143582958 a2010-compiled-legprof-digests

LEGAL PROFESSION A2010
PROF. JARDELEZA
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
Online Tutoring
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
CAYETANO V MONSOD
PARAS; September 3, 1991
NATURE
Petition to review decision of Commission on Appointments
FACTS
- April 25, 1991 – Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed by Pres. Aquino
as Chairman of COMELEC
- Rene Cayetano opposed such appointment as citizen and taxpayer
because Monsod allegedly does not possess the required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years
- June 18, 1991 – Monsod took his oath of office
- Monsod’s credentials
> member of Philippine Bar since 1960
> after bar, worked in law office of his father
> 1963-1970 – in World Bank Group as operations officer in Costa Rica
and Panama involves getting acquainted with laws of member-countries,
negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and project work
> 1970 – in Meralco Group as CEO of investment bank
> since 1986 – rendered service to various companiesas legal and
economic consultant or CEO
> 1986-1987 – secretary-general and national chairman of NAMFREL
(election law)
> co-chairman of Bishop’s Businessmen’s Conference for Human
Development
> 1990 - Davide Commission – quasi-judicial body
> 1986-1987 – member of Constitutional Commission as Chairman on
Accountability of Public Officers
- AIX-C Sec1(1) - … Commission on Elections chairman shall be
members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least 10 years
- no jurisprudence on what constitutes the practice of law
ISSUE
WON Monsod is qualified as Chairman of COMELEC in fulfilling the
requirement engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years
HELD
YES. Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. Monsod as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-
entrepreneur, lawyer-negotiator, and lawyer-negotiator is proof he is
engaged in practice of law for more than 1- years
- Black’s Law Dictionary
> Rendition of service requiring the knowledge and application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent
> not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct
of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers
incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and giving all legal advice to
clients
- Land Title Abstract and Trust Co v Dworken
> one who in representative capacity engages in business of advising
clients as to their rights under law, or while so engaged performs any act
or acts either in court or outside of court
- UP Law Center
> advocacy, counseling, public service
- Alexander SyCip
> appearance of lawyer in litigation is most publicly familiar role of lawyers
as well as an uncommon role for the average lawyer
> more legal work is transacted in law offices that in the courtrooms
> business counseling than trying cases; as planner, diagnostician, trial
lawyer, surgeon
- article on Business Star
> emerging trends in corporate law
SEPARATE OPINION
NARVASA [concur]
- concur only in the result
PADILLA [dissent]
- Practice refers to actual performance of application of knowledge as
distinguished from mere possession of knowledge; it connotes active,
habitual, repeated or customary action TF lawyer employed as business
executive or corporate manager, other than head of Legal Department
cannot be said to be in the practice of law
- People v Villanueva
> Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent
or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind
- Commission on Appointments memorandum
> practice of law requires habituality, compensation, application of law,
legal principle, practice or procedure, and attorney-client relationship
CRUZ [dissent]
- sweeping definition of practice of law as to render the qualification
practically toothless
- there is hardly any activity that is not affected by some law or
government regulation the businessman must know about and observe
- “performance of any acts… in or out of court, commonly understood to
be the practice of law” which tells us absolutely nothing
GUTIERREZ [dissent]
- practice is envisioned as active and regular, not isolated, occasional,
accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal or extemporaneous
- nothing in the bio-data even remotely indicates Monsod has given the
law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment and participation
- difficult if not impossible to lay down a formula or definition of what
constitutes the practice of law
- Monsod was asked if he ever prepared contracts for parties in real-
estate transaction; he answered very seldom
- Monsod may have profited from his legal knowledge, the use of such is
incidental and consists of isolated activities which do not fall under the
denominations of practice of law
SANTUYO V HIDALGO
CORONA; January 17, 2005
NATURE
Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct and Dishonesty
FACTS
- Petitioners Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused respondent
Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty for breach of
his lawyer’s oath and notarial law
- In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land covered by deed of sale
- It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and entered in his notarial register
- Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo German over ownership
of said land; German presented an affidavit executed by Hidalgo denying
authenticity of his signature on deed of sale

PROF. JARDELEZA
Petitioners' Claim
- Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale contained ALL the legal
formalities of a duly notarized document (including impression of his
notarial dry seal)
- Santuyos could not have forged the signature, not being learned in
technicalities surrounding notarial act
- They had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and they
could not have made any imprint of his seal or signature.
Respondents' Comments
- He denied having notarized any deed of sale for disputed property.
- He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law
Office; and admitted that he notarized several documents in that office.
- As a matter of procedure, documents were scrutinized by senior
lawyers, and only with their approval could notarization be done.
- In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves) would affix dry seal of
junior associates on documents relating to cases handled by the law firm.
- He normally required parties to exhibit community tax certificates and to
personally acknowledge documents before him as notary public.
- He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov 1997 (Meeting was
arranged by Editha so as to personally acknowledge another document)
- His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged (strokes of a lady)
- At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on vacation.
ISSUES
1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed of sale was forged
2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence
HELD
1. Yes.
Ratio The alleged forged signature was different from Hidalgo’s
signatures in other documents submitted during the investigation.
Reasoning Santuyos did not state that they personally appeared before
respondent. They were also not sure if he signed the document; only that
his signature appeared on it. They had no personal knowledge as to who
actually affixed the signature.
2. Yes.
Ratio He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the preparation and
other mechanics of the document for notarization to the office secretaries,
including safekeeping of dry seal and making entries in notarial register.
Reasoning Responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, and
respondent should have been more discreet and cautious.
Disposition Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission as notary
public for two (2) years for negligence in the performance of duties as
notary public.
SICAT V ARIOLA, JR.
PER CURIAM; April 15, 2005
NATURE
Administrative case in the Supreme Court. Violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
FACTS
- In an affidavit-complaint, complainat Arturo Sicat, a Board Member of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty.
Gregorio Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal with violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud, deceit and
falsehood in his dealings, particularly the notarization of a Special Power
of Attorney(SPA) purportedly executed by one Juanito C. Benitez
According to complainant, respondent made it appear that Benitez
executed the said document on January 4, 2001 when in fact the latter
had already died on October 25, 2000.
- He alleged that prior to notarization, the Municipality of Cainta had
entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical
Management, represented by Benitez, for the construction of low-cost
houses(project worth=11M). For the services of the consultants, the
Municipality of Cainta issued a check dated January 10, 2001 in the
amount of 3.7M, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical
Management and/or Cesar Goco. The check was received and cashed by
the the latter by virtue of the SPA notarized by Ariola.
Respondents' Comments
- Respondent explained that as early as May 12, 2000, Benitez had
already signed the SPA. He claimed that due to inadvertence, it was only
on January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it. Nevertheless, the SPA
notarized by him on January 4, 2001 was not at all necessary because
Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime before his
death, on May 12, 2000. Therefore, the SPA was cancelled the same day
he notarized it.
- Moreover, the suit should be dismissed for forum shopping since similar
charges had been filed with the Civil Service Commission and the Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Which complaints were dismissed
because the assailed act referred to violation of the IRR of the
Commission on Audit.
- The Court, in its resolution dated March 12, 2003, referred the complaint
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation. The IBP recommended that respondent's notarial
commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the practice of
law for one year.
ISSUES
WON acts of respondent amounted to a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD
Ratio The act was a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed by
the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1,
which prohibits engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct..
Reasoning The undisputed facts show that Benitez died on October 25,
2000. The notarial acknowledgment of respondent declared that Benitez
“appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his clear
and voluntary act.” Clearly respondent lied and intentionally perpetuated
an untruthful statement.
- Neither will respondent's defense that the SPA in question was
superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, exonerate him of
accountability. His assertion of falsehood in a public document
contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and
potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.
Disposition WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., is
found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED from the
practice of law. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant and entered in the records of respondent, and brought to
the immediate attention of the Ombudsman.
UI V BONIFACIO
DE LEON; June 8, 2000
NATURE
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
FACTS
Mrs. Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Bonifacio on the ground of immorality, for allegedly carrying on an illicit
relationship with her husband Mr. Ui. In the proceeding before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Bonifacio attached a photocopy of a
marriage certificate that said that she and Mr. Ui got married in 1985, but
according to the certificate of marriage obtained from the Hawaii State
Department of Health, they were married in 1987. She claims that she
entered the relationship with Mr. Ui in good faith and that her conduct
cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor can it suggest
moral indifference. She fell in love with Mr. Ui whom she believed to be
single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted
ways with him.
ISSUE
WON Atty. Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which
she deserves to be barred from the practice of law
HELD
- No. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the
right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar
examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate
of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal

