Julieta B. Narag vs. Dominador M.

Narag
A.C. No. 3405

June 29, 1998

Per Curiam

Facts:

Atty. Narag was alleged to have abandoned his family for Ms. Espita his former student. Mrs.
Narag, his wife filed the administrative complaint for disbarment. Accusing him of violating the
Canon 1 and 6 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics for lawyers.

Mrs. Narag then dropped the charges for an unknown reason.

The case took an unexpected turn when Mrs. Narag, together with their children filed another
complaint for disbarment. She explained that she had her earlier dropped the case because of his
threats against her.

Atty. Narag filed a motion to dismiss because allegedly Mrs. Narag fabricated the whole story out
of confusion and jealousy.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Narag violated Code of Ethics for Lawyers and should be disbarred

Ruling:

The complainant was able to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Atty. Narag violated
the Code of Ethics for Lawyers by proving that he abandoned his family for Ms. Espita and had
two children with her.

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

He also used his influence as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan to cause
the employment of Ms. Espita at the DTI in Makati violating Canon 6 the Code of Ethics for
lawyers.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
OFFICIAL TASKS.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes vs. Atty. Victor V. Deciembre

AC-5365. April 27, 2005 (457 SCRA 341)
Ponente: Panganiban, J.

Facts:

Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan.
After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for
P50, 000 with different maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a
case for estafa against the spouses Olbes.
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR
CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

The Petitioners the filed a petition for the disbarment of Atty. Deciembre.

They charged respondent with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Deciembre violated the Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and should be disbarred

Ruling:

Atty. Deciembre falsified documents for his material gain and abused the confidence reposed in
him by the petitioners. It was their high regard for him as a member of the bar that made them
trust him with their blank checks.
Lawyers as officers of the courts and keepers of the publics faith are burdened with the highest
degree of social responsibility and are thus mandated to behave at all times in a manner
consistent with truth and honor.

Good moral character is an essential qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law. It is equally essential to
observe this norm meticulously during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. Good moral character
includes at least common honesty. No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness and candor.
The rigorous ethics of the profession places a premium on honesty and condemns duplicitous behavior. Lawyers must be
ministers of truth. Hence, they must not mislead the court or allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are
expected to act in good faith.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Atty. Diciembre was found to have violated the Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and was suspended indefinitely.

In the matter of the admission to the bar and oath-taking of successful bar applicant Al C. Argosino
B.M. No. 712, July 13, 1995
Ponente: Feliciano, J.

Facts:

A criminal information was filed against Mr. Argosino along with other individuals with the crime
of homicide for the death of Raul Camaligan because of severe physical injuries from hazing.

Mr. Argosino and his co-accused then entered into plea bargaining and pleaded guilty to a lesser
offense of homicide through reckless imprudence. He was then sentenced to suffer imprisonment
for 2-4 years.

He then filed an application for probation and was granted. The probation was set two years,
counted from the probationer's initial report to the probation officer assigned to supervise him.

Mr. Argosino filed a Petition for Admission to take the 1993 Bar examinations. He was allowed to
take the Bar and passed. He was not, however, allowed to take his lawyers oath.

He then filed a Petition to allow him to take his oath.

Issue:

Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the attorney's oath of office and be
allowed to the practice of law

Ruling:

The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who
demands it. Rather, it is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with
special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.

Mr. Argosino's participation in the deplorable "hazing" activities certainly fell far short of the
required standard of good moral character. The deliberate infliction of severe physical injuries
which proximately led to the death of the unfortunate Mr. Camaligan, certainly indicated serious
character flaws on the part of those who inflicted such injuries.

Mr. Argosino was asked to submit, for its examination and consideration, relevant evidence to
show that he is a different person now, that he has become morally fit for admission to the ancient
and learned profession of the law.

Mr. Argosino was directed to inform the Court of the names and addresses of the family of Mr.
Camaligan for them to receive a copy of the Resolution, pending the Courts decision.

Re: Petition of Al Argisino to take the lawyers oath

Bar Matter No. 712. March 19, 1997
Ponente: Padilla, J.

Facts:

Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court however deferred
his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
The criminal case which resulted in petitioners conviction, arose from the death of a neophyte
during fraternity initiation rites.

In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen
certifications/letters executed by among others two senators, five trial court judges, and six
members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship
foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint
efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case.

On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment
on petitioner's prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. He stated that it he is not in a
position to say whether petitioner is now morally fit for admission to the bar. He submitted the
matter to the sound discretion of the Court.

Issue:

Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the attorney's oath of office and be
allowed to the practice of law

Ruling:

The Court understands and shares the sentiment of Atty. Gilbert Camaligan.

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not
inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout
Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.

Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. He was given the
benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash,
temerarious and uncalculating.

The Court stressed to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for
practicing law. Every lawyer should at all times weigh his actions according to the sworn promises
he makes when taking the lawyer's oath.

Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino was allowed to take the lawyer's oath and was permitted to
practice of law.

In the matter of the petition for the disbarment of Telesforo A. Diao v. Severino g. Martinez
A.C. No. 244, March 29, 1963
Ponente: Bengzon, C.J.

