Justices will we have if their main occupation
they find themselves spending more time doing what is loosely is selling real estate, managing a business corporation, serving in
described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course fact-finding committee, working in media, or operating a farm with no
of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a active involvement in the law, whether in Government or private
number of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal practice, except that in one joyful moment in the distant past, they
skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested happened to pass the bar examinations?
parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized
practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their There is nothing in Monsod’s track record which will show that he
specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless Monsod has given the law enough attention or a certain degree of
the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types — a litigator who commitment and participation as would support in all sincerity and
specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the candor the claim of having engaged in its practice for at least ten
work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of years. Instead of working as a lawyer, he has lawyers working for him.
traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document Instead of giving receiving that legal advice of legal services, he was
drafting, and negotiation. the one adviced and those services as an executive but not as a
lawyer.
Justice Padilla dissenting:
Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic
Monsod did not practice law. Justice Padilla emphasized the following In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its
criteria in determining what constitutes practice of law: aim, according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to
cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now,
 Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because Judicial Shari’a District in Marawi City, They were classmates, and
of the latter’s advertisements which contain the following: used to be friends.
SECRET MARRIAGE? Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on
P560.00 for a valid marriage. installments by Alauya of one of the housing units of Villarosa. In
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. connection, a housing loan was also granted to Alauya by the
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041 Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of
8:30am – 6:00pm Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of his contract with the
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila company. He claimed that his consent was vitiated because Alawi had
GUAM DIVORCE resorted to gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and
DON PARKINSON abuse of confidence. He laso wrote similar letters to the Vice
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce President of Villarosa and the Vice President of NHMFC.
through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during On learning of Alauya’s letters, Alawi filed an administrative complaint
office hours. against him. One of her grounds was Alauya’s usurpation of the title
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, of “attorney,” which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may
Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa. properly use.
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Alauya justified his use of the title, “attorney,” by the assertion that it is
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina “lexically synonymous” with “Counsellors-at-law.” a title to which
Spouse/Children. Shari’a lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of
Call Marivic. “attorney” because “counsellor” is often mistaken for “councilor,”
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. “konsehal” or the Maranao term “consial,” connoting a local legislator
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself a lawyer.
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx Issue: Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Shari’a bar, can use
for Legal Problems” in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales the title of Attorney
stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can Held: He can’t. The title is only reserved to those who pass the
take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is even if regular Philippine bar. As regards Alauya’s use of the title of
it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion “Attorney,” this Court has already had occasion to declare that
situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members of the
are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari’a courts.
Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal While one who has been admitted to the Shari’a Bar, and one who
problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered
backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys. “counsellors,” in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of professional capacity, only the latter is an “attorney.” The title of
the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The “attorney” is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary
State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar
making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers. Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is
law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.
allowed. B. QUALIFICATIONS
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law
however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed 1. Legal Education
mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal Section 6. Pre-Law. — No applicant for admission to the bar
problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the
of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an
but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for
of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course,
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts
performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of
the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and
law. economics.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. — All
known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two
objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination,
profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four years,
lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or
his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising university, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of
his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate
promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such
circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.
reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are
allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be
earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has
service to a client as well as to the community has a way of satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or
publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial
normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law,
good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a taxation and legal ethics.
normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION,
allowed forms of advertisement: CREATING FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
2. Use of ordinary simple professional card Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his Reform Act of 1993."
specialization
Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of
Alawi v Alauya the State to uplift the standards of legal education in order to prepare
Facts: Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving, and
Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing company. decision-making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession;
Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th to impress on them the importance, nobility and dignity of the legal
profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the Bench in the Appointments. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and the
administration of justice and to develop social competence. representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5) years, the
representatives of the PALS and the PALP, for three (3) years; and
Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the the representative from the ranks of active law practitioners and the
legal education system, require proper selection of law students, representative of the law students' sector, for one (1) year, without
maintain quality among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy shall be only for the
and continuing legal education. unexpire portion of the term of the predecessor.

Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same
Legal education in the Philippines is geared to attain the following salary and rank as the Chairman and members, respectively, of the
objectives: Constitutional Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be
diminished during their term of office.
(1) to prepare students for the practice of law;
Section 6. Office and Staff Support. - The Department of Education,
Culture and Sports shall provide the necessary office and staff
(2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of support to the Board, with a principal office to be located in
the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society; Metropolitan Manila.

(3) to train persons for leadership; The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may
deem necessary in the performanceof its powers and functions.
(4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice
and the improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal Section 7. Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the
institutions in the light of the historical and contemporary development objectives of this Act, the Board shall havethe following powers and
of law in the Philippines and in other countries. functions:

(b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific (a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a
objectives: manner consistent with the provisions of this Act;

(1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its (b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its
various fields and of legal institutions; powers and functions as herein enumerated;

(2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, (c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into
articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to account, among others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the
have a holistic approach to legal problems and issues; members of the faculty, the library and other facilities, without
encroaching upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher
(3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving learning;
and decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with
recognized legal problems of the present and the future; (d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;

(4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for (e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum
gainful employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training qualifications and compensation of faculty members;
beyond the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the
desire and capacity for continuing study and self-improvement;
(f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to
the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social
(5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal consciousness, and such other courses of study as may be
profession; and prescribed by the law schools and colleges under the different levels
of accreditation status;
(6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of
their profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms. (g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking
the Bar which a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited
Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To private or public law office or firm or legal assistance group anytime
carry out the purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal during the law course for a specific period that the Board may decide,
Education Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, attached solely but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For this purpose, the
for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the Department Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such accreditation
of Education, Culture and Sports. and the specifications of such internship which shall include the actual
work of a new member of the Bar.

The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be

a former justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the (h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose,
following as regular members: a representative of the Integrated Bar the Board may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing
of the Philippines (IBP); a representative of the Philippine Association lawyers in such courses and for such duration as the Board may
of Law Schools (PALS); a representative from the ranks of active law deem necessary; and
practitioners; and, a representative from the law students' sector. The
Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, or his (i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and
representative, shall be an ex officio member of the Board. regulations necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives
of this Act.
With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector,
the Chairman and regular members of the Board must be natural-born Section 8. Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions
citizen of the Philippines and members of the Philippine Bar, who may not operate a law school unless accredited by the Board.
have been engaged for at least ten (10) years in the practice of law, Accreditation of law schools may be granted only to educational
as well as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or recognized institutions recognized by the Government.
law school.
Section 9. Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board
Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The Chairman and regular may withdraw or downgrade the accreditation status of a law school if
members of the Board shall be appointed by the President for a term it fails to maintain the standards set for its accreditation status.
of five (5) years without reappointment from a list of at least three (3)
nominees prepared, with prior authorization from the Supreme Court,
by the Judicial and Bar Council, for every position or vacancy, and no Section 10. Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation.
such appointment shall need confirmation by the Commission on - The withdrawal or downgrading of accreditation status shall be
effetive after the lapse ofthe semester or trimester following the
receipt by the school of the notice of withdrawal or downgrading AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENS
unless, in the meantime, the school meets and/or upgrades the WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP PERMANENT.
standards or corrects the deficiencies upon which the withdrawal or AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT. NO. 63,
downgrading of the accreditation status is based. AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 11. Legal Education Fund. - There is hereby created a special Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
endowment fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, which Philippines in Congress assembled:
shall be under the control of the Board, and administered as a
separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS) which shall invest Section 1. Short Title – this act shall be known as the "Citizenship
the same with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety and Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."
liquidity.
Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the policy of the
The Legal Education Fund shall be established out of, and maintained State that all Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed
from, the amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 13 not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this
hereof, and from sixty percent (60%) of the privilege tax paid by every Act.
lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994; and from such donations, legacies,
grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the Board for
the purposes of this Act. Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to
the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed
Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following
Legal Education Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes of oath of allegiance to the Republic:
this Act, including support for faculty development grants, professorial
chairs, library improvements and similar programs for the
advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law "I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim) that I will
schools. support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I
The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
purpose, an amount not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this
on the Fund shall be utilized. obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion."
The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary
rules and regulations for the collection, administration and utilization Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this
of the Fund. Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
Section 12. Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all
schools and colleges of law which are presently under the supervision Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, whether
of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Hereafter, said legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age,
supervision shall be transferred to the Board. Law schools and of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this
colleges which shall be established following the approval of this Act Act shall be deemed citizenship of the Philippines.
shall likewise be covered.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain
Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil
(P1,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be charged against the and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
current year's appropriation of the Contingent Fund for the initial responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
expenses of the Board. conditions:

To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated (1) Those intending to exercise their right of surffrage must Meet the
annually, under the budget of the Department of Education, Culture requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic
and Sports, the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting
period of ten (10) years effective Fiscal Year 1994. Act of 2003" and other existing laws;

Section 14. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is (2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the
declared unconstitutional or the application thereof to any person, qualification for holding such public office as required by the
circumstance or transaction is held invalid, the validity of the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
remaining provisions of this Act and the applicability of such certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of
provisions to other persons, circumstances and transactions shall not any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
be affected thereby. administer an oath;

Section 15. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, (3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to
rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly
Act is hereby repealed or amended accordingly. constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided,
That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they
Section 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) took that oath;
days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette
or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation. (4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall
apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in
2. CITIZENSHIP such practice; and

Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national (5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in
talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:
managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and
craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall (a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country
encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or
national benefit.
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized
Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law. citizens.

Republic Act No. 9225 August 29, 2003

Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or provision of this Act IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO
is held unconstitutional or invalid, any other section or provision not PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANJO B. MUNESES,
affected thereby shall remain valid and effective. PETITIONER.

Section 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and The Facts
regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly. Epifanio B. Muneses, a Filipino and member of the Philippine Bar but
lost the privilege because he became a citizen of the United States of
America on August 28, 1981. On September 15, 2006 reacquired his
Section 8. Effectivity Clause – This Act shall take effect after fifteen Philippine citizenship pursuant to the "Citizenship Retention and Re-
(15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or two (2) Acquisition Act of 2003" (R.A. No. 9225). He intends to retire in the
newspaper of general circulation. Philippines & return to the practice of law after compliance with the
IN RE EPIFANIO MUNESES Keywords: requirements of the Office of the Bar Confidant, hence this petition.
(Reacquisition of Philippine · Petitioner Epifanio B.
Citizenship) Muneses became a lawyer in Issue
B.M. No. 2112 1966 but acquired American
citizenship in 1981 If petitioner, after reacquiring Philippine citizenship, can practice law in
· Restored citizenship in 2006 the Philippines.
by virtue of RA 9225
· A Filipino lawyer who re- Decision
acquires citizenship remains
to be a member of the The court - In Bar Matter No. 1678, dated December 17, 2007,
Philippine Bar but must apply allowed Benjamin M. Dacanay (a Filipino citizen and a barrister who
for a license or permit to migrated to Canada) to return to the practice of law after complying
engage in law practice. with R.A. No. 9225 and the requirements of the Office of the Bar
Confidant to wit:
On June 8, 2009, petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses with the Office of the
Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege to 1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
practice law in the Philippines. 2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
Petitioner became a member of the IBP in 1966 but lost his privilege 3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
to practice law when he became a American citizen in 1981. In 2006, 4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of
he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 or the Immigration;
“Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003” by taking 5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine 6. Certification from the IBP on updated payments of annual
Consulate in Washington, D.C. He intends to retire in the Philippines membership dues;
and if granted, to resume the practice of law. 7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.
The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so
admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the delicately affected with public interest that it is both the power and
practice of law. The loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s duty of the State (through this Court) to control and regulate it in order
membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the to protect and promote the public welfare.
practice of law. Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have
lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as Wherefore, the petition of Atty. Epifanio B. Muneses is hereby granted
citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the
Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
3. BAR EXAMINATIONS
country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No.
9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, as
stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the practice of law is not Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. — All
automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court
practice his profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days
authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. before the beginning of the examination. If not embraced within
section 3 and 4 of this rule they shall also file within the same period
Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if embraced
practice of law, the OBC required, and incompliance thereof, within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact
petitioner submitted the following: of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has
not been revoked, and certificates as to their professional standing.
1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship; Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits as to
2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship); their age, residence, and citizenship.
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship Section 8. Notice of Applications. — Notice of applications for
issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the IC; admission shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in
5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten
Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as his updated (10) days before the beginning of the examination.
payment of annual membership dues;
6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;
Section 9. Examination; subjects. — Applicants, not otherwise
7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance
provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be subjected to
period; and
examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-
Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Political Law
Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program,
(Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public Officers);
University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance with
International Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil
the MCLE.
Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing).
The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance,
particularly with the MCLE. After all the requirements were
satisfactorily complied with and finding that the petitioner has met all Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in
the qualifications, the OBC recommended that the petitioner be writing. — Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers,
allowed to resume his practice of law. books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the
same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish,
shall be given to each examinee. Examinees shall answer the
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses is hereby questions personally without help from anyone.
GRANTED, subject to the condition that he shall re-take the Lawyer's
Oath on a date to be set by the Court and subject to the payment of Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his
appropriate fees. penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers
[ B.M. NO. 2112, JULY 24, 2012 ] without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such
examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only Government or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction where
noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used. the degree has been granted.

The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are Section 5 now also provides that a Filipino citizen “who graduated
necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination
other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing:
examination papers. No oral examination shall be given.
(a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of
Laws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the
Section 11. Annual examination. — Examinations for admission
law school by the proper authority; and (c) completion of all fourth
to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of
Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by the year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law
chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be school duly recognized by the Philippine Government.”
distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law
(morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second day: SEC. 6.Pre-Law. — An applicant for admission to the bar examination
Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day: Mercantile shall present a certificate issued by the proper government agency
Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial that, before commencing the study of law, he or she had pursued and
Law (morning) and legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (afternoon).
satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or
college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year
Section 12. Committee of examiners. — Examinations shall be
high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a
conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the
Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the bachelor's degree in arts or sciences.
Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be
designated by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her degree in
the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent in a foreign law school must also
year. The names of the members of this committee shall be published present proof of completion of a separate bachelor’s degree.
in each volume of the official reports.
The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk of Court, through the
Section 13. Disciplinary measures. — No candidate shall Office of the Bar Confidant, to circularize its resolution approving the
endeavor to influence any member of the committee, and during
said amendments among all law schools in the country. (Bar Matter
examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other
nor shall they give or receive any assistance. The candidate who No. 1153, Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms
violates this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be in the Bar Examinations through Amendments to Rule 138 of the
barred from the examination, and the same to count as a failure Rules of Court, March 9, 2010)
against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent
disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court. RULE 138

Section 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may Attorneys and Admission to Bar
be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must
have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without
falling below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the average,
the subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative Section 1. Who may practice law. — Any person heretofore
weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such
cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and
and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the
Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination bar. — Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be
papers. — Not later than February 15th after the examination, or as a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good
soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its
moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce
report on the result of such examination. The examination papers and
notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
examined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved the character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude,
report. have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. — Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the
Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for three times shall United States of America. — Citizens of the United States of America
be disqualified from taking another examination unless they show the who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the
satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and passed regular Philippine Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in
fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review
good and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of
course in a recognized law school.
those facts before the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such
practice after taking the following oath of office:
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the
candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates
have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the
same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue
them in the particular subject. in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I
recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I
BAR MATTER 1153 will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal
Philippine Bar Now Open to Filipinos with Foreign Law Degrees orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
March 23, 2010 falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly
or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor
The Supreme Court En Banc has recently approved the proposed give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or
amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of
allowing Filipino graduates of foreign law schools to take the may knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the
Philippine Bar, subject to certain conditions. courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary
obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So
Section 5 of the Rule now provides that before being admitted to the help me God.
examination, all applicants for admission to the bar shall satisfactorily
show that they have successfully completed all the prescribed Section 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions.
courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree in — Applicants for admission who, being Filipino citizens, are enrolled
a law school or university officially recognized by the Philippine attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United States
or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the WHEREAS, considering her Memorandum to the Chief Justice on
highest court of any State or Territory of the United States, and who "Proposed Technical Assistance Project on Legal Education," dated
can show by satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least 27 February 2003, Program Director Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum of the
Program Management Office (PMO) was invited to a meeting of the
five years in any of said courts, that such practice began before July
CLEBM;
4, 1946, and that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may,
in the discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination.
WHEREAS, under the auspices of the PMO, the CLEBM conducted
fur (4) regional round-table discussions with the law deans,
Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. — All professors, the students and members of the Integrated Bar of he
applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two Philippines for (a) the National Capital Region, at Manila Diamond
preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, Hotel on 19 November 2003; (b) Mindanao, at the Grand Regal Hotel
satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four years, Davao City on 23 January 2004; (c) the Visayas, at the Montebello
and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or Hotel in Cebu City on January 2004; and (d) Luzon, at the Pan Pacific
Hotel in Manila on 6 February 2004.
university, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of
Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate
from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such WHEREAS, in a Special Meeting of the CLEBM at the Pan Pacific
Hotel on 23 April 2004, the Committee heard the views of Ms. Erica
facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.
Moeser, the Chief Executive Officer and President of the National
Conference of Board Examiners in the United States of America on a
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has number of proposed bar reforms;
satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or
university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial WHEREAS, the CLEBM, after extensive deliberation and
law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, consultation, has arived at certain recommendations for consideration
political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, by the Supreme Court and submitted its report , dated 21 May 2004,
taxation and legal ethics. to the Court en banc;

Section 6. Pre-Law. — No applicant for admission to the bar NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, sitting en banc,
examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he hereby RESOLVES to approve and adopt the following Bar
Examination Reforms:
has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the
study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an
A. For implementation within one (1) up to two (2) years:
authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for
1. Initial determination by the Chairman of admission
admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, to the bar examinations of candidates (on the merits
the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts of the each case) to be passed upon by the
or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of Court en banc.
concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and 2. Submission by law deans of a certification that a
economics. candidate has no derogatory record in school and, if
any, the details and status thereof.
3. Disqualification of a candidate after failing in
three(3) examinations, provided, that he may take a
BAR MATTER No. 1161 RE: PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE BAR fourth and fifth examination if he successful
EXAMINATIONS RESOLUTION ON REFORM IN THE BAR completes a one (1) year refresher course for each
EXAMINANTIONS examination; provided, further, that upon the
effectivity of this Resolution, those who have
WHEREAS, pursuant to its Constitutional authority to promulgate already failed in five(5) or more bar examinations
rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, the Supreme shall be allowed to take only one (1) more bar
Court en banc item in its Resolution of 21 March 2000, created a examination after copleting (1) year refresher
"Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms" to conduct course.
studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar 4. Promulgation of disciplinary measures for those
Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the involved in (a) attempts to violate or vitiate the
adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given integrity and confidentiality of the bar examination
by law schools"; process; (b) improper conduct during the bar
examination; and (c) improper conduct of "bar
examinations."
WHEREAS, the Special Study Group, with Philippine Judicial 5. Disqualification of a Bar Examination Chairperson:
Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera a. kinship with an examinee who if his or her spouse or relative
as a chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y. Feria and retired Justice within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
Camilo D. Quiason as members, submitted to the Supreme Court its b. having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee, or
Final Report, dated 18 September 2000, containing its findings and when the spouse or child of such staff member is an
recommendations; examinee; and
c. being a member of the governing board, faculty or
WHEREAS, on 21 August 2001, the Supreme Court en banc referred, administration of a law school.
for further study, report and recommendation, the Final Report of the 6. Desirable qualifications of Examiners:
Special Study Group to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar a. membership in good standing in the Philippine Bar;
Matters (CLEBM) headed by Justice Jose C. Vitug; b. competence in the assigned subject;
c. a teacher of the subject or familiarity with the principles of
WHEREAS, in connection with the discussion on the proposed test construction; and
reforms in the bar examinations, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, then a d. commitment to check test papers personally and promptly
Member of the CLEBM, submitted a Paper, entitled "Toward pending the creation and organization of the readership
Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer, proposing panels provided for in item B(6) below
structural and administrative reforms, changes in the design and 7. Disqualifications of Examiners:
construction of questions, and the methodological reforms concerning a. kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or relative
the marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity;
examination; b. having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee; or
when the spouse or child of such staff member is an
examinee;
WHEREAS, proposals and comments were likewise received from the c. being a member of the governing board, faculty or
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law administration of a law school
Schools, the Philippine Association of Law Professors, the d. teaching or lecturing in any law school, institution or review
Commission on Higher Education, the University of the Philippines center during the particular semester following the bar
College of Law, Arellano Law Foundation, the Philippine Lawyers examinations;
Association, the Philippine Bar Association and other prominent e. having any interest or involvement in any law school, bar
personalities from the Bench and the Bar; review center or group; and
 f. suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the The Court further Resolved to APPROVE the Amendment to Section
imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction. 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
8. Personal preparation, by handwriting or using a
typewriter, of fifty (50) main questions, excluding "Section 11. Annual examination. - Examinations for admission to the
subdivisions, and their submission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila.
Chairperson in sealed envelope at least forty-five They shall be held in four days to be designated by the chairman of
(45) days before the schedule examination on any the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as
particular subject; examiners should not use follows: First day: Political and International Law, and Labor and
computers in preparing questions; Social Legislation (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Second day:
9. Apportionment of examination questions among the Civil Law (morning) and Mercantile Law (afternoon); Third day:
various topics covered by the subject; Remedial Law, and Legal Ethics and Forums (morning) and Criminal
10. Burning and shredding of rough drafts and carbon Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Trial Memorandum (morning) and Legal
papers used in the preparation of questions or in Opinion (afternoon)"
any other act connected with such preparation;
11. Publication of names candidates admitted to take
the bar examinations; BAR MATTER 2502 - IN PDF FILE
12. Disqualification of a candidate who obtains a grade
below 50% in any subject;
13. Fixing at June 30 of the immediately preceding year
as the cut-off date for laws and Supreme Court
decisions and resolutions to be included in the bar Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, Atty. Daniel de Guzman, B.M. No.
examinations; and 1722, April 24, 2009
14. Consideration of suggested answers to bar
examinations questions prepared by the U.P. Law On 22 September 2003, the day following the bar examination in
Center and submitted to the Chairperson. Mercantile Law, Justice Jose C. Vitug, Chairman of the 2003 Bar
Examinations
B. For implementation within two (2) years up to five (5)
years: Committee, was apprised of a rumored leakage in the examination on
1. Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for the subject.
30% to 40% of the total number of questions;
2. Formulation of essay test questions and "model
answers" as part of the calibration of test papers; With this, the court decided to nullify mercantile law examination and
3. Introduction of performance testing by way of hold another examination in place of this.
revising and improving the essay
examination;1awphil.net However, petitions were filed because of the emotional, physical and
4. Designation of two(2) examiners per subject financial burden to the barristers. The petitions were granted and the
depending on the number of examinees ; court decided to just spread the percentage of the mercantile law
5. Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with exam to the remaining 7 bar subjects.
an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as
Chairperson; The court appointed 3 retired justices into a Committee to investigate
6. Creation and organization of readership panels for the leakage issue. The Investigating Committee was tasked to
each subject area to address the issue of bias or determine and identify the source of leakage, the parties responsible
subjectivity and facilitate the formulation of test therefor or who might have benefited therefrom, recommend
questions and the correction of examination sanctions against all those found to have been responsible for, or who
booklets; and would have benefited from, the incident in question and to
7. Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections recommend measures to the Court to safeguard the integrity of the
of essay questions to correct variations in the level bar examinations.
of test standards.

C. For implementation within five(5) years and beyond is Cecilia Carbajosa, a bar examinee found the leakage when she
the further computerization or automation of the bar obtained a copy of the leaked questions and found that they were very
examinations to facilitate application, testing, and similar to the questions in the bar exam. Upon meeting with the
reporting procedures. investigators, she provided a xerox of the leaked questions. The copy
D. Items not covered by this resolution, such as those that was delivered to Justice Vitug, he found that 82% from examiner Atty.
pertain to a possible review of the coverage and relative Balgos was included in the leakage. He also received reports that
weights of the subjects of the bar examinations, are Atty. Danilo de Guzman was the source of the leakage, as he faxed
maintained. the questions to his fraternity brother, Ronan Gravida four days before
E. For referral to the Legal education Boards: the bar exams.
1. Accreditation and supervision of law schools.
2. Inclusion of a subject on clinical legal education in Atty. Balgos, 71 years old, does not know how to use computer
the law curriculum, including an apprenticeship except to type. His secretary Cheryl Palma formatted the test, printed
program in the Judiciary, prosecution service, and it and was also the keeper the Balgos’ computer password. Balgos
law offices. didn’t know his computer was linked to 16 computers of his
3. Imposition of sanctions on law schools that fail to employees.
meet the standards as may be prescribed by the
Legal Education Board.
Balgos interrogated Silvestre Atienza, who interconnected the
4. Mandatory Law School Admission Test.
computers in the office. He, like Atty. De Guzman, is a member of the
Beta sigma Lambda fraternity.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth day of July 2004, and
shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the
It was proven that Balgos indeed prepared the questions and that they
Philippines.
came from his computer. His legal assistant, Atty. De Guzman,
actually admitted downloading the questions and faxing them to his
Promulgated this 8th day of June 2004. frat brothers Garvida, Arlan, and Erwin Tan. Garvida then faxed it to
his brothers in MLQU (Inigo and Bugain), who then passed copies to
another, and most illustrious brother, Ronald Collado who then spread
it to the MLQU brothers of the fraternity.

"B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Letter of Justice Roberto A. Abad Proposing

The following were alleged, with the recommendation of De Guzman’s
Changes for Improving the Conduct of the Bar Examinations). - The
disbarment:
Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter dated January 28, 2011 of Justice
Roberto A. Abad re: Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court (Annual Examination), incident to the implementation of B.M. “Attorney Danilo De Guzman’s act of downloading Attorney Balgos’
No. 2265 (Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations). test questions in mercantile law from the latter’s computer, without his
knowledge and permission, was a criminal act of larceny. It was theft
of intellectual property; the test questions were intellectual property of
Attorney Balgos, being the product of his intellect and legal Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical
knowledge.” Injuries on Eufrosino de Vera, a law student of MLQU.