PROF. JARDELEZA
ethics. One of the conditions prior to the admission to the bar is that an
applicant must possess good moral character. More importantly,
possession of good character must be continuous as a requirement to the
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. Otherwise, the loss thereof is a
ground for the revocation of such privilege.
- A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, which has been
defined as the conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community. Lawyers, as keepers of the public faith, are
burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must
handle their affairs with great caution. Atty. Bonifacio was imprudent in
managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Mr. Ui, clothed as it was with what she believed was a
valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes
conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society. Moreover,
for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly
immoral,” that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
- A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to
refrain from adulterous relationships but must also behave himself so as
to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting
those moral standards. Atty. Bonifacio’s act of immediately distancing
herself from Mr. Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that
alleged moral indifference and proves that she fad no intention of flaunting
the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. On the matter
of the falsified certificate of marriage, it is contrary to human experience
and highly improbable that she did not know the year of her marriage or
that she failed to check that the information in the document which she
attached to her Answer were correct. Lawyers are called upon to
safeguard the integrity of the bar, free from misdeeds and acts of
malpractice.
FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR.
ROMERO; July 31, 1997
FACTS
- In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon Barranco, Jr. be
denied admission to the legal profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar
exams on the fourth attempt.
- Figueroa avers that she and Barranco had been sweethearts, that a
child was born to them out of wedlock and that respondent did not fulfill
his repeated promises to marry her.
- Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in Janiuay, Iloilo and were
steadies since 1953. Figueroa first acceded to sexual congress in 1960. A
son, Rafael Barranco, was born on Dec 11, 1964. Barranco promised to
marry Figueroa after he passes the bar exams. Their relationship
continued, with more than 20 or 30 promises of marriage. Barranco gave
only P10 for the child on Rafael’s birthdays. In 1971, Figueroa learned
Barranco married another woman.
- From 1972 to 1988, several motions to dismiss and comments were
filed.
- On Sept 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for failure
of complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time
and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyer’s oath.
- Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to Figueroa’s opposition, resolved
to cancel Barranco’s scheduled oath-taking.
- June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the IBP. On May 17, 1997,
IBP recommended the dismissal of the case and that respondent be
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath
ISSUE
WON the facts constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent
exclusion of Barranco from the legal profession
HELD
No. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not
only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is
so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant,
or shameless acts which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
respectable members of the community.
- Barranco’s engaging in premarital sexual relations with Figueroa and
promises to marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but it
does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.
- Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose sexual relations were
evidently consensual.
- Respondent, at the time of this decision, is already 62.
Disposition Petition is dismissed. Simeon Barranco, Jr. is allowed to take
his oath as a lawyer upon payment of proper fees.
BARRIOS V MARTINEZ
PER CURIAM; November 12, 2004
FACTS
- Atty. Martinez was convicted of a violation of BP 22
- Complainant submitted Resolution dated March 13, 1996, and the Entry
of judgment dated March 20, 1996 in an action for disbarment against
Martinez
- July 3, 1996 – the Court required respondent to comment on said
petition within 10 days from notice
- February 17, 1997 – a second resolution was issued requiring
respondent to show cause why no disciplinary action should be 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 failure
to comply with previous resolution within 10 days
- April 27, 1998 – the Court fined the respondent an additional P2000 and
required him to comply with the resolution under pain of imprisonment and
arrest for a period of 5 days or until his compliance
- February 3, 1999 – the Court declared respondent Martinez guilty of
Contempt under Rule 71, Sec 3(b) of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
and ordered his imprisonment until he complied with the aforesaid
resolution
- April 5, 1999 – NBI reported that respondent was arrested in Tacloban
City on March 26, 1999 but was subsequently released after having
shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of February 17, 1997 and
April 27, 1998 by remitting the amount of P2000 and submitting his
overdue Comment:
1. He failed to respond to the Resolution dated February 17, 1997 as
he was at that time undergoing medical treatment at Camp
Ruperto Kangleon in Palo, Leyte
2. Complainant passed away sometime in June 1997
3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which
was decided in respondent’s favor. Respondent avers 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 filed the present
administrative case
- September 11, 1997 – Robert Visbal of the Provincial Prosecution Office
of Tacloban City submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of Court
alleging that respondent Martinez also stood charged in another 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 RTC of Basey,
Samar rendered a decision against him, his appeal thereto having been
dismissed by the CA.
- June 16, 1999 – the Court referred the present case to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation
- The report of IBP stated:
1. Respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the
ground that the complainant died and that dismissal is warranted
because the case filed by him does not survive due to his demise
as a matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death. The IBP
disagrees, pursuant to Section 1 Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules
of Court, the SC or the IBP may initiate the proceedings when they
perceive acts of lawyers which deserve 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.
2. Propensity to disregard orders of the SC, as shown by
respondent, is an utter lack of good moral character
3. Respondent’s conviction of a crime of moral turpitude clearly
shows his unfitness to protect the administration of justice and
therefore justifies the imposition of sanctions against him

