Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
his name should not be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys" (Adm. Case No. 1163,
A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975 p. 99, rec.). The five examiners concerned were also required by the Court "to show
IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO, former Bar Confidant and Deputy Clerk of cause within ten (10) days from notice why no disciplinary action should be taken
Court, respondent. against them" (Adm. Case No. 1164, p. 31, rec.).
A.C. No. 1163 August 29, 1975
IN RE: RAMON E. GALANG, alias ROMAN E. GALANG, 1971 Bar
Respondent Tomacruz filed his answer on March 12, 1973 (Adm. Case No. 1164,
Examinee, respondent.
p. 70, rec.). while respondents Pardo, Pamatian, Montecillo, Manalo and Lanuevo
A.M. No. 1164 August 29, 1975
filed theirs on March 19, 1973 (Adm. Case No. 1162, pp. 60-63, 32-35, 40-41, 36-
IN RE: HON. BERNARDO PARDO, HON. RAMON PAMATIAN, ATTY. MANUEL
39 and 35-38, rec.). At the hearing on August 27, 1973, respondent Lanuevo filed
TOMACRUZ, ATTY. FIDEL MANALO and ATTY. GUILLERMO PABLO, JR.,
another sworn statement in addition to, and in amplication of, his answer filed on
Members, 1971 Bar Examining Committee, respondent.
March 19, 1973 (Adm. Case No. 1162, pp. 45-47, rec.). Respondent Galang filed
his unverified answer on March 16, 1973 (Adm. Case No. 1163, pp. 100-104, rec.).
MAKASIAR, J.: He was required by the Court to verify the same and complaince came on May 18,
1973 (Adm. Case No. 1163, pp. 106-110,) rec.).
Administrative proceedings against Victorio D. Lanuevo — for disbarment; Ramon
E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang — for disbarment; Hon. Bernardo Pardo, Hon. In the course of the investigation, it was found that it was not respondent Bernardo
Ramon Pamatian, Atty. Manuel C. Tomacruz; Atty. Manuel G. Montecillo, Atty. Fidel Pardo who re-evaluated and/or re-checked examination booklet with Office Code
Manalo and Atty. Guillermo Pablo, Jr. — for disciplinary action — for their acts and No. 954 in Political Law and Public International Law of examinee Ramon Galang,
omissions during the 1971 Bar Examinations. alias Roman E. Galang, but Guillermo Pablo, Jr., examiner in Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercise, who was asked to help in the correction of a number of
examination notebooks in Political Law and Public International Law to meet the
In his request dated March 29, 1972 contained in a confidential letter to the Court
deadline for submission (pp. 17-24, Vol. V, rec.). Because of this development, Atty.
for re-correction and re-evaluation of his answer to the 1971 Bar Examinations
Guillermo Pablo, Jr. was likewise included as respondent in Administrative Case
question, Oscar Landicho — who flunked in the 1971, 1968 and 1967 Bar
No. 1164. Hon. Bernardo Pardo remainded as a respondent for it was also
Examinations with a grade of 70.5%, 65.35% and 67.55%, respectively — invited
discovered that another paper in Political Law and Public International Law also
the attention of the Court to "The starling fact that the grade in one examination
underwent re-evaluation and/or re-checking. This notebook with Office Code No.
(Civil Law) of at least one bar candidate was raised for one reason or another,
1662 turned out to be owned by another successful candidate by the name
before the bar results were released this year" (Confidential Letter, p. 2. Vol. I, rec.).
of Ernesto Quitaleg. Further investigation resulted in the discovery of another re-
This was confirmed, according to him, by the Civil Law Examiner himself (Hon.
evaluation and/or re-checking of a notebook in the subject of Mercantile Law
Ramon C. Pamatian) as well as by Bar Confidant Victorio D. Lanuevo. He further
resulting in the change of the grade from 4% to 50% This notebook bearing Office
therein stated "that there are strong reasons to believe that the grades in other
Code No. 110 is owned by another successful candidate by the name of Alfredo Ty
examination notebooks in other subjects also underwent alternations — to raise the
dela Cruz. Quitaleg and Ty dela Cruz and the latter's father were summoned to
grades — prior to the release of the results. Note that this was without any formal
testify in the investigation.
motion or request from the proper parties, i.e., the bar candidates concerned. If the
examiners concerned reconsidered their grades without formal motion, there is no
reason why they may not do so now when proper request answer motion therefor is An investigation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation upon request of
made. It would be contrary to due process postulates. Might not one say that some the Chairman of the 1971 Bar Examination Committee as Investigation Officer,
candidates got unfair and unjust treatment, for their grades were not asked to be showed that one Romy Galang y Esguerra, alias Ramon E. Galang, a student in the
reconsidered 'unofficially'? Why the discrimination? Does this not afford sufficient School of Law of Manuel L. Quezon University, was, on September 8, 1959,
reason for the Court en banc to go into these matters by its conceded power to charged with the crime of slight physical injuries in the Municipal Court of Manila
ultimately decide the matter of admission to the bar?" (p. 2, Confidential Letter, Vol. committed on Eufrosino F. de Vera, another student of the same university.