“Besides theft, De Guzman also committed an unlawful infraction of RULING:

Balgos’ right to privacy of communication and to security of his papers
and effects against unauthorized search and seizure—rights zealously The court disbarred Lanuevo – has no authority to request the
protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. He transgressed the examiners to re-evaluate grades of examinees w/o prior authority from
very first canon of the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility Supreme Court.
which provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.”
He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of
admission of examinees to the bar. He does not a have any business
“By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some evaluating the answers of the examinees.
members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity, possibly for pecuniary
profit and to given them undue advantage over the other examiners in
the mercantile law examination, De Guzman abetted cheating or Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the
dishonesty by his fraternity brothers in the examination, which is Revised Rules of Curt of 1964, candidates for admission to the bar
violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of the Code of must be of good moral character. Galang has a pending criminal
Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar, which provide: cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury when he declared
under oath that he had no pending criminal case this resulted him to
revoked his license.
“De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member
of the Bar. He violated the law instead of promoting respect for it and
degraded the noble profession of law instead of upholding its dignity D. APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS
and integrity. His actuations impaired public respect for the Court, and
damaged the integrity of the bar examinations as the final measure of 1. LAW STUDENT PRACTICE
a law graduate’s academic preparedness to embark upon the practice
of law.” RULE 138-A Law Student Practice Rule

Also, it was alleged that others were also liable, such as Balgos Section 1. Conditions for student practice. — A law student who has
himself, who was negligent and failed to prevent the leakage, as well successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year
as the other fraternity brothers who took part in the leakage. prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's
clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court, may
Issues: appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative
case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent
1. Should De Guzman be disbarred? – YES indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.

2. Is De Guzman the only one liable for the leakage? – NO Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student
authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and
control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly
Held: (Recommendations of the Court) accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs,
memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the
1. Atty. De Guzman should be disbarred and should write a public supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
apology, as well as pay damages to the Supreme Court.
Section 3. Privileged communications. — The Rules safeguarding
2. Atty. Balgos should be reprimanded and also made to issue a privileged communications between attorney and client shall apply to
written apology and FURTHER INVESTIGATION of Danilo De similar communications made to or received by the law student, acting
Guzman, Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, Ronan Garvida, Arlan, for the legal clinic.
Erwin Tan, Randy Iñigo, James Bugain, Ronald Collado and Allan
Guiapal by the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — The law student
National Police, with a view to their criminal prosecution as probable shall comply with the standards of professional conduct governing
co-conspirators in the theft and leakage of the test questions in members of the Bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate
mercantile law. supervision of student practice may be a ground for disciplinary
action. (Circular No. 19, dated December 19, 1986).
_______________________________________________________
______
[ G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007 ]
4.GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AS A PREREQUISITE TO BAR FERDINAND A. CRUZ, PETITIONER,VS.ALBERTO MINA, HON.
ADMISSION ELEUTERIO F GUERRERO AND HON. ZENAIDA LAGUILLES,
RESPONDENTS
C. ADMISSION TO BAR
Facts: Ferdinand A. Cruz filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of
IN RE LANUEVO, 1975 Appearance, as private prosecutor, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is
the complaining witness.
FACTS:
The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies
his appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of
Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for disbarment. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in
Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr. that a non-lawyer may appear before
Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. The
Galang back to the respective examiners for re-evalution or re- petitioner furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior
checking. conformity of the public prosecutor and a written authority of Mariano
Cruz appointing him to be his agent in the prosecution of the said
The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the criminal case.
notebook to him by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority
to do the same and that the examinee concerned failed only in his However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied
particular subject and was on the borderline of passing. permission for petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the
ground that Circular No. 19 governing limited law student practice in
Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of conjunction with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law Student
Lanuevo’s move but the exam results bears that he failed in 5 Practice Rule) should take precedence over the ruling of the Court
subjects namely in (Political, Civil, Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial). laid down in Cantimbuhan; and set the case for continuation of trial.
Issue: whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an Basis of this petition is Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant which states:

Ruling: The rule, however, is different if the law student appears "SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. - In the court of a justice of
before an inferior court, where the issues and procedure are relatively the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of
simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in his personal an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of
capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138 an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation
provides: personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar."
Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the court of a justice of
the peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of Thus, a non-member of the Philippine Bar - a party to an action is
an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of authorized to appear in court and conduct his own case; and, in the
an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation inferior courts, the litigant may be aided by a friend or agent or by an
personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either attorney. However, in the Courts of First Instance, now Regional Trial
personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. Courts, he can be aided only by an attorney.

Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent On the other hand, it is the submission of the respondents that
or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar. pursuant to Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, it is the
(Emphasis supplied) fiscal who is empowered to determine who shall be the private
pro-secutor as was done by respondent fiscal when he objected to the
3.NON LAWYERS IN COURT appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila. Sections 4 and 15,
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provide:
RULE 138 Sec. 34. By whom litigation conducted. - In the court of a
justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with "SEC. 4. Who must prosecute criminal actions. - All criminal actions
the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his under the direction and control of the fiscal.
litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must
be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. "x x x xxx xxx
[ GR No. L-51813-14, Nov 29, 1983 ]
ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN v. NICANOR J. CRUZ RELOVA, J.: "SEC. 15. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. -
Unless the offended party has waived the civil action or expressly
Appeal from the Order, dated August 16, 1979, of respondent Judge reserved the right to institute it separately from the criminal action,
Nicanor J. Cruz, Jr., of the then Municipal Court of Parañaque, Metro and subject to the provisions of section 4 hereof, he may intervene,
Manila, disallow-ing the appearances of petitioners Nelson B. Malana personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the offense."
and Robert V. Lucila as private prosecutors in Criminal Cases Nos.
58549 and 58550, both for less serious physical injuries, filed against And, they contend that the exercise by the offended party to intervene
Pat. Danilo San Antonio and Pat. Rodolfo Diaz, respectively, as well is subject to the direction and control of the fiscal and that his
as the Order, dated September 4, 1979, denying the motion for appearance, no less than his active conduct of the case later on,
reconsideration holding, among others, that "the fiscal's claim that requires the prior approval of the fiscal.
appearances of friends of party-litigants should be allowed only in
places where there is a scarcity of legal practitioner, to be well
founded. For, if we are to allow non-members of the bar to appear in We find merit in the petition. Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of
court and prosecute cases or defend litigants in the guise of being Court, clearly provides that in the municipal court a party may conduct
friends of the litigants, then the requirement of member-ship in the his litigation in person with the aid of an agent appointed by him for
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the additional requirement of the purpose. Thus, in the case of Laput vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, a
paying professional taxes for a lawyer to appear in court, would be put law student was allowed to represent the accused in a case pending
to naught." (p. 25, Rollo) before the then Municipal Court, the City Court of Manila, who was
charged for damages to property through reckless impru-dence. "It is
accordingly our view that error was committed in the municipal court
Records show that on April 6, 1979, petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan in not allowing Crispiniano V. Laput to act as an agent or friend of
filed separate criminal complaints against Patrolmen Danilo San Catalino Salas to aid the latter in conducting his defense." The
Antonio and Rodolfo Diaz for less serious physical injuries, permission of the fiscal is not necessary for one to enter his
respectively, and were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 and appearance as private prosecutor. In the first place, the law does not
58550 in the then Municipal Court of Paranaque, Metro Manila. impose this condition. What the fiscal can do, if he wants to handle
the case personally is to disallow the private prosecutor's
Petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila, in 1979, were parti-cipation, whether he be a lawyer or not, in the trial of the case.
senior law students of the U. P. College of Law where, as part of the On the other hand, if the fiscal desires the active participation of the
curriculum of the university they were required to render legal private prosecutor, he can just manifest to the court that the private
assistance to the needy clients in the Office of the Legal Aid. Thus, in prosecutor, with its approval, will conduct the prosecution of the case
August 1979, petitioners Malana and Lucila filed their separate under his supervision and control. Further, We may add that if a non-
appearances, as friends of complainant-petitioner Cantimbuhan. lawyer can appear as defense counsel or as friend of the accused in a
Herein respondent Fiscal Leodegario C. Quilatan opposed the case before the municipal trial court, with more reason should he be
appearances of said petitioners, and respondent judge, in an Order allowed to appear as private prosecutor under the supervision and
dated August 16, 1979, sustained the respondent fiscal and control of the trial fiscal.
disallowed the appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila, as
private prosecutors in said criminal cases. Likewise, on September 4, In the two criminal cases filed before the Municipal Court of
1979, respondent Judge issued an order denying petitioners' motion Parañaque, petitioner Cantimbuhan, as the offended party, did not
for reconsideration. expressly waive the civil action nor reserve his right to institute it
separately and, therefore, the civil action is deemed impliedly
Hence, this petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with instituted in said criminal cases. Thus, said complainant Romulo
prayers, among others, that the Orders of respondent judge, dated Cantimbuhan has personal interest in the success of the civil action
August 16, 1979 and September 4, 1979, be set aside as they are in and, in the prosecution of the same, he cannot be deprived of his right
plain violation of Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and/or to be assisted by a friend who is not a lawyer.
were issued with grave abuse of discretion amount-ing to lack of
jurisdiction. Upon motion, the Court, on November 8, 1979, issued a WHEREFORE, the Orders issued by respondent judge dated August
temporary restraining order "enjoining respondent judge and all 16, 1979 and September 4, 1979 which disallowed the appearances
persons acting for and in his behalf from conducting any proceedings of petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila as friends of
in Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 (People of the Philippines vs. Danilo party-litigant peti-tioner Romulo Cantimbuhan, are hereby SET ASIDE
San Antonio) and 58559 (People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Diaz) and respondent judge is hereby ordered to ALLOW the appearance
of the Municipal Court of Paranaque Metro Manila on November 15, and intervention of petitioners Malana and Lucila as friends of Romulo
1979 as scheduled or on any such dates as may be fixed by said Cantimbuhan. Accordingly, the temporary restraining order issued on
respondent judge." November 8, 1979 is LIFTED.
SO ORDERED. this Court admitted and considered the motion for reconsideration for
all purposes as respondent's answer to the petitioner for review.2 The
DISSENTING OPINION case was considered submitted for decision without respondent's
brief.3
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle enunciated in
Amalgamated Laborers' Association, et al. vs. Court of Industrial
Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that it Relations, et al., L-23467, 27 March 1968,4 that an agreement
is "a party" who may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an providing for the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer
agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose in the Court of a union president is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers, is
Justice of the Peace Romulo Cantimbuhan, as the complaining condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot
witness in Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 and 58550 of the then be justified. An award by a court of attorney's fees is no less immoral
Municipal Court of Paranaque, Metro Manila, is not a "party" within the in the absence of a contract, as in the present case.
meaning of the said Rule. The parties in a criminal case are the
accused and the People. A complaining witness or an offended party
only intervenes in a criminal action in respect of the civil liability. The The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 that —
case of Laput and Salas vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, is authority only in
respect of the accused, as a "party", in a criminal case. In the proceeding before the Court or Hearing Examiner thereof, the
parties shall not be required to be represented by legal counsel ...
Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, being the more
specific provisions in respect of criminal cases, should take is no justification for a ruling, that the person representing the party-
precedence over Section 34, Rule 138 and should be controlling litigant in the Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is
(Bagatsing vs. Hon. Ramirez, 74 SCRA 306 [1976]). Section 4 entitled to attorney's fees: for the same section adds that —
provides that all criminal actions shall be prosecu-ted under the
direction and control of the Fiscal, while Sec-tion 15 specifically it shall be the duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer to
provides that the offended party may intervene, personally or by examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of the parties and to
attorney, in the prosecution of the offense. assist in the orderly presentation of evidence.

I vote, therefore, to uphold the Order of respondent Municipal Judge, thus making it clear that the representation should be exclusively
dated August 16, 1979, disallowing the appear-ances of petitioners as entrusted to duly qualified members of the bar.
private prosecutors in the above-mentioned criminal cases.
G.R. No. L-23959 November 29, 1971
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear or
ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO TENAZAS petitioners, defend in the said court on behalf of a party-litigant does not by itself
vs.BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF entitle the representative to compensation for such representation.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, & QUINTIN MUNING respondents. For Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, providing —

REYES, J.B.L., J.: Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees. — An

attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more
than a reasonable compensation for his services, ...
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered?
This is the issue presented in this petition for review of an order, dated
12 May 1964, and the en banc resolution, dated 8 December 1964, of imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition
the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo, to the recovery of attorney's fees. Such a relationship cannot exist
granting respondent Quintin Muning a non-lawyer, attorney's fees for unless the client's representative in court be a lawyer. Since
professional services in the said case. respondent Muning is not one, he cannot establish an attorney-client
relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU,
and he cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees. Certainly public
The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No. 72- policy demands that legal work in representation of parties litigant
ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et should be entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and
al." After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision, on who are sworn, to observe the rules and the ethics of the profession,
29 March 1961, ordering the reinstatement with backwages of as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary control for the
complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision protection of courts, clients and the public.
became final. On 18 October 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates,
counsel of record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of
attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 On the present issue, the rule in American jurisdictions is persuasive.
November 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a There, it is stated:
reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas on 3
December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-objection to But in practically all jurisdictions statutes have now been enacted
an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their backwages, and, on the prohibiting persons not licensed or admitted to the bar from practising
same day, Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of Services law, and under statutes of this kind, the great weight of authority is to
Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages. Munings petition was the effect that compensation for legal services cannot be recovered by
opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a one who has not been admitted to practice before the court or in the
lawyer. jurisdiction the services were rendered. 5

The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge was filed No one is entitled to recover compensation for services as an attorney
by Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the at law unless he has been duly admitted to practice ... and is an
hearings were held in Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf attorney in good standing at the time.6
of the complainants were at first by Attorney Pacis and subsequently
by respondent Quintin Muning. The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be
violated;7 that acting as an attorney with authority constitutes
On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or
the backwages as compensation for professional services rendered in both,8 and the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit
the case, apportioned as follows: of an act or an act done in violation of law;9 and that if were to be
Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates ............................................. 10% allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless
Quintin Muning ......................................................................... 10% confusion as to whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave
Atty. Atanacio Pacis ................................................................. 5% the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are
not amenable to disciplinary measures. 10
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer according to
the order, is sought to be voided in the present petition. And the general rule above-stated (referring to non-recovery of
attorney's fees by non-lawyers) cannot be circumvented when the
Respondent Muning moved in this Court to dismiss the present services were purely legal, by seeking to recover as an "agent" and
petition on the ground of late filing but his motion was overruled on 20 not as an attorney. 11
January 1965.1 He asked for reconsideration, but, considering that
the motion contained averments that go into the merits of the case,
The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a non-lawyer may roster of legitimate labor organizations; (ii) a verified certification
not be awarded attorney's fees should suffice to refute the possible issued by the secretary and attested to by the president of the said
argument that appearances by non-lawyers before the Court of organization stating that he/she is authorized to represent the said
Industrial Relations should be excepted on the ground that said court organization in the said case; and (iii) a copy of the resolution of the
is a court of special jurisdiction; such special jurisdiction does not board of directors of the said organization granting him such authority;
weigh the aforesaid reasons and cannot justify an exception.
(3)he/she represents a member or members of a legitimate labor
The other issue in this case is whether or not a union may appeal an organization that is existing within the employer’s establishment, who
award of attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay of are parties to the case: Provided, that he/she presents: (i) a verified
some of its members. This issue arose because it was the union certification attesting that he/she is authorized by such member or
PAFLU, alone, that moved for an extension of time to file the present members to represent them in the case; and (ii) a verified certification
petition for review; union members Entila and Tenazas did not ask for issued by the secretary and attested to by the president of the said
extension but they were included as petitioners in the present petition organization stating that the person or persons he/she is representing
that was subsequently filed, it being contended that, as to them (Entila are members of their organization which is existing in the employer’s
and Tenazas), their inclusion in the petition as co-petitioners was establishment;
belated.
(4) he/she is a duly- accredited member of any legal aid office
We hold that a union or legitimate labor organization may appeal an recognized by the Department of Justice or Integrated Bar of the
award of attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay of its Philippines: Provided, that he/she (i) presents proof of his/her
members because such union or labor organization is permitted to accreditation; and (ii) represents a party to the case;
institute an action in the industrial court, 12 on behalf of its members;
and the union was organized "for the promotion of the emloyees' (5) he/she is the owner or president of a corporation or establishment
moral, social and economic well-being"; 13 hence, if an award is which is a party to the case: Provided, that he/she presents: (i) a
disadvantageous to its members, the union may prosecute an appeal verified certification attesting that he/she is authorized to represent
as an aggrieved party, under Section 6, Republic Act 875, which said corporation or establishment; and (ii) a copy of the resolution of
provides: the board of directors of said corporation, or other similar resolution or
instrument issued by said establishment, granting him/her such
Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases — Appeals. — Any person authority.
aggrieved by any order of the Court may appeal to the Supreme Court
of the Philippines ...,
c) Appearances of a non- lawyer in contravention of this section shall
not be recognized in any proceedings before the Labor Arbiter or the
since more often than not the individual unionist is not in a position to
Commission.
bear the financial burden of litigations.

Petitioners allege that respondent Muning is engaged in the habitual d) Appearances may be made orally or in writing. In both cases, the
practice of law before the Court of Industrial Relations, and many of complete name and office address of counsel or authorized
them like him who are not licensed to practice, registering their representative shall be made of record and the adverse party or his
appearances as "representatives" and appearing daily before the said counsel or authorized representative properly notified.
court. If true, this is a serious situation demanding corrective action
that respondent court should actively pursue and enforce by positive
action to that purpose. But since this matter was not brought in issue e) In case of change of address, the counsel or representative shall
before the court a quo, it may not be taken up in the present case. file a notice of such change, copy furnished the adverse party and
Petitioners, however, may file proper action against the persons counsel or representative, if any.
alleged to be illegally engaged in the practice of law.
f) Any change or withdrawal of counsel or authorized representative
WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby set aside insofar shall be made in accordance with the Rules of Court. (8a)
as they awarded 10% of the backwages as attorney's fees for
respondent Quintin Muning. Said orders are affirmed in all other
respects. Costs against respondent Muning. 4. PROCEEDINGS WHERE LAWYERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM
APPEARING

E. PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF LAW

NON LAWYERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
ARTICLE VI
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 6. APPEARANCES. - a) A lawyer appearing for a party is
presumed to be properly authorized for that purpose. In every case,
he/she shall indicate in his/her pleadings and motions his/her Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
Attorney’s Roll Number, as well as his/her PTR and IBP numbers for may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or
the current year and MCLE compliance. before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
THE 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
RULE III PLEADINGS, NOTICES AND APPEARANCES interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or
special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned
SECTION 6. APPEARANCES. - a) A lawyer appearing for a party is or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He
presumed to be properly authorized for that purpose. In every case, shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government
he/she shall indicate in his/her pleadings and motions his/her for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on
Attorney’s Roll Number, as well as his/her PTR and IBP numbers for account of his office.
the current year and MCLE compliance.
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
b) A non- lawyer may appear in any of the proceedings before the
Labor Arbiter or Commission only under the following conditions:
Section 15.
(1) he/she represents himself/herself as party to the case;
All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must
be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of
(2) he/she represents a legitimate labor organization, as defined submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
under Article 212 and 242 of the Labor Code, as amended, which is a Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and
party to the case: Provided, that he/she presents to the Commission three months for all other lower courts.
or Labor Arbiter during the mandatory conference or initial hearing: (i)
a certification from the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) or Regional
Office of the Department of Labor and Employment attesting that the
organization he/she represents is duly registered and listed in the
A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution Public Officials who cannot engage in the private practice of law
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by in the Philipines: 1. Judges and other officials as employees of
the Rules of Court or by the court itself. the Superior Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35, RRC)

Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith vs.SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant. G.R. No. L-19450
be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or May 27, 1965
matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a
decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said PAREDES, J.:
period.
On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna,
Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, charged Simplicio Villanueva with the Crime of Malicious Mischief
without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in before the Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality. Said
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter accused was represented by counsel de officio but later on replaced
submitted thereto for determination, without further delay. by counsel de parte. The complainant in the same case was
represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having
entered his appearance as private prosecutor, after securing the
permission of the Secretary of Justice. The condition of his
appearance as such, was that every time he would appear at the trial
ARTICLE IX-A
of the case, he would be considered on official leave of absence, and
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION that he would not receive any payment for his services. The
appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor was
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during questioned by the counsel for the accused, invoking the case of
his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall he Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, et al.,
engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management
or control of any business which, in any way, may be affected by the L-1532, Nov. 28, 1947, wherein it was ruled that "when an attorney
functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or had been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to
by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or engage in private law practice." Counsel then argued that the JP
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled Court in entertaining the appearance of City Attorney Fule in the case
corporations or their subsidiaries. is a violation of the above ruling. On December 17, 1960 the JP
issued an order sustaining the legality of the appearance of City
Republic Act No. 7160 October 10, 1991 Attorney Fule.
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF
1991 Under date of January 4, 1961, counsel for the accused presented a
"Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this
Section 90. Practice of Profession. - Case," this time invoking Section 32, Rule 27, now Sec. 35, Rule 138,
Revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.
(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited Counsel claims that City Attorney Fule falls under this limitation. The
from practicing their profession or engaging in any JP Court ruled on the motion by upholding the right of Fule to appear
occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local and further stating that he (Fule) was not actually enagaged in private
chief executives. law practice. This Order was appealed to the CFI of Laguna, presided
by the Hon. Hilarion U. Jarencio, which rendered judgment on
December 20, 1961, the pertinent portions of which read:
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions,
engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during
session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are The present case is one for malicious mischief. There being no
also members of the Bar shall not: reservation by the offended party of the civil liability, the civil action
was deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action. The offended
party had, therefore, the right to intervene in the case and be
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil represented by a legal counsel because of her interest in the civil
case wherein a local government unit or any office, liability of the accused.
agency, or instrumentality of the government is the
adverse party;
Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court of a
justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with
an officer or employee of the national or local the aid of an attorney. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the
government is accused of an offense committed in Justice of the Peace Court as an agent or friend of the offended party.
relation to his office. It does not appear that he was being paid for his services or that his
appearance was in a professional capacity. As Assistant City Attorney
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in of San Pablo he had no control or intervention whatsoever in the
administrative proceedings involving the local prosecution of crimes committed in the municipality of Alaminos,
government unit of which he is an official; and Laguna, because the prosecution of criminal cases coming from
Alaminos are handled by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and not by
(4) Use property and personnel of the government the City Attornev of San Pablo. There could be no possible conflict in
except when the sanggunian member concerned is the duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule as Assistant City Attorney of
defending the interest of the government. San Pablo and as private prosecutor in this criminal case. On the
other hand, as already pointed out, the offended party in this criminal
case had a right to be represented by an agent or a friend to protect
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even her rights in the civil action which was impliedly instituted together
during official hours of work only on occasions of emergency: with the criminal action.
Provided, That the officials concerned do not derive
monetary compensation therefrom.
In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Asst. City Attorney
Ariston D. Fule may appear before the Justice of the Peace Court of
Section 91. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. - (a) Officials and Alaminos, Laguna as private prosecutor in this criminal case as an
employees of local government units shall file sworn statements of agent or a friend of the offended party.
assets, liabilities and net worth, lists of relatives within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity in government service, financial
and business interests, and personnel data sheets as required by law. WHEREFORE, the appeal from the order of the Justice of the Peace
Court of Alaminos, Laguna, allowing the apprearance of Ariston D.
Fule as private prosecutor is dismissed, without costs.

The above decision is the subject of the instant proceeding.

The appeal should be dismissed, for patently being without questioned the appointment.
merits.1äwphï1.ñët •Reorganization Appeals Board of DOTC dismissed the appeal for
lack of merit.
Aside from the considerations advanced by the learned trial judge, •Madarang appealed with the CSC.
heretofore reproduced, and which we consider plausible, the fallacy of •CSC decided in favor of Madarang--revoked appointment of
the theory of defense counsel lies in his confused interpretation of Magnayon and Agon, and appointed Madarang for the questioned
Section 32 of Rule 127 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules), position.
which provides that "no judge or other official or employee of the •Asst. Sec. Sibal sought for reconsideration, but was denied. He sent
superior courts or of the office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in a
private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to manifestation that the Selection and Promotions Board of the DOTC
clients." He claims that City Attorney Fule, in appearing as private will convene to deliberate on the appointment for the contested
prosecutor in the case was engaging in private practice. We believe position.
that the isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute •Madarang sent a letter to CSC requesting got the implementation of
private practice within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. its
Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in resolution. CSC directed his appointment as Head
frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. Telecommunications Engineer.
In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise (State vs. Cotner, 127, •Solicitor General, on behalf of DOTC Sec. Orbos, filed a petition for
p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA, M.S. 768). Practice of law to fall within the certiorari with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually
holding one's self out to the public, as customarily and demanding ISSUE:
payment for such services (State vs. Bryan, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644, •Whether or not the CSC acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it
647). The appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive ordered the appointment of Nerio .
as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. The
following observation of the Solicitor General is noteworthy: HELD:
•Yes. CSC has the power to approve or disapprove appointments but
not the power to make the appointment (Par. H, Sec. 9, PD No. 807).
Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must ADDITIONAL: •Madarang filed a motion to disqualify the Solicitor
have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of General from appearing on behalf of petitioner.
the legal profession and that his professional services are available to •Solicitor General is the lawyer of the government.
the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in •Part of his task is to represent the government, its agencies and
consideration of his said services. instrumentalities, its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer (Sec. 1, PD
For one thing, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had No. 478).
been given permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of •His duty is to present to the court what he considers would legally
Justice, to represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a uphold the best interest of the government.
relative.
CONFORMABLY WITH ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision GONZALES vs HON. CHAVEZ, SOLICITOR GENERAL,
appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, in all respects, with PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, and
costs against appellant. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 910
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETIREMENT OF JUSTICES OF FACTS:
THE SUPREME COURT AND OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS HEREOF BY THE •SG filed a pleading stating that he withdraws as counsel for PCGG,
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, AND TO with the reservation to submit his comment on incidents pending if
REPEAL COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED FIVE HUNDRED called by circumstances in the interest of the government, or if
AND THIRTY-SIX required by the court.