PROF. JARDELEZA
4. It is recommended that respondent be disbarred and his name
stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys immediately
- September 27, 2003 – the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution
adopting and approving the report and recommendation of its
Investigating Commissioner
- December 3, 2003 – Atty. Martinez filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and/or Reinvestigation
- January 14, 2004 – the Court required the complainant to file a comment
within 10 days
- February 16, 2004 – complainant’s daughter sent a Manifestation and
Motion alleging they have not been furnished with a copy of respondent’s
Motion
ISSUE
WON the crime respondent was convicted of is one involving moral
turpitude
HELD
Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow
men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary
rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
- The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to a
deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable. The
practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment
is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who
exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and
reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.
- Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no
redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely
for the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice
from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them.
- The court is also disinclined to take respondent’s old age and the fact
that he served in the judiciary in various capacities in his favor. If at all,
the respondent was held to a higher standard for it, for a judge should be
the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, and his
conduct should be above reproach.
- The Court based the determination of the penalty from previously
decided cases, holding that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for
conviction by final judgment for a crime of moral turpitude.
Disposition Respondent was disbarred and his name stricken from the
Roll of Attorneys.
PIMENTEL, HR V LLORENTE
MENDOZA; August 29, 2000
(edel cruz)
NATURE
Administrative Matter. Disbarment
FACTS
- Senator Aquilino Pimentel filed this disbarment case against Attys.
Antonio Llorente (election officer of COMELEC and chairman of the
Board) and Ligaya Salayon (ex officio vice- chairman) for gross
misconduct, serious breach of trust and violation of the lawyer’s oath in
connection with the discharge of their duties as members of the Pasig City
Board of Canvassers in the May 8, 1995 elections.
- Pimentel alleges that respondents:
• Respondents tampered with the votes he received
• Statement of votes show that other candidates were credited with
votes which were above the number of votes they actually
received and his votes were reduced (dagdag-bawas =p)
• In 101 precints, Enrile’s votes were in excess of the total number
of voters who actually voted therein
• The votes from 22 precints were twice recorded in 18 statements
of votes.
- PIMENTEL: The respondents committed a serious breach of public trust
and of their lawyers’ oath by signing the statements of votes (SoVs)
despite their knowledge that some of the entries were false.
- RESPONDENTS: The errors pointed out by complainant could be
attributed to honest mistake, oversight and /or fatigue.
- IBP recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
- Pimentel also filed criminal charges against the two before the
COMELEC which dismissed said charges for insufficiency of evidence.
- The SC, upon Pimentel’s petition for certiorari, directed the COMELEC
to file appropriate charges against respondents.
ISSUE
1. WON a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule
139 –B, section 12 C (within 15 day period) since the petition was filed
late
2. WON the respondents are guilty of misconduct
HELD
1. NO
Reasoning
- In Halimao v. Villanueva: Although Rule 139-B, sec 12(c) makes no
mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history
suggests that such motion is prohibited.
- It appears that the petition was filed on time because a copy of the
resolution personally served on the Office of the Bar Confidant of the SC
was received. It is the burden of the respondent to show that the
complainant filed the petition was filed beyond the 15-day period for filing
it.
- Even if Pimentel received the IBP resolution in question was filed 2 days
late, the delay may be overlooked.
- Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The
sole question for determination is whether a member of the bar is fit to be
allowed the privileges as such or not.
- The complainant or the person who called the attention of the Court to
the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and generally
has no interest, in the outcome except as all citizens may have in the
proper administration of justice. For this reason, laws dealing with double
jeopardy or prescription or with procedure like verification of pleadings
and prejudicial questions have no application to disbarment proceedings.
2. YES
Reasoning
- In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clearly
preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability.
- SC: What is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the
tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the
subsequent entry of erroneous figures in or two statements of votes but a
systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at
the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in
the election returns.
- Despite the fact that these discrepancies were apparent on the face of
these documents and that the variation involves substantial number of
votes, respondents nevertheless certified the SoVs as true and correct.
This constitutes misconduct.
- Only the respondents had access to the SoVs and the CoC and thus
had the opportunity to compare them and detect the discrepancies therein
so it is irrelevant that the canvassing was open to the public and observed
by numerous individuals.
- A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a
member of the bar for misconduct in the discharged of his duties as a
government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath
or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows
moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a
member of the bar for such misconduct.
- By certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, the respondents
committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code, which stipulates that a
lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.” By lawyers express provision of Canon 6, this is made
applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they likewise
violated their oath of office as to “do no falsehood.”
- As lawyers in the government service, respondents were under greater
obligation to observe the basic tenet of the profession (to behave at all
times in a manner consistent with truth and honor) because a public
office is a public trust.

PROF. JARDELEZA
Disposition Respondents’ participation in the irregularities reflects on the
legal profession. This merits a suspension but since this is their first
transgression, a fine is sufficient.
Fine of 10,000 Php for each for misconduct.
CORDOVA V CORDOVA
(giulia pineda)
NATURE
Administrative case in the SC for Immorality of a member of the Bar
FACTS
- Savacion Delizo Cordova sent an unsworn letter-complaint to then CJ
Teehankee charging her husband Atty. Laurence Cordova with immorality
and acts unbecoming of a member of the Bar. The complaint was
forwarded to the IBP, Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation,
report and investigation.
- The Commission required the complainant to submit a verified complain
to which she complied and submitted on Sept 27, 1988 a revised and
verified version of her long and detailed complaint against her husband.
- On Dec 16, she was required to submit before the Commission her
evidence ex parte. She requested for the rescheduling several times. The
hearings never took place as she failed to appear.
- The respondent never moved to set aside the order of default, even
though notices were sent to him.
- In a telegraphic message dated Apr 6, the complainant informed the
commission that she and her husband have already reconciled.
- In an order dated Apr 17, 1989, the Commission required the parties to
appear before it for the confirmation and explanation of the telegraphic
message and to file formal motion to dismiss the complaint. Neither
responded and nothing was heard from either party since then.
The findings of the IBP Board of Governors:
- Complainant and respondent Cordova were married on 6 June 1976 and
out of this marriage, two (2) children were born.
- In 1985, respondent Cordova left his family as well as his job as Branch
Clerk of RTC of Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, and went to Mangagoy,
Bislig, Surigao del Sur with one Fely G. Holgado.
- Fely G. Holgado was herself married and left her own husband and
children to stay with respondent. Respondent Cordova and Fely G.
Holgado lived together in Bislig as husband and wife, with respondent
Cordova introducing Fely to the public as his wife, using the name Fely
Cordova.
- Respondent Cordova gave Fely Holgado funds with which to establish a
sari-sari store in the public market at Bislig, while failing to support his
legitimate family.
- On 6 April 1986, respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an
apparent reconciliation. Respondent promised that he would separate
from Fely Holgado and brought his legitimate family to Bislig
- Respondent would, however, frequently come home from beerhouses or
cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the support of his legitimate
family.
- In February 1987, complainant found, upon returning from a trip to
Manila that respondent Cordova was no longer living with her children in
their conjugal home; that respondent Cordova was living with another
mistress, Luisita Magallanes, and had taken his younger daughter along
with him
- Respondent and his new mistress hid Melanie from the complainants,
compelling complainant to go to court and to take back her daughter by
habeas corpus. The RTC of Bislig, gave her custody of their children.
- Notwithstanding respondent's promise to reform, he continued to live
with Luisita Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give
support to his legitimate family.
ISSUE
WON the recent reconciliation of the Cordovas and the failure of the
complainant to pursue the case have dismissed the case.
HELD
The most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent,
assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the
misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent earn carried out in
public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the
Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself.
Ratio
- An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show
that he possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not
exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar.
- The lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not
limited to good moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and
responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral delinquency that affects
the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct
that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community.
Disposition WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent
from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from this Court.
The Court will consider lifting his suspension when respondent Cordova
submits proof satisfactory to the Commission and this Court that he has
and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that
he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to.
SORIANO V DIZON
PER CURIAM; January 25, 2006
(romy ramirez)
NATURE
Administrative case for disbarment
FACTS
- Respondent, Atty. Manuel Dizon, was convicted by final judgment by the
RTC of Baguio City for frustrated murder. He applied and was granted
probation by the said court based on several conditions which included
among others the satisfaction of the civil liabilities imposed in favor of the
offended party, Roberto Soriano, the taxi driver who was rendered
paralyzed on the left side of the body as a result of his being shot by the
defendant.
- The defendant despite the condition that he pay the civil liabilities
imposed on him as a condition for the probation, appealed said civil
liability to the Court of Appeals.
- From the records of the trial court, it appears that defendant was drunk
at the time of the incident and that the case arose out of the apparent
resentment of the defendant from having been overtaken by the victim
who was then driving a taxi. From the testimony of a witness, it further
appears that the taxi driver was merely defending himself and that
defendant was the aggressor during said incident.
- Upon the complaint for the disbarment filed by Soriano against Dizon,
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
rendered its report and recommendation which was adopted and
approved by the IBP Board of Governors. The Commssion recommended
the disbarment of the defendant for having been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude and for exhibiting an obvious lack of good moral
character.
ISSUES
1. WON Dizon’s crime of frustrated murder involves moral turpitude and
that his guilt warrants disbarment
HELD
Ratio
- The totality of the facts of the case unmistakably bears the earmarks of
moral turpitude. Given that membership in the legal profession demands a
high degree of good moral character not only as a condition to admission
but also a continuing requirement for the practice of law, the defendant
has shown in all his actuations that he lacks the fitness to remain in the
law profession.
Reasoning
- Not all cases involving homicide involves moral turpitude. The question
as to what may be a crime involving moral turpitude would depend on the
individual facts surrounding the case and the surrounding circumstances.
- In the case at bar, it was shown that Dizon was the aggressor as he
pursued and shot complainant when the latter least expected it. The
actuations of the victim in this case can be considered as reasonable
actions clearly intended to fend off the attack of Dizon.