I, rec.). Confronted with this information at the hearing of August 13, 1973 (Vol. V, pp. 20-
21, 32, rec.), respondent Galang declared that he does not remember having been
charged with the crime of slight physical injuries in that case. (Vol. VI, pp. 45-60,
Acting on the aforesaid confidential letter, the Court checked the records of the
rec.).
1971 Bar Examinations and found that the grades in five subjects — Political Law
and Public International Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law and
Remedial Law — of a successful bar candidate with office code No. 954 underwent Respondent Galang, in all his application to take the bar examinations, did not
some changes which, however, were duly initialed and authenticated by the make mention of this fact which he is required under the rules to do.
respective examiner concerned. Further check of the records revealed that the bar
candidate with office code No. 954 is one Ramon E. Galang, a perennial bar
The joint investigation of all the cases commenced on July 17, 1973 and was
candidate, who flunked in the 1969, 1966, 1964, 1963, and 1962 bar examinations
terminated on October 2, 1973. Thereafter, parties-respondents were required to
with a grade of 67.55%, 68.65%, 72.75%, 68.2%, 56.45% and 57.3%, respectively.
submit their memoranda. Respondents Lanuevo, Galang and Pardo submitted their
He passed in the 1971 bar examinations with a grade of 74.15%, which was
respective memorandum on November 14, 1973.
considered as 75% by virtue of a Court of 74.15%, which was considered as 75%
as the passing mark for the 1971 bar examinations.
Before the joint hearing commenced, Oscar Landicho took up permanent residence
in Australia, where he is believed to be gainfully employed. Hence, he was not
Upon the direction of the Court, the 1971 Bar Examination Chairman requested Bar
summoned to testify.
Confidant Victorio D. Lanuevo and the five (5) bar examiners concerned to submit
their sworn statements on the matter, with which request they complied.
At the joint investigation, all respondents, except respondent Pablo, who offered as
evidence only his oral testimony, submitted as their direct evidence only his oral
In his sworn statement dated April 12, 1972, said Bar Confidant admitted having
testimony, submitted as their direct evidence the affidavits and answers earlier
brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang, alias Ramon E.
submitted by them to the Court. The same became the basis for their cross-
Galang, back to the respective examiners for re-evaluation and/or re-checking,
examination.
stating the circumstances under which the same was done and his reasons for
doing the same.
In their individual sworn statements and answer, which they offered as their direct
testimony in the investigation conducted by the Court, the respondent-examiners
Each of the five (5) examiners in his individual sworn statement admitted having re-
recounted the circumstances under which they re-evaluated and/or re-checked the
evaluated and/or re-checked the notebook involved pertaining to his subject upon
examination notebooks in question.
the representation to him by Bar Confidant Lanuevo that he has the authority to do
the same and that the examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject
and/or was on the borderline of passing. In His affidavit dated April 11, 1972, respondent Judge (later Associate Justice of
the Court of Appeals) Ramon C. Pamatian, examiner in Civil Law, affirmed:
Finding a prima facie case against the respondents warranting a formal
investigation, the Court required, in a resolution dated March 5, 1973, Bar Confidant 2. That one evening sometime in December last year, while I was
Victorio Lanuevo "to show cause within ten (10) days from notice why his name correcting the examination notebooks, Atty. Lanuevo, Bar Confidant,
should not be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys" (Adm. Case No. 1162, p. 34, rec.). explained to me that it is the practice and the policy in bar examinations
Considering that the re-evaluation of the examination papers of Ramon E. Galang, that he (Atty. Lanuevo) make a review of the grades obtained in all
alias Roman E. Galang, was unauthorized, and therefore he did not obtain a subjects and if he finds that candidate obtained an extraordinary high
passing average in the 1971 bar examinations, the Court likewise resolved on grade in one subject and a rather low one in another, he will bring back
the latter to the examiner concerned for re-evaluation and change of code numbers 1200 to 1400) which according to my record was on
grade; February 5, 1972, he came to my residence at about 7:30 p.m. riding in
a Vokswagen panel of the Supreme Court, with at least two
companions. The bar confidant had with him an examinee's notebook
3. That sometime in the latter part of January of this year, he brought
bearing code number 661, and, after the usual amenties, he requested
back to me an examination booklet in Civil Law for re-evaluation,
me if it was possible for me to review and re-examine the said
because according to him the owner of the paper is on the borderline
notebook because it appears that the examinee obtained a grade of 57,
and if I could reconsider his grade to 75% the candidate concerned will
whereas, according to the Bar Confidant, the said examinee had
get passing mark;
obtained higher grades in other subjects, the highest of which was 84, if
I recall correctly, in remedial law.