•Ramon Gonzales, a tax payer, questions the SG's withdrawal as

Section 1. When a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of counsel of the PCGG.
Appeals who has rendered at least twenty years' service either in the
judiciary or in any other branch of the Government, or in both, (a) •SG's withdrawal caused PCGG to hire 40 private lawyers
retires for having attained the age of seventy years, or (b) resigns by
reason of his incapacity to discharge the duties of his office, he shall •Gonzales filed, as a class suit, a petition for mandamus and
receive during the residue of his natural life, in the manner hereinafter prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a TRO against the OSG,
provided, the salary which he was receiving at the time of his PCGG and COA.
retirement or resignation. And when a Justice of the Supreme Court or
of the Court of Appeals has attained the age of fifty-seven years and •The Court required respondents' comments.
has rendered at least twenty-years' service in the Government, ten or
more of which have been continuously rendered as such Justice or as •COA: it has not allowed the disbursement of funds to pay the
judge of a court of record, he shall be likewise entitled to retire and PCGGhired lawyers
receive during the residue of his natural life, in the manner also
hereinafter prescribed, the salary which he was then receiving. It is a •PCGG: -It contended that its power to file and prosecute all cases
condition of the pension provided for herein that no retiring Justice investigated by it includes the grant of discretion to the Commission in
during the time that he is receiving said pension shall appear as determining the manner of filing and prosecuting its cases, including
counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the Government or the matter of who, in particular, will control and supervise the
any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in prosecution (Sec. 1, EO No. 14)
any criminal case wherein and officer or employee of the Government
is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office, or collect -It concluded that the reasonableness of the compensation for its
any fee for his appearance in any administrative proceedings to hired lawyers can be hardly questioned considering the expertise of
maintain an interest adverse to the Government, insular, provincial or said lawyers and the complexity of the cases they would be handling
municipal, or to any of its legally constituted officers. for the PCGG

•OSG: -PCGG failed to cooperate with them in regard to the 39 cases

F. LAWYERS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT and the suits and countersuits that stemmed out of them. The PCGG
has disposed of their services, as the Commission has announced
through TV and print.
SECRETARY OSCAR ORBOS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, -Petition should be dismissed for the Court allowed the SG's
vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and NERIO withdrawal making the petition moot and academic.
MADARANG, respondents. G.R. No. 92561 September 12, 1990
-Petitioner had no "court standing" nor "litigable interest."
GANCAYCO, J:
FACTS: •Petitioner:
•Reorganization of DOTC--Magnayon and Agon were appointed as -A question of public right is involved which gives him the court
Head Telecommunications Engineer. standing.
•Madarang, appointed as Supervising Telecommunications Engineer
-The petition may be moot and academic as it is settled between the In the words of the Supreme Court, an oath is any form of attestation
SG and PCGG, but between him, the OSG and the PCGG, a real by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an
controversy still existed. act faithfully and truthfully. What then does a lawyer promise to
perform faithfully and truthfully when he takes on the oath upon being
-A judgement of prohibition and mandamus would have practical legal admitted to the practice of law? It is the very practice of his duties and
effect and can be enforced responsibilities as a lawyer. The gravity of the oath is grounded on
two important things: on the gravity of a lawyer's duties and on the
ISSUE: fact that he makes a solemn promise before God to undertake these
•Whether or not the Solicitor General neglected his public duty by duties faithfully. When a great amount of trust is placed on such an
withdrawing as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines and the office, then a corresponding sense of integrity and responsibility is
PCGG. expected of those who have taken on that office. The legal profession
is one such office laden with a great amount of trust. In the hands of
•Whether or not the PCGG acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in the lawyer is entrusted not only the power to steer the course of some
hiring private lawyers as a result of such withdrawal of appearance. client's personal or business future but more importantly, the very
nature of the legal profession presupposes a certain moral burden
HELD: that demands personal integrity. As stated by the Supreme Court:
•Yes. The Court was firmly convinced that there can be no other
logical interpretation of Sec. 35 of the Administrative Code than that it Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon
is indeed admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to
mandatory upon the OSG ti represent the Government of the maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity.
Philippines. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character.
•Yes. The PCGG under the law of its creation and it complementary Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if
Rules, ineluctably lead to no other conclusion but that the law office of it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong.
the PCGG and the rest of the Government is the OSG. This must be so because vast interests are committed to his care; he
is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his
•The writ of prohibition was not granted, but a writ of mandamus was, client' s property, reputation, his life, his all.
and directed the SG to immediately re-enter his appearance in the
cases wherein he had filed a motion to withdraw appearance.
A lawyer is said to be the servant of the law and belongs to a
profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law
The Oath: The Lawyer's Ideal and the dispensing of justice. For this reason, a lawyer's oath
impresses upon him the responsibilities of an officer of the court upon
What is an oath? Webster defines it as: A solemn appeal to God, or in whose shoulders rest the grave responsibility of assisting courts in the
a wider sense, to any sacred or revered person or sanction for the proper, fair, speedy and efficient administration of justice.
truth of an affirmation or declaration or in witness of the inviolability of
a promise or undertaking. As early as Alvarez vs. CFI, the Supreme In fact, it may be understood that the words contained in the oath of
Court explained its meaning in this wise: office summarize the main duties and responsibilities a lawyer is
supposed to take on in the practice of law. In other words, every time
In its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of attestation by an oath of office is taken, the person making the statement in effect
which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an states that in taking on the oath he/she promises to conscientiously
act faithfully and truthfully. It is an outward pledge given by the person fulfill the duties entrusted to his office. Section 20 of Rule 138
taking it, that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate enumerates what these duties are. It is the duty of an attorney -
sense of his responsibility to God.
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to
Section 17 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that an applicant support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;
who has passed the required examination, or has been otherwise
found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribed (b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
before the Supreme Court an oath of office. The new lawyer swears and judicial officers;
before a duly constituted authority as an attestation that he/she takes
on the duties and responsibilities proper of a lawyer. More particularly,
form 28 of the judicial standard forms prescribes the following oath to (c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as
be taken by the applicant: appearing to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to
be honestly debatable under the law;
I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I will
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to
support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the legal him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; I will not false statement of fact or law;
wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no (e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself,
man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all connection with his clients' business except from him or with his
good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose knowledge and approval;
upon myself this voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. (f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
The taking of this oath is a condition to the admission to practice law required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
and may only be taken before the Supreme Court by a person
authorized by the high court to engage in the practice of law. And (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of
what is the nature of a lawyer's oath? In the case of Sebastian vs. an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt
Calis the Supreme Court held that: A lawyer's oath are not mere facile motive or interest;
words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and
kept inviolable. The substance and gravity behind these words may
be understood in the light of the substance and gravity behind the (h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the
oath being taken. In a sense, the oath embodies the ideals by which a cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
lawyer lives by in the practice of the legal profession. This is why the
lawyer's oath has been likened to a condensed version of the canons (i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and
of professional responsibility. This seems to have been confirmed in honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of
Endaya vs. Oca, where it was held that: the lawyer's oath embodies the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end
the fundamental principles that guide every member of the legal that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of
fraternity. From it springs the lawyer's duties and responsibilities that law.
any infringement thereof can cause his disbarment, suspension or
other disciplinary actions.
In order to fulfill these duties, every lawyer is expected to live by a
certain mode of behavior now distilled in what is known as the Code
of Professional Responsibility. The Code mandates upon each lawyer, Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the code of professional
as his duty to society, the obligation to obey the laws of the land and responsibility. Respondent's demands for sums of money to facilitate
promote respect for law and legal processes. Specifically, he is the processing of pending applications or requests before her office
forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful violates such duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted
conduct. In essence, all that is contained in this Code is succinctly to the bar.
summarized in the oath of office taken by every lawyer. It is of little
surprise to find that in Magdaluyo vs. Nace the Supreme Court The affirmation by a lawyer to uphold the law was the subject in De
declares that the lawyer's oath is a source of obligations and violation Guzman vs. De Dios. In this case where respondent was charged for
thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary representing conflicting interest, found guilty and suspended for six
action. In the case of Businos vs. Ricafort, the Supreme Court also months, with a warning, the highest tribunal held:
held that:
To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to
By swearing the lawyer's oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of state the obvious, but such statement can never be over-emphasized.
truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair Considering that, 'of all classes and professions, (lawyers are) most
and impartial administration of justice a vital function of democracy, a sacredly bound to uphold and respect the law', it is imperative that
failure of which is disastrous to society. While the duty to uphold the they live by the law.
constitution and obey the laws is an obligation imposed upon every
citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities over and beyond the basic
requirements of good citizenship. As servant of the law, a lawyer Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful
ought to make himself an example for others to emulate. He should conduct have no place in the legal profession. As a lawyer,
be possessed of and must continue to possess good moral character. respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its
commission and to conduct herself as a lawyer to the best of her
knowledge and discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source of obligation
In Brion Jr. vs. Brillantes, Jr., the Supreme Court also ruled: the and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other
lawyer's primary duty as enunciated in the attorney's oath is to uphold disciplinary action. The acts of respondent Atty. De Dios are clearly in
the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this court will not tolerate.
law and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible minimum entails
obedience to the legal orders of the court.The importance and
significance in upholding the sanctity of a lawyer's oath have been In Sevillano Batac, Jr., et al. vs. Atty. P. Cruz, Jr., the Supreme Court
highlighted by the Supreme Court in the various rulings it made in ordering the suspension of respondent, quoted Sec. 27 of Rule 138
involving disciplinary actions against members of the legal fraternity. of the Revised Rules of Court, thus:

The Real World Of The Legal Practice Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by supreme court;
grounds therefor: A member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
While it is true that these ideals by which every lawyer swears to live Court for any deceit, malpractice, or, other gross misconduct in such
by remain sublime, the same ideals often hardly motivate some office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a
lawyers in the real world of legal practice. Instead of high ideals, less crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which
honorable reasons and more pragmatic considerations often financial he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
and material in nature take hold of many a cynical and hardened disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
lawyer. This has been the cause of lament and expressions of grave willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
concern by honorable individuals, among them the late Supreme authority so to do.
Court Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro. In an address before members
of the legal profession, he said:
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Many a legal practitioner, forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for
public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the court, has money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity
allowed himself to become: to his client. Such was the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
ordering the disbarment of lawyer who converted the money of his
An instigator of controversy, instead of a mediator for concord and a client to his own personal use without her consent. The lawyer's oath
conciliator for compromise; exhorts law practitioners not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue
any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
A virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation, instead of a true same. In Young vs. Batuegas, where respondent was suspended for
exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice; six months for knowingly alleging an untrue statement of fact in his
pleading, the Supreme Court said, thus:
A mercenary purveying the benefits of his enlightened advocacy in
direct proportion to a litigant's financial posture, instead of a faithful A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to
friend of the courts in the dispensation of equal justice to rich and poor the bar that he will 'do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
alike. court' and he shall 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. He should bear in mind that as an officer of
Though these words were expressed some time ago, yet is is sad to the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law
note that Chief Justice Ruiz's words still ring loud and true today. The and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at a
goal of remaining true to the ideals of the legal profession is correct conclusion.
hampered by the seemingly irresistible influence and pressures of
modern day commercialism in almost every facet of human activity
and endeavor. In various cases, the Supreme Court has denied The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete
applicant's petition to take the lawyer's oath for grave misconduct or honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a
for any serious violation of the canons of professional responsibility lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client's rights and is
which puts in question the applicant's moral character. Moreover, a expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client's cause,
reading of the latest rulings of the highest tribunal would reveal the his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
lawyer's utter disregard, if not disdain, for the lawyer's oath.
That a lawyer's oath are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, was
In Vitriola vs. Dasig, a case for disbarment against an official of the applied by the Supreme Court in Vda. De Rosales vs. Ramos, where
commission on higher education charged with gross misconduct in a notary public commission was revoked and respondent disqualified
violation of the attorney's oath for having used her public office to from being a notary public, in this manner: where the notary public is a
secure financial spoils, the Supreme Court, in ordering respondent's lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his
disbarment, held: solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to
the doing of any.
The attorney's oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every
lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment, Indeed when an office entrusted with great responsibility and trust by
suspension, or other disciplinary action. The attorney's oath imposes society is violated and abused, one finds truth in the
upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or expression corruptio optimi pessima (the corruption of the best is the
malice. worst). The words of former Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals
Pompeyo Dias cannot find a more relevant application:
There are men in any society who are so self-serving that they try to conclusion, whereupon the respondent shall be exonerated unless the
make law serve their selfish ends. In this group of men, the most court orders differently.
dangerous is the man of the law who has no conscience. He has, in
the arsenal of his knowledge, the very tools by which he can poison Section 5. Complaint of the Solicitor General. Answer of respondent.
and disrupt society and bring it to an ignoble end. — If the Solicitor General finds sufficient ground to proceed against
the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint,
A Return to Basic Ideals accompanied with all the evidence introduced in his investigation, with
the Supreme Court, and the respondent shall be served by the clerk
With the glaring reality of legal practice evidenced by the increasing of the Supreme Court with a copy of the complaint with direction to
numbers of administrative cases filed against lawyers in the Courts, it answer the same within fifteen (15) days.
is no surprise therefore that legal ethics has been prescribed as a
subject under the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). Section 6. Evidence produced before Solicitor General available. —
Moreover, of the 36 units prescribed under the MCLE, six units pertain The evidence produced before the Solicitor General in his
to legal ethics. There is clearly a perceived need to instill legal ethics investigation may be considered by the Supreme Court in the final
in the practice of the legal profession. The pressing need for legal decision of the case, if the respondent had an opportunity to object
ethics was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Endaya vs. Oca: and cross-examine. If in the respondent's answer no statement is
made as to any intention of introducing additional evidence, the case
For practical purposes, the lawyers not only represent the law; they shall be set down for hearing, upon the filing of such answer or upon
are the law. With their ubiquitous presence in the social milieu, the expiration of the time to file the same.
lawyers have to be responsible. The problems they create in
lawyering become public difficulties. To keep lawyers responsible Section 7. Commissioner to investigate and recommend. Rules of
underlies the worth of the ethics of lawyering. Indeed, legal ethics is evidence. — Upon receipt of the respondent's answer, wherein a
simply the aesthetic term for professional responsibility. statement is made as to his desire to introduce additional evidence,
the case shall be referred to a commissioner who, in the discretion of
Undoubtedly, faithful compliance and observance of the canons of the the court, may be the clerk of the Supreme Court, a judge of first
Code of Professional Responsibility is the main object of the MCLE. instance, or an attorney-at-law for investigation, report, and
And to ensure success thereof, the Supreme Court, in its various recommendation. The Solicitor General or his representative shall
pronouncements in administrative cases filed against lawyers, has appear before the commissioner to conduct the prosecution. The
emphasized the lawyer's basic duties and responsibilities. In a more respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to
recent ruling, the Supreme Court recapitulated the significance and produce additional evidence in his own behalf, and to be heard by
importance of the oath in this wise: This oath to which all lawyers himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice the
have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte.
pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law The rules of evidence shall be applicable to proceedings of this
to be forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a nature.
sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times.
By swearing the lawyer's oath, they become guardians of truth and Section 8. Report of commissioner and hearing. — Upon receipt of
the rule of law, as well as instruments in the fair and impartial the report of the commissioner, copies of which shall be furnished the
dispensation of justice. Solicitor General and the respondent, the case shall be set down for
hearing before the court, following which the case shall be considered
Indeed, if the legal profession is to achieve its basic ideal to render submitted to the court for its final determination.
public service and serve the ends of justice, there is a need to
unceasingly and constantly inculcate professional standards among Section 9. Procedure in Court of Appeals or Courts of First
lawyers. As the Supreme Court in Cordon vs. Balicanta (supra), said: Instance. — As far as may be applicable, the procedure above
If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain outlined shall likewise govern the filing and investigation of complaints
its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its against attorneys in the Court of Appeals or in Courts of First
tenets and principles, but should also in their lives accord continuing Instance. In case of suspension of the respondent, the judge of the
fidelity to them. court of first instance or Justice of the Court of Appeals shall forthwith
III. THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of
RULE 139 suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which same is
Disbarment or Suspension of Attorneys based.

Section 1. Motion or complaint. — Proceedings for the removal or Section 10. Confidential. — Proceedings against attorneys shall be
suspension of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court on its private and confidential, except that the final order of the court shall
own motion or upon the complaint under oath of another in writing. be made public as in other cases coming before the court.
The complaint shall set out distinctly, clearly, and concisely the facts
complained of, supported by affidavits, if any, of persons having _
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and shall be IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE
accompanied with copies of such documents as may substantiate INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
said facts. 49 SCRA 22

Section 2. Service or dismissal. — If the complaint appears to merit FACTS:

action, a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent, requiring
him to answer the same within ten (10) days from the date of service.
If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the Republic Act. No. 6397 entitled “An Act Providing for the Integration of
satisfaction of the Supreme Court that the complaint is not the Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds Therefore” was passed in
meritorious, the same shall be dismissed. September 1971, ordaining “Within two years from the approval of this
Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the
integration of the Philippine Bar.” The Supreme Court formed a
Section 3. Investigation by Solicitor General. — Upon the issues Commission on Bar Integration and in December 1972, the
raised by the complaint and answer, or upon failure of the respondent Commission earnestly recommended the integration of the bar. The
to answer, the case shall be referred to the Solicitor General for Court accepted all comments on the proposed integration.
investigation to determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed with
the prosecution of the respondent. In the investigation conducted by
ISSUES:
the Solicitor General, the respondent shall be given full opportunity to
defend himself, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be 1. Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine bar?
heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice,
the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex 2. Would the integration of the bar be constitutional?
parte. 3. Should the Court ordain the integration of the bar at this time?

Section 4. Report of the Solicitor General. — Based upon the RULING:

evidence adduced at the hearing, if the Solicitor General finds no
sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent, he shall submit a
In ruling on the issues raised, the Court first adopted the definition
report to the Supreme Court containing his findings of fact and
given by the Commission to “integration” in this wise: “Integration of
the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer to elections and Section 12[d] of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for
population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial violations of the above rules: Any violation of the rules governing
support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine elections or commission of any of the prohibited acts and practices
qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll defined in Section 14 [Prohibited Acts and Practices Relative to
of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.” The term “Bar” refers to the Elections) of the By-laws of the Integrated Bar shall be a ground for
collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of the disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if elected,
Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or unified Bar) perforce must include all without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon any erring
lawyers. member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated Bar.

Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity ISSUE Whether or not the candidates violated the IBP By-Laws.
with power to do so; the State. Bar integration therefore, signifies the
setting up by government authority of a national organization of the DECISION: The candidates and many of the participants in that
legal profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as an officer of election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of
the court. the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of
their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the
Designed to improve the positions of the Bar as an instrumentality of duty to "promote respect for law and legal processes" and to abstain
justice and the rule of law, integration fosters cohesion among from 'activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
lawyers, and ensures, through their own organized action and in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional
participation, the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers
pursuant to the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum themselves, who are supposed to be millions of the law, engage in
supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court. unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the
IBP formulated for their observance.
On the first issue, the Court held that it may integrate the Bar in the
exercise of its power “to promulgate rules concerning pleading, The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the
practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal
of law.” Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote
Court’s constitutional authority over the Bar. one way or another, certainly did not uphold the honor of the
profession nor elevate it in the public's esteem.
The second issue hinges on the following constitutional rights:
freedom of association and of speech, as well as the nature of the The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the evasions,
dues exacted from the lawyer, i.e., whether or not the Court thus denials and outright prevarications that tainted the statements of the
levies a tax. The Court held: witnesses, including tome of the candidates, during the initial hearing
conducted by it before its fact-finding committee was created. The
1. Integration is not violative of freedom of association because it
subsequent investigation conducted by this Committee has revealed
does not compel a lawyer to become a member of any group of
that those parties had been less than candid with the Court and seem
which he is not already a member. All that it does is “to provide
to have conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold
an official national organization for the well-defined but
vital information from it to conceal the irregularities committed during
unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is
the campaign.
already a member.” The lawyer too is not compelled to attend
meetings, participate of activities, etc. The only compulsion is
the payment of annual dues. Assuming, however, that it does
compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated bar, the court IV. SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS
held that “such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the RULE 139-B
police power of the state”
Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys
2. Integration is also not violative of the freedom of speech just
because dues paid b the lawyer may be used for projects or Section 1. How Instituted. — Proceedings for the disbarment,
programs, which the lawyer opposes. To rule otherwise would suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme
make every government exaction a “free speech issue.” Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Furthermore, the lawyer is free to voice out his objections to upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state
positions taken by the integrated bar. clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported
3. The dues exacted from lawyers is not in the nature of a levy but by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts
is purely for purposes of regulation. therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said
facts.
As to the third issue, the Court believes in the timeliness of the The IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or upon referral by the
integration. Survey showed an overwhelming majority of lawyers who Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of
favored integration. any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring
attorneys including those in the government service.

IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary
INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapter who shall forthwith
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an
A. M. No. 491 October 6, 1989 investigator.

FACTS: In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
the Philippines held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International PHILIPPINES
Convention Center, the newly-elected officers were set to take their
oath of office on July 4, 1989 before the Supreme Court en banc. Section 2. National Grievance Investigators. — The Board of
However, disturbed by the widespread reports received by some Governors shall appoint from among IBP members an Investigator or,
members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or participated when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of three (3)
in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in the investigators to investigate the complaint. All Investigators shall take
columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and an oath of office in the form prescribed by the Board of Governors. A
overspending by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the copy of the Investigator's appointment and oath shall be transmitted to
office of president of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo the Supreme Court.
Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of
government planes, and the officious intervention of certain public An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of relationship within
officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the fourth degree of consanguinity of affinity to any of the parties of
the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities, the Supreme Court en their counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias, or his having acted as
banc, exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar, counsel to his acting as such Investigator. Where the Investigator
resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to does not disqualify himself, a party may appeal to the IBP Board of
inquire into the veracity of the reports. The prohibited acts are against Governors, which by majority vote of the members present, there
the IBP By-Laws more specifically Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By- being a quorum, may order his disqualification.
Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-political" character of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, Sec. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative
Any Investigator may also be removed for cause, after due hearing, Any suitable member of the Integrated Bar in the place where a
by the vote of at least six (6) members of the IBP Board of Governors. deposition shall be taken may be designated by the Investigator to
The decision of the Board of Governors in all cases of disqualification assist the complainant or the respondent in taking a deposition.
or removal shall be final.
Section 10. Report of Investigator. — Not later than thirty (30)
Section 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. — days from the termination of the investigation, the Investigator shall
The National Grievance Investigators shall investigate all complaints submit a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations to
against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP the IBP Board of Governors, together with the stenographic notes and
Board of Governors. the transcript thereof, and all the evidence presented during the
investigation. The submission of the report need not await the
Section 4. Chapter assistance to complainant. — The proper transcription of the stenographic notes, it being sufficient that the
IBP Chapter may assist the complainant(s) in the preparation and report reproduce substantially from the Investigator's personal notes
filing of his complaint(s). any relevant and pertinent testimonies.

Section 5. Service or dismissal. — If the complaint appears to Section 11. Defects. — No defect in a complaint, notice,
be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be answer, or in the proceeding or the Investigator's Report shall be
served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within considered as substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon
fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not considering the whole record, finds that such defect has resulted or
merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the may result in a miscarriage of justice, in which event the Board shall
Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be take such remedial action as the circumstances may warrant,
dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A including invalidation of the entire proceedings.
copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant
and the Supreme Court which may review the case motu propio or Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.
upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice
of the dismissal of the complainant. a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the
IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the it by the Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the
charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, unless facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated
the Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of
Board of Governors, determines that there is no compelling reason to the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's Report.
continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the
respondent. (Amendment pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership,
dated May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter 356). determines that the respondent should be suspended from the
practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its
Section 6. Verification and service of answer. — The answer findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record
shall be verified. The original and five (5) legible copies of the answer of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for
shall be filed with the Investigator, with proof of service of a copy final action.
thereof on the complainant or his counsel.
c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the
Section 7. Administrative counsel. — The IBP Board of disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or
Governors shall appoint a suitable member of the Integrated Bar as disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a
counsel to assist the complainant of the respondent during the decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case
investigation in case of need for such assistance. shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant
or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen
Section 8. Investigation. — Upon joinder of issues or upon (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court
failure of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with orders otherwise.
deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall
have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be
respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present given to all parties through their counsel. A copy of the same shall be
witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. transmitted to the Supreme Court.
However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear,
the investigation shall proceed ex parte. B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) Section 13. Supreme Court Investigation. — In proceedings
months from the date of its commencement, unless extended for good initiated motu propio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings
cause by the Board of Governors upon prior application. when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer
the case for investigation to the Solicitor-General or to any officer of
Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the
issued by the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in sections 6
of court. The corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation shall
before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the alleged be conducted directly by the Supreme Court.
contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP
Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in Section 14. Report of the Solicitor General of other Court-
accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings designated Investigator. — Based upon the evidence adduced at the
before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report
Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of containing his findings of fact and recommendations for the final
fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and action of the Supreme Court.
recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of C. COMMON PROVISIONS
penalty.
Section 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. — After
Section 9. Depositions. — Depositions may be taken in receipt of respondent's answer or lapse of the period therefor, the
accordance with the Rules of Court with leave of the investigator(s).
Supreme Court, motu propio, or at the instance of the IBP Board of
Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigator, may
Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before any member suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for any of the
of the Board of Governors, the President of any Chapter, or any causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of the
officer authorized by law to administer oaths. investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.