PROF. JARDELEZA
- The defendant’s use of an unlicensed firearm and his refusal to satisfy
his civil liability to the victim is a serious transgression of Canon 1 of the
code of Professional Responsibility.
- Defendant has continuously display his dishonest and duplicitous
behavior by first seeking to arrive at an out of court settlement with the
family and when the same failed, making it appear that it was the family
would sought a conference with him. He also lied to the court by claiming
that he incident was the result of the mauling he got at the hands of the
victim and two other persons. This story was belied by the physical
evidence as testified to by no less than three doctors.
Disposition Manuel Dizon is disbarred and his name is stricken from the
roll of attorneys.
CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES V VILLALUZ
REGALADO; June 19, 1997
(cha mendoza)
NATURE
Petition for the disbarment on the grounds of grossly immoral and grave
misconduct
FACTS
-Complainant is the presiding judge of Branch 108 of the RTC of Pasay
City while respondent is a consultant at the Presidential Anti Crime
Commission, and a retired justice of the Court of Appeals
-Complainant was widowed by the presumption of death of her 1st
husband, upon a decree of presumption of death after 16-year absence
-Complainant and respondent met sometime in 1977when respondent
was the presiding judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig for the
murder case involving the death of the complainant’s son. Since then, the
respondent became a close family friend.
-On January 7, 1994, the complainant and the respondent got married in
a civil wedding, with all the essential and formal requisites present.
-On the afternoon of their wedding day, the respondent fetched the
complainant from her house in QC to stay in the respondent’s condo unit.
There was a phone call and when the complainant answered, a woman
was on the other end of the line offending the complainant with insulting
remarks. The complainant confronted the respondent about the caller and
the confrontation ended up in a heated exchange of words, to the point
where the respondent said to the complainant, “Ayaw ko nang ganyan!
Ang gusto ko sa babae, 'yong sumusunod sa bawa't gusto ko'. Get that
marriage contract and have it burned." With that, the complainant left the
respondent and after that, they never contacted each other again.
-Several months after, in a bible study session, the complainant learned
from Manila RTC Judge Ramon Makasiar, a member of the bible group,
that he (Judge Makasiar) solemnized the marriage between the
respondent and a certain Lydia Geraldez. After hearing that, on June 6,
1995 the complainant filed the instant Complaint for Disbarment against
him (Exh. "A").
-On August 7, 1995, when complainant discovered that the respondent
falsified his marriage contract (Exh C.) dated May 10, 1994 by stating that
he is “single”, the complainant executed against respondent her
"Supplemental Complaint Affidavit for Falsification" (Exhs. "D" and "D-1").
The complainant also presented the Marriage Contract between her and
respondent (Exh. "B"), the Order declaring her first husband, Primitivo
Mijares, presumptively dead (Exh. "E"); and Affidavit of Judge Myrna Lim
Verano, who solemnized the marriage between her (complainant) and
respondent (Exhs. "F" and "F-1").
Respondent’s claim The respondent claimed that he only voluntarily signed
the Marriage Contract bet. Him and the complainant in an effort to help
the complainant in the administrative case for immorality filed against her
by her legal researcher in 1993 and that their marriage was just a “sham
marriage”
-Also, he claims that when he got married to the complainant, his first
marriage with Librada Peña was still subsisting because the decision
declaring its annulment had not yet become final and executory (required
publication not yet done), as certified by Mrs. Nelia B. Rosario, Acting
Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
(Exh. "4").
ISSUE
WON the respondent is guilty of gross immorality and grave misconduct?
HELD
YES, respondent is undeniably guilty of deceit and grossly immoral
conduct.
Ratio The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall
be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a
condition precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law
Reasoning The respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred
institution demanding respect and dignity. A former Judge of the Circuit
Criminal Court, and, thereafter, a Justice of the Court of Appeals is surely
conversant with the legal maxim that a wrong cannot be righted by
another wrong, if granted that he was just helping the complainant in the
administrative case filed against her.
-The respondent gave his voluntary consent to the marriage, and with all
the legal requisites for the marriage present, he should have known that
his marriage with the complainant was valid.
-the respondent stated under oath that his marriage with Librada Peña
had been annulled by a decree of annulment, when he (respondent) took
Lydia Geraldez as his wife by third marriage, and therefore, he is
precluded, by the principle of estoppel, from claiming that when he took
herein complainant as his wife by second marriage, his first marriage with
Librada Peña was subsisting and unannulled.
Disposition WHEREFORE, finding herein respondent, former Justice
Onofre A. Villaluz, GUILTY of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon notice hereof, with the
specific WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should
he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter.
SO ORDERED.
ESTRADA V SANDIGANBAYAN
(boots tirol)
NATURE
RESOLUTION of the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court
FACTS
-Joseph Estrada, through Atty Alan Paguia, filed a Petition for Certiorari
under the Rules of Court against Sandiganbayan, which prayed – “1. That
Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the Honorable Court
disqualify themselves from hearing and deciding the petition; 2. That the
assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and set aside; and
3.That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending
before the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-Atty Paguia, speaking for Estrada, asserted that the inhibition of the
members of the SC from hearing the petition is called for under Rule 5.10
of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting justices or judges from
participating in any partisan political activity which proscription, according
to him, the justices have violated by attending the ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by
authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to
the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contended
that the justices have thereby prejudged a case that would assail the
legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The subsequent decision of
the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo is, according to petitioner, a patent mockery
of justice and due process.
-The SC dismissed the petition for lack of merit (Sandiganbayan
committed no grave abuse of discretion) and the SC warned Atty Paguia
of his conduct -- his attacks on the Court and making public statements on
the case (violating Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility).
He was given 10 days SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned
for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
- On 10 October 2003, Atty. Paguia submitted his compliance with the
show-cause order. In a three-page pleading, Atty. Paguia, in an obstinate
display of defiance, repeated his earlier claim of political partisanship
against the members of the Court (for discussion on political partisanship
please see original case), and continued to make public statements about
Estrada’s case.
ISSUES