Facts:

Telesforo Diao was admitted to the Bar after passing the corresponding examinations on 1953.

About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his
application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications.

Diao allegedly had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education
prescribed by the Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars:

(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and

(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma
therefrom which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his
application for examination, and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the
"required pre-legal education".

Mr. Diao did not obtain an Associate in Arts (AA) degree from Quisumbing College in 1941. He
claims that he was erroneously certified, and asserts that he obtained his AA from Arellano
University in 1949.

Issue:

Whether or not Mr. Telesforo Diao should be disbarred.

Ruling:

Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations and was admitted due to his
false representations. A college degree must first be obtained before studying law. Admission
under false pretenses is a ground for revoking admission to the Bar. Passing the Bar exam is not
the only requirement to become an attorney at law.

In re Arturo Castillo Reyes (1993)

Petitioners name was struck from the roll of attorneys due to the following:

Facts:

Graduated from UP College of Law in 1939; passed the bar in 1939; inducted to and served in the
US Armed Forces in the Far East during WWII and thus became eligible for citizenship under the
1990US Immigration Act; became a naturalized citizen of the US in 1993.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner should be allowed to the practice of law in the Philippines

Ruling:

Since one of the solemn duties of an attorney is to maintain allegiance to the RP and to support
the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines (20(a) Rule 138 ROC), it follows that

A Filipino citizen admitted to the Phil Bar must maintain such citizenship to remain qualified to the practice of law
in this country.

Residency:
Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. Every applicant for admission as
a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral
character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

Likewise, his petition to continue handling cases in his private practice of law. Only Filipino
citizens may practice law in the Philippine. This requirement is prescribed by the Constitution,
XII 14, and the ROC, 2 Rule138.
ARTICLE XII
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs,
professionals, managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by
the State. The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit.
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Rule 138 - Rules of Court

Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Sec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. - Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be
a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and
must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

In Re: Application of Adriano M. Hernandez

September 06, 1993

Facts:

Adriano M. Hernandez is a Filipino citizen who obtained a Juris Doctor from Columbia
University, New York and who has taken fourth year review courses and other bar subjects at the Ateneo
Law School.

Issue:

Whether or not Adriano M. Hernandez should be allowed to take the 1993 Bar examinations

Ruling:

The Court allowed the applicant to take the 1993 Bar examinations considering the fact that in the
past, it had allowed Filipinos who have studied law in foreign law schools from the strict
requirements of Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 and allowed them to take the bar examinations,
but with the caveat that:
Beginning next year, the Court WILL NOT ALLOW GRADUATES OF FOREIGN LAW SCHOOLS TO TAKE THE BAR
EXAMINATIONS. An applicant who desires to take the bar examinations must not only have studied law in a local law
school but has to present the certifications required under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 in order to take the bar
examination. Since graduates of foreign law schools cannot submit said certifications, they shall henceforth not be
allowed to take the bar examinations.
RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Section 5.
Additional requirements for other applicants. All applicants for admission other than those referred
to in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly
studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved
and recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or
school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law
school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and
private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.

Section 6.
Pre-Law. No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a
certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and
satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a
four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the
following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics.

He passed the 1993 Bar Examinations and was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1994 but passed
away in 2011 at the young age of 44.

In Bar Matter No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar
Examinations through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, March 9, 2010)

The Supreme Court once again allowed Filipino graduates of foreign law schools to take the Philippine
Bar, subject to certain conditions, and amended Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Section 5 of the Rule now provides that before being admitted to the examination, all applicants for admission to the bar shall
satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent degree in a law school or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in
the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.

Section 5 now also provides that a Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar
examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority;
and (c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the
Philippine Government.

A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her degree in Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent in a
foreign law school must also present proof of completion of a separate bachelors degree.

Since the law course is designed to acquaint the law student with (hopefully) the whole spectrum of
Philippine law, those who obtain their law degrees from non-Philippine law schools have to work doubly
hard in preparing for the Bar Examinations, since they studied a different set of laws in law school. But if
they are up to the challenge, the Supreme Court, pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1153, is very much willing to
accommodate them.

The People of the Philippines v. Simplicio Villanueva

G.R. No. L-19450, May 27, 1965
Ponente: Paredes, J.
Facts:

On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged Simplicio Villanueva with
the Crime of Malicious Mischief before the Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality.

The complainant in the same case was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo
City, having entered his appearance as private prosecutor, after securing the permission of the
Secretary of Justice. The condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he would
appear at the trial of the case, he would be considered on official leave of absence, and that he
would not receive any payment for his services.

The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor was questioned by the counsel for the
accused.

Under date of January 4, 1961, counsel for the accused presented a "Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule
from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this Case," this time invoking Section 32, Rule 27, now Sec.
35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing. Counsel
claims that City Attorney Fule falls under this limitation.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Fule is engaged in private law practice.

Ruling:

Appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice within the meaning and
contemplation of the Rules.

Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind.
In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as
customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as customarily and demanding payment for such. The appearance as
counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law.

The following observation of the Solicitor General is noteworthy:

Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued
practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for a compensation,
as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services.

Furthermore Atty. Fule was given the permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of
Justice.