Depositions may be taken outside the Philippines before diplomatic or Section 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a
consular representative of the Philippine Government or before any Regional Trial Court. 1 — The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial
person agreed upon by the parties or designated by the Board of Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes
Governors. named in Rule 138, Section 27 2, until further action of the Supreme
Court in the case.
Section 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal
Trial Court, further proceedings in Supreme Court. — Upon such in a minute resolution. This earned the ire of Almacen who called such
suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then filed before the
forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as
suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing his profession when
based. Upon receipt of such certified copy and statement, the members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for
Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the case and may justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and
revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He further
the facts may warrant. alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay
P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he became “one of
Section 18. Confidentiality. — Proceedings against attorneys the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.” He also stated
shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the “that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme
Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases. Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.” The Supreme Court
did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the Court wanted to
Section 19. Expenses. — All reasonable and necessary wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not
expenses incurred in relation to disciplinary and disbarment surrender his lawyer’s certificate though as he now argues that he
proceedings are lawfull charges for which the parties may be taxed as chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted “to give
costs. reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him . . . in an open and public hearing.” He said he preferred this
Section 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision. — This Rule considering that the Supreme Court is “the complainant, prosecutor
shall take effect June 1, 1988 and shall supersede the present Rule and Judge.” Almacen was however unapologetic.
139 entitled "DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEYS". All
cases pending investigation by the Office of the Solicitor General shall Issue: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined
be transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors for investigation and disposition as provided in this Rule Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions
except those cases where the investigation has been substantially are needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or
completed. write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court
would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The
proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide “only those cases which
LAWYERS VALENCIA V. CABANTING present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance
April 26, 1991 beyond the particular facts and parties involved.” It should be
remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of
Facts: • In 1933, petitioner Paulino Valencia and his wife Romana Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so
allegedly bout a parcel of land, wherethey built their residential house there is no need to fully explain the court’s denial. For one thing, the
from a certain Serapia Raymundo, an heir of Pedro Raymundo, facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals’
theoriginal owner of the parcel of land. • However, they failed to opinion. On Almacen’s attack against the Supreme Court, the High
register the sale or secure a transfer certificate of title in their names. • Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for; that such is insolent,
Then, a conference was held in the house of Atty. Jovellanos to settle contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a
the dispute between Serapiaand the Sps. Valencia. • As a result, lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to
Serapia was willing to relinquish her ownership if the Valencias could criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels
showdocuments evidencing ownership. • Paulino presented a deed of the acts of courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the
sale written in Ilocano. Serapia claimed that the deed covered decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the
adifferent property. Thus, the parties were not able to settle their independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been
differences. • Assisted by Atty. Cabanting, Serapia filed a complaint encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition of all such
against Paulino for the recovery of possession with damages. • The criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of
Valencias, on the other hand, engaged the services of Atty. Antiniw, decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross
who advised them to present a notarized deed of sale instead of the violation of the duty of respect to courts.
document in Ilocano. For the amount of P200 paid by Paulino to
Atty. Antiniw, the latter paid a person who wouldforge the signature of In the case at bar, Almacen’s criticism is misplaced. As a veteran
the alleged vendor. • The Pangasinan CFI favored Serapia. • While lawyer, he should have known that a motion for reconsideration which
the petition was of appeal, Serapia sold 40 sq. m. to Atty. Jovellanos failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a
and the remainingwas also sold to her counsel, Atty. Cabanting. mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has
only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Cabanting purchased the subject property in Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
violation of Art. 1491, NCC.
RAYOS-OMBAC v RAYOS
HELD: YES! • Art. 1491, NCC, prohibiting the sale to counsel
concerned, applies only while the litigation is pending. o A thing is Facts: Mrs. Irene Rayos-Ombac (lola) is the petitioner in this case.
said to be in litigation not only if it there is some contest or litigation The respondent is Atty. Orlando Rayos (lawyer), her nephew.
over it incourt, but also from the moment that it becomes to the judicial • Jan. 1985: lawyer induced lola, who was then 85 years old, to
action of the judge. • In the case at bar, while it is true that Atty. withdraw all her bank deposits and entrust it to him for safekeeping.
Cabanting purchased the lot after finality of judgment,there was still a • Lawyer made lola believe that if she would do so, all the money will
certiorari proceeding. o In certiora ri proceedings, the appellate court be excluded from the estate of her deceased husband and therefore
may either grant or dismiss the petition. o Thus, it is not safe to exclude the other heirs from inheriting.
conclude, for purposes under Art. 1491, NCC, that litigation • Lola then withdrew all her money (P588K) and deposited it in the
hasterminated when the judgment of the trial court become final while account of lawyer in Union Bank.
certiorari connectedtherewith is still in progress. • Upon demands that the amount be returned, lawyer informed lola
that he can only return P400K on installment. Pumayag na lang si lola
• Thus, the purchase of the property by Atty. Cabanting in this case kasi kelangan niya talaga ng pera. They signed a MOA regarding this
constitutes malpractice inviolation of Art. 1491, NCC and the Canons transaction.
of Professional Ethics. The sale in favor of Atty. Jovellanos does • However, the check given by lawyer to lola was dishonored due to
not constitute malpractice. There was no attorney-clientrelationship insufficient funds.
bet. Serapia and Atty. Jovellanos – the latter did not take part as • Lola then filed an estafa case against lawyer. Lawyer offered as
counsel in the Civil Case. Atty. Antiniw committed falsification of a settlement 2 second-hand cars and cash amounting to P40K. Lola
deed of sale. refused the offer.
• Lawyer also filed cases against Lola. Estafa - because lola allegedly
reneged on her promise to sell a certain parcel of land. Another
In Re: Almacen accusing lola of making false statements in the testate proceedings of
her deceased husband.
Facts: Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a • Lola then filed a case for disbarment on 2 grounds. (1) defrauding
civil case. They lost in said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for lola and (2) filing frivolous cases against her.
Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he • IBP recommended that lawyer be suspended for 2 years.
failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, • Lawyer then filed this motion to lift the suspension stating that lola
his motion was denied. He then appealed but the Court of Appeals has already withdrawn her complaint for disbarment
denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the
motion for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on Issue: W/N lawyer should be suspended for 2 years
 checks. However, the checks covering were dishonored for
Held: Yes. In fact the SC raised the penalty to disbarment. insufficiency of funds and closure of account.
(pinabayaan na lang sana niya yung suspension, baka di pa siya
disbarred) Respondent told complainant that he would be able to pay her if she
The withdrawal of lola of her complaint has no effect on the would lend him an additional amount of P75,000.00 to be paid a
disbarment proceedings. month after to be secured by a chattel mortgage on his Datsun
• Lawyer violated the CPR as well as his oath when he deceived his car. As complainant agreed respondent handed her three (3) copies
85 year old aunt. of a deed of chattel mortgage and six (6) copies of the deed of sale of
• Lawyer’s wicked deed was aggravated by the series of unfounded his car with the assurance that he would turn over its registration
suits he filed against lola. certificate and official receipt. The agreement was not consummated
• Lawyer’s deceitful conduct makes him unworthy of membership in as respondent later sold the same car to another.
the legal profession

GROUNDS Despite several chances given him to settle his obligation respondent
chose to evade complainant so that she was constrained to write him
DECEIT a final demand letter preceding the filing of several criminal
complaints against him for violation of BP Blg. 22. Complainant also
filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.
WILSON PO CHAM v. ATTY. EDILBERTO PIZARRO
A.C. No. 5499, 16 August 2005
By way of defense, respondent averred that he gave the checks to
complainant Co by way of rediscounting and that these were fully paid
The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private when he delivered five cellular phones to her.
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity and good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the
privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may be ISSUE: Whether a lawyer may be sanctioned for misconduct in his
sanctioned with disbarment or suspension. private capacity

Upon Atty. Edilberto Pizarro’s representations to complainant Wilson RULING: While it is true that there was no attorney-client relationship
Po Cham (Po Cham) that a certain parcel of land being offered for between complainant and respondent as the transaction between
sale to him was alienable and disposable, Po Cham gave Atty. Pizarro them did not require the professional legal services of respondent,
two checks representing the purchase price of the said property. nevertheless respondent's abject conduct merits condemnation from
Po Cham subsequently took possession of the property and installed this Court.
a barbed wire fence at its front portion. Soon after, however, a forest
guard approached him and informed him that the property could not As a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one
be fenced for the reason that it was part of the Bataan National Park. of its officers for misconduct committed in his private capacity. But this
Upon investigation, Po Cham discovered that the property is not an is a general rule with many exceptions . . . The nature of the office,
alienable or disposable land susceptible of private ownership. the trust relation which exists between attorney and client, as well as
between court and attorney, and the statutory rules prescribing the
Po Cham demanded the return of the purchase price but Atty. Pizarro qualifications of attorneys, uniformly require that an attorney shall be a
did not heed to the demand. Po Cham thereafter charged Atty. Pizarro person of good moral character. So it is held that an attorney will be
of violation of his oath as a member of the Bar. removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but
also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties,
which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
The Supreme Court (SC) referred the case to the Integrated Bar of privileges which his license and the law confer upon him . . . .
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or
decision. The IBP, in its Report and Recommendation, found Atty.
Pizarro to have violated his oath as a member of the Bar. It Finally, reference is made to Rule 1.01, Chapter 1, which requires that
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for 3 months, "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
subject to the approval of the members of the Board of Governors. conduct." "Conduct," as used in this Rule, is not limited to conduct
The case was forwarded to the SC for final action. exhibited in connection with the performance of professional duties.

ISSUE: In the case at bar, it is glaringly clear that the procurement of personal
loans through insinuations of his power as an influence peddler in the
Bureau of Customs, the issuance of a series of bad checks and the
Whether or not Atty. Pizarro violated his solemn oath as a lawyer taking undue advantage of his position in the aforesaid government
office constitute conduct in gross violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
HELD: Professional Responsibility. WHEREFORE, respondent is
SUSPENDED FOR ONE (1) YEAR from the practice of law with
The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, severe penalty.
probity and good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the
privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may be
sanctioned with disbarment or suspension. SELWYN F. LAO VS. ATTY. ROBERT W. MEDEL
A.C. NO. 5961, July 1, 2003, EN BANC, (Panganiban, J.)
Atty. Pizarro has utterly failed to substantiate his documented claim of
having irrevocable rights and interests over the property which he FACTS:
could have conveyed to Po Cham. Atty. Pizarro must thus be faulted Selwyn Lao lent money to Atty. Medel which he paid using
for fraudulently inducing Po Cham to purchase non-existent bad checks. Medel persistently refused to make good on the 4 checks
―irrevocable rights, interest and participation‖ over an inalienable
that he issued and kept on delaying its payment. Needless to say, the
property.
intention of this present complaint proves that contrary to Medel’s
A.C. No. 3919 January 28, 1998 written promises, he never made good on his dishonoured checks.
SOCORRO T. CO, vs. ATTY. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO, Neither has he paid his indebtedness.
In Medel’s Answer, the Complaint did not constitute a valid
FACTS: Socorro T. Co alleged that in as she was following up the ground for disciplinary action because: (a) it does not constitute
documents for her shipment at the Bureau of Customs, she was malpractice only a violation of BP 22; (b) violation of BP 22 is not one
approached by respondent, Atty. Godofredo N. Bernardino, of the grounds for disciplinary action; and (c) it does not constitute
introducing himself as someone holding various positions in the dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Bureau of Customs. Respondent offered to help complainant and
The IBP recommended suspending respondent from practice
promised to give her some business at the Bureau. In no time, they
became friends and a month after, respondent succeeded in of law for 2 years.
borrowing from complainant P120,000.00 with the promise to pay the ISSUE:
amount in full the following month, broadly hinting that he could use Whether or not Atty. Robert Medel is liable for gross
his influence at the Bureau of Customs to assist her. To ensure misconduct for failure to pay debts and for issuing worthless checks?
payment, respondent issued to complainant several postdated
HELD: ISSUE1: WON respondent violated the Code of Professional
Yes. The defense proffered by respondent is untenable. It is Responsibility (CANON 17). – YES.
evident from the records that he made several promises to pay his HELD/RATIO1:
debt promptly. However, he reneged on his obligation despite
sufficient time afforded to him. Worse, he refused to recognize any (1) In violation of the trust agreement, respondent claimed
absolute ownership over the property and refused to sell the property
wrongdoing and transferred the blame to complainant, on the
to complainant after the death of Jose Nakpil. Respondent initially
contorted reasoning that the latter had refused to accept the formers acknowledged and respected the trust nature of the Moran property.
plan of payment. It must be pointed out that complainant had no Respondent exercised bad faith in transferring the property to his
obligation to accept it, considering respondents previous failure to family corporation.
comply with earlier payment plans for the same debt. (2) Respondent’s act of excluding Moran property  lack of
Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties fidelity to the cause of his client (Canon 17)
to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. As part of those If he truly believed that it was his, he should have formally presented
his claim in the intestate proceedings instead of transferring it to his
duties, they must promptly pay their financial obligations. Their
own company and concealing it from complainant. His misuse of his
conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal legal expertise to deprive his client of the Moran property is clearly
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. unethical.
On these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for To make things worse, respondent through his accounting firm,
any professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in charged two loans against the estate as liability for the purchase and
moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor -- or to be renovation of the property he claimed for himself.
unworthy to continue as officers of the Court.
ISSUE2: WON respondent is guilty of representing conflicting
WHEREFORE, Atty. Robert W. Medel is found guilty of gross
interests. – YES.
misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED for one year from the
practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is
HELD/RATIO2:
warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with
General Rule: An attorney cannot represent adverse interests.
more severely. Exception: Representation of conflicting interests may be allowed
where the parties consent to the representation, after full disclosure of
b. MALPRACTICE the facts. Disclosure alone is not enough for the clients must give their
Nakpil v. Valdez informed consent to such representation. The lawyer must explain to
his clients the nature and extent of conflict and possible adverse effect
FACTS: must be thoroughly understood by his clients.
Jose Nakpil and Carlos Valdes were friends since the 1950s. Due to
their friendship, respondent (CPA-lawyer) became the business In the present case, there is no question that the interests of the
consultant, lawyer and accountant of the Nakpils. estate and that of its creditors are adverse to each other.

In 1965, Jose Nakpil became interested in purchasing a summer  Respondent denied that he represented complainant in the
residence in Moran St. , Baguio City. For lack of funds, he requested intestate proceedings. He points out that it was one Atty
respondent to purchase the Moran property for him. They agreed that Percival Cendana, who filed the case in court. However, that
respondent would keep the property in thrust for the Nakpils until the is beside the point. Respondent acted as counsel and
latter could buy it back. Pursuant to the agreement, respondent accountant of complainant after the death of Jose Nakpil.
obtained 2 loans from a bank, in the amounts of P65, 000 and P75,
000, which he used to purchase and renovate the property. Title was  When he transferred the Moran property to his corporation,
then issued in respondent’s name. the intestate proceedings was still pending in court.

Nakpils occupied the summer house. When Jose Nakpil died in 1973,  His defense that complainant knew that his law firm was
respondent acted the legal counsel and accountant of Jose’s widow. legal counsel of the estate and that his accounting form was
Respondent’s law form, Carlos J. Valdes & Assoc. handled the the auditor of both the estate and the two claimants against it
proceeding for the settlement of Jose’s estate. was not taken by the Court. There is nothing in the records to
show that respondent or his law firm explained the legal
Ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate situation and its consequences to complainant.
proceedings. Respondent excluded the Moran property from the
inventory of Jose’s estate. He transferred his title to the Moran Respondent is a CPA-lawyer actively participating in both professions.
property to his company, Caval Realty Corporation. He is the senior partner in his law and accounting firms. Complainant
is not charging respondent with breach of ethics for being the
Complainant sought to recover Moran property by filing with the them common accountant of the estate and the two creditors. He is charged
CFI Baguio an action for reconveyance with damages. During the for allowing his accounting firm to represent two creditors of the
pendencey of the action for reconveyance, complainant filed this estate, and at the same time allowing his law firm to represent the
administrative case to disbar the respondent. estate in the proceedings where these claims were presented.

Allegations of complainant: DISPO: Suspended from the practice of law for ONE YEAR.
 Respondent maliciously appropriated the property in trust
knowing that it did not belong to him Buted vs. Hernando AC 1359
 Respondent’s auditing firm excluded the Moran property FACTS:
from the inventory YET included the Moran property in the Atty. Hernando was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted
claims against the estate the amounts P65k and P75k which for a partition case of the late Teofilo Buted’s lot. He successfully
respondent represented as complainant’s husband’s loans defended the case. When Luciana died, Hernando withdrew
applied “probably for the purchase of a house and lot in appearance. Luciana once sold the property to Benito Bolisay but it
Moran” appears that the TCT was issued to the Sy couple. Upon filing specific
 Conflict of interest- Respondent’s law firm filed the petition performance, Bolisay got Atty. Hernando to represent him (free of
for the settlement of her husband’s estate in court, while charge). They succeeded in ejecting the couple. Atty. Hernando
respondent’s auditing firm acted as accountant of both the claims to have terminated relationship with Bolisay. In February 1974,
estate and two of its creditors. Atty. Hernando filed a petition, in behalf of Luciana’s heirs without
their consent, to cancel TCT of Bolisay couple over the lot. The couple
CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance filed disapproval. The case was dismissed for prescription. In August
CA reversed the trial court. Respondent was the absolute owner of of 1974, Bolisay couple filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
the Moran property. Hernando for having abused personal secrets obtained by him as
their counsel
OSG submitted report on disbarment complaint: ISSUE:
 NO trust agreement between Nakpil and respondent Whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of interests
 Respondent was the absolute owner of the property HELD:
 No conflict of interest Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Hernando had a conflict of
 Recommendation: dismissal of administrative case interest. In the action for specific performance, Atty Hernando
defended the Bolisay couple’s right to ownership but assailed the very
same right in the cadastral proceeding in favor of Luciana’s heirs. The
Canons of Professional Ethics prohibits conflicting interests for
lawyers. “It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except The Case: Complaint against Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra with
by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the malpractice and misconduct with prayer for disbarment
facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents
conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to Facts: Respondent was the Pormento family’s legal counsel between
contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. 1964 and 1994. The family’s relationship with the respondent extends
The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to beyond the mere lawyer-client relations.
divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent
acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters The rift between complainant and respondent began when
adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which the complainant’s counterclaim in a civil case filed with the RTC of
confidence has been reposed.”And despite Atty Hernando’s claim that Bacolod City was dismissed. Respondent failed to inform complainant
he had never seen nor taken hold of the Transfer Certificate of Title or Pormento of the dismissal of his counterclaim which resulted to the
that he divulged any confidential information belonging to the Bolisay latter being deprived of his right to appeal. In order to recover his
couple, that the mere fact that respondent had acted as counsel for ownership over a parcel of land, Pormento was forced to hire a new
Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance should have lawyer as Atty. Pontevedra refused to institute an action to recover the
precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side in in the subject property.
cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title of the spouses. There is
no necessity for proving the actual transmission of confidential In a separate incident, In 1967, he bought a parcel of land
information to an attorney in the course of his employment by his first located at Negros Occidental. The Deed of Declaration of Heirship
client in order that he may be precluded from accepting employment and Sale of said land was prepared and notarized by
by the second or subsequent client where there are conflicting respondent. Since there was another person who claims ownership
interests between the first and the subsequent clients. The prohibition of the property, complainant alleges that he heeded respondent’s
on conflict of interest was designed not only to prevent the dishonest advice to build a small house on the property and to allow his
practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest (complainant’s) nephew and his family to occupy the house in order
lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. Although for complainant to establish his possession of the said
the relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new property. Subsequently, complainant’s nephew refused to vacate the
employment is in a different case; nor can the attorney use against his property prompting the former to file an ejectment case with the
former client any knowledge or information gained through their Municipal Trial Court of Escalante, Negros Occidental. Respondent
former connection. acted as the counsel of complainant’s nephew
SUSPENDED for 5 months.
Held/Ruling:
Maturan v. Gonzales AC 2597
FACTS: Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Maturan was instituted as an attorney in fact through an SPA by his Responsibility provides:
mother and father (Casquejo couple) in law to file ejectment cases “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
and criminal cases against illegal settles occupying a certain lot. Atty. written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
Gonzales prepared and notarized the SPA. Maturan engaged the facts.”
Gonzles as counsel for the ejectment cases. While said lot was Jurisprudence instructs that there is a representation of
registered in the name of Celestino Yokingco, Antonio Casquejo had, conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require
however, instituted a case for reconveyance of property and the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in
declaration of nullity against the former. Gonzales filed Forcible Entry any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be
and Damages against several individuals and judgment was rendered called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any
in their favor. A writ of execution was issued. On the case filed by knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test to
Casquejo, they entered into a judicially-approved compromise determine if there is a representation of conflicting interests is
agreement. While the writ of execution was pending and without whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney
withdrawing as counsel for Matura, Atty. Gonzales filed in behalf of from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and
Yokingco, an action to annul the judgment rendered in the previous loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
case due to lack of authority on the part of Maturan to represent double dealing in the performance thereof.
Antonio and Gloria Casquejo. Maturan then filed an administrative
complaint against the Gonzales for immoral, unethical, and A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client
anomalous acts and asked for his disbarment. Gonzales denied the against a former client when the subject matter of the present
allegations and contended he was of the belief that filing a motion for controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the
issuance of a writ of execution was the last and final act in the lawyer- previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client.
client relationship between himself and Maturan, and that his formal Conversely, he may properly act as counsel for a new client, with full
withdrawal as counsel for the Casquejos was unnecessary in order to disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a matter wholly
sever the lawyer-client relationship between them. Furthermore, he unrelated to that of the previous employment, there being in that
alleged that his acceptance of employment from Yokingco was for instance no conflict of interests. Where, however, the subject matter
him, an opportunity to honestly earn a little more for his children’s of the present suit between the lawyer’s new client and his former
sustenance. IBP recommended suspension of 1 year. client is in some way connected with that of the former client’s action,
ISSUE: the lawyer may have to contend for his new client that which he
Whether or not Gonzales is guilty of representing conflicting interests previously opposed as counsel for the former client or to use against
HELD: the latter information confided to him as his counsel.
Yes. The Supreme Court found Gonzales guilty of representing
c. as counsel
conflicting interests. It is improper for a lawyer to appear GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT
for one party against the adverse party who is his client in a related
suit, as a lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting interests or EMMA T. DANTES vs. ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES A.C. No. 6486.
discharging inconsistent duties. The representation of conflicting September 22, 2004
interest is in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the FACTS:
lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative. What Gonzales did Mrs. Dantes alleged that his husband is a philanderer. Atty. Dantes pu
was violative of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which rportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women, one after the
provide in part: “It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, other, and had illegitimate children with them. From the time responde
except by express consent of all concerned given after a full nts illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular support to his wife and
disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer their children, thus forcing her to work abroad to provide for their chil
represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his dren’s needs.
duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to Atty. Dantes admitted the fact of marriage with her and the birth of thei
oppose.” r children, but alleged that they have mutually agreed to separate eigh
A lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of a motion teen years before after his wife had abandoned him in their residence.
for a writ of execution. His acceptance of a case implies that he will He further asserted that Mrs. Dantes filed the case just to force him to
prosecute the case to its conclusion. He may not be permitted to remit 70% of his monthly salary to her.
unilaterally terminate the same to the prejudice of his client. Mrs. Dantes then presented documentary evidence consisting of the b
SUSPENDED for 2 years (modified IBP recommendation) irth certificates of Ray Darwin, Darling, and Christian Dave, all surnam
ed Dantes, and the affidavits of his husband and his paramour to prov
CONFLICT OF INTEREST e the fact that he sired three illegitimate children out of his illicit affairs
with two different women.
PORMENTO V. PONTEVEDRA
(A.C. No. 5128) 31 March 2005 ISSUE:
whether or not having an illicit relationship during the the subsistence children.
of marriahe warrants the disbarment of a lawyer.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed
RULING: that from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from
Yes. respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read “I
The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engagin love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also noticed
g in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral condu that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the
ct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or sha morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from
meless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable work. When he asked her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at
members of the community.To be the basis of disciplinary action, the her parent’s house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her
lawyers conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That i work.
s, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprinciple
d as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such sc In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent
andalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense o together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted
f decency. them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April
Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with t 22, 2001 complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at
wo different women during the subsistence of his marriage to the com which he saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family and
plainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the
appropriate sanctions. Complainants testimony, taken in conjunction venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal
with the documentary evidence, sufficiently established respondents c house and hauled off all her personal belongings. Complainant later
ommission of marital infidelity and immorality. found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his
Atty. Crispin G. Dantes has been DISBARRED. wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent’s car and that of
Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Manila where as
Barrientos vs. Daarol he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing.
A.C. No. 1512 He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on about
January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was
pregnant.
Facts:
1) Victoria Barrientos, was about 20 years old during the time of her Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the
relationship with respondent; while respondent Transfiguracion reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.
Daarol, married, General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric
Cooperative, and 41 years old at the time of the said relationship. Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the
2) That respondent is married to Romualda A. Sumaylo with whom be Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use of
has a son; and that said respondent had been separated from his deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral
wife for about 16 years at the time of his relationship with conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the
complainant; case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334
3) The respondent promised to marry Victoria in six months of the in of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any husband who shall keep a mistress
relationship. However, complainant became pregnant. in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under
4) They agreed that complainant would deliver her child in Manila, scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall
where Daarol admitted to her that he is not capacitated to marry cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision
because of the previous marriage. But he promised to fix things. correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of ART. XV
Later on, Victoria decided to deliver the child in Cebu City in order states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
to be nearer to Dipolog City. During her stay here in Manila and foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state.
later in Cebu City, the respondent defrayed some of her expenses; Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution
that she filed an administrative case against respondent with the and the laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the
National Electrification Administration; which complaint, however, court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly
was dismissed; and then she instituted the present disbarment immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of canon
proceedings against respondent. 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
5) Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Should Daarol be disbarred?
TOLEDO v. TOLEDO
Holdings: 7 SCRA 757
A.C. No. 266
1) Victoria was never informed of the status of Daarol and was April 27, 1963
led to believ that he is single. It was deception that Daarol
promised to marry her when he knew as an Attorney that he FACTS: Paz Arellano Toledo, a dentist, alleged that she is the wife of
is not capacitated to marry. Atty. Jesus Toledo, that she supported and spent for his studies in
2) Daarol’s claim that he embraced the Muslim religion does not FEU but after passing the bar, he abandoned. She also alleged that
excuse him since his first marriage is under the Christian he is cohabiting with another woman and borne him 3 children. She
religion, therefore it follows the Civil Code. This is also prayed for his disbarment from the practice of law.
contradicting to his reason to Victoria that he will be charged
with bigamy if he marries her. Upon the hearing conducted by the Solicitor General which his
3) Grounds for his disbarment: alleged wife presented pieces of evidence, respondent was charged
a) Deceit and grossly immoral conduct under Section 27 of for abandonment and immorality and the Solicitor prayed that he be
Rule 138 disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.
b) Lack of good moral character under Section 2 of Rule
138. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
"that the charges contained therein are not based on and supported
by the facts and evidence adduced at the investigation conducted by
the Office of the Solicitor General." Hence, the Court set the case for
hearing. The respondent prayed that his motion be first resolved or be
Guevarra vs. Eala A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007 denied, hence invoking Section 6, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court.