PROF. JARDELEZA
WON Atty Paguia should be suspended from the practice of law
HELD
YES.
-Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the
lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In
liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the
impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty.
Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the
dispensation of justice.
-The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce
criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly
have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not
countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of the people’s faith in
the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to
practice law in the Philippines.
-The attention of Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule
13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of
the bar from making such public statements on a case that may tend to
arouse public opinion for or against a party. Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has
persisted in ignoring the Court’s well-meant admonition. The Court has
already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to become
mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the
Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
Disposition Atty Paguia indefinitely suspended from the practice of law
ZALDIVAR V GONZALES
PER CURIAM; October 7, 1988
(joey capones)
NATURE
Petition to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan
FACTS
Enrique A. Zaldivar had a pending case for graft and corruption in the
Sandiganbayan initiated by Tanodbayan Gonzalez. Zaldivar filed a
petition in the SC alleging that Gonzalez, as Tanodbayan and under the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution, was no longer vested with power and
authority independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for
graft and corruption against public officials and employees, and hence
the information filed in his criminal cases were all null and void. The SC
issued a temporary restraining order. Petitioner later filed another petition
because Gonzalez filed additional criminal charges against petitioner and
five other individuals. Gonzalez instituted another criminal case in the
Sandiganbayan. Four days later, the SC issued another TRO. Zaldivar
then filed a petition to cite in contempt Special Prosecutor Gonzalez for
filing new information before the Sandiganbayan and for making
contemptuous statements to the media. In a news art in the Phil Daily
Globe, Gonzalez made the ff. statements: (1) while the rich and influential
persons get favorable actions from the SC, it’s difficult for an ordinary
litigant to get his petition to be given due course, (2) while Pres. Aquino
had been prodding him to prosecute graft cases even if they involve the
high and mighty, the SC had been restraining him, (3) while he doesn’t
wish to discuss the merits of the Zaldivar petition before the SC, He was
disturbed that the order can aggravate the thinking of some people that
affluent persons can prevent the progress of a trial. The SC ordered the
nullification of the criminal cases and for Gonzalez to cease and desist
from further acting on Zaldivar’s case In the motion for reconsideration,
Gonzales claimed that 3 handwritten notes, sent by some members of the
SC interceding for cases pending before his office, were in his
possession. He said that he doubts whether the judges will remain
impartial to him, there being at least 4 members who definitely won’t, and
prayed that these 4 inhibit themselves in the deliberation. When this was
denied, he filed a motion to transfer administrative proceedings to the IBP.
He also released statements to the press saying, in effect, that the SC
deliberately rendered an erroneous decision, that members of the SC
have improperly pressured him to render decisions favorable to their
friends and colleagues, and that the Sc dismisses judges without rhyme
or reason and disbars lawyers without due process. Gonzalez didn’t deny
he said/wrote those statements. His defense is that he was just
exercising his freedom of speech.
ISSUES
1. WON the SC should punish Gonzalez for contempt of court and give
administrative sanctions
2. WON Gonzales is not liable because he was just using his
constitutional right of freedom of speech.
HELD
1. YES
Ratio Statements which constitute gross disrespect of the Court, and
degrade the SC and the entire system of justice are clearly contemptuous.
The SC should exercise its disciplinary authority over the source.
Reasoning The SC cited several cases wherein the Court held that the
statements were contemptuous and warranting the exercise of the court’s
authority. These are:
(1). Monteciollo v. Gica – Atty del Mar moved to reconsider a decision of
the CA with a veiled threat that he should interpose his next appeal to the
President. He said the court knowingly rendered an unjust judgment thru
negotiations. He was convicted of contempt of court.
(2) Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel – counsel asked CJ
Concepcion and J Castro to inhibit themselves from judging the case
since the brother of Castro was the VP of favored party and CJ’s son was
the Secretary of the Board of Investments. He even threatened that if he
didn’t get a favorable decision, he’d bring the case to the World Court and
invoke the Hickenlooper Amendment requiring the cutting off of all aid to
the Philippines.
3. In re Almacen – the SC committed a great unjust to his client; justice
administered by the SC wasn’t only blind, but also deaf and dumb; he’ll
argue the cause of his client in the people’s forum (published in Manilla
Times). Almacen was suspended from the practice of law because he
exceeded the boundaries of fair criticism.
4. Paragas v. Cruz – counsel alleged that the SC violated the
Constitution, which was a ground for impeachment; hoped that an incident
wherein 2 SC employees were killed wouldn’t happen again (covert threat
upon the members of the Court)
5. In re Sotto – a newspaper reporter refused to divulge his source and
was sent to jail. Atty. Sotto published in a newspaper that the SC
erroneously interpreted the law, they’re narrow-minded, and that the
members of the SC should be changed. He was held in contempt of
Court.
6. Salcedo v. Hernandez – Atty Francisco: the Court’s resolution is
erroneous and is a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls.
2. NO
Ratio A lawyer’s right of free expression may have to be more limited than
that of a layman.
Reasoning The freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional
freedoms, is not absolute and that the freedom of expression needs on
occasion to be adjusted and accommodated with the requirements of
equally important public interests. One of the fundamental public interests
is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the
administration of justice. The lawyer’s duty to render respectful
subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of
justice.
[Discussion on the SC’s power to discipline its lawyers]
The SC, as the regulator and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary
disciplinary auth over attorneys. This stems from the Court’s
Constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which
includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself. This is an
inherent power incidental to the proper administration of justice and
essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. It also has inherent
power to punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice the
conduct of ministerial officers of the court including lawyers and all other
persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court. This is
necessary for its own protection against improper interference with the
due administration of justice and not dependent upon the complaint of the
litigant. There are two related powers here: (1) Court’s inherent power to
discipline attorneys – broader than contempt power; lawyer doesn’t need
to be in contempt of court to be punished under this; (2) contempt power
- may be committed by both lawyers and non-lawyers, in and out of court;
if this is done by a lawyer, it’s usually accompanied with professional
misconduct.

PROF. JARDELEZA
A lawyer is not just a professional but also an officer of the court and as
such, is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing
justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act which tends to obstruct
the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct
calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him and conduct
warranting application of the contempt power.
Disposition Atty. Raul M. Gonzales was found guilty of contempt of court
in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and
member of the Bar. He was suspended from the practice of law
indefinitely.
CASTANEDA V AGO
CASTRO; July 30, 1975
(glaisa po)
NATURE
- Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
FACTS
- 1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the
CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries.
-1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
- 1961 – SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution;
Ago’s motion denied, levy was made on Ago’s house and lots; sheriff
advertised the sale, Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the
petition; SC affirmed dismissal
- Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain
sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied
- 1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago
failed to redeem
- 1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession
to the properties
- 1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in
the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½
share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy
made; CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining
Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final
deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining
order continued
- 1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff
from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a similar
petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition; Agos appealed to
SC which dismissed the petition
- Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA
which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
WON the Agos’ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy
HELD
- No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the
annulment of the sheriff’s sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long
denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them,
for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have
misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the
satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
- Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted
position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to
become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a
mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of
technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the
primacy of truth and moral justice.
- A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his
client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC
does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer’s insistence despite the
patent futility of his client’s position.
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his
case. If he finds his client’s cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to
advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the
incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his
client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate.
LEDESMA V CLIMACO
FERNANDO; June 28, 1974
(mini bernardo)
NATURE
Original action in the SC, Certiorari
FACTS
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a
case pending in the sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964,
Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz,
Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a
motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent
Judge denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two
defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to
withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time
service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari
proceeding.
ISSUE
WON a member of the bar may withdraw as counsel de oficio due to
appointment as Election Registrar
HELD
No.
1. The ends of justice would be served by requiring Ledesma to continue
as counsel de oficio because: the case has been postponed at least 8
times at the defense's instance; there was no incompatibility between duty
of petitioner to defend the accused, and his task as an election registrar.
2. Ledesma's withdrawal would be an an act showing his lack of fidelity to
the duty rqeuired of the legal profession. He ought to have known that
membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The legal profession
is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may
be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the
administration of justice. The fact that such services are rendered without
pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.
3. The Constitution provides that the accused shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel. "Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to
counsel..." ---manifest the indispensable role of a member of the Bar in
the defense of an accused. The right to be assisted by counsel is so
important that it is not enough for the Court to apprise the accused of his
right to an atty, but is essential that the court assign on de oficio for him if
he desires/ is poor.
Thus, Ledesma should exert himself sufficiently, if not with zeal, if only to
erase doubts as to his fitness to remain a member of the profession in
good standing.
Disposition Petition for certiorari dismissed.
IN RE: TAGORDA
MALCOLM; March 23, 1929
(boots tirol)
FACTS
Luis Tagorda, a practicing lawyer and a member of the Provincial Board
of Isabela admits that the previous election he used a card which states
what he can do for the people as a lawyer and a notary public (he can
execute deed of sales, etc). He also admits that he wrote a letter to a
lieutenant of his barrio asking him to inform the people in any town
meetings that despite his election as member of the Board, he will still
exercise his profession as a lawyer and notary public, even adding that he
will only charge three pesos for registration of their land titles.