4. That taking his word for it and under the belief that it was really the
practice and policy of the Supreme Court to do so in the further belief
I asked the Bar Confidant if I was allowed to receive or re-examinee the
that I was just manifesting cooperation in doing so, I re-evaluated the
notebook as I had submitted the same beforehand, and he told me that
paper and reconsidered the grade to 75%;
I was authorized to do so because the same was still within my control
and authority as long as the particular examinee's name had not been
5. That only one notebook in Civil Law was brought back to me for such identified or that the code number decode and the examinee's name
re-evaluation and upon verifying my files I found that the notebook is was revealed. The Bar Confidant told me that the name of the
numbered '95; examinee in the case present bearing code number 661 had not been
identified or revealed; and that it might have been possible that I had
given a particularly low grade to said examinee.
6. That the original grade was 64% and my re-evaluation of the
answers were based on the same standard used in the correction and
evaluation of all others; thus, Nos. 3 and 4 with original grades of 7% Accepting at face value the truth of the Bar Confidant's representations
each was reconsidered to 10%; No. 5 with 4% to 5%; No. 7 with 3% to to me, and as it was humanly possible that I might have erred in the
5%; and No. 8 with 8% to 10% (emphasis supplied). grading of the said notebook, I re-examined the same, carefully read
the answer, and graded it in accordance with the same standards I had
used throughout the grading of the entire notebooks, with the result that
His answer dated March 19, 1973 substantially reiterated his allegations in his April the examinee deserved an increased grade of 66. After again clearing
11, 1972 affidavit with following additional statements: with the Bar Confidant my authority to correct the grades, and as he
had assured me that the code number of the examinee in question had
xxx xxx xxx not been decoded and his name known, ... I therefore corrected the
total grade in the notebook and the grade card attached thereto, and
properly initia(l)ed the same. I also corrected the itemized grades (from
3. ... However the grades in Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10, were not item No. 1 to item No. 10) on the two sets of grading sheets, my
reconsidered as it is no longer to make the reconsideration of these personal copy thereof, and the Bar Confidant brought with him the
answers because of the same evaluation and standard; hence, Nos. 1, other copy thereof, and the Bar Confidant brought with him the other
2 and 10 remainded at 5% and Nos. 6 and 9 at 10%; copy the grading sheet" (Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 58-59; rec.;
emphasis supplied)
4. That at the time I made the reconsideration of examination booklet
No. 951 I did not know the identity of its owner until I received this In his answer dated March 17, 1973 which he denominated as "Explanation",
resolution of the Honorable Supreme Court nor the identities of the respondent Bernardo P. Pardo adopted and replaced therein by reference the facts
examiners in other subjects; stated in his earlier sworn statement and in additional alleged that:
5. That the above re-evaluation was made in good faith and under the xxx xxx xxx
belief that I am authorized to do so in view of the misrepresentation of
said Atty. Lanuevo, based on the following circumstances:
3. At the time I reviewed the examinee's notebook in political and
international law, code numbered 661, I did know the name of the
a) Since I started correcting the papers on or about examinee. In fact, I came to know his name only upon receipt of the
October 16, 1971, relationship between Atty. Lanuevo and resolution of March 5, 1973; now knowing his name, I wish to state that
myself had developed to the point that with respect to the I do not know him personally, and that I have never met him even up to
correction of the examination booklets of bar candidates I the present;
have always followed him and considered his instructions
as reflecting the rules and policy of the Honorable
Supreme Court with respect to the same; that I have no 4. At that time, I acted under the impression that I was authorized to
alternative but to take his words; make such review, and had repeatedly asked the Bar Confidant
whether I was authorized to make such revision and was so assured of
my authority as the name of the examinee had not yet been decoded or
b) That considering this relationship and considering his his identity revealed. The Bar Confidant's assurance was apparently
misrepresentation to me as reflecting the real and policy of regular and so appeared to be in the regular course of express
the Honorable Supreme Court, I did not bother any more to prohibition in the rules and guidelines given to me as an examiner, and