However, instead of doing what the rule requires, the respondent filed
A.C. No. 7136 a motion to dismiss without stating that he intended to present
evidence in his behalf, thereby waiving his right. The fact that at the
August 1, 2007 close of the hearing conducted by the Solicitor General, he made of
record his desire to present evidence in his behalf, is not sufficient.
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before The correct manner and proper time for him to make known his
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline intention is by and in the answer seasonably filed in this Court.
against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly
immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Now, to resolve the case.
Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000 when
his then fiancée Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend ISSUE: Whether or not Jesus Toledo be disbarred or suspended.
who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three
RULING: Yes. The respondent, by abandoning his lawful wife and On January 9, 1985, the Court acting on the said complaint for
cohabiting with another woman who had borne him a child, has failed disbarment required the respondent to submit his Answer.
to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a
member of the Bar. Hence, he is disbarred from the practice of law. The respondent in an Answer dated February 28, 1985, denied having
married Norma O. Pihid on April 27, 1981 and having fathered a child
Through a rigorous test by the Solicitor, the maid of respondent, by the name of Noel Olea Tan, although he admitted being married to
Marina Payot, also testified that the lawyer was living with a person Emilia A. Benito.6
named Corazon Toledo as wife of the respondent with a child of their
own, named Angie. Lino Domingo, operator-mechanic in the Bureau
of Public Highways, also stated that he knows the lawyer and her As regards the charges of bigamy and falsification of official
wife, Corazon, for he goes to the lawyer’s residence every now and documents, the respondent argued that the same were issues that
then. were properly the subject of a criminal case filed by the complainant
against him which was pending before the Regional Trial Court of
The testimony of these two witnesses are worthy of credence. Malolos, Bulacan, Branch VI, and therefore raised a prejudicial
question in the present controversy.7
Preciosa Obusan vs Generoso Obusan Jr.
Anent the charge of maintaining amorous relationship with Norma O.
Atty. Generoso Obusan Jr., then single, had a relationship with one Pihid, the respondent contended that the same charge had been
Natividad Estabillo. In 1972, Estabillo begot a son with Obusan. previously resolved in an Order dated October 1, 1982 issued by the
Obusan later found out that Estabillo was at the time still validly Minister (now Secretary) of the Ministry (now Department) of Agrarian
married with one Tony Garcia. Four days after the birth of his son with Reform. In the said order, the allegation of immorality which was
Estabillo, Obusan married Preciosa Razon. The couple lived more originally the content of an anonymous letter-complaint was dismissed
than a year together until one day when Obusan left the conjugal for being devoid of merit.
home and never returned.
Preciosa searched for Obusan until she found out that the latter has The respondent, in turn, suggested that the real and actual motive
been living with Natividad Estabillo. Preciosa then filed a disbarment behind the said complaint was traceable to the strong resentment
case against Obusan on the grounds of gross immorality and adultery. harbored by the complainant against the former whose services as
Preciosa presented the testimonies of the neighbors of Estabillo who Chief Trial Attorney of the said Ministry (now Department) was
all testified that Estabillo and Obusan presented themselves as extended even beyond his retirement age at the request of the then
husband and wife in their community. Minister (now Secretary) Conrado F. Estrella. The respondent
ISSUE: Whether or not Obusan should be disbarred.
contended that he and the complainant did not see eye to eye with
HELD: Yes. Obusan failed to counter the evidence presented by his respect to the handling and prosecution of agrarian cases. 8
wife. He even failed to file responsive pleadings. Hence, on the
strength of the evidence against him, he is guilty of grossly immoral
conduct. Abandoning one’s wife and resuming carnal relations with a By way of a counter-complaint, the respondent charged the
former paramour, a married woman, falls within “that conduct which is complainant with acts unbecoming of a lawyer and a member of the
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference Philippine Bar such as obtaining and utilizing confidential documents
to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the without the necessary authorization, introducing a falsified document
community”. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality as evidence in a court proceeding, and executing an affidavit-
expected and required of a member of the bar. complaint containing false statements. The respondent further
assailed the complainant for filing the said complaint based on
inadmissible and unfounded charges.9
A.M. No. 2697 April 19, 1991
ATTY. JOSE S. SANTOS, complainant, vs.ATTY. CIPRIANO A.
TAN, respondent. On March 25, 1985, the Court resolved to refer the said complaint to
the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.
Complainant Atty. Jose S. Santos instituted on November 20, 1984
these disbarment proceedings against respondent Atty. Cipriano A. The Report and Recommendation submitted by the Solicitor General
Tan for alleged gross misconduct. on February 23, 1990, in part, states:

xxx xxx xxx

Specifically, the complainant who was then Acting Director of the
Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance under the Ministry (now
Department) of Agrarian Reform, charged the respondent with having A thorough review of the record of the case duly heard before the
committed acts of immorality, falsification, and bigamy. Office of the Solicitor General in several protracted hearings,
reveals the existence of a ground for disbarment against
respondent.
In the said complaint, Atty. Santos stated that the respondent, while
employed as Trial Attorney IV, with the Judicial Cases Division under
the aforesaid Department, maintained amorous relationship with a Aside from claiming that the documents presented by complainant
married clerk, a certain Norma O. Pihid (nee Olea), who was then were allegedly unauthenticated, hearsay, self-serving, and his
directly under him. Eventually, the respondent got married to Norma defense of alibi at the time of the marriage on April 27, 1981,
O. Pihid on April 27, 1981 before the Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan, respondent has miserably failed in refuting the same and at the
Bulacan, purportedly in an attempt to cover up their illicit relations. 1 same time presenting strong evidence to convince the Solicitor
General of the falsity of the charges against him.
The complainant, moreover, alleged that the respondent falsified his
marriage contract with Norma O. Pihid by deliberately misrepresenting On April 27, 1981 respondent claims that he was attending a
himself as single, thus, deceiving the said mayor into solemnizing the government case at the then CFI of Caloocan City (Exh. 9-A, rec.)
said marriage.2 In the information sheet, however, prepared and filed while his alleged second wife was at the Court of Appeals on official
by the respondent prior to his employment, he clearly stated therein business (Exhs. 6 & 11 A, rec.).
that he was married to one Emilia Benito Tan and had begotten eight
(8) children with the latter.3 There are serious doubts in entertaining the aforesaid defense.

Consequently, the complainant likewise charged the respondent with A glance at the daily time records (Exhs. 9-A and 11-A, rec.)
bigamy since it appears from the records of the Local Civil Registrar reveals that both entries of respondent and Norma Olea were
that he had previously contracted marriage with the said Emilia A. indicated on the line covering April 26, 1981; secondly, penmanship
Benito on January 6, 1941. The complainant asserted that the said of the alleged entries for April 27, 1981 are the same; thirdly, the
marriage continued to be valid and binding between the said indicated time in's of respondent and Norma Olea were the
contracting parties when the respondent entered into a subsequent same, i.e., 8:01 a.m.; fourthly, probability that they were together is
manage with Norma O. Pihid on April 27, 1981.4 high because they were both out of the office.

Finally, the complainant averred that the respondent's second wife, Assuming, arguendo, respondent's alibi that they were married in
Norma O. Pihid, gave birth to a child by the respondent on November Meycauayan, Bulacan, it was highly probable and possible for both
21, 1981 at the Children's Medical Center in Quezon City, as to proceed to Meycauayan, Bulacan on April 27, 1981 since the
evidenced by the birth certificate of the said child indicating his name places where they were allegedly then is [sic] not impossibly far
to be Noel Olea Tan.5 from Meycauayan Bulacan.
 Respondent even failed to specify the alleged government case he IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is
was attending at the CFI of Caloocan either by mentioning the title respectfully recommended that Atty. Tan's counter-complaint
of the case or by presenting other evidence aside from his self- against Atty. Santos be DISMISSED for being
serving testimony. unsubstantiated.11

With respect to the Birth Certificate (Exh. A) of respondent's alleged WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Cipriano A. Tan guilty of
son, the former has not made a categorical denial that Noel Olea immoral conduct in disregard of the Code of Professional
Tan is NOT his son. He only argues that the birth certificate is not Responsibility, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the active practice of
authentic. Evidence for complainant, however, shows that Exhibit A- law for a period of one (1) year. The counter-complaint against
5 was presented to show the authenticity of the Birth Certificate complainant Atty. Jose S. Santos is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
contrary to respondent's claim (pls. see Certification dated July 24, merit.
1985 found at the back of the Birth Certificate). Likewise,
respondent has not made any categorical denial of his amorous Let this Decision be spread upon the personal records of the
relationship with Norma Olea despite the existence of his first respondent and copies thereof furnished to all courts.
marriage with Emilia Benito Tan.
SO ORDERED.
For immorality to be a ground for disbarment, it must be so gross, SLU vs. DELA CRUZ
e.g., it is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree
(Reyes v. Wong, 63 SCRA 667 [1975]). Facts: A disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of
the Saint Louis University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against
Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the
The circumstances of the case definitely has put respondent's following grounds:
moral character in doubt despite non-conviction of the criminal case
for bigamy against respondent. The reputation of a lawyer must be
such that he be of good moral character during the continuance of 1. Gross misconduct- he has pending case of child abuse,
his practice and the exercise of the privilege. administrative case and labor case.

The findings are clear and convincing that respondent entered into 2. Grossly immoral conduct – contracting a second marriage despite
a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage and the existence of his first marriage.
that he begot a child with the second woman. Definitely, such
factual findings have put serious doubt on respondent's moral 3. Malpractice- notarizing documents despite the expiration of his
character. Respondent's main defense of alibi is rather too weak a commission.
reason that he did not engage in an immoral act. As earlier said,
respondent has neither categorically denied that Norma Olea is his Issue: May a pending case constitutes facts that determines the
wife nor Noel Olea Tan is his son with Norma. existence of gross misconduct by the respondent?

It appears, however, that respondent has retired from government Held: Practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
service on March 27, 1983. He was sixty-five (65) years old on State on those who show that they possess the qualifications required
September 16, 1982 (Exh. 13, rec.), and therefore, e. the time of by law. The purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to
the rendition of this report, respondent is now seventy two (72) remove from the profession those unfit to be entrusted with the duties
years old. and responsibilities thereby protecting the public and those charged
with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.
Considering that respondent has retired and is in the twilight of his
life, disbarment would be too harsh a penalty to impose on Contracting a second marriage despite existence of first marriage is a
respondent. Suspension from the practice of law would be proper violation of the continous possession of good moral character as a
for humanitarian reasons if respondent is still actively engaged in requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice.
practice.

The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is without the requisite commission to do so as “reprehensible,
respectfully recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of constituting as it does not only malpractice but also the crime of
immoral conduct, unbecoming of a lawyer, and accordingly impose falsification of public documents.” Notarization of a private document
the penalty of one (1) year suspension from the active practice of converts the document into a public one making it admissible in court
law.10 without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason,
We agree with the said findings of the Solicitor General including his notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic
favorable and compassionate consideration of the advanced age of requirements in the performance of their duties.
the respondent. Specifically, Rule 1.01 of Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not engage in Pending case does not constitute facts that determines the existence
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." of gross misconduct by the respondent as these are still pending
before the proper forums. At such stages, the presumption of
Whatever the alleged motives of the complainant are, the respondent innocence still prevails in favor of the respondent.
has failed to controvert and refute the charges made by the former.
Even granting arguendo that the complainant was not well-motivated
in instituting these disbarment proceedings, the same does not
exculpate him from any liability resulting from his grossly immoral
conduct. Cojuangco vs. Palma; grossly immoral conduct
Adm. Case No. 2474; September 15, 2004
As regards the respondent's counter-complaint, the Solicitor General
in compliance with the Court's Resolution dated October 1, 1990, Facts:
submitted his Supplemental Report and Recommendation on Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a complaint for disbarment against
November 22, 1990, and found that the charges against the Atty. Leo J. Palma, alleging as grounds “deceit, malpractice, gross
complainant for acts unbecoming a member of the Philippine Bar
were all unsubstantiated. We agree with his findings and misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer and grossly
recommendation on this regard which state: immoral conduct.”

No misconduct has been committed by Atty. Santos contrary Respondent Palma [from ACCRA Law Office] was employed by
to Atty. Tan's accusations which will warrant disciplinary petitioner as his personal counsel. Respondent's excellence in
action.1âwphi1 If at all, Atty. Tan's charges were merely in managing petitioner's legal affairs, prompted petitioner to introduced
defense of the charges against him (immorality) which the respondent to his family. Since respondent gained the trust of
Solicitor General has found to be supported by the evidence. petitioner and his family, their relationship became intimate.
(cf.: Report and Recommendation dated February 23, 1990,
pp. 46-52, Records-Adm. Cases)
Respondent then was allowed to tutor the 22 year old daughter of release of its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with
Petitioner. Castillo’s daughter. The latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized
However, when his concern was supposed to be complainant’s an affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her support which
did not materialize after the birth of the child. The Court found him
legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his
guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for
daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when reconsideration.
nobody was looking. He succeeded in misrepresenting himself to The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child
Hong Kong officials as a bachelor and successfully married and agrees to support her. In his defense, the latter presented
petitioner's daughter, eventhough he is legally married. different certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer and proving
his good moral character. His wife even submitted a handwritten
Respondent argued that, he cannot be punished since there is no letter stating his amicability as a husband and father despite the affair.
More than a year since the original decision rendered by the Court,
allegation that he acted with “wanton recklessness,
Castillo reiterated his willingness to support the child to the Court and
lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in serving complainant’s attached a photocopy of post-dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for
interest. Anent the charge of grossly immoral conduct, he stressed the months of March to December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00
that he married complainant’s daughter with “utmost sincerity and each.
good faith” and that “it is contrary to the natural course of things for an
immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely loves.” ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of Gross Immoral
Conduct and should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite
Issue:
Suspension.
Whether or not respondent's acts constitutes gross immoral
conduct so as to warrant his disbarment from the legal profession. HELD:
The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance and active service
Ruling: to the community is a just and reasonable ground to convert the
Yes, the Court ruled respondent's action constitutes gross immoral original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of
two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirre’s further claim
conduct. A gross immoral conduct, the Court said, is a conduct which
for the support of her child should be addressed to the proper court in
is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference a proper case.
to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community. Thus, measured against thisd. definition, Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
respondent’s act is manifestly immoral. First, he abandoned his
lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an innocent young A.C. No. 229 April 30, 1957
woman into marrying him. And third, he misrepresented himself as a IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS
vs.NARCISO N. JARAMILLO, respondent.
“bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a foreign land.

In particular, adds the Court, "he made a mockery of marriage The respondent was prosecuted for and convicted of estafa in the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and, on appeal, was finally
which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act
sentenced by the Court of appeals to an indeterminate penalty
of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor to one year
decency and morality." Moreover, the circumstances here speak of a and one day of prision correccional in its decision promulgated on
clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence. It was April 17, 1954. On August 5, 1955, while the respondent was serving
respondent’s closeness to the complainant’s family as well as the sentence for said conviction, the Solicitor General filed in this Court
latter’s complete trust in him that made possible his intimate the present complaint for respondent's disbarment.
relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be
complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latter’s back and In his answer respondent contends that his conviction was a judicial
courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he error; that it was unfortunate on his part that the trial court did not
believe his explanation of the loss of the amount involved in the
attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of
criminal case; that his imprisonment and the sufferings and mental
complainant’s resources by securing a plane ticket from complainant’s anguish he has suffered since the commencement of the criminal of
office in order to marry the latter’s daughter in Hongkong. He did this the criminal case constitute more than sufficient punishment; that for
without complainant’s knowledge. this Court to further disbar him is excessively inhuman, humiliating
and cruel.
The Court stressed again the principle that law profession does not
prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no There is no question that the crime of estafa involves moral turpitude.
distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the The review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The
lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No
elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of
lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one
the privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to
time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional say that, by his conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to
activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect protect the administration of justice.
unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and
the courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the Wherefore, the respondent is hereby disbarred and ordered to
proper authorities. surrender to this Court, within fifteen days from notice hereof, the
lawyer's certificate heretofore issued to him. So ordered.
Respondent cannot rely on complainant's admission that he is a
good lawyer, because professional competency alone does not make A.C. No. 350 August 7, 1959
a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always In re: DALMACIO DE LOS ANGELES, respondent.
an indispensable requirement.
Dalmacio de los Angeles and Luis F. Gabinete for respondent.
In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and
violation of his oath as a lawyer. The penalty of one (1) year Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles was convicted of the crime of
suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the attempted bribery in a final decision rendered by the Court of Appeals
gravity of his offense. The bulk of jurisprudence supports the and was sentenced to two (2) years, four (40 months, and one (1) day
of destierro, and to pay a fine of P2,300, with subsidiary destierro in
imposition of the extreme penalty of disbarment.
case of insolvency (CA-G.R. No. 11411-R), and under section 1, Rule
Carmelita I. Zaguirre vs. Atty. Alfredo Castillo 128, of the Rules of Court, he was required to show cause why he
03 August 2005 Per Curiam should not be disbarred from the practice of his profession.

FACTS: In his written explanation he appealed to the sympathy and mercy of

Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he this Court considering that he has six children to support the eldest
had an affair with Carmelita Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from being 16 years old and the youngest 4 years who will bear the stigma
1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and before the of dishonor if disciplinary action be taken against him. He made
manifest to this Court that if he ever committed what is attributed to merely reiterated the exhibits filed during trial and passed upon by the
him, it was merely due to an error of judgment which he honestly and Court of Appeals to show that he was innocent.
sincerely deplores.
On the same date, June 29, 1982, the disbarment proceedings were
Under section 25, Rule 127, a member of the bar may be removed docketed as Administrative Case No. 2410. Atty. Pajo was required to
from his office as attorney if he is convicted of a crime involving moral show cause why he should not be disbarred by reason of final
turpitude the reason behind this rule being that the continued judgment, In the meantime, he was suspended from the practice of
possession of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the law.
rightful continuance of the lawyer in the practice of law with the result
that the loss of such qualification justifies his disbarment (Mortel vs. Atty. Pajo has shown no cause why he should not be disbarred by
Aspiras 100 Phil., 586; 53 Off. Gaz., No. 3, 628). And since bribery is reason of final judgment.
admittedly a felony involving moral turpitude (7 C.J.S., p. 736; 5 Am.
Jur. p. 428), this Court, much as it sympathizes with the plight of
respondent, is constrained to decree his disbarment as ordained by Section 27, Rule 138 provides:
section 25 of Rule 127.
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by
It is therefore ordered that respondent be removed from his office as Supreme Court on what grounds.— A member of
attorney and that his name be stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys. the bar -may be removed or suspended from his
So ordered. office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
A.M. No. 2410 October 23, 1983 of his conviction of a crime involving moral
IN RE DISBARMENT OF RODOLFO PAJO turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing
In an information dated August 10, 1976, respondents Rodolfo Pajo as an attorney for a party to a case without authority
and Clodualdo Origenes were charged before the City Court of Davao so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
City with falsification of public document under Article 172, Paragraph the purpose of gain, either personally or through
1 of the Revised Penal Code. paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

After trial, the two accused were found guilty by the city court in a Rodolfo Pajo and his co-accused Clodualdo Origenes were found
decision dated April 14, 1980. Clodualdo Origenes was sentenced as guilty of having conspired in the execution of a deed of sale of a
principal to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1) parcel of land by a vendor who had been deceased for almost eight
day to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days (8) years. Nestoria Origenes who was supposed to have executed the
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000.00 with subsidiary deed of sale in favor of her nephew Clodualdo Origenes died July 6,
imprisonment in case of insolvency and costs. 1968. The deed was executed on February 16, 1976. Atty. Pajo
prepared and notarized the falsified deed of sale.
Respondent Rodolfo Pajo was found guilty as an accomplice and
sentenced to a prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day, to pay The trial court and the Court of Appeals found on the basis of clear
a fine of P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and convincing evidence that Atty. Rodolfo Pajo had not only grown
and costs. up from birth in the vicinity of Nestoria Origenes' residence and he,
therefore, knew that the supposed affiant was an impostor but he was
also aware when he prepared the falsified deed that Nestoria had
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment of conviction of been dead many years and had, in fact, attended the wake and burial
Clodualdo Origenes was affirmed with no modification. Rodolfo Pajo of the supposed vendor. These are factual findings amply supported
was, however, found guilty as a principal and his sentence was raised by the records which we should not disturb. As earlier stated, the First
to imprisonment from four (4) months and one (1) day to three (3) Division of this Court denied the petition to review on certiorari the
years, six (6) months, and twenty-one (21) days, and to pay a fine of decision of the Court of Appeals.
P1,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency at the
rate of P8.00 per day not exceeding 1/3 of the principal penalty and in
no case to exceed one year and costs. In the respondent's Manifestation-Explanation received by this Court
on September 15, 1982, the arguments given in answer to the "show
cause" order on why Atty. Pajo should not be disbarred by reason of
The decision of the Court of Appeals was promulgated on February final judgment are:
22, 1982. An examination of the Court of Appeals rollo in CA-G.R. No.
23933-CR indicates that Atty. Pajo received a copy of the appellate
decision on March 10, 1982 (CA rollo, p. 43) and a copy of the (1) The respondent is an orphan and nephew of
resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on April 15, 1982. former Executive Secretary Juan C, Pajo. He
(CA rollo, p. 91). worked his way through college-both for his A.B.
and LL.B. degrees-as a security guard because he
was obsessed with an ambition to become a lawyer
On June 7, 1982, Atty. Rodolfo Pajo filed a petition for review on and to serve his fellow citizens. He was a student
certiorari of the appellate decision finding him guilty as co-principal leader at the Far Eastern University.
through conspiracy of the crime of falsification of public document.
(2) In twelve (12) years of active law practice, he
The petition was denied by the First Division of this Court on June 14, handled many cases some of which he listed in the
1982 on two grounds-First, the petition had no statement of material manifestation. With such a good practice, it is
dates to determine the timeliness of its filing; Second, even if the impossible and improbable that the respondent
material dates were given, the petition would nevertheless be denied would cause his own destruction. He is a victim of
because it had no merit. The case was also referred to the Court en circumstances.
banc for disbarment of Atty. Rodolfo Pajo.
(3) The respondent reiterated his defenses in the
On June 29, 1982, a motion for reconsideration of the June 14, 1982 Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals on
resolution was received. The motion stated that the docket, legal why he is innocent of the charge of falsification.
research, and allied fees in G.R. No. 60654, the petition for review on
certiorari, were all paid on June 7, 1982. There is nothing in the
motion to show that the petition was filed and these fees paid before In this disbarment case, we are no longer called upon to review the
the period to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals had lapsed judgment of conviction which has now become final. The review of the
except a bare statement that the fees were paid within the conviction no longer rests upon this Court. (In re Jaranillo, 101 Phil.
reglementary period. Parenthetically, the examination of the records 323.) The crime of falsification of public document is clearly contrary
of the Court of Appeals shows that the petition which was filed with to justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral
the Supreme Court on June 7, 1982 was filed fifty-three (53) days turpitude. (De Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces, 111 Phil. 569.) The
after the petitioner received on April 15, 1982 the resolution denying respondent's acts of taking advantage of his office as attorney to
his motion for reconsideration. On the falsification charge, Atty. Pajo prepare a deed of sale purportedly by one who had been eight years
dead amounted to deceit, malpractice, and misconduct in office as a
lawyer. (Cf. In re Avancena, 21 SCRA 1012). The case comes clearly U.S.V.A. While there, Osio and Bagtas were asked to sign
under the grounds given in Section 27 of Rule 138. Disbarment several papers, the contents of which they did not know, but
follows as a consequence of the conviction for the crime. which the appellants said were in connection with the
widow's benefit claim. Then Osio and Oliva were invited by,
WHEREFORE, respondent Rodolfo Pajo is hereby disbarred from the the appellant Isidro P. Vinzon to go to the municipal building,
practice of law and his-name is ordered stricken off the roll of leaving Bagtas in the company of Mrs. Vinzon. From their
attorneys. tour of the municipal building, Osio and Oliva were brought
by Isidro P. Vinzon to a restaurant before they returned to
the Vinzon residence. Upon their arrival thereat Osio and
SO ORDERED. Oliva noticed Felicidad Bagtas wiping ink from her thumb,
and upon their inquiry, the widow informed them that Mrs.
A.C. No. 561 April 27, 1967 Vinzon had asked her (Bagtas) to thumbprint several times.
IN RE: ATTY. ISIDRO P. VINZON, respondent. Shortly thereafter, Bagtas and her companions went home,
because the alleged, investigator did not arrive.
DIZON, J.:
Later in that same day Mrs. Vinzon reappeared at
This is a disbarment proceeding against Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon of Parañaque, and told Osio that they would proceed to Manila
Cavite City referred to Us by the Solicitor General on January 7, 1963 in order to "get the benefits as early as possible." So once
pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. again, Osio and Bagtas went out with Mrs. Vinzon, and in
02243-CR promulgated on October 1, 1962 affirming the one front of the U.S.V.A. building on the Escolta they met a man
rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila convicting said whom Osio and the widow took to be an agent of the
respondent and his wife, Filomena D. Vinzon, of the crime of estafa. U.S.V.A. This man inquired of Mrs. Vinzon if Felicidad
The pertinent portion of the former reads as follows: Bagtas was "the one," and upon an affirmative answer the
same person brought them to an eatery where Osio was
asked to sign something, after which the amount of
In an information filed with the Court of First Instance of P2,421.00 and some centavos' were delivered to her. Upon
Manila, that spouses Isidro P. Vinzon and Filomena B. Vinzon's suggestion Osio gave that unnamed man P50.00,
Vinzon were charged with the crime of estafa for having and when they were already at the bus terminal on their way
failed to deliver and for misappropriating the sum of home, Osio gave Mrs. Vinzon another amount, making her
P7,000.00 which represented a portion of the total amount of total disbursement for that afternoon P200.00.
P9,621.60 of U.S. Depositary check numbered 685891
belonging and payable to Felicidad M. Bagtas as
unremarried widow of the deceased veteran Maximino C. In his answer filed on April 22, 1963, respondent alleges the following:
Bagtas. After the prosecution had rested its case the
defense, filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of 1. That he admits that there is a final decision of the Court of
evidence, which motion was however, denied for lack of Appeals, a portion of which is quoted in the letter of the
merit. Thereafter, the accused waive the right to present their Solicitor General dated Dec. 28, 1962;
evidence and instead submitted the case for decision. Thus
decision was rendered below finding both accused guilty as 2. That he, however denies, that a conviction for any
charged and sentencing them, each to undergo an crime per se is sufficient ground following suspension or
indeterminate penalty of from 3 months and 11 days disbarment:
of arresto mayor, to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prison
correccional with the accessory penalties; to indemnify the
offended party Felicidad M. Bagtas in the amount of 3. That while the decision of the Court of Appeals became
P7,000.60, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of final for lack of appeal to the Supreme Court, it does not
insolvency; and each to pay one-half of the costs. necessarily follow that the said conviction is absolutely
binding on this Hon. Supreme Court if upon hearing of the
instant proceedings, turns out to be not legal nor valid under
xxx xxx xxx the law and facts, for, in parenthesis, we state that the
records of the Hon. Supreme Court can attest to the fact that
Wherefore, finding no reversible error in the appealed there is quite a number of Court of Appeals decisions which
decision, the same is hereby affirmed, with the costs against have been reversed for being illegal and contrary to law by
the appellants. The attention of the Solicitor General is the Supreme Court, which is the highest Tribunal;
invited to decision herein for the purpose of instituting
disbarment proceedings against the appellant Isidro P. 4. That the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals and its
Vinzon, who, it appears from the record, is a member of the stand on the legal questions raised, are not in accordance
Philippine Bar. with the doctrines cited in Appellant's Brief;