PROF. JARDELEZA
ISSUES
1. WON Tagorda is guilty of malpractice for soliciting employment
2. WON Tagorda should be disbarred
HELD
1. YES.
Sec 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by Act 2828) states
that "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally, or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics provide:
27- The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards, being
a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of
convenience, is not per se improper. But solicitation of business by
circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews
not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional... Indirect
advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interests involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other
like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high
calling, and are intolerable.
28 -It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit,
except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his
duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional, but
it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles
or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to be employed to
bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for
personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to
secure them as clients… A duty to the public and to the profession
devolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of such
practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof to
the end that the offender may be disbarred.
- The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or
obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be
unprofessional.
- With the admitted facts, the respondent stands convicted of having
solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons.
2. NO. The commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify
permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating circumstances
working in favor of the respondent there are: first, his intimation that he
was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and
inexperience at the bar, and third, his promise not to commit a similar
mistake in the future.
ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC
REGALADO; June 17, 1993
(dahls salamat)
FACTS
- Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads
similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads
pertaining to the exercise of the law professions other than those allowed
by law
- Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560 for a valid marriage
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041
8:30am-6pm
7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla
- Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BKS on Guam Divorce thru the Leg
Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Probs, Visa ext.
Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of
Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the
Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Sp/Shil. Call Marivic
THE LEGAL CLINIC, etc
Petitioner’s Claim:
-Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive
of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the
bar.
-As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the
ads
Respondent’s Comment:
-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg
support services thru paralegals with the use of modern computers and
electronic machines
- Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be
allowed under Bates v. State bar of Arizona
ISSUES
1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of
law?
2. WON their services can be advertised?
HELD
1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge,
training and expertise
- To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are
characteristic of the profession; to give advice or render any kind of
service that involves legal knowledge/skill
- Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and
counsel and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal
rights are secured regardless of WON they’re pending in court
3 types of legal profession activity:
1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and
obligations
2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal
principles not possessed by ordinary layman
3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and
authority to determine rights of life, liberty and property according to law,
in order to assist in proper inter and enforcement of law
Respondent’s description of its services shows it falls within the practice
of law:
Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps
and modern info tech
- computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering,
locating parties/witnesses to a case, fact finding investigations, assistance
to laymen in need of services from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus
registrations, etc.
*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and
technical know how like installing computer system for law offices, this
doesn’t make it an exception to the general rule
- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot non-advisory and non-
diagnostic
ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption – have to explain to
client the intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper course of
action
- what its ads represent and what it will be paid for
- It doesn’t matter that they don’t represent clients in court since practice
of law isn’t limited to ct appearances but also leg research, leg advice and
drafting contracts
Phil Star Art – Rx for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:
- Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic
sit
- lawyers, who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take care
of it (taxation, crim law, medico-leg probs, labor, litigation, fam law)
- backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys
- caters to clients who can’t afford big firms
- can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/
more extensive treatment
-The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesn’t
matter; what’s important is that it’s engaged in the practice of law ‘cause
of the nature of the services it renders, which brings it within the statutory
prohibitions against ads

PROF. JARDELEZA
only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who’s in good
and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law
- public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character to protect the
public, court, client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those
unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of court
2.No. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in
making known his legal services, shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective info/statement of facts
- not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement re his qualifications/legal
services
- not supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return for
publicity to attract legal business
Canons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers
shouldn’t resort to indirect ads for professional employment like furnishing
newspaper comments, publishing his pictures with causes the lawyer’s
been engaged in, importance of his position and other self-laudation
Stands of legal profession condemn lawyer’s advertisement of his talents
like a merchant does of his goods because of the fact that law is a
profession.
The canons of profession tell us that 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 service to a client and the community has a way of
publicizing itself and catching public attention; this shouldn’t be done thru
propaganda
EXCEPTIONS:
1. expressly allowed – publication in reputable law lists of informative data
that’s not misleading and may include only: name, professional assoc,
adds, nos, branches of law practiced, date and place of birth and
admission to the bar, schools attended w/ dates of grad, degrees , public
offices, posts of honor, legal authorships, legal teaching positions,
membership and offices in bar association, legal and scientific societies
and legal fraternities, listings in other reputable law lists, names and adds
of references with written consent and clients regularly represented
- can’t be mere supplemental feature of paper, magazine, trade journal or
periodical that’s published for other purposes
- never in a law list that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the
public/the bar or lower the dignity/standing of the profession
- ordinary simple professional card allowed – name, law firm, add, no and
special branch of law practiced
- publication of simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or
change in partnership, assoc, firm name or office add, for the
convenience of the profession
- have name listed in phone directory but not under designation of special
branch of law
2. necessarily implied from the restrictions
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a statement of leg
fees for an initial consultation or give, upon request, a written schedule of
fees or estimate for spec servicess as an exception to the prohibition
against advertisements by lawyers
- none expressly/impliedly provided for in the Canons of Professional
Ethics or Code of Professional Responsibility
*survey conducted by the American Bar Assoc on the attitude of the
public about lawyers after viewing TC commercials – pub opinion dropped
significantly:
Trustworthy – 71-14%
Professional – 71-14%
Honest – 65-14%
Dignified – 45-14%
With the present situation of our legal and judicial system, to allow the
publication of like advertisements would aggravate what’s already a
deteriorating pub of the legal profession whose integrity’s been under
attack by media and the community in general
- all efforts should be made to regain the high esteem formerly accorded
to the leg profession
Atty Nograles (prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of the
Leg Clinic) is REPRIMANDED w/ a warning that a repetition will be dealt
w/ more severely for misbehavior in advertising his servIces and aid a
layman in the unauthorized practice of law
KHAN, JR. V SIMBILLO
YNARES-SANTIAGO; August 19, 2003
(apple maramba)
NATURE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court and SPECIAL CIVIL
ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
FACTS
- Atty. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5, 2000
issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paid advertisement which read:
“Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.”
- A staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court
took notice and called the number posing as an interested party. She
spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who said that her husband was an expert in
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four
to six months, and that the fee was P48,000.
- Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public
Information Office revealed that similar ads were published in the August
2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of
the Philippine Star.
- Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator
and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation
of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
- The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.
- IBP found respondent guilty
- Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was
denied
- Hence, this petition for certiorari
ISSUE
WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court
HELD
Yes. Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and
was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.
Ratio The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty
to public service, not money is the primary consideration.
Reasoning
- Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
- Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
- Rule 138, Sec 27 of the Rules of Court states: Disbarment and
suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.—A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly 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 take before the admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to
do so.
- The following elements distinguish legal profession from business:
1. A duty of public service
2. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice
involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods

PROF. JARDELEZA
of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing
directly with their clients.
- Respondent advertised himself as an “Annulment Specialist,” and by this
he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage—encouraging people
who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained form
dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
- Solicitation of legal business sis not altogether proscribed, however, for
solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession.
DACANAY V BAKER & MCKENZIE
AQUINO; May 10, 1985
(ice baguilat)
NATURE
Administrative Case
FACTS
Dacanay seeks to enjoin Torres and 9 other lawyers from practicing law
under Baker & McKenzie (a law firm organized in Illinois, USA). Torres
used the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie on a letter to Rosie Clurman
that asks her to release 87 shares of Cathay Products Int’l. Inc. to HE
Gabriel (a client). Dacanay denied any liability of Clurman and asked
whether she is being represented by Baker & McKenzie as counsel as
well as the purpose of the letterhead. No reply coming from Clurman thus
this Administrative Case.
ISSUE
WON the lawyers should be enjoined from practicing law under Baker &
McKenzie
HELD
Yes, they should be enjoined. Baker & McKenzie is an alien law firm and
cannot practice law in the country. Using the name constitutes
representation of being associated with the firm which is deemed to be
unethical. Respondents are enjoined from practicing law under the firm
name Baker & McKenzie.
SAMONTE V GATDULA
GONZAGA-REYES; February 26, 1999
(athe odi)
NATURE
Administrative matter. Grave Misconduct.
FACTS
- The complainant, Julieta Borromeo Samonte charged Rolando R.
Gatdula with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the
private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as
Branch Clerk of Court.
- The complainant represents her sister as plaintiff in a civil case for
ejectment. Contrary to their expectation that execution will proceed, they
instead received a temporary restraining order. Santos contends that the
order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the application
for preliminary injunction.
- Gatdula, when asked by the complainant of the reason of the decision,
blamed Santos’ lawyer for writing the address in the complaint for
ejectment and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she
should change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent, at the
same time giving his calling card with the name “Baligod, Gatdula,
Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera.”
- The decision of the Court continued not to be favorable to Samonte,
which cause her to file administrative complaint against Gatdula.
ISSUE
WON Gatdula is guilty of infraction
HELD
Yes. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card
constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7, sub-par. (b)(2)
of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees) which declares it unlawful for a public official or
employees to, among others:
“(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the Constituion or law, provided that such practice will not
conflict with official functions.”
Disposition Respondent is reprimanded for engaging in the private
practice of law. He is further ordered to cause the exclusion of his name
in the firm name of any office engaged in the private practice of law.
CRUZ V SALVA
MONTEMAYOR; July 25, 1959
(chris capul)
NATURE
Original action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition with
Preliminary Injunction.
FACTS
- A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, de
Jesus, Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo et al. guilty of murder. They all
appealed and Castelo sought new trial. Castelo was again found guilty.
- Pres Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary
questioned people and got confessions pointing to persons other than
those convicted.
- Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct reinvestigation on basis of
new confessions. Fiscal conferred w/ SolGen and the Justice Sec
decided to have the results of investigation made available to counsel for
appellants.
- Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits
and confessions. Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and
subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and
mastermind in the new affidavits and confessions. Cruz’ counsel
questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct
preliminary investigation bec the case was pending appeal in the SC.
Counsel filed this present petition.
- Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of Cruz’ oral and personal request
to allow him to appear at the investigation.
- SC issued writ of preliminary injunction stopping the prelim
investigation.
ISSUES
1. WON Salva and his committee can push through with the investigation
2. WON Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify before Salva
3. WON Salva conducted the investigation property
HELD
1. Yes.
- SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally reqested to allow
him to appear at the investigation.
- Normally, when a criminal case handled by fiscal is tried and decided
and appealed to a higher court, functions of fiscal have terminated.
However, Salva has justified his reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one
of the defendants (Salvador Realista y de Guzman) was not included in
the trial.
- The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure
conviction of the guilty but also to protect the innocent.
- Writ of preliminary injunction dissolved. Investigation may continue.
- Petition for certiorari and prohibition granted in part, denied in part.
2. No
- Under the law, Cruz had right to be present at the investigation but he
need not be present. His presence is more of a right than a legal
obligation.
3. No
- Salva shld have done investigation privately in his office and not publicly
in the session hall of Municipal Court of Pasay where microphones were
installed and media people were present. He should also not have made
the media people ask questions. SC was disturbed and annoyed by such
publicity.
- Salva is publicly reprehended and censured.

PROF. JARDELEZA
COLLANTES V RENOMERON
PER CURIAM; August 16, 1991
(aida villanueva)
FACTS
- A complaint of disbarment is filed with a related administrative case
against Renomeron of the Registrar of Deeds in Tacloban.
- Collantes was the house counsel for V & G Better Homes Subdivision
and filed the case with regard to the application of V & G for registration of
163 pro forma Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its
subdivision in Jan 1987.
- Feb 16, 1987 – no action was made by Renomeron despite follow-ups
made by Collantes. Renomeron requested Collantes to submit additional
requirements which Collantes complied with.
- Renomeron suspended the registration of the documents pending
compliance of V&G with certain special agreement between then that
V&G would provide Renomeron with a weekly Tacloban-Manil round trip
ticket with P2,000 pocket money. He said he would act favorably on their
application if that agreement would be fulfilled.
- Collantes sent plane fare (P800) to Renomeron through his niece. But
pocket money was not given.
- Renomeron then imposed additional requirements which angered
Collantes, leading the latter to challenge Renomeron to act on the 163
pending applications by V&G within 24 hours.
- May 22, 1987 – Renomeron denied the application for ambiguity of the
subject matter.
- Collantes appealed for a reconsideration and elevated the matter to the
Administrator of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration.
- The NLTDRA ruled that the documents were registrable.
- The NLTDRA recommended Renomeron’s case to the DOJ and the
Secretary of Justice found him guilty. The president then dismissed
Renomeron from public service.
- A disbarment case was then filed by Collantes against Renomeron.
ISSUE
WON the disbarment case against Renomeron would prosper given the
administrative case
HELD
- Yes, the administrative complaint has to do with his position in public
service. The disbarment case has to do with his status as member of the
Integrated Bar.
- Renomeron violated the lawyer’s oath.
- The Code of Professional Responsibility 1.01 forbids a lawyer from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
PEOPLE V PINEDA
SANCHEZ; July 21, 1967
(jojo mendoza)
FACTS
- On the night of July 29, 1965, the occupants of the home of the spouses
Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza in Pugaan City of
Iligan, were asleep. It was then that guns (rifle, caliber 22) and paliuntod
(homemade gun) were fired in rapid succession from outside the house.
Teofilo Mendoza fell dead. Thereafter, defendants below destroyed the
door of the house, entered therein, and let loose several shots killing
Neceforo Mendoza, — all minor children of the couple — and wounding
Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza.
- Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rufino Borres were indicted before
the CFI of Lanao del Norte, as principals, in five (5) separate cases for
murder. The five informations were based on facts gathered by the
prosecuting attorney from his investigation.
- Two of the three defendants in the five criminal cases (Tomas Narbasa
and Tambak Alindo) moved for a consolidation thereof into one (1)
criminal case. Their plea is that said cases arose out of the same incident
and motivated by one impulse. The respondent Judge approved the
motion and directed the City Fiscal to unify all the five criminal cases, and
to file one single information and drop the other four cases. The City
Fiscal sought reconsideration thereof. The respondent Judge denied the
motion to reconsider. He took the position that the acts complained of
stemmed out of a series of continuing acts on the part of the accused, not
by different and separate sets of shots, moved by one impulse and should
therefore be treated as one crime though the series of shots killed more
than one victim; and that only one information for multiple murder should
be filed, to obviate the necessity of trying five cases instead of one.
Hence, this appeal to the Court on certiorari with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction, and for other reliefs.
ISSUE
WON the City Fiscal shall file only one information
HELD
- YES, ruling Article 48 provides for two classes of crimes where a single
penalty is to be imposed: first, where a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies (delito compuesto); and, second, when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other (delito complejo). It
is to be borne in mind, at this point, that apply the first half of Article 48,
there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is
not written into the law.
The respondent Judge reasons out that consolidation of the five cases
into one would have the salutary effect of obviating the necessity of trying
five cases instead of one. To save time, indeed, is laudable. Nonetheless,
the statute confers upon the trial judge the power to try these cases
jointly, such that the fear entertained by respondent Judge could easily be
remedied.
Upon the facts and the law, we hold that the City Fiscal of Iligan City
correctly presented the five separate informations — four for murder and
one for frustrated murder. A rule of presumption long familiar is that
official duty has been regularly performed. A prosecuting attorney, by the
nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal
information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the
averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different
conclusion. This is not to discount the possibility of the commission of
abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that
a prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against his
conviction. In case of doubt, we should give him the benefit thereof. A
contrary rule may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped with
unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a criminal suspect's right to due process
— the sporting idea of fair play — may be transgressed. So it is, that in
People vs. Sope, the Court made the pronouncement that "it is very
logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the
prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and
cannot be controlled by the off ended party."
- The impact of respondent Judge's orders is that his judgment is to be
substituted for that of the prosecutor's on the matter of what crime is to be
filed in court. The question of instituting a criminal charge is one
addressed to the sound discretion of the investigating Fiscal. The
information he lodges in court must have to be supported by facts brought
about by an inquiry made by him. It stands to reason then to say that in a
clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal
who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant,
those of the Fiscal's should normally prevail. In this regard, he cannot
ordinarily be subject to dictation. We are not to be understood as saying
that criminal prosecution may not be blocked in exceptional cases. A relief
in equity "may be availed of to stop it purported enforcement of a criminal
law where it is necessary (a) for the orderly administration of justice; (b) to
prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and
vindictive manner; (c) to avoid multiplicity of actions; (d) to afford
adequate protection to constitutional rights; and (e) in proper cases,
because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was held invalid."
Nothing in the record would as much as intimate that the present case fits
into any of the situations just recited.
Disposition The writ of certiorari is granted.
MISAMIN V SAN JUAN
FERNANDO; August 31, 1976
(bry san juan)
FACTS