get the consent and permission of the Chairman of the Bar the Bar Confidant was my official liaison with the Chairman, as, unless
Committee. Besides, at that time, I was isolating myself called, I refrained as much as possible from frequent personal contact
from all members of the Supreme Court and specially the with the Chairman lest I be identified as an examiner. ...;
chairman of the Bar Committee for fear that I might be
identified as a bar examiner;
5. At the time the Bar Confidant came to see me at about 7:30 o'clock
in the evening at my residence, I felt it inappropriate to verify his
xxx xxx xxx authority with the Chairman. It did not appear to me that his
representations were unauthorized or suspicious. Indeed, the Bar
e) That no consideration whatsoever has been received by me in return Confidant was riding in the official vehicle of the Supreme Court, a
for such recorrection, and as proof of it, I declined to consider and Volkswagen panel, accompanied by two companions, which was usual,
evaluate one booklet in Remedial Law aforesaid because I was not the and thus looked like a regular visit to me of the Bar Confidant, as it was
one who made the original correction of the same (Adm. Case No. about the same hour that he used to see me:
1164, pp. 32-35, rec.; emphasis supplied).
xxx xxx xxx
Then Assistant Solicitor General, now CFI Judge, Bernardo Pardo, examiner in
Political Law and Public International Law, confirmed in his affidavit of April 8, 1972 7. Indeed, the notebook code numbered 661 was still in the same
that: condition as when I submitted the same. In agreeing to review the said
notebook code numbered 661, my aim was to see if I committed an
On a day or two after the Bar Confidant went to my residence to obtain error in the correction, not to make the examinee pass the subject. I
from me the last bag of two hundred notebooks (bearing examiner's considered it entirely humanly possible to have erred, because I
corrected that particular notebook on December 31, 1971, considering
especially the representation of the Bar Confidant that the said called my attention to the fact in his answers the examinee expressed
examinee had obtained higher grades in other subjects, the highest of himself clearly and in good enough English. Mr. Lanuevo however
which was 84% in remedial law, if I recall correctly. Of course, it did not informed me that whether I would reconsider the grades I had
strike me as unusual that the Bar Confidant knew the grades of the previously given and submitted was entirely within my discretion.
examinee in the position to know and that there was nothing irregular in
that:
3. Believing fully that it was within Mr. Lanuevo's authority as Bar
Confidant to address such a request to me and that the said request
8. In political and international law, the original grade obtained by the was in order, I, in the presence of Mr. Lanuevo, proceeded tore-read
examinee with notebook code numbered 661 was 57%. After review, it and re-evaluate each and every item of the paper in question. I recall
was increased by 9 points, resulting in a final grade of 66%. Still, the that in my re-evaluation of the answers, I increased the grades in some
examinee did not pass the subject, and, as heretofore stated, my aim items, made deductions in other items, and maintained the same
was not to make the examinee pass, notwithstanding the grades in other items. However, I recall that after Mr. Lanuevo and I
representation that he had passed the other subjects. ... had totalled the new grades that I had given after re-evaluation, the
total grade increased by a few points, but still short of the passing mark
of 75% in my subject.
9. I quite recall that during the first meeting of the Bar Examiners'
Committee consensus was that where an examinee failed in only one
subject and passed the rest, the examiner in said subject would review xxx xxx xxx (Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 74-75, rec.; emphasis supplied).
the notebook. Nobody objected to it as irregular. At the time of the
Committee's first meeting, we still did not know the names of the
In his answer (response) dated March 18, 1973, respondent Manalo reiterated the
candidates.
contents of his sworn statement, adding the following:
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (Adm. Case No. 1162, p. 35, rec.; emphasis supplied).
2. Supplementary to the foregoing sworn statement, I hereby state that On August 27, 1973, during the course of the investigation, respondent Lanuevo
I re-evaluated the examination notebook of Bar Candidate No. 1613 in filed another sworn statement in addition to, and in amplification of, his answer,
Mercantile Law in absolute good faith and in direct compliance with the stating:
agreement made during one of the deliberations of the Bar Examiners
Committee that where a candidate fails in only one subject, the
xxx xxx xxx
Examiner concerned should make a re-evaluation of the answers of the
candidate concerned, which I did.