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: 5. That the testimonies of prosecution witnesses viewed in
their proper light do not prove any estafa, for nowhere in their
The evidence on record reveals that Felicidad M. Bagtas was evidence to the effect that this respondent had ever cashed
found to be mentally incompetent, suffering from the check in question, on the contrary, the evidence of the
schizophrenic reaction, hebephrenic type, upon examination prosecution simply pointed to an unknown person who
by a psychiatrist of the U.S. Veterans Administration delivered certain sum of money to the offended party in the
(U.S.V.A.) in the course of the investigation conducted in presence of the wife of respondent, and there is even no
connection with her application for benefits as the proof that respondent and said unknown person knew each
unremarried widow of the late veteran Maximino C. Bagtas other at anytime before or after the alleged delivery;
(Exh. E). In the same application Felicidad M. Bagtas was
assisted by the herein appellant Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon, who 6. That it is respectfully submitted that respondent is
on various occasions had asked her to thumbmark serial innocent of the alleged estafa for (1) there is no evidence
papers in connection with the application. On April 22, 1955, that he ever received and cashed the US check involved; (2)
the appellant above named, as attorney for the widow no evidence that he ever received the proceeds thereof; (3)
Bagtas and through a letter which he had thumbmarked by no evidence that he had any connivance or connection with
the latter, caused the alteration of the applicant widow's the unknown person who according to prosecution evidence
address on record with the U.S.V.A., from San Dionisio, was the one who gave a sum of money to offended party; (4)
Parañaque, Rizal, to 41 Interior, P. Burgos St., Cavite City and finally assuming that there was such a check and
(Exh. A-2). Actually, Bagtas continued to reside in respondent received the proceeds, in the absence
Parañaque, the new recorded address was really that of the of demand; estafa does not lie.
herein appellants.
The case has set for hearing at 9:30 A.M. on June 21, 1963 but
Sometime in June, 1955 the appellant Filomena B. Vinzon neither the Solicitor General nor the respondent appeared
fetched the widow Bagtas and her mother, Susana Osio, notwithstanding notice served upon them. Consequently, the case
together with one Juliet Oliva, from their abode in Parañaque was deemed submitted for decision.
and brought them to the appellants' residence in Cavite
where they were supposed to meet an investigator of the
The only point to be determined is whether upon conviction for the 1. Respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the
crime of estafa the respondent may be disbarred. ground that the complainant died and that dismissal is
warranted because the case filed by him does not survive due
In his answer to the petition for disbarment, respondent prayed that a to his demise as a matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his
proper hearing be held, but this notwithstanding he failed to appear at death. The IBP disagrees, pursuant to Section 1 Rule 139-B of
the hearing scheduled to be held on June 21, 1963. This amounts to a the Revised Rules of Court, the SC or the IBP may initiate the
waiver of his right to be heard (Arellano Toledo, Adm. Case No. 266, proceedings when they perceive acts of lawyers which deserve
April 27, 1963).1äwphï1.ñët sanctions or when their attention is called by any one and a
probable cause exists that an act has been perpetrated by a
lawyer which requires disciplinary sanctions.
Upon the other hand, and dealing now with the merits of the case, 2. Propensity to disregard orders of the SC, as shown by
there can be no question that the term "moral turpitude" includes respondent, is an utter lack of good moral character
everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. 3. Respondent’s conviction of a crime of moral turpitude clearly
In essence and in all respects, estafa, no doubt, is a crime involving shows his unfitness to protect the administration of justice and
moral turpitude because the act is unquestionably against justice, therefore justifies the imposition of sanctions against him
honesty and good morals (In re Gutierrez, Adm. Case No. 263, July 4. It is recommended that respondent be disbarred and his name
31, 1962; Bouvier's Law Dictionary; In re Basa, 41 Phil. 275-76). As stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys immediately
respondent's guilt can not now be questioned, his disbarment is - September 27, 2003 – the IBP Board of Governors passed a
inevitable.
Resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation of
its Investigating Commissioner
Wherefore, respondent Isidro P. Vinzon is hereby disbarred.
- December 3, 2003 – Atty. Martinez filed a Motion for
BARRIOS V MARTINEZ Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation

FACTS - January 14, 2004 – the Court required the complainant to file a
comment within 10 days
- Atty. Martinez was convicted of a violation of BP 22
- February 16, 2004 – complainant’s daughter sent a Manifestation
- Complainant submitted Resolution dated March 13, 1996, and the and Motion alleging they have not been furnished with a copy of
Entry of judgment dated March 20, 1996 in an action for disbarment respondent’s Motion
against Martinez

- July 3, 1996 – the Court required respondent to comment on said

petition within 10 days from notice ISSUE

- February 17, 1997 – a second resolution was issued requiring WON the crime respondent was convicted of is one involving moral
respondent to show cause why no disciplinary action should be turpitude
imposed on him for failure to comply with the earlier Resolution and to
submit Comment

- July 7, 1997 – the Court imposed a fine of P1000 for respondent’s HELD
failure to comply with previous resolution within 10 days
Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to
- April 27, 1998 – the Court fined the respondent an additional P2000 justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of
and required him to comply with the resolution under pain of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man
imprisonment and arrest for a period of 5 days or until his compliance owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and
- February 3, 1999 – the Court declared respondent Martinez guilty of woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
Contempt under Rule 71, Sec 3(b) of the 1997 Rules on Civil morals.
Procedure and ordered his imprisonment until he complied with the
aforesaid resolution - The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to
a deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable.
- April 5, 1999 – NBI reported that respondent was arrested in The practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of a proceeding for
Tacloban City on March 26, 1999 but was subsequently released after disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that
having shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of February 17, those who exercise this important function shall be competent,
1997 and April 27, 1998 by remitting the amount of P2000 and honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose
submitting his overdue Comment: confidence.

1. He failed to respond to the Resolution dated February 17, 1997 - Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no
as he was at that time undergoing medical treatment at Camp redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
Ruperto Kangleon in Palo, Leyte
solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts
2. Complainant passed away sometime in June 1997
3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case of justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice
which was decided in respondent’s favor. Respondent avers them.
that as a result of his moving for the execution of judgment in
his favor and the eviction of the family of complainant, the latter - The court is also disinclined to take respondent’s old age and the
filed the present administrative case fact that he served in the judiciary in various capacities in his favor. If
- September 11, 1997 – Robert Visbal of the Provincial Prosecution at all, the respondent was held to a higher standard for it, for a judge
Office of Tacloban City submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and
Court alleging that respondent Martinez also stood charged in another independence, and his conduct should be above reproach.
estafa case before the RTC of Tacloban City, as well as a civil case
involving the victims of the Dona Paz tragedy in 1987 for which the - The Court based the determination of the penalty from previously
RTC of Basey, Samar rendered a decision against him, his appeal decided cases, holding that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for
thereto having been dismissed by the CA. conviction by final judgment for a crime of moral turpitude.

- June 16, 1999 – the Court referred the present case to the IBP for Disposition Respondent was disbarred and his name stricken from
investigation, report, and recommendation the Roll of Attorneys.

- The report of IBP stated:

e. Violation of Lawyer’s Oath
xxxx
JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM v ATTY. ELLIS F. JACOBA, A.C.
No. 5921 [The Resolution] assumes FACTS that
have not been established and presumes FACTS
not part of the records of the case, all loaded in
The Case
favor of the alleged TENANT. Clearly, the
RESOLUTION is an INSULT to the Judiciary and an
This administrative case arose from a complaint filed on 22 October ANACHRONISM in the Judicial Process. Need we
2001 by Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom (Judge Lacurom), Pairing say more?
Judge, Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 30, against
respondent-spouses Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco- xxxx
Jacoba (respondents). Complainant charged respondents with
violation of Rules 11.03,[1] 11.04,[2] and 19.01[3] of the Code of 4. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding
Professional Responsibility. Judge ERRED in Holding That the Defendant is
Entitled to a Homelot, and That the Residential LOT
The Facts in Question is That Homelot:

THIS ERROR IS STUPENDOUS and a

The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff real BONER. Where did the Honorable PAIRING
Alejandro R. Veneracion (Veneracion) in a civil case for unlawful JUDGE base this conclusion?
detainer against defendant x x x This HORRENDOUS MISTAKE must be
Federico Barrientos (Barrientos).[4] The Municipal Trial Court of Caban corrected here and now!
atuan City rendered judgment in favor
of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the Regional Trial Court. xxxx
The case was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting
as pairing judge. 6. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding
Judge ERRED Grievously in Holding and Declaring
On 29 June 2001, Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution that The [court] A QUO Erroneously Took
(Resolution) reversing the earlier judgments rendered in favor Cognizance of the Case and That It Had No
of Veneracion.[5] The dispositive portion reads: Jurisdiction over the Subject-Matter:

WHEREFORE, this Court hereby Another HORRIBLE ERROR! Even an

REVERSES its Decision dated December 22, 2000, average Law Student knows that JURISDICTION is
as well as REVERSES the Decision of the court a determined by the averments of the COMPLAINT
quo dated July 22, 1997. and not by the averments in the answer! This is
backed up by a Litany of Cases!
Furthermore, the plaintiff-appellee
Alejandro Veneracion is ordered to CEASE and xxxx
DESIST from ejecting the defendant-appellant
Federico Barrientos from the 1,000 square 7. FINALLY, the Honorable Pairing Court
meter homelot covered by TCT No. T-75274, and Presiding Judge Ridiculously ERRED in Ordering
the smaller area of one hundred forty-seven square the Defendant To Pay P10,000.00 to the Plaintiff As
meters, within the 1,000 sq.m. covered by TCT No. Payment for Plaintiffs HOUSE:
T-78613, and the house thereon standing covered
by Tax Declaration No. 02006-01137, issued by the THIS IS the Last STRAW, but it is also
City Assessor of Cabanatuan City; and Barrientos is the Best ILLUSTRATION of the Manifold GLARING
ordered to pay Veneracion P10,000.00 for the ERRORS committed by the Hon. Pairing Court
house covered by Tax Declaration No. 02006- Judge.
01137.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.[6]
This Order of the Court for the plaintiff to
sell his RESIDENTIAL HOUSE to the defendant for
Veneracions counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with the ridiculously LOW price of P10,000.00 best
Request for Inhibition)[7] dated 30 July 2001 (30 July 2001 motion), illustrates the Long Line of Faulty reasonings and
pertinent portions of which read: ERRONEOUS conclusions of the Hon. Pairing
Court Presiding Judge. Like the proverbial
II. PREFATORY STATEMENT MONSTER, the Monstrous Resolution should be
slain on sight![8]
This RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is
an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely DEVOID The 30 July 2001 motion prayed that (1)
of factual and legal basis. It is a Legal Judge Lacurom inhibit himself in order to give plaintiff a fighting
MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable chance and (2) the Resolution be reconsidered and set aside. [9] Atty.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT acted as if it were the Olivia Velasco-Jacoba (Velasco-Jacoba) signed the motion on behalf
DARAB (Dept. of Agrarian Reform ADJUDICATION of the Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm.
BOARD)! x x x HOW HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE!
The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x x On 6 August 2001, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-
Jacoba to appear before his sala and explain why she should not be
xxxx held in contempt of court for the very disrespectful, insulting and
humiliating contents of the 30 July 2001 motion.[10] In her Explanation,
III. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION Comments and Answer,[11] Velasco-Jacoba claimed that His Honor
knows beforehand who actually prepared the subject Motion; records
1. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding will show that the undersigned counsel did not actually or actively
Judge ERRED in Peremptorily and Suddenly participate in this case.[12] Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any conscious
Reversing the Findings of the Lower Court Judge or deliberate intent to degrade the honor and integrity of the
and the Regular RTC Presiding Judge: Honorable Court or to detract in any form from the respect that is
rightfully due all courts of justice.[13] She rationalized as follows:
x x x The defendant filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, and after a very questionable x x x at first blush, [the motion] really appears to
SHORT period of time, came this STUNNING and contain some sardonic, strident and hard-striking
SUDDEN REVERSAL. Without any legal or factual adjectives. And, if we are to pick such stringent
basis, the Hon. Pairing Judge simply and words at random and bunch them together, side-by-
peremptorily REVERSED two (2) decisions in favor side x x x then collectively and certainly they
of the plaintiff. This is highly questionable, if not
suspicious, hence, this Motion for Reconsideration.
 present a cacophonic picture of total and utter
disrespect. x x x IBP Commissioner Navarro, in her Report and Recommendation of 10
October 2002, recommended the suspension of respondents from the
xxxx practice of law for six months.[29] IBP Commissioner Navarro found
that respondents were prone to us[ing] offensive and derogatory
We most respectfully submit that plaintiff & remarks and phrases which amounted to discourtesy and disrespect
counsel did not just fire a staccato of incisive and for authority.[30] Although the remarks were not directed at
hard-hitting remarks, machine-gun style as to be Judge Lacurom personally, they were aimed at his position as a
called contumacious and contemptuous. They were judge, which is a smack on the judiciary system as a whole.[31]
just articulating their feelings of shock,
bewilderment and disbelief at the sudden reversal The IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) adopted IBP Commissioner
of their good fortune, not driven by any desire to just Navarros Report and Recommendation, except for the length of
cast aspersions at the Honorable Pairing judge. suspension which the IBP Board reduced to three months. [32] On 10
They must believe that big monumental errors December 2002, the IBP Board transmitted its recommendation to this
deserve equally big adjectives, no more no less. Court, together with the documents pertaining to the case.
x x x The matters involved were [neither] peripheral
nor marginalized, and they had to call a spade a Several days later, Velasco-Jacoba sought reconsideration of the IBP
spade. x x x [14] Board decision, thus:[33]

xxxx
Nevertheless, Velasco-Jacoba expressed willingness to
apologize for whatever mistake [they] may have committed in a 3. For the information of the Honorable
moment of unguarded discretion when [they] may have stepped on Commission, the present complaint of
the line and gone out of bounds. She also agreed to have the Judge Lacurom is sub judice; the same issues
allegedly contemptuous phrases stricken off the record.[15] involved in this case are raised before the
Honorable Court of Appeals presently pending
On 13 September 2001, Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty in CA-G.R. SP No. 66973 for Certiorari and
of contempt and penalized her with imprisonment for five days and a Mandatory Inhibition with TRO and Preliminary
fine of P1,000.[16] Injunction x x x;

4. We filed an Administrative Case against

Velasco-Jacoba moved for reconsideration of the 13 September 2001 Judge Lacurom before the Supreme Court involving
order. She recounted that on her way out of the house for an the same issues we raised in the aforementioned
afternoon hearing, Atty. Ellis Jacoba (Jacoba) stopped her and Certiorari case, which was dismissed by the
said O, pirmahan mo na ito kasi last day na, baka mahuli. (Sign this Supreme Court for being premature, in view of the
as it is due today, or it might not be filed on time.) She signed the pending Certiorari case before the Court of
pleading handed to her without reading it, in trusting blind faith on her Appeals;
husband of 35 years with whom she entrusted her whole life and
future.[17] This pleading turned out to be the 30 July 2001 motion 5. In like manner, out of respect and
which Jacoba drafted but could not sign because of his then deference to the Court of Appeals, the present
suspension from the practice of law.[18] complaint should likewise be dismissed and/or
suspended pending resolution of the certiorari case
Velasco-Jacoba lamented that Judge Lacurom had found her by the Court of Appeals.[34] (Emphasis supplied)
guilty of contempt without conducting any hearing. She accused
Judge Lacurom of harboring a personal vendetta, ordering her
imprisonment despite her status as senior lady lawyer of the The Courts Ruling
IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter, already a senior citizen, and a grandmother
many times over.[19] At any rate, she argued, Judge Lacurom should On a preliminary note, we reject Velasco-Jacobas contention that the
have inhibited himself from the case out of delicadeza because present complaint should be considered sub judice in view of the
[Veneracion] had already filed against him criminal cases before the petition for certiorari and mandatory inhibition with preliminary
Office of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City and before the injunction (petition for certiorari)[35] filed before the Court of Appeals.
Ombudsman.[20]
The petition for certiorari, instituted by Veneracion and Velasco-
The records show that with the assistance of Jacoba on 4 October 2001, seeks to nullify the following orders issued
counsel Jacoba and the Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law by Judge Lacurom in Civil Case No. 2836: (1) the Orders dated 26
Firm, Veneracion had executed an affidavit on 23 August 2001 September 2001 and 9 November 2001 denying respondents
accusing Judge Lacurom of knowingly rendering unjust respective motions for inhibition; and (2) the 13 September 2001
judgment through inexcusable negligence and ignorance[21] and Order which found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt. The petitioners
violating allege that Judge Lacurom acted with grave abuse of discretion
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019). [22] The first charge [amounting] to lack of jurisdiction, in violation of express provisions of
became the subject of a preliminary investigation [23] by the City the law and applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. [36]
Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City. On the second
charge, Veneracion set forth his allegations in a Complaint- Plainly, the issue before us is respondents liability under the Code of
Affidavit[24] filed on 28 August 2001 with the Office of the Deputy Professional Responsibility. The outcome of this case has no bearing
Ombudsman for Luzon. on the resolution of the petition for certiorari, as there is neither
identity of issues nor causes of action.
Judge Lacurom issued another order on 21 September 2001,
this time directing Jacoba to explain why he should not be held in Neither should the Courts dismissal of the administrative complaint
contempt.[25] Jacoba complied by filing an Answer with Second Motion against Judge Lacurom for being premature impel us to dismiss this
for Inhibition, wherein he denied that he typed or prepared the 30 July complaint. Judge Lacuroms orders in Civil Case No. 2836 could not
2001 motion. Against Velasco-Jacobas statements implicating be the subject of an administrative complaint against him while a
him, Jacoba invoked the marital privilege rule in petition for certiorari assailing the same orders is pending with an
evidence.[26] Judge Lacurom later rendered a appellatecourt. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor
decision[27] finding Jacoba guilty of contempt of court and sentencing cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to the
him to pay a fine of P500. aggrieved parties and the same has not been resolved with finality.
Until there is a final declaration that the challenged order or judgment
On 22 October 2001, Judge Lacurom filed the present is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether the
complaint against respondents before the Integrated Bar of the judge is administratively liable.[37]
Philippines (IBP).
The respondents are situated differently within the factual setting of
this case. The corresponding implications of their actions also give
Report and Recommendation of the IBP rise to different liabilities. We first examine the charge against
Velasco-Jacoba.
Respondents did not file an answer and neither did they appear at the
hearing set by IBP Commissioner Atty. Lydia A. Navarro (IBP There is no dispute that the genuine signature of Velasco-
Commissioner Navarro) despite sufficient notice.[28] Jacoba appears on the 30 July 2001 motion. Velasco-
Jacobas responsibility as counsel is governed by Section 3, Rule 7 of Jacoba acknowledged that the words created a cacophonic picture of
the Rules of Court: total and utter disrespect.[44]
SEC. 3. Signature and address.Every pleading
must be signed by the party or counsel representing Respondents nonetheless try to exculpate themselves by saying that
him x x x. every remark in the 30 July 2001 motion was warranted. We disagree.

The signature of counsel constitutes a Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court
certificate by him that he has read the pleading, and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through
that to the best of his knowledge, information, legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. [45] However, even
and belief there is good ground to support it, the most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack
and that it is not interposed for delay. made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms Resolution. On
x x x Counsel who x x x signs a pleading its face, the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the
in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous case according to supporting law and jurisprudence. Though a
or indecent matter therein x x x shall be subject lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
to appropriate disciplinary action. (Emphasis dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
supplied) profession.[46] The use of unnecessary language is proscribed if we
are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial
By signing the 30 July 2001 motion, Velasco-Jacoba in effect certified administration.[47]
that she had read it, she knew it to be meritorious, and it was not for
the purpose of delaying the case. Her signature supplied the motion In maintaining the respect due to the courts, a lawyer is not merely
with legal effect and elevated its status from a mere scrap of paper to enjoined to use dignified language but also to pursue the clients
that of a court document. cause through fair and honest means, thus:

Velasco-Jacoba insists, however, that she signed the 30 July 2001 Rule 19.01.A lawyer shall employ only fair and
motion only because of her husbands request but she did not know its honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
contents beforehand. Apparently, this practice of signing each others client and shall not present, participate in presenting
pleadings is a long-standing arrangement between the spouses. or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges
According to Velasco-Jacoba, [s]o implicit is [their] trust for each other to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
that this happens all the time. Through the years, [she] already lost proceeding.
count of the number of pleadings prepared by one that is signed by
the other.[38] By Velasco-Jacobas own admission, therefore, she
violated Section 3 of Rule 7. This violation is an act of falsehood Shortly after the filing of the 30 July 2001 motion but before
before the courts, which in itself is a ground for subjecting her to its resolution, Jacoba assisted his client in instituting two
disciplinary action, independent of any other ground arising from the administrative cases against Judge Lacurom. As we have earlier
contents of the 30 July 2001 motion.[39] noted, Civil Case No. 2836 was then pending before
Judge Lacuroms sala. The Courts attention is drawn to the fact that
We now consider the evidence as regards Jacoba. His name does not the timing of the filing of these administrative cases could very well
appear in the 30 July 2001 motion. He asserts the inadmissibility raise the suspicion that the cases were intended as leverage against
of Velasco-Jacobas statement pointing to him as the author of the Judge Lacurom.
motion.
Respondent spouses have both been the subject of
The Court cannot easily let Jacoba off the hook. Firstly, his Answer administrative cases before this Court. In Administrative Case No.
with Second Motion for Inhibition did not contain a denial of his wifes 2594, we suspended Jacoba from the practice of law for a period of
account. Instead, Jacoba impliedly admitted authorship of the motion six months because of his failure to file an action for the recovery of
by stating that he trained his guns and fired at the errors which he possession of property despite the lapse of two and a half years from
perceived and believed to be gigantic and monumental. [40] receipt by him of P550 which his client gave him as filing and sheriffs
fees.[48] In Administrative Case No. 5505, Jacoba was once again
Secondly, we find Velasco-Jacobas version of the facts more found remiss in his duties when he failed to file the appellants brief,
plausible, for two reasons: (1) her reaction to the events was resulting in the dismissal of his clients appeal. We imposed the
immediate and spontaneous, unlike Jacobas defense which was penalty of one year suspension.[49]
raised only after a considerable time had elapsed from the eruption of As for Velasco-Jacoba, only recently this Court fined
the controversy; and (2) Jacoba had been her P5,000 for appearing in barangay conciliation proceedings on
counsel of record for Veneracion in Civil Case No. 2836, supporting behalf of a party, knowing fully well the prohibition contained in
Velasco-Jacobas assertion that she had not actually participate[d] in Section 415 of the Local Government Code.[50]
the prosecution of the case.
In these cases, the Court sternly warned respondents that a
Moreover, Jacoba filed a Manifestation in Civil Case No. repetition of similar acts would merit a stiffer penalty. Yet, here again
2836, praying that Judge Lacurom await the outcome of the petition we are faced with the question of whether respondents have
for certiorari before deciding the contempt charge against him. [41] This conducted themselves with the courtesy and candor required of them
petition for certiorari anchors some of its arguments on the premise as members of the bar and officers of the court. We find respondents
that the motion was, in fact, Jacobas handiwork.[42] to have fallen short of the mark.

The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the
failure of the claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any practice of law for two (2) years effective upon finality of this
conduct that may be construed as implied consent. [43] This waiver Decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the
applies to Jacoba who impliedly admitted authorship of the 30 July practice of law for two (2) months effective upon finality of this
2001 motion. Decision. We STERNLY WARN respondents that a repetition of the
same or similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Rule 11.03.A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal records as
offensive or menacing language or behavior before attorneys; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in the
the Courts. country for their information and guidance.

Rule 11.04.A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge A.C. No. 7057 July 25, 2006
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
DAVID L. ALMENDAREZ, JR., complainant,
vs.
No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion ATTY. MINERVO T. LANGIT, respondent.
greatly exceeded the vigor required of Jacoba to defend ably his
clients cause. We recall his use of the following words and CARPIO, J.:
phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous
mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an The Case
anachronism in the judicial process. Even Velasco-
On 5 May 2004, David L. Almendarez, Jr. ("complainant") filed this Respondent committed a flagrant violation of his oath when he
complaint-affidavit1 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), received the sum of money representing the monthly rentals intended
seeking the disbarment of Atty. Minervo T. Langit ("respondent") for for his client, without accounting for and returning such sum to its
acts unbecoming a lawyer. rightful owner. Respondent received the money in his capacity as
counsel for complainant. Therefore, respondent held the money in
The facts are undisputed: trust for complainant. The Code of Professional Responsibility
("Code") states:
Complainant, as attorney-in-fact of his mother Pura Lioanag Vda. de
Almendarez, was the plaintiff in an ejectment case before the CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 2 ("trial court"). MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
Respondent served as complainant's counsel. While the case was COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
pending, defendant Roger Bumanlag ("Bumanlag") deposited monthly
rentals for the property in dispute to the Branch Clerk of Court. Rule 16.01—A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
On 3 February 1994, the trial court rendered a decision in the
ejectment case based on a compromise agreement executed by Rule 16.03—A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property to
complainant and Bumanlag. On 18 December 1995, the trial court his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have
issued an alias writ of execution for the satisfaction of the decision. A a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may
court order2 dated 2 March 2000 granted the Omnibus Motion for be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
Execution and Withdrawal of Deposited Rentals filed by respondent giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
as complainant's counsel. Respondent filed a second motion for have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and
withdrawal of deposited rentals, which the trial court also granted on executions he has secured for his client as provided for in
16 March 2000. the Rules of Court.

Sometime in May 2003, complainant learned that respondent was Respondent should have immediately notified complainant of the trial
able to withdraw the rentals deposited by Bumanlag. Felicidad Daroy court's approval of the motion to withdraw the deposited rentals. Upon
("Daroy"), Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court, confirmed this to release of the funds to him, respondent could have collected any lien
complainant who received from Daroy copies of the two withdrawal which he had over them in connection with his legal services,
slips drawn from the trial court's savings account. One slip dated 10 provided he gave prompt notice to complainant. A lawyer is not
March 2000 was for P28,000,3 and another slip dated 19 April 2000 entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's money for himself by the
was for P227,000.4 Thus, respondent received a total of P255,000, as mere fact that the client owes him attorney's fees. 10In this case,
evidenced by two receipts5 signed by him. The withdrawals were respondent did not even seek to prove the existence of any lien, or
made through Daroy's authorized representative Antonia Macaraeg, any other right that he had to retain the money.
but Daroy personally delivered the money to respondent. Respondent
did not inform complainant of these transactions. Respondent's failure to turn over the money to complainant despite
the latter's demands gives rise to the presumption that he had
Complainant, through his new counsel Atty. Miguel D. Larida, sent converted the money for his personal use and benefit. This is a gross
respondent on 30 June 2003 a final demand letter for the accounting violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics,
and return of the P255,000.6 Respondent failed to reply. impairing public confidence in the legal profession. 11 More specifically,
it renders respondent liable not only for violating the Code but also for
Hence, complainant filed this case for disbarment against respondent contempt, as stated in Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:
for failing to account for complainant's funds. Complainant further
accuses respondent of neglecting to pursue the implementation of the SEC. 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt —
writ of execution issued in the ejectment case. When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his
client after it has been demanded he may be punished for
On 12 May 2004, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in
("IBP Director Vinluan") ordered respondent to submit his Answer to his official transactions; but proceedings under this section
the complaint. Respondent did not file an answer despite receipt of shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.
the notice.7
Additionally, respondent failed to observe Canon 1712 of the Code,
On 4 October 2004, IBP Investigating Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay which obligates the lawyer to take up the cause of his client with entire
("IBP Commissioner Dulay") notified the parties to appear before him zeal and devotion. It seems that after respondent received the
for a mandatory conference on 15 November 2004, later reset to 17 withdrawn deposits, he never contacted complainant again. He did not
January 2005. Only complainant appeared at the conference, pursue the implementation of the writ of execution issued in the
prompting IBP Commissioner Dulay to order the conference ejectment case, to the prejudice of complainant. By his inaction,
terminated and to declare that respondent had waived his right to respondent violated the trust and confidence reposed in him. For in
participate in the proceedings. IBP Commissioner Dulay directed the agreeing to be complainant's counsel, respondent undertook to take
parties to file their respective position papers. Complainant submitted all steps necessary to safeguard complainant's interest in the case.
his position paper on 22 March 2005. Again, respondent took no
action. The misconduct of respondent is aggravated by his unjustified refusal
to heed the orders of the IBP requiring him to file an answer to the
Findings and Recommendation of the IBP complaint-affidavit and, afterwards, to appear at the mandatory
conference. Although respondent did not appear at the conference,
the IBP gave him another chance to defend himself through a position
On 8 June 2005, IBP Commissioner Dulay submitted his Report and paper. Still, respondent ignored this directive, exhibiting a blatant
Recommendation ("Report")8 with the finding that respondent failed to disrespect for authority. Indeed, he is justly charged with conduct
account for money he held in trust for complainant. The Report unbecoming a lawyer, for a lawyer is expected to uphold the law and
considered complainant's evidence "clear and convincing" enough to promote respect for legal processes.13 Further, a lawyer must observe
justify disciplinary action against respondent for violation of Rule and maintain respect not only to the courts, but also to judicial officers
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP Commissioner and other duly constituted authorities,14 including the IBP. Under Rule
Dulay recommended that respondent be declared guilty of gross 139-B of the Rules of Court, the Court has empowered the IBP to
misconduct and suspended for one year, aside from being ordered to conduct proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of
render an accounting of the money he had received. attorneys.