PROF. JARDELEZA
- It certainly fails to reflect credit on a captain. in the Metro Manila Police
force and a member of the bar, respondent Miguel A. San Juan, to be
charged with being the legal representative of certain establishments
allegedly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent and, what is worse, with
coercing an employee, complainant Jose Misamin to agree to drop the
charges filed by him against his employer Tan Hua, owner of New Cesar's
Bakery, for the violation of the Minimum Wage Law. There was a denial
on the part of respondent. The matter was referred to the Office of the
Solicitor-General for investigation, report and recommendation.
Thereafter, it would seem there was a change of heart on the part of
complainant. That could very well be the explanation for the non-
appearance of the lawyer employed by him at the scheduled hearings.
The efforts of the Solicitor General to get at the bottom of things were thus
set at naught.
- Under the circumstances, the outcome of such referral was to be
expected. For the law is rather exacting in its requirement that there be
competent and adequate proof to make out a case for malpractice.
Necessarily, the recommendation was one of the complaints being
dismissed. This is one of those instances then where this Court is left with
hardly any choice. Respondent cannot be found guilty of malpractice.
Respondent, as noted in the Report of the Solicitor-General, "admits
having appeared as counsel for the New Cesar's Bakery in the
proceeding before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila
Metropolitan Police. However, he contends that the law did not prohibit
him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends that his
appearance as counsel, while holding a government position, is not
among the grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension or
removal of attorneys. The respondent also denies having conspired with
the complainant Misamin's attorney in the NLRC proceeding in order to
trick the complainant into signing an admission that he had been paid his
separation pay. Likewise, the respondent denies giving illegal protection
to members of the Chinese community in Sta. Cruz, Manila."
ISSUE
WON a lawyer-public officer may represent a private client during his
tenure
HELD
NO, but since evidence is lacking to discipline Atty. Miguel San Juan, the
case is dismissed. The Court noted that the Report of the Solicitor-
General did not take into account respondent's practice of his profession
notwithstanding his being a police official, as "this is not embraced in
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides the
grounds for the suspension or removal of an attorney.
- The conclusion arrived at by the Solicitor-General that the complaint
cannot prosper is in accordance with the settled law. As far back as in re
Tionko, decided in 1922, the authoritative doctrine was set forth by Justice
Malcolm in this wise: "The serious consequences of disbarment or
suspension should follow only where there is a clear preponderance of
evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is
innocent of the charges preferred and has performed his duty as an
officer of the court in accordance with his oath." The Tionko doctrine has
been subsequently adhered to.
- This resolution does not in any wise take into consideration whatever
violations there might have been of the Civil Service Law in view of
respondent practicing his profession while holding his position of Captain
in the Metro Manila police force. That is a matter to be decided in the
administrative proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the
Solicitor-General. Nonetheless, while the charges have to be dismissed,
still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to
avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the suspicion
could be entertained that far from living true to the concept of a public
office being a public trust, he did make use, not so much of whatever legal
knowledge he possessed, but the influence that laymen could assume
was inherent in the office held not only to frustrate the beneficent statutory
scheme that labor be justly compensated but also to be at the beck and
call of what the complainant called alien interest, is a matter that should
not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future actuations as a member of
the bar. should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and
misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but
also for membership in the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an
honorable profession who does not even take care that his honor remains
unsullied
VITRIOLO V DASIG
PER CURIAM; April 1, 2003
(lora alamin)
NATURE
Administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an
official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
FACTS
- Almost all complainants are high-ranking officers of the CHED. They
allege that while respondent was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED,
committed acts that are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court
- During her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, attempted to extort
from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and
Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as consideration for her favorable action
on their pending applications or requests before her office
- Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as
attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless, groundless, and
unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon
City, which were subsequently dismissed.
- Complainants charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22),
Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just
debts owing to “Borela Tire Supply” and “Nova’s Lining Brake & Clutch” as
evidenced by the dishonored checks she issued, the complaint sheet, and
the subpoena issued to respondent.
- Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of a
crime against complainant Celedonia R. Coronacion and Rodrigo
Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan
Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to draw
his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the evening of May 14, 1997. As a
result of this incident, a complaint for grave threats against the respondent
and her son, was lodged
- Complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then
President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which maligned the
good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors
calculated to justify her ill motive of preventing their re-appointment and
with the end view of securing an appointment for herself.
- The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline concluded that respondent
unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to
the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on
Higher Education. It was recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for the maximum period
allowable of three (3) years with a further warning that similar action
in the future will be a ground for disbarment of respondent.
- The IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-393,
adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and Respondent was SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for three (3) years.
ISSUE
WON respondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Legal
Services, CHED, may be disciplined by this Court for her malfeasance,
considering that her position, at the time of filing of the complaint, was
“Chief Education Program Specialist, Standards Development Division,
Office of Programs and Standards, CHED.”
HELD
YES.
Ratio Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may
not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge
of his duties as a government official. However, if said misconduct as a
government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer,
then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar.
The Attorney’s Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every
lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment, suspension,
or other disciplinary action. The Attorney’s Oath imposes upon every
member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Said

143582958 a2010-compiled-legprof-digests

143582958 a2010-compiled-legprof-digests

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 143582958 a2010-compiled-legprof-digests

Similar to 143582958 a2010-compiled-legprof-digests (20)

More from homeworkping3

More from homeworkping3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

143582958 a2010-compiled-legprof-digests