1. That I vehemently deny having deceived the examiners concerned
into believing that the examinee involved failed only in their respective
3. Finally, I hereby state that I did not know at the time I made the
subjects, the fact of the matter being that the notebooks in question
aforementioned re-evaluation that notebook No. 1613 in Mercantile
were submitted to the respective examiners for re-evaluation believing
Law pertained to bar examine Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E.
in all good faith that they so merited on the basis of the Confidential
Galang, and that I have never met up to this time this particular bar
Memorandum (identified and marked as Exh. 1-Lanuevo, particularly
examinee (Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 40-41, rec.; emphasis supplied).
that portion marked as Exh. 1-a-Lanuevo)which was circulated to all the
examiners earlier, leaving to them entirely the matter of whether or not
In his sworn statement dated April 12, 1972, Bar Confidant Lanuevo stated: re-evaluation was in order,
xxx xxx xxx 2. That the following coincidence prompted me to pry into the
notebooks in question:
As I was going over those notebooks, checking the entries in the
grading sheets and the posting on the record of ratings, I was Sometime during the latter part of January and the early
impressed of the writing and the answers on the first notebook. This led part of February, 1972, on my way back to the office (Bar
me to scrutinize all the set of notebooks. Believing that those five Division) after lunch, I though of buying a sweepstake
merited re-evalation on the basis of the memorandum circularized to ticket. I have always made it a point that the moment I
the examiners shortly earlier to the effect that think of so buying, I pick a number from any object and the
first number that comes into my sight becomes the basis of
the ticket that I buy. At that moment, the first number that I
... in the correction of the papers, substantial weight should
saw was "954" boldly printed on an electrical contribance
then be given to clarify of language and soundness of
(evidently belonging to the MERALCO) attached to a post
reasoning' (par. 4),
standing along the right sidewalk of P. Faura street
towards the Supreme Court building from San Marcelino
I took it upon myself to bring them back to the respective examiners for street and almost adjacent to the south-eastern corner of
re-evaluation and/or re-checking. the fence of the Araullo High School(photograph of the
number '954', the contrivance on which it is printed and a
portion of the post to which it is attached is identified and
It is our experience in the Bar Division that immediately after the marked as Exhibit 4-Lanuevo and the number "954" as
release of the results of the examinations, we are usually swarmed with Exh. 4-a-Lanuevo).
requests of the examinees that they be shown their notebooks. Many of
them would copy their answers and have them checked by their
professors. Eventually some of them would file motions or requests for With this number (954) in mind, I proceeded to Plaza Sta.
re-correction and/or re-evaluation. Right now, we have some 19 of such Cruz to look for a ticket that would contain such number.
motions or requests which we are reading for submission to the Eventually, I found a ticket, which I then bought, whose last
Honorable Court. three digits corresponded to "954". This number became
doubly impressive to me because the sum of all the six
digits of the ticket number was "27", a number that is so
Often we feel that a few of them are meritorious, but just the same they significant to me that everything I do I try somewhat
have to be denied because the result of the examinations when instinctively to link or connect it with said number whenever
released is final and irrevocable. possible. Thus even in assigning code numbers on the
Master List of examinees from 1968 when I first took
It was to at least minimize the occurrence of such instances that charge of the examinations as Bar Confidant up to 1971, I
motivated me to bring those notebooks back to the respective either started with the number "27" (or "227") or end with
examiners for re-evaluation" (Adm. Case No. 1162, p. 24, rec.; said number. (1968 Master List is identified and marked as
emphasis supplied). Exh. 5-Lanuevo and the figure "27" at the beginning of the
list, as Exh. 5-a Lanuevo; 1969 Master List as Exh. 6-
Lanuevo and the figure "227" at the beginning of the list, as
In his answer dated March 19, 1973, respondent Lanuevo avers: Exh. 6-a-Lanuevo; 1970 Master List as Exh. 7-Lanuevo
and the figure "227" at the beginning of the list as Exh. 7-a-
That he submitted the notebooks in question to the examiners Lanuevo; and the 1971 Master List as Exh. 8-Lanuevo and
concerned in his hotest belief that the same merited re-evaluation; that the figure "227" at the end of the list as Exh. 8-a-Lanuevo).