In a Resolution9 dated 17 December 2005, the IBP Board of The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary, requiring utmost
Governors approved the Report, with the modification that the penalty good faith, loyalty, and fidelity on the part of the attorney. Respondent
of suspension be increased to two years. miserably failed in this regard. Instead, he demonstrated a lack of
integrity, care, and devotion required by the legal profession from its
The Court's Ruling members. Whenever a lawyer is no longer worthy of the trust and
confidence of the public, this Court has the right and duty to withdraw
We sustain the findings of the IBP. his privilege as officer of the Court and member of the Bar. 15
WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Minervo T. Langit GUILTY of violating On 4 October 2004, IBP Investigating Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay
Canons 1, 11, 16, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ("IBP Commissioner Dulay") notified the parties to appear before him
We SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for two years for a mandatory conference on 15 November 2004, later reset to 17
effective upon finality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent January 2005. Only complainant appeared at the conference,
to RESTITUTE, within 30 days from finality of this Decision, prompting IBP Commissioner Dulay to order the conference
complainant's P255,000, with interest at 12% per annum from 30 terminated and to declare that respondent had waived his right to
June 2003 until fully paid. We DIRECT respondent to submit to the participate in the proceedings. IBP Commissioner Dulay directed the
Court proof of payment within 15 days from payment of the full parties to file their respective position papers. Complainant submitted
amount. his position paper on 22 March 2005. Again, respondent took no
action.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the
Bar Confidant, as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
their notice and guidance.
On 8 June 2005, IBP Commissioner Dulay submitted his Report and
SO ORDERED. Recommendation ("Report")8 with the finding that respondent failed to
account for money he held in trust for complainant. The Report
considered complainant's evidence "clear and convincing" enough to
justify disciplinary action against respondent for violation of Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP Commissioner
A.C. No. 7057 July 25, 2006 Dulay recommended that respondent be declared guilty of gross
misconduct and suspended for one year, aside from being ordered to
DAVID L. ALMENDAREZ, JR., complainant, render an accounting of the money he had received.
vs.
ATTY. MINERVO T. LANGIT, respondent. In a Resolution9 dated 17 December 2005, the IBP Board of
Governors approved the Report, with the modification that the penalty
DECISION of suspension be increased to two years.

CARPIO, J.: The Court's Ruling

The Case We sustain the findings of the IBP.

On 5 May 2004, David L. Almendarez, Jr. ("complainant") filed this Respondent committed a flagrant violation of his oath when he
complaint-affidavit1 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), received the sum of money representing the monthly rentals intended
seeking the disbarment of Atty. Minervo T. Langit ("respondent") for for his client, without accounting for and returning such sum to its
acts unbecoming a lawyer. rightful owner. Respondent received the money in his capacity as
counsel for complainant. Therefore, respondent held the money in
trust for complainant. The Code of Professional Responsibility
The facts are undisputed:
("Code") states:

Complainant, as attorney-in-fact of his mother Pura Lioanag Vda. de CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
Almendarez, was the plaintiff in an ejectment case before the
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 2 ("trial court"). COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Respondent served as complainant's counsel. While the case was
pending, defendant Roger Bumanlag ("Bumanlag") deposited monthly
rentals for the property in dispute to the Branch Clerk of Court. Rule 16.01—A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
On 3 February 1994, the trial court rendered a decision in the
ejectment case based on a compromise agreement executed by Rule 16.03—A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property to
complainant and Bumanlag. On 18 December 1995, the trial court his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have
issued an alias writ of execution for the satisfaction of the decision. A a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may
court order2 dated 2 March 2000 granted the Omnibus Motion for be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
Execution and Withdrawal of Deposited Rentals filed by respondent giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
as complainant's counsel. Respondent filed a second motion for have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and
withdrawal of deposited rentals, which the trial court also granted on executions he has secured for his client as provided for in
16 March 2000. the Rules of Court.

Sometime in May 2003, complainant learned that respondent was Respondent should have immediately notified complainant of the trial
able to withdraw the rentals deposited by Bumanlag. Felicidad Daroy court's approval of the motion to withdraw the deposited rentals. Upon
("Daroy"), Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court, confirmed this to release of the funds to him, respondent could have collected any lien
complainant who received from Daroy copies of the two withdrawal which he had over them in connection with his legal services,
slips drawn from the trial court's savings account. One slip dated 10 provided he gave prompt notice to complainant. A lawyer is not
March 2000 was for P28,000,3 and another slip dated 19 April 2000 entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's money for himself by the
was for P227,000.4 Thus, respondent received a total of P255,000, as mere fact that the client owes him attorney's fees. 10In this case,
evidenced by two receipts5 signed by him. The withdrawals were respondent did not even seek to prove the existence of any lien, or
made through Daroy's authorized representative Antonia Macaraeg, any other right that he had to retain the money.
but Daroy personally delivered the money to respondent. Respondent
did not inform complainant of these transactions. Respondent's failure to turn over the money to complainant despite
the latter's demands gives rise to the presumption that he had
Complainant, through his new counsel Atty. Miguel D. Larida, sent converted the money for his personal use and benefit. This is a gross
respondent on 30 June 2003 a final demand letter for the accounting violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics,
and return of the P255,000.6 Respondent failed to reply. impairing public confidence in the legal profession. 11 More specifically,
it renders respondent liable not only for violating the Code but also for
contempt, as stated in Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:
Hence, complainant filed this case for disbarment against respondent
for failing to account for complainant's funds. Complainant further
accuses respondent of neglecting to pursue the implementation of the SEC. 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt —
writ of execution issued in the ejectment case. When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his
client after it has been demanded he may be punished for
contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in
On 12 May 2004, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan
his official transactions; but proceedings under this section
("IBP Director Vinluan") ordered respondent to submit his Answer to shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.
the complaint. Respondent did not file an answer despite receipt of
the notice.7
Additionally, respondent failed to observe Canon 17 12 of the Code, Maqueras suspension and are thus insufficient to enable her to
which obligates the lawyer to take up the cause of his client with entire determine whether Maqueras acts or omissions which resulted in his
zeal and devotion. It seems that after respondent received the suspension in Guam are likewise violative of his oath as a member of
withdrawn deposits, he never contacted complainant again. He did not the Philippine Bar.[4]
pursue the implementation of the writ of execution issued in the
ejectment case, to the prejudice of complainant. By his inaction, Pursuant to this Courts directive in its Resolution dated March
respondent violated the trust and confidence reposed in him. For in 18, 1997,[5] the Bar Confidant sent a letter dated November 13, 1997
agreeing to be complainant's counsel, respondent undertook to take to the District Court of Guam requesting for certified copies of the
all steps necessary to safeguard complainant's interest in the case. record of the disciplinary case against Maquera and of the rules
violated by him.[6]
The misconduct of respondent is aggravated by his unjustified refusal The Court received certified copies of the record of Maqueras
to heed the orders of the IBP requiring him to file an answer to the case from the District Court of Guam on December 8, 1997. [7]
complaint-affidavit and, afterwards, to appear at the mandatory
conference. Although respondent did not appear at the conference, Thereafter, Maqueras case was referred by the Court to the
the IBP gave him another chance to defend himself through a position Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation report and
paper. Still, respondent ignored this directive, exhibiting a blatant recommendation within sixty (60) days from the IBPs receipt of the
disrespect for authority. Indeed, he is justly charged with conduct case records.[8]
unbecoming a lawyer, for a lawyer is expected to uphold the law and The IBP sent Maquera a Notice of Hearing requiring him to
promote respect for legal processes.13 Further, a lawyer must observe appear before the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline on July 28,
and maintain respect not only to the courts, but also to judicial officers 1998.[9] However, the notice was returned unserved because Maquera
and other duly constituted authorities,14 including the IBP. Under Rule had already moved from his last known address in Agana, Guam and
139-B of the Rules of Court, the Court has empowered the IBP to did not leave any forwarding address.[10]
conduct proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of
attorneys. On October 9, 2003, the IBP submitted to the Court its Report
and Recommendation and its Resolution No. XVI-2003-
The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary, requiring utmost 110, indefinitely suspending Maquera from the practice of law within
good faith, loyalty, and fidelity on the part of the attorney. Respondent the Philippines until and unless he updates and pays his IBP
miserably failed in this regard. Instead, he demonstrated a lack of membership dues in full.[11]
integrity, care, and devotion required by the legal profession from its
The IBP found that Maquera was admitted to the Philippine Bar
members. Whenever a lawyer is no longer worthy of the trust and
on February 28, 1958. On October 18, 1974, he was admitted to the
confidence of the public, this Court has the right and duty to withdraw
practice of law in the territory of Guam. He was suspended from the
his privilege as officer of the Court and member of the Bar. 15
practice of law in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired his clients
property as payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a
WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Minervo T. Langit GUILTY of violating consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his
Canons 1, 11, 16, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. clients case.[12]
We SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for two years
effective upon finality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent In its Decision, the Superior Court of Guam stated that on
to RESTITUTE, within 30 days from finality of this Decision, August 6, 1987, Edward Benavente, the creditor of a certain Castro,
complainant's P255,000, with interest at 12% per annum from 30 obtained a judgment against Castro in a civil case. Maquera served
June 2003 until fully paid. We DIRECT respondent to submit to the as Castros counsel in said case. Castros property subject of the case,
Court proof of payment within 15 days from payment of the full a parcel of land, was to be sold at a public auction in satisfaction of
amount. his obligation to Benavente. Castro, however, retained the right of
redemption over the property for one year. The right of redemption
could be exercised by paying the amount of the judgment debt within
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the
the aforesaid period.[13]
Bar Confidant, as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for
their notice and guidance. At the auction sale, Benavente purchased Castros property for
Five Hundred U.S. Dollars (US$500.00), the amount which Castro
SO ORDERED. was adjudged to pay him.[14]
On December 21, 1987, Castro, in consideration of Maqueras
[B.M. No. 793. July 30, 2004] legal services in the civil case involving Benavente, entered into an
oral agreement with Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in
IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE
favor of the latter.[15]
TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G. MAQUERA
On January 8, 1988, Maquera exercised Castros right of
TINGA, J.: redemption by paying Benavente US$525.00 in satisfaction of the
judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the property
May a member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or transferred in his name.[16]
suspended from the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction where he
has also been admitted as an attorney be meted the same sanction On December 31, 1988, Maquera sold the property to C.S.
as a member of the Philippine Bar for the same infraction committed Chang and C.C. Chang for Three Hundred Twenty Thousand U.S.
in the foreign jurisdiction? There is a Rule of Court provision covering Dollars (US$320,000.00).[17]
this cases central issue. Up to this juncture, its reach and breadth
On January 15, 1994, the Guam Bar Ethics Committee
have not undergone the test of an unsettled case.
(Committee) conducted hearings regarding Maqueras alleged
In a Letter dated August 20, 1996,[1] the District Court of Guam misconduct.[18]
informed this Court of the suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera
Subsequently, the Committee filed a Petition in the Superior
(Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam for two (2) years pursuant
Court of Guam praying that Maquera be sanctioned for violations of
to the Decision rendered by the Superior Court of Guam on May 7,
Rules 1.5[19] and 1.8(a)[20] of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct
1996 in Special Proceedings Case No. SP0075-94,[2] a disciplinary
(Model Rules) in force in Guam. In its Petition, the Committee claimed
case filed by the Guam Bar Ethics Committee against Maquera.
that Maquera obtained an unreasonably high fee for his services. The
The Court referred the matter of Maqueras suspension in Guam Committee further alleged that Maquera himself admitted his failure to
to the Bar Confidant for comment in its Resolution dated November comply with the requirement in Rule 1.8 (a) of the Model Rules that a
19, 1996.[3] Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or
the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar in a knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless the
foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been admitted as an attorney, transaction and the terms governing the lawyers acquisition of such
is also a ground for his disbarment or suspension in this realm, interest are fair and reasonable to the client, and are fully disclosed to,
provided the foreign courts action is by reason of an act or omission and understood by the client and reduced in writing. [21]
constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct, grossly
The Committee recommended that Maquera be: (1) suspended
immoral conduct, or a violation of the lawyers oath.
from the practice of law in Guam for a period of two [2] years,
In a Memorandum dated February 20, 1997, then Bar Confidant however, with all but thirty (30) days of the period of suspension
Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa recommended that the Court obtain copies of deferred; (2) ordered to return to Castro the difference between the
the record of Maqueras case since the documents transmitted by the sale price of the property to the Changs and the amount due him for
Guam District Court do not contain the factual and legal bases for legal services rendered to Castro; (3) required to pay the costs of the
disciplinary proceedings; and (4) publicly reprimanded. It also The prohibition ordained in paragraph 5 of Article 1491 and
recommended that other jurisdictions be informed that Maquera has Article 1492 is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his
been subject to disciplinary action by the Superior Court of Guam. [22] office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and
ignorance of his client[30] and unduly enrich himself at the expense of
Maquera did not deny that Castro executed a quitclaim deed to his client.
the property in his favor as compensation for past legal services and
that the transaction, except for the deed itself, was oral and was not The case of In re: Ruste[31] illustrates the significance of the
made pursuant to a prior written agreement. However, he contended aforementioned prohibition. In that case, the attorney acquired his
that the transaction was made three days following the alleged clients property subject of a case where he was acting as counsel
termination of the attorney-client relationship between them, and that pursuant to a deed of sale executed by his clients in his favor. He
the property did not constitute an exorbitant fee for his legal services contended that the sale was made at the instance of his clients
to Castro.[23] because they had no money to pay him for his services. The Court
ruled that the lawyers acquisition of the property of his clients under
On May 7, 1996, the Superior Court of Guam rendered the circumstances obtaining therein rendered him liable for
its Decision[24] suspending Maquera from the practice of law in Guam malpractice. The Court held:
for a period of two (2) years and ordering him to take the Multi-State
Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) within that
period. The court found that the attorney-client relationship between Whether the deed of sale in question was executed at the instance of
Maquera and Castro was not yet completely terminated when they the spouses driven by financial necessity, as contended by the
entered into the oral agreement to transfer Castros right of redemption respondent, or at the latters behest, as contended by the complainant,
to Maquera on December 21, 1987. It also held that Maquera profited is of no moment. In either case an attorney occupies a vantage
too much from the eventual transfer of Castros property to him since position to press upon or dictate his terms to a harassed client, in
he was able to sell the same to the Changs with more than breach of the rule so amply protective of the confidential relations,
US$200,000.00 in profit, whereas his legal fees for services rendered which must necessarily exist between attorney and client, and of the
to Castro amounted only to US$45,000.00. The court also ordered rights of both.[32]
him to take the MPRE upon his admission during the hearings of his
case that he was aware of the requirements of the Model Rules The Superior Court of Guam also hinted that Maqueras
regarding business transactions between an attorney and his client in acquisition of Castros right of redemption, his subsequent exercise of
a very general sort of way.[25] said right, and his act of selling the redeemed property for huge profits
were tainted with deceit and bad faith when it concluded that Maquera
On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the charged Castro an exorbitant fee for his legal services. The court held
IBP concluded that although the said court found Maquera liable for that since the assignment of the right of redemption to Maquera was
misconduct, there is no evidence to establish that [Maquera] in payment for his legal services, and since the property redeemed by
committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines.[26] However, the IBP him had a market value of US$248,220.00 as of December 21, 1987
still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay his (the date when the right of redemption was assigned to him), he is
annual dues as a member of the IBP since 1977, which failure is, in liable for misconduct for accepting payment for his legal services way
turn, a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member from beyond his actual fees which amounted only to US$45,000.00.
the Roll of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised
Rules of Court.[27] Maqueras acts in Guam which resulted in his two (2)-year
suspension from the practice of law in that jurisdiction are also valid
The power of the Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or grounds for his suspension from the practice of law in the
omissions committed in a foreign jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Philippines. Such acts are violative of a lawyers sworn duty to act with
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended by Supreme fidelity toward his clients. They are also violative of the Code of
Court Resolution dated February 13, 1992, which states: Professional Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17 which states that
[a] lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, the trust and confidence reposed in him; and Rule 1.01 which
grounds therefor.A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, deceitful conduct. The requirement of good moral character is not only
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving continuing requirement to maintain ones goods standing in the legal
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is profession.[33]
required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case without It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Courts judgment
authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the ordering Maqueras suspension from the practice of law in Guam does
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the
constitutes malpractice. Philippines. Under Section 27,[34] Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, the acts which led to his suspension in Guam are mere
grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at that only if
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar the basis of the foreign courts action includes any of the grounds for
by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction. [35] Likewise, the
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only constitutes prima
ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such facie evidence of Maqueras unethical acts as a lawyer. [36] More
action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated. fundamentally, due process demands that he be given the opportunity
to defend himself and to present testimonial and documentary
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or evidence on the matter in an investigation to be conducted in
disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground accordance with Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule
for disbarment or suspension (Emphasis supplied). mandates that a respondent lawyer must in all cases be notified of the
charges against him. It is only after reasonable notice and failure on
The Court must therefore determine whether Maqueras acts, the part of the respondent lawyer to appear during the scheduled [37]
namely: acquiring by assignment Castros right of redemption over the investigation that an investigation may be conducted ex parte.
property subject of the civil case where Maquera appeared as counsel The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able to adduce
for him; exercising the right of redemption; and, subsequently selling evidence on his behalf regarding the charges of unethical behavior in
the property for a huge profit, violate Philippine law or the standards of Guam against him, as it is not certain that he did receive the Notice of
ethical behavior for members of the Philippine Bar and thus constitute Hearing earlier sent by the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline. Thus,
grounds for his suspension or disbarment in this jurisdiction. there is a need to ascertain Maqueras current and correct address in
The Superior Court of Guam found that Maquera acquired his Guam in order that another notice, this time specifically informing him
clients property by exercising the right of redemption previously of the charges against him and requiring him to explain why he should
assigned to him by the client in payment of his legal services. Such not be suspended or disbarred on those grounds (through
transaction falls squarely under Article 1492 in relation to Article 1491, this Resolution), may be sent to him.
paragraph 5 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Paragraph 5 of Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the IBP that Maquera
Article 1491[28] prohibits the lawyers acquisition by assignment of the should be suspended from the practice of law for non-payment of his
clients property which is the subject of the litigation handled by the IBP membership dues from 1977 up to the present. [38] Under Section
lawyer. Under Article 1492,[29] the prohibition extends to sales in legal 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court, non-payment of
redemption. membership dues for six (6) months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the IBP, and default in such payment for one year
shall be ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member would readily assume that just because complainant "was inclined to
from the Roll of Attorneys.[39] withdraw or cause the dismissal of the instant complaint," he was free
to disregard a duty that ought to have been fulfilled.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Leon G. Maquera is required to SHOW
CAUSE, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Resolution, why 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — As an officer of the Court, a member of the bar is
he should not be suspended or disbarred for his acts which gave rise called upon to discharge certain responsibilities. It is a mistake for a
to the disciplinary proceedings against him in the Superior Court of lawyer to assert with all confidence that "he is not guilty of any act or
Guam and his subsequent suspension in said jurisdiction. omission as will justify the imposition of disciplinary action," for it is the
The Bar Confidant is directed to locate the current and correct Supreme Court, not the lawyer’s deficient sense of what duty requires,
address of Atty. Maquera in Guam and to serve upon him a copy of that is controlling.
this Resolution.
In the meantime, Atty. Maquera is SUSPENDED from the FERNANDO, J.:
practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR or until he shall have paid his
membership dues, whichever comes later.
It was the dismissal of an administrative complaint for disbarment on
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to Atty. Maqueras the ground of its being premature against respondent Manuel Reyes
personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be Castro, a member of the Philippine Bar charged with malpractice and
furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to gross misconduct for allegedly assisting a third party in a dishonest
all courts in the land. and illegal scheme, and his failure to file a comment on a motion for
reconsideration that led to the resolution of this Court on December
SO ORDERED.
18, 1974. It is of the following tenor: "For failure of respondent Castro
to file comment on the motion of complainant for reconsideration of
the resolution of April 5, 1973 which dismissed the herein complaint
f. Willfull disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court for disbarment, the Court Resolved: (a) to require respondent Castro
to [explain] such failure; and (b) to [file] said comment with warning
PP V DALUSOG
that disciplinary action will be taken against him should he fail to do
[A.C. No. 1174. February 27, 1976.] so, both within ten (10) days from notice hereof." 1

LUZON MAHOGANY TIMBER INDUSTRIES, INC., Complainant, v. His explanation was duly filed on January 9, 1975. He alleged that
ATTORNEY MANUEL REYES CASTRO, Respondent. while he was desirous to comply with his obligation to file such
comment, he was unable to do so "because of some tragedy in the
Emiliano S. Samson & R. Balderrama-Samson for the family." 2 Reference was then made to the following: "Respondent’s
complainant. sister, Mrs. Lourdes Castro-Soriano, suffered a nervous breakdown
(bordering on insanity) and respondent had to go to Pangasinan to
Manuel Reyes Castro on his own behalf as Respondent. fetch her for hospitalization in the city. Added to this was the fact that
his aged parents, Mr. and Mrs. Claudio Castro, Sr. and Marciana
SYNOPSIS Reyes-Castro, also suffered from several ailments which required the
personal attention of the respondent as he alone, among his parents’
For failure of respondent, a member of the Philippine bar, to file children, could be of help due to his residence being here in Quezon
comment on the motion of complainant for reconsideration of the City where hospital facilities are available." 3 He would stress,
Supreme Court’s resolution dismissing the complainant for however, that it was his intention "to file such comment to show his
disbarment, the Court required respondent to explain such failure, and innocence." 4 There was likewise the submission that "he met the
to file said comment, with warning that disciplinary action will be taken officials and counsel of the complainant, and it appears that
against him should he fail to do so, both within ten (10) days from complainant is inclined to withdraw or cause the dismissal of the
notice. His explanation was duly filed, alleging that while he was instant complaint after respondent had a change [sic] of views with
desirous to comply with his obligation to file such comment, he was them regarding the circumstances of the filing of the complaint in Civil
unable to do so "because of some tragedy in the family." He had to Case No. Q-17383 in the CFI of Quezon City." 5
fetch in Pangasinan her sister, who suffered a nervous breakdown, for
hospitalization in the city, and had to attend to his aged parents who 1. This Court has no reason to doubt the veracity of the explanation. It
also suffered from several ailments. He would also predicate his does not suffice, however, for exculpation. As far as the effort to help
neglect on alleged professional problems consisting of court his sister, who suffered a nervous breakdown, is concerned, his
attendance and preparation of motions. omission is excusable. Nor can fault be attributed to him if he took
time to attend to the needs of his aged parents, likewise the victims of
The Supreme Court held that as far as the effort to help his sister and "several ailments." Insofar however as he would predicate his neglect
parents is concerned, his omission is excusable, but insofar as he because of alleged professional problems consisting of court
would predicate his neglect because of alleged professional problems, attendance and preparation of motions, respondent ought to have
such manifestation does not help his cause at all. Respondent is been aware that such a manifestation does not help his cause at all.
reprimanded, the explanation of his failure to submit the comment This is not the first time a member of the bar has been told in no
required of him being only partially satisfactory. uncertain terms that in view of the hierarchy in the judicial system in
the Philippines, it is, to say the least, a deplorable lack of common
sense on the part of a member of the bar taken to task if this Court is
to be given the least attention. He should be aware likewise that what
SYLLABUS
is involved is his own standing in the legal profession, presumably,
until this incident, one as yet unblemished. Nor could he expect
approbation when instead of doing what is required of him by this
1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEY’S DUTIES; FAILURE TO FILE Court, he would readily assume that just because complainant "was
COMMENT AS REQUIRED BY COURT; EXPLANATION HELD inclined to withdraw or cause the dismissal of the instant complaint,"
UNSATISFACTORY; PENALTY OF REPRIMAND IMPOSED. — he was free to disregard a duty that ought to have been fulfilled. He
Where a member of the Bar, upon being required to explain his failure has the temerity to speak of professional obligations. He must be
to file a comment on a motion for reconsideration, predicated his reminded that as an officer of the Court, he is likewise called upon to
neglect party upon alleged professional problems, consisting of court discharge certain responsibilities. When therefore he would assert
attendance and preparation of motion, it was held that his with all confidence that "he is not guilty of any act or omission as will
manifestation did not help his cause at all. His commendable concern justify the imposition of disciplinary action," he is very much mistaken.
for the welfare of his aged parents and his ailing sister has however It is this Court, not his deficient sense of what duty requires, that is
led the Supreme Court to limit his penalty to reprimand. controlling. Accordingly, punishment should be imposed. It is only the
realization that his negligence could also be attributed to the
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE FACT THAT COMPLAINANT WAS commendable concern for the welfare of his aged parents and his
INCLINED TO WITHDRAW A DISBARMENT CASE DOES NOT ailing sister that has led this Court to limit the penalty to
FREE A LAWYER FROM DISCHARGING HIS DUTIES. — In view of reprimand.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
the hierarchy in the judicial system in the Philippines, it is, to say the
least, a deplorable lack of common sense on the part of a member of 2. As far as the motion for reconsideration for complainant is
the bar taken to task if the Supreme Court is to be given the least concerned, there is nothing therein that would in any way militate
attention. He should be aware that what is involved is his own against the conclusion reached by this Court in dismissing it "without
standing in the legal profession; nor can he expect approbation when prejudice to its being filed after the termination of the pending civil
instead of doing what is required of him by the Supreme Court, he case," reference being made to Civil Case Q-17383 of Quezon City.
 PORAC TRUCKING, INC., petitioner,
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of complainant is vs.
denied. Respondent Manuel Reyes Castro is reprimanded, his THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Fifteenth Division),
explanation of the failure to submit the comment required of him being HON. EUGENIO S. LABITORIA, In his capacity as Presiding
only partially satisfactory. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on Judge of the RTC-Macabebe, Pampanga (Branch LV) and
his record. EMERENCIANA GUEVARRA, respondents.
PP v MEDINA
Ernesto L. Pineda for petitioner.
GEESLIN V NAVARRO
g. Willfully appearing as attorney for any party without authority Atlee T. Viray for private respondent.