in so doing, it was not his intention to forsake or betray the trust
reposed in him as bar confidant but on the contrary to do justice to the The significance to me of this number (27) was born out of
examinee concerned; that neither did he act in a presumptuous these incidents in my life, to wit: (a) On November 27,
manner, because the matter of whether or not re-evaluation was 1941 while with the Philippine Army stationed at Camp
inorder was left alone to the examiners' decision; and that, to his Manacnac, Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, I was stricken with
knowledge, he does not remember having made the alleged pneumonia and was hospitalized at the Nueva Ecija
misrepresentation but that he remembers having brought to the Provincial Hospital as a result. As will be recalled, the last
attention of the Committee during the meeting a matter concerning Pacific War broke out on December 8, 1941. While I was
another examinee who obtained a passing general average but with a still confined at the hospital, our camp was bombed and
grade below 50% in Mercantile Law. As the Committee agreed to strafed by Japanese planes on December 13, 1941
remove the disqualification by way of raising the grade in said subject, resulting in many casualties. From then on, I regarded
respondent brought the notebook in question to the Examiner November 27, 1941 as the beginning of a new life for me
concerned who thereby raised the grade thus enabling the said having been saved from the possibility of being among the
casualties;(b) On February 27, 1946, I was able to get out required by the latter respondent submitted certain papers necessary
of the army byway of honorable discharge; and (c) on for taking the bar examinations.
February 27, 1947, I got married and since then we begot
children the youngest of whom was born on February 27,
xxx xxx xxx
1957.
4. That it has been the consistent policy of the Supreme Court not to
Returning to the office that same afternoon after buying the
reconsider "failure" cases; after the official release thereof; why should
ticket, I resumed my work which at the time was on the
it now reconsider a "passing" case, especially in a situation where the
checking of the notebooks. While thus checking, I came
respondent and the bar confidant do not know each other and, indeed,
upon the notebooks bearing the office code number "954".
met only once in the ordinary course of official business?
As the number was still fresh in my mind, it aroused my
curiosity prompting me to pry into the contents of the
notebooks. Impressed by the clarity of the writing and It is not inevitable, then, to conclude that the entire situation clearly
language and the apparent soundness of the answers and, manifests a reasonable doubt to which respondent is richly entitled?
thereby, believing in all good faith on the basis of the
aforementioned Confidential Memorandum (Exh. 1-
Lanuevo and Exh. 1-a-Lanuevo) that they merited re- 5. That respondent, before reading a copy of this Honorable Court's
evaluation, I set them aside and later on took them back to resolution dated March 5, 1973, had no knowledge whatsoever of
the respective examiners for possible review recalling to former Bar Confidant Victorio Lanuevo's actuations which are stated in
them the said Confidential Memorandum but leaving particular in the resolution. In fact, the respondent never knew this man
absolutely the matter to their discretion and judgment. intimately nor, had the herein respondent utilized anyone to contact the
Bar Confidant Lanuevo in his behalf.
BA
The records are not clear, however, under what circumstances the notebooks of Ty
dela Cruz and Quitaleg were referred back to the Examiners concerned.
Respondent Lanuevo claimed that these two cases were officially brought to the Political Law 57% 66% = 9 pts. or 27
Bar Examination Committee during its first meeting (Vol. VI, pp. 50-51, rec.) and the weighted points
latter decided to refer them back to the Examiners concerned for re-evaluation with Labor Laws 73% 73% = No reevaluation
respect to the case of Quitaleg and to remove the disqualification in the case of Ty Civil Law 75% 75% = "
dela Cruz(Vol. VI, pp. 33-39, 84-86, rec.). Respondent Lanuevo further claimed that Taxation 69% 69% = "
the date of these two cases were contained in a sheet of paper which was Mercantile Law 68% 68% = "
presented at the said first meeting of the Committee (Vol. VI, pp. 39-43, 49-51, Criminal Law 78% 78% = "
rec.). Likewise a record of the dates of every meeting of the Committee was made Remedial Law 85% 85% = "
by respondent Lanuevo (Vol. VI, p. 28, rec.). The alleged sheet containing the date Legal Ethics 83% 83% = "
of the two examinees and record of the dates of the meeting of the Committee were ————————————————
not presented by respondent Lanuevo as, according to him, he left them
inadvertently in his desk in the Confidential Room when he went on leave after the
release of the Bar results (Vol. VI, pp. 28, 41-45, rec.). It appears, however, that the Average (weighted) 73.15% 74.5%
inventory conducted by officials of the Court in the Confidential Room of respondent
Lanuevo did not yield any such sheet of record (Exh. X, Adm. Case No. 1162, p. 74, (Vol. VI, pp. 26-27; Exhs. 10 and 10-A-Lanuevo, Adm. Case No. 1162, rec.)
rec.; Vol. VIII, pp. 11-13, 20-22, 29-31, rec.).