Rule 138.Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme

Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly SARMIENTO, J:
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to This is a petition for review by certiorari of the decision of the Court of
take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of Appeals in "Emerenciana Guevarra, plaintiff-appellee v. Porac
any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing Trucking Inc., defendant-appellant," 1 promulgated on July 20, 1987,
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The and the Resolution of the same court dated December 15,
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either 1987, 2 denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the herein
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. petitioner Porac Trucking, Inc. [hereafter, simply PORAC
TRUCKING].
WILSON PO CHAM v. ATTY. EDILBERTO PIZARRO
The case at bar arose from a complaint for damages filed by the
A.C. No. 5499, 16 August 2005 private respondent Emerenciana Guevarra in the Regional Trial Court,
Branch LV at San Fernando, Pampanga 3 against PORAC
TRUCKING and Albert Mercado, in a joint and several capacity,
The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private
arising from a collision incident involving the truck owned by the
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, petitioner while driven by a certain Albert Mercado, and the mini Isuzu
probity and good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the cargo truck of Guevarra.
privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may be
sanctioned with disbarment or suspension.
The lower court issued summons directed to Albert Mercado and
PORAC TRUCKING, ordering them to answer the complaint. While
Upon Atty. Edilberto Pizarro’s representations to complainant Wilson Albert Mercado received the personal service of summons on April
Po Cham (Po Cham) that a certain parcel of land being offered for 28, 1984, a certain Hermie Lansangan, according to the Sheriff,
sale to him was alienable and disposable, Po Cham gave Atty. Pizarro refused to receive the copy of the summons for PORAC TRUCKING.
two checks representing the purchase price of the said property. Po Thus the Sheriff's return on PORAC TRUCKING, dated April 28,
Cham subsequently took possession of the property and installed 1984, remains unsigned.
a barbed wire fence at its front portion. Soon after, however, a forest
guard approached him and informed him that the property could not
be fenced for the reason that it was part of the Bataan National Park. On June 11, 1984, the lower court declared PORAC TRUCKING in
Upon investigation, Po Cham discovered that the property is not an default.
alienable or disposable land susceptible of private ownership.
Later, a certain Atty. Rodolfo Macalin filed a "Motion for Leave to File
Po Cham demanded the return of the purchase price but Atty. Pizarro Answer Beyond Reglementary Period" attaching thereto the answer of
did not heed to the demand. Po Cham thereafter charged Atty. Pizarro the supposed defendants. Thereafter, the lower court took this
of violation of his oath as a member of the Bar. "appearance" of Atty. Macalino to mean the voluntary submission by
PORAC TRUCKING to its jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court (SC) referred the case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or On June 21, 1985, the lower court rendered a decision in favor of
decision. The IBP, in its Report and Recommendation, found Atty. Guevarra and against defendants Mercado and PORAC TRUCKING.
Pizarro to have violated his oath as a member of the Bar. It
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for 3 months, A motion for execution was filed by Guevarra on August 14, 1985 and
subject to the approval of the members of the Board of Governors. the writ was subsequently issued on August 23, 1985.
The case was forwarded to the SC for final action.
It was only on November 12, 1985 that the petitioner, represented by
ISSUE: its in-house counsel, filed a "Petition for Relief from Judgment with
Prayer for Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction." This time,
Whether or not Atty. Pizarro violated his solemn oath as a lawyer the lawyer was not Atty. Macalino. Although a restraining order was
issued against the implementation of the writ of execution, the lower
court eventually issued a resolution dismissing the "Petition for Relief
HELD:
from Judgment . . ."

The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private On April 8, 1986, the petitioner appealed alleging that the defect in the
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, service of summons was never cured by the unauthorized
probity and good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the appearance of Atty. Macalino. 4 On the merits, the petitioner alleges
privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may be that the appellee Guevarra has waived all claims from the accident
sanctioned with disbarment or suspension. with the execution of her "Affidavit of Desistance."

In the said "Affidavit of Desistance" or "Release of Claim," it appears

that Guevarra had received from First Integrated Bonding and
Atty. Pizarro has utterly failed to substantiate his documented claim of Insurance Co., Inc. (FIBICI), insurer of her vehicle, the amount of
having irrevocable rights and interests over the property which he P19,579.80. This amount was in turn received by FIBICI from Rico
could have conveyed to Po Cham. Atty. Pizarro must thus be faulted General Insurance, the insurer of PORAC TRUCKING, with the stated
for fraudulently inducing Po Cham to purchase non-existent purpose that:
―irrevocable rights, interest and participation‖ over an inalienable
property. . . . this RELEASE may be pleaded in bar to any
suit of (sic) proceeding which I/WE or anyone in
G.R. No. 81093 March 6, 1990 my/our behalf, may have taken or may be taken in
connection with the accident hereinbefore
mentioned . . . 5
However, the respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision It would seem now that this elaborate scheme was devised to insure
affirming the judgment appealed from and dissolving the preliminary the right to subrogation of Rico General Insurance in case a judgment
injunction it earlier issued enjoining the implementation of the writ of favorable to PORAC TRUCKING were to be rendered. And yet as an
execution, in effect granting the claim filed by Guevarra against officer of the court, Atty. Macalino should have known better than to
PORAC TRUCKING. appear in a case on behalf of another at the mere prodding of his
client.
On August 14, 1988, the petitioner filed this petition for review after its
Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the respondent court on However we leave the hearing of the merits of the case to the trial
December 15, 1987. court since the private respondent had failed to comment 10 on the
veracity of the called "Release of Claims." Nevertheless this
The only issue for our resolution is whether or not the summons was document must be presented in evidence and litigated on by the
properly served on the petitioner so as to confer jurisdiction on the parties to establish once and for all the extent of their interests for a
then Court of First Instance over PORAC TRUCKING, the then full satisfaction of their claims.
defendant.
In any case, the unsolicited appearance of Atty. Rodolfo Macalino, in
Section 13 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: the absence of a client-lawyer relationship with the petitioner
corporation, is unbecoming of a member of the bar, to say the least.
The remanding of the case must be without prejudice to the
Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation investigation of his actuations. The presiding judge of the court a
or partnership — If the defendant is a corporation quo is hereby ordered to undertake this investigation and report to the
organized under the laws of the Philippines or a court his findings and recommendations within thirty days from receipt
partnership duly registered, service may be made hereof.
on the president, manager, secretary, cashier,
agent or any of its directors.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the decision of the
respondent Court of Appeals in SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED
As held in Delta Motor Sales Corp. v. Mangosing 6 cited in the recent to the trial court for the proper proceedings.
case of Rebollido v. Court of Appeals: 7
SO ORDERED
The purpose of the rule is to render it reasonably
certain that the corporation will receive prompt and
proper notice in an action against it or to insure that A.M. No. L-840 June 30, 1969
the summons may be served on a representative so
integrated with the corporation that such person will JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO, CARLOS UY, JR., and, FRANCISCO R.
know what to do with legal papers served on him or ACHACOSO, petitioners,
in other words to bring home to the corporation vs.
notice of the filing of the action. NORBERTO QUISUMBING, respondent.

In the present case, the summons was supposed to have been RESOLUTION
received by a certain Hermie Lansangan who refused to acknowledge
the receipt thereof. He refused to sign for the petitioner corporation. CONCEPCION, C.J.:
And rightly so, for he was certainly not the president, manager,
secretary, cashier, agent, or any of the directors of PORAC
TRUCKING. As a matter of fact, the capacity, if any, in which Petitioners Joaquin G. Garrido, Carlos Uy, Jr. and Francisco R.
Lansangan would bind the corporation was never established. It Achacoso seek either the disbarment or the suspension of respondent
appears that the only relationship Lansangan had with the petitioner Attorney Norberto Quisumbing, upon the ground that he filed Civil
corporation was that he acted as middle man for specific delivery Case No. 73668 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, as counsel
contracts. 8 for the plaintiffs therein, including among them one L. Garcia Pastor,
who had not, in fact, authorized respondent to institute said action on
his (Garcia Pastor's) behalf. Copy of an alleged affidavit of Garcia
In some cases, the Court has been liberal in bending this rule Pastor to this effect was annexed to the complaint of petitioners
whenever the resulting circumstance would facilitate the herein, which was filed on September 30, 1968.
administration of justice, and in requiring only "substantial
compliance". 9 These exceptions were allowed only because of the
peculiar circumstances attending the case, namely that: 1) there was In his answer thereto, respondent alleged that he filed the complaint in
actual receipt of the summons by the person served, meaning the said case No. 73668 at the request of one of the plaintiffs therein,
possession of the copy of the summons was transferred from the namely, Julio Muñoz, who claimed to have authority to act on behalf
Sheriff to the person served; 2) there was a signature on the Sheriff's of L. Garcia Pastor in connection therewith. In support of this
return or receipt by the person served; and 3) there was actual receipt allegation, respondent submitted a photostatic copy of an affidavit of
of the summons by then defendant corporation, now petitioner, said Muñoz, dated July 12, 1968, which had allegedly been submitted
through the person on whom the legal papers were actually served. in Civil Case No. 73091 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Subsequently, or on December 4, 1968, respondent filed a
"manifestation" annexing thereto another affidavit of Muñoz, made in
In the case at bar, none of these requisites is present, nor do they Barcelona, Spain, on November 11, 1968, in further support of said
appear to have been complied with. Hence the case should be allegation. Thereafter, petitioners filed their reply, which was the
returned to the trial court for the proper hearing on the merits in order object of a rejoinder on the part of respondent. The aforementioned
to preclude any possible infringement of due process. pleadings and the annexes thereto sufficiently establish the facts
necessary for the determination of this administrative case.
And who is Atty. Rodolfo Macalino? He is the lawyer of Rico General
Insurance Corporation, the insurer of PORAC TRUCKING. Rico It is the contention of Muñoz, a Spanish citizen, residing in Barcelona,
General Insurance Corporation worked for a settlement of the claim Spain, that he is the controlling shareholder or the representative of
arising from the said accident with First Integrated Bonding and the controlling shareholder of Carmun Trading (N.Y.), Inc., Carmun
Insurance, the insurer of Emerenciana Guevarra. Trading (Philippines), Inc., Safintex, S.A. and Sociedad Europea de
Financiacion, S.A. — hereafter referred to, respectively, as Carmun
And that is where Atty. Macalino's role begins and ends as far as this (N.Y.), Carmun (Phil.), Safintex and SEF; that Carmun (N.Y.) gave
case is concerned. Certainly, the lawyer of the insurance company did Antonio V. Rocha, a businessman in the Philippines, the sum of
not ipso facto become the lawyer for the insured in all subsequent $400,000, with which, in 1949, he constituted and funded the Capital
litigations arising from the accident. And this is as it should be, Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., hereafter referred to as Capital; that in
notwithstanding the claims of one Edgardo Simon, Manager of Rico 1958, Rocha, who successfully managed the Capital, as its president,
General Insurance, who declared under oath that when he learned of and held the shares therein in trust for Carmun (N.Y.), transferred said
the pendency of the civil case against the driver and the PORAC shares to Carmun (Phil.); that thereafter Rocha was replaced, as
TRUCKING, he himself had instructed their house counsel, Atty. president of Capital, by petitioner Garrido, who had only 16 out of the
Macalino, to represent PORAC TRUCKING. Simon, however, 10,000 shares of Capital; that L. Garcia Pastor and Jaime Amat, both
specifically stated that he never informed PORAC TRUCKING about Spanish citizens and residents, the former of Madrid, Spain, and the
the move. Neither was Atty. Macalino ever hired by PORAC latter of Pasay City, Philippines, hold 10 shares each of Capital, which
TRUCKING to represent it in any case. Muñoz caused to be assigned to them to qualify them as members of
the Board of Directors of Capital, of which he (Muñoz) is the On July 31, 1970, the Court of First Instance of Cavite (now RTC)
Chairman; that Carmun (Phil.) transferred its shares in Capital to rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners and against all the
Safintex, which, in turn, transferred the shares to SEF; that between defendants in the civil case, including private respondents. Since no
1964 and 1966, there had been an impairment in the financial appeal was made by any of the defendants from the decision of the
condition of Capital owing to alleged mismanagement by petitioner trial court, the same became final and executory and the court issued
Garrido, involving the juggling of accounts, the falsification of records the corresponding writ of execution.
and other irregularities, committed in connivance or with the
cooperation of herein petitioners Achacoso and Uy, Vice-President However, before the writ could be carried out by the provincial sheriff,
and Accountant General, respectively, of Capital; that, as a all the defendants, thru the same counsel, Atty. Danilo Pine, filed a
consequence, substantial assets of Capital were fraudulently petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals
transferred by the petitioners to the Property and Liability Insurance seeking to annul the writ of execution issued by the trial court in
Corporation, which was organized and is owned by petitioners Garrido Cavite in Case No. TM-223. On July 9, 1971, the Court of Appeals
and Achacoso; and that, accordingly, he (Muñoz) asked respondent dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
herein to file, on his behalf and that of Capital, SEF, Garcia Pastor
and Amat, said Civil Case No. 73668 against petitioners herein, to
oust them as president, vice-president and accountant, respectively, On May 27, 1972, respondent Lucina Samonte and Trinidad Samonte
of Capital, and to recover damages. brought an action before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (now
RTC) docketed as Case No.
C-2442, for the annulment of the final judgment rendered by the trial
Although Garcia Pastor had not personally authorized respondent court in Cavite in Case No. TM-223, alleging the following matters:
herein to file said case on his (Garcia Pastor's) behalf, as one of the that they did not authorize anyone including Atty. Danilo Pine to file an
plaintiffs therein, respondent had no reason to doubt the veracity of answer in their behalf as defendants in Case No. TM 223, and that the
the information furnished by Muñoz regarding his power to grant such filing of the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul the
authority, in representation of Garcia Pastor. Indeed, the latter writ of execution in the same case was without their knowledge and
seemingly claims to have returned his shares in Capital to Muñoz, participation.
thus impliedly admitting that he (Garcia Pastor) held the shares on
behalf of Muñoz. At any rate, Muñoz knew nothing about said alleged
return, he being in Japan, at the time of the filing of Case No. 73668, Petitioners' motion to dismiss the action was denied by the CFI of
whereas Garcia Pastor was then in Barcelona. Moreover, the records Rizal. Thus, the instant petition was filed.
of Capital were in the possession of petitioners herein, and
respondent felt that the Complaint in Case No. 73668 should be filed The issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the Court of
without delay, owing to the urgency of the relief prayed for. First Instance of Rizal (now RTC) committed grave abuse of discretion
or acted without jurisdiction in denying the petitioners' motion to
In other words, when respondent's services were engaged in dismiss the action for annulment of the final and executory judgment
connection with said case, Muñoz informed him that he (Muñoz) was rendered by the CFI of Cavite.
the controlling stockholder of Capital and that Garcia Pastor was his
alter ego in its board of directors. Accordingly, Muñoz authorized The applicable law is Republic Act No. 296, as amended, otherwise
respondent to file the action, not only in his (Muñoz) name, but, also, known as "The Judiciary Act of 1948," which was the law in force
in that of Garcia Pastor. Under the circumstances, it is clear that when the disputed action for annulment was filed on May 27, 1972 in
respondent has not committed any act of malpractice. In fact, Garcia the CFI of Rizal. This is based on the principle that the facts alleged in
Pastor has not complained against respondent for having acted as he the complaint and the law in force at the time of commencement of
did. The present administrative proceeding has been instituted, not by action determine the jurisdiction of a court (Lum Bing v. Ibanez 92
Garcia Pastor, but by the defendants in the aforementioned civil Phil. 799; Rodriguez v. Pecson, 92 Phil. 172; Salao v. Crisostomo,
case.1awphil.nêt No. L-29146, August 5, 1985, 138 SCRA 17; Tolentino v. Social
Security Commission No. L-28870, September 6, 1985, 138 SCRA
WHEREFORE, the complaint herein is hereby dismissed. It is so 428; Philippine Overseas Drilling, etc. v. Minister of Labor, G.R. No.
ordered. 55703, November 27, 1986, 146 SCRA 79).

G.R. No. L-35830 July 24, 1990 Section 44(a) of the Revised Judiciary Act of 1948 then vested
original jurisdiction in the Courts of First Instance over all civil actions
in which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary
FORTUNATA MERCADO, BASILIA CUEVAS MERCADO, SOTERA estimation and an action for the annulment of a judgment and an
MERCADO and TRINIDAD MERCADO, petitioners, order of a court of justice belongs to this category (Vda. de Ursua v.
vs. Pelayo, 107 Phil. 622). A court of first instance or a branch thereof
Hon. ALBERTO Q. UBAY as Presiding Judge of the Court of First has the authority and the jurisdiction as provided for by law to annul a
Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXII, LUCINA SAMONTE and final and executory judgment rendered by another court of first
TRINIDAD M. SAMONTE, respondents. instance or by another branch of the same court. This was the ruling
laid down in the cases of (Dulap v. Court of Appeals, No. L-28306,
MEDIALDEA, J.: December 18, 1971, 42 SCRA 537; Gianan v. Imperial, No. L-37963,
February 28, 1974, 55 SCRA 755 and Francisco v. Aquino, Nos. L-
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the 33235-36, July 29, 1976, 72 SCRA 149 which overturned the contrary
Revised Rules of Court with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of rulings in Mas v. Dumara-og No. L-16252, September 29,1964,12
preliminary injunction. Petitioners seek to enjoin and restrain SCRA 34; J.M. Tuason & Co. v. Torres, et al., No. L-24717,
respondent judge from further proceeding with Civil Case No. December 4, 1967, 21 SCRA 1169; and Sterling Investment
C-2442 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (now Regional Trial Corporation, et al. v. Ruiz, etc. et al., No. L-30694, October 31, 1969,
Court) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to annul a final and 30 SCRA 318). Thus, in an action to annul a final judgment or order,
executory judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Cavite the choice of which court the action should be filed is not left to the
(now Regional Trial Court) in Civil Case No. TM-223. parties; by legal mandate the action should be filed with the Court of
First Instance. The question is in what place (with what particular
court of first instance) the action should be commenced and tried
The antecedent facts are as follows: (Dulap, supra). The issue therefore to be resolved in the instant case
is not one of jurisdiction but of venue-whether it was properly laid in
On May 18, 1966, petitioners filed an action for partition with the Court the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the annulment of the judgment
of First Instance of Cavite, Branch I, docketed as Civil Case No. TM- rendered by the CFI of Cavite.
223, against Antonio, Ely and respondents Lucina and Trinidad, all
surnamed Samonte and who are brothers and sisters. Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court fixes the venue in Courts
of First Instance, as follows:
On June 27, 1966, the defendants were served with a copy of the
complaint and summons thru their co-defendant Antonio Samonte SEC. 2. Venue in Court of First Instance — (a) Real
who acknowledged receipt thereof. actions. — Actions affecting title to, or for recovery
of possession, or for partition or condemnation of,
On July 11, 1966, all the defendants in the above-numbered case, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, shall
thru counsel, Atty. Danilo Pine, filed their answer to the complaint. be commenced and tried in the province where the
Later, on January 4,1967, the said defendants, thru the same counsel, property or any part thereof lies.
filed their amended answer.
 (b) Personal actions. — All other actions may be Rule 138, Rules of Court). The fact that private respondents had not
commenced and tried where the defendant or any personally appeared in the hearings of Case TM-223 in the trial court
of the defendants besides or may be found, or is immaterial. The filing of the answer by and appearance of Atty.
where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at Danilo Pine in their behalf are sufficient to give private respondents
the election of the plaintiff. standing in court. It is hard to believe that a counsel who has no
personal interest in the case would fight for and defend a case with
xxx xxx xxx persistence and vigor if he had not been authorized or employed by
the party concerned. It is obvious that since the appellate court had
decided adversely against private respondents in their petition for
The complaint filed by respondent with the CFI of Rizal for the certiorari, the latter filed the annulment suit for a second chance at
annulment of judgment states that they reside at Caloocan City and preventing petitioners from enforcing the decision rendered by the
that petitioners, as defendants, reside at Cavite (p. 48, Rollo). Since Cavite court in favor of the latter.
the action for annulment of judgment is a personal one, the venue of
the action in this case should be either CFI of Caloocan or CFI of
Cavite at the election of the plaintiff. Clearly, venue was improperly It is an important fundamental principle in Our judicial system that
laid in the CFI of Rizal and respondent judge should have dismissed every litigation must come to an end. Access to the courts is
the action for annulment of judgment on the ground of improper guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant's rights
venue. have been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court,
he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for
another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by
It is significant to state at this point that although the prevailing rule subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged,
before B. P. 129 was that courts of first instance and their branches unscrupulous litigants will multiply in number to the detriment of the
have jurisdiction to annul each other's final judgments and orders as administration of justice (Ngo Bun Tiong v. Sayo, supra; Pacquing v.
ruled in Dulap and subsequent cases, fundamental principles still Court of Appeals, G.R. 52498, July 19, 1982, 115 SCRA 117).
dictate that the better policy, as a matter of comity or courteous
interaction between courts of first instance and the branches thereof,
is for the annulment cases to be tried by the same court or branch ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the respondent judge
which heard the main action sought to be annulled (Gianan v. of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (now Regional Trial Court) is
Imperial, supra).i•t•c-aüsl Moreover, despite the re-examination by ORDERED to dismiss Civil Case No. C-2442. The temporary
this Court of the old ruling in Mas v. Dumara-og, supra, recent restraining order issued by this Court is hereby made permanent.
decisions still uphold its rationale that pursuant to judicial stability, the
doctrine of non-interference should be regarded as highly important in SO ORDERED
the administration of justice whereby the judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any 4. PROCEEDINGS
court of concurrent jurisdiction (Ngo Bun Tiong v. Sayo, No. L-45825, 5. DISCIPLINE OF FILIPINO LAWYERS PRACTICING ABROAD
June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 237; Republic v. Reyes, Nos.
L-30263-65, October 30, 1987; Parco v. Court of Appeals, No. L-
33152, January 30, 1982, 111 SCRA 262).
Velez vs De Vera
496 SCRA 345 [ÀC No. 6697 July 25, 2006]
While the foregoing discussion may no longer find any application at
this time with the effectivity of Batas Pambansa, Blg. 129, enacted on
August 10, 1981, which transferred the jurisdiction over actions for Facts: An administrative case against Atty. de Vera was filed before
annulment of judgment to the Court of Appeals, it was deemed the State Bar of California, docketed then as Adm. Case No. 86-0-
necessary if only to bring light and settle the existing confusion and 18429. It arose from an insurance case Atty. de Vera handled
chaos among judges of the different courts of first instance and their involving Julius Willis, III who figured in an automobile accident in
branches concerning the application of the old laws on jurisdiction and 1986. Atty. de Vera was authorized by the elder Willis (father of Julius
venue over this kind of action. Probably, this confusion was the who was given authority by the son to control the case because the
underlying reason of the Legislature behind the transfer of jurisdiction latter was then studying in San Diego California) for the release of the
over annulment of judgments from the trial courts to the Court of funds in settlement of the case. Atty. de Vera received a check in
Appeals under B.P. 129. settlement of the case which he then deposited to his personal
account; The Hearing referee in the said administrative case
recommended that Atty. de Vera be suspended from the practice of
Even if We were to disregard, for the sake of argument, the issue on law for three years; Atty. de Vera resigned from the California Bar
jurisdiction of and venue in the Court of First Instance of Rizal in the which resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court of California.
annulment suit, We found, upon perusal of the records, that no Atty. de Vera vehemently insists that the foregoing facts do not prove
sufficient grounds exist to justify the annulment of the final judgment that he misappropriated his client’s funds as the latter’s father (the
of the Cavite court. Certain requisites must be established before a elder Willis) gave him authority to use the same and that,
judgment can be the subject of an action for annulment. A judgment unfortunately, the hearing officer did not consider this explanation
can be annulled only on two grounds: (a) the judgment is void for want notwithstanding the fact that the elder Willis testified under oath that
of jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law, or (b) it has been he “expected de Vera might use the money for a few days. Petitioner
obtained by fraud (Santiago v. Ceniza, No. L-17322, June 30, 1962, 5 claims that such information was concealed by the respondent. Such
SCRA 494). and other circumstances which the IBP board deems that respondent
is not fit to be a member of the board, hence his removal was sought.
None of the aforementioned grounds was shown to exist to support
the annulment action. The contention of private respondents that they Issue: Whether or not a member of the Philippine Bar, who is
were not served with summons in Case No. TM-223 in the Cavite concomitantly an attorney in a foreign jurisdiction and who was
court is untenable. In their memorandum filed with this Court, they suspended from the practice of law in said foreign jurisdiction, can be
admit that they were served with summons thru their co-defendant sanctioned as member of the Philippine Bar for the same infraction
Antonio Samonte who acknowledged receipt thereof. The receipt of committed in the foreign jurisdiction.
summons is shown by the return submitted by the sheriff to the Court
of First Instance of Cavite. Apart from the presumption that the sheriff
had regularly performed his functions, records amply show that all the Held: No. We take the issue in Atty. Maquera one notch higher in the
defendants, including private respondents had filed their answer in case of Atty. de Vera who was admitted to the practice of law in a
Case No. TM-223 thru counsel, Atty. Danilo Pine. And when final foreign jurisdiction (State Bar of California, U.S.A.) and against whom
judgment had been rendered by the CFI of Cavite against charges were filed in connection with his practice in said jurisdiction.
respondents and a writ of execution issued by the trial court, the However, unlike the case of Atty. Maquera, no final judgment for
private respondents, thru the same counsel, Atty. Pine even instituted suspension or disbarment was meted against Atty. de Vera despite a
a petition for certiorari and mandamus to enjoin the execution of the recommendation of suspension of three years as he surrendered his
judgment of the Cavite court. Respondents now allege that they have license to practice law before his case could be taken up by the
not authorized Atty. Danilo Pine to appear in their behalf as Supreme Court of California.
defendants in Case No. TM-223 or to file the petition for certiorari with
the appellate court. Such allegation is devoid of merit. In Maquera, we emphasized that the judgment of suspension against
a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction does not automatically result
An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines as the acts giving
cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is rise to his suspension are not grounds for disbarment and suspension
required to authorize him to appear in court for his client (Sec. 21, in this jurisdiction. Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer
may transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the
Philippines only if the basis of the foreign court’s action includes any
of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction. We
likewise held that the judgment of the foreign court merely
constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as lawyer.

A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country

from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of a
presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice
in the foreign forum.

In herein case, considering that there is technically no foreign

judgment to speak of, the recommendation by the hearing officer of
the State Bar of California does not constitute prima facie evidence of
unethical behavior by Atty. de Vera. Complainant must prove by
substantial evidence the facts upon which the recommendation by the
hearing officer was based. If he is successful in this, he must then
prove that these acts are likewise unethical under Philippine law.