Alfredo Ty dela Cruz, at the time his notebook in Mercantile Law was referred to
Respondent Examiner Montecillo, Mercantile Law, maintained that there was only Examiner Montecillo to remove the disqualification grade of 47% in said subject,
one notebook in Mercantile Law which was officially brought to him and this is had two (2) other failing grades. These are:
substantiated by his personal file and record (Vol. VI, pp. 34-35, rec.). According to
him, this notebook's examiner code number is 1613 (Vol. V, p.35, rec.) and is
owned by Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang. It appears, however, that the Political Law 70%
original grade of 47% in Mercantile Law of Ty dela Cruz was changed to 50% as Taxation 72%
appearing in the cover of the notebook of said examinee and the change is
authenticated with the initial of Examiner Montecillo. He was present when His grades and averages before and after the disqualifying grade was removed are
respondent Lanuevo presented in evidence the notebook of Ty dela Cruz bearing as follows:
Examiner code number 951 and Office Code Number 110 as Exhibit 9-Lanuevo in
Administrative Case No. 1162, and the figures 47 crossed out, replaced by the
figures 50 bearing the initial of Examiner Montecillo as Exhibit 9-a-Lanuevo (Adm. BA
Case No. 1162, p. 48, rec.; Vol. VI, pp. 23-24, Vol. VIII, p. 4, rec.); but Atty.
Montecillo did not interpose any objection to their admission in evidence. Political Law 70% 70% = No reevaluation
Labor Laws 75% 75% = "
In this connection, respondent Examiner Pardo testified that he remembers a case Civil Law 89% 89% = "
of an examinee presented to the Committee, who obtained passing marks in all Taxation 72% 72% = "
subjects except in one and the Committee agreed to refer back to the Examiner Mercantile Law 47% 50% = 3 pts. or 9
concerned the notebook in the subject in which the examinee failed (Vol. V, pp. 15- weighted points
16, rec.). He cannot recall the subject, but he is certain that it was not Political Law Criminal Law 78% 78% = no reevaluation
(Vol. V, p. 16, rec.).Further, Pardo declared that he is not aware of any case of an Remedial Law 88% 88% = "
examinee who was on the borderline of passing but who got a grade below 50% in Legal Ethics 79% 79% = "
one subject that was taken up by the Committee (Vol. V, pp. 16-17, rec.). —————————————————
Examiner Montecillo testified that it was the notebook with Examiner Code Number Weighted Averages 74.95% 75.4%
1613 (belonging to Galang) which was referred to the Committee and the
Committee agreed to return it to the Examiner concerned. The day following the (Vol. VI, pp. 26-27, rec.).
meeting in which the case of an examinee with Code Number 1613 was taken up,
respondent Lanuevo handed him said notebook and he accordingly re-evaluated it.
This particular notebook with Office Code Number 954 belongs to Galang. The re-evaluation of the answers of Quitaleg in Political Law and the answers of Ty
dela Cruz in Mercantile Law, violated the consensus of the Bar Examination
Committee in February, 1971, which violation was due to the misrepresentation of
Examiner Tomacruz recalled a case of an examinee whose problem was Mercantile respondent Lanuevo.
Law that was taken up by the Committee. He is not certain of any other case
brought to the Committee (Vol. V, pp. 59-61, rec.). Pardo declared that there was
no case of an examinee that was referred to the Committee that involved Political It must be stated that the referral of the notebook of Galang in Mercantile Law to
Law. He re-evaluated the answers of Ernesto Quitaleg in Political Law upon the Examiner Montecillo can hardly be said to be covered by the consensus of the Bar
representation made by respondent Lanuevo to him. Examination Committee because even at the time of said referral, which was after
the unauthorized re-evaluation of his answers of four (4) subjects, Galang had still
failing grades in Taxation and Labor Laws. His re-evaluated grade of 74.5% in
As heretofore stated, it was this consensus at the meeting on February 8, 1972 of Remedial Law was considered 75% under the Confidential Memorandum and was
the members of the Committee that where an examinee failed in only one subject so entered in the record. His grade in Mercantile Law as subsequently re-evaluated
and passed all the others, the Examiner in whose subject the examinee failed by Examiner Montecillo was 71%.
should re-evaluate or recheck the notebook (Vol. V, p. 16, rec.: Exh. 2-Pardo,
allegation No. 9, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 60-63, Exh. A-Montecillo, Allegation No.
2, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 40-41, and Exh. B-Montecillo, Adm. Case No. 1164, p. Respondent Lanuevo is therefore guilty of serious misconduct — of having betrayed
72, rec.). the trust and confidence reposed in him as Bar Confidant, thereby impairing the
integrity of the Bar examinations and undermining public faith in the Supreme Court.
He should be disbarred.
As to whether Ernesto Quitaleg and Alfredo Ty dela Cruz should be disbarred or his obligation to reveal to the Court all his involvement in any criminal case so that
their names stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, it is believed that they should be the Court can consider them in the ascertainment and determination of his moral
required to show cause and the corresponding investigation conducted. character. And undeniably, with the applicant's criminal records before it, the Court
will be in a better position to consider the applicant's moral character; for it could not
be gainsaid that an applicant's involvement in any criminal case, whether pending
III
or terminated by its dismissal or applicant's acquittal or conviction, has a bearing
upon his character or fitness for admission to the Bar. In 1963 and 1964, when
Re: Administrative Case No. 1163, Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, respondent Galang took the Bar for the second and third time, respectively, the
respondent. application form provided by the Court for use of applicants already required the
applicant to declare under oath that "he has not been accused of, indicted for or
convicted by any court or tribunal of any offense involving moral turpitude; and that
A there is no pending case of that nature against him." By 1966, when Galang took
the Bar examinations for the fourth time, the application form prepared by the Court
The name of respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, should for use of applicants required the applicant to reveal all his criminal cases whether
likewise be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. This is a necessary consequence of involving moral turpitude or not. In paragraph 4 of that form, the applicant is
the un-authorized re-evaluation of his answers in five(5) major subjects — Civil required under oath to declare that "he has not been charged with any offense
Law, Political and International Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law, and Mercantile before a Fiscal, Municipal Judge, or other officer; or accused of, indicted for or
Law. convicted by any court or tribunal of any crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there
a pending case against him" (Adm. Case No. 1163, p. 56, rec.). Yet, respondent
Galang continued to intentionally withhold or conceal from the Court his criminal
The judicial function of the Supreme Court in admitting candidates to the legal case of slight physical injuries which was then and until now is pending in the City
profession, which necessarily involves the exercise of discretion, requires: (1) Court of Manila; and thereafter repeatedly omitted to make mention of the same in
previous established rules and principles; (2) concrete facts, whether past or his applications to take the Bar examinations in 1967, 1969 and 1971.
present, affecting determinate individuals; and (3) a decision as to whether these
facts are governed by the rules and principles (In re: Cunanan — Flunkers' Petition
for Admission to the Bar -- 94 Phil. 534, 544-545). The determination of whether a All told, respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, is guilty of
bar candidate has obtained the required passing grade certainly involves discretion fraudulently concealing and withholding from the Court his pending criminal case for
(Legal and Judicial Ethics, Justice Martin, 1969 ed., p. 13). physical injuries in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1969 and 1971; and in 1966,
1967,1969 and 1971, he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he
had no pending criminal case in court. By falsely representing to the Court that he
In the exercise of this function, the Court acts through a Bar Examination had no criminal case pending in court, respondent Galang was allowed
Committee, composed of a member of the Court who acts as Chairman and eight unconditionally to take the Bar examinations seven (7) times and in 1972 was
(8) members of the Bar who act as examiners in the eight (8) bar subjects with one allowed to take his oath.
subject assigned to each. Acting as a sort of liaison officer between the Court and
the Bar Chairman, on one hand, and the individual members of the Committee, on
the other, is the Bar Confidant who is at the same time a deputy clerk of the Court. That the concealment of an attorney in his application to take the Bar examinations
Necessarily, every act of the Committee in connection with the exercise of of the fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a
discretion in the admission of examinees to membership of the Bar must be in ground for revocation of his license to practice law is well — settled (see 165 ALR
accordance with the established rules of the Court and must always be subject to 1151, 7 CJS 741). Thus:
the final approval of the Court. With respect to the Bar Confidant, whose position is
primarily confidential as the designation indicates, his functions in connection with [1] It requires no argument to reach the conclusion that the respondent,
the conduct of the Bar examinations are defined and circumscribed by the Court in withholding from the board of law examiners and from the justice of
and must be strictly adhered to. this court, to whom he applied for admission, information respecting so
serious a matter as an indictment for a felony, was guilty of fraud upon
The re-evaluation by the Examiners concerned of the examination answers of the court (cases cited).
respondent Galang in five (5) subjects, as already clearly established, was initiated
by Respondent Lanuevo without any authority from the Court, a serious breach of [2] It is equally clear that, had the board of law examiners, or the judge
the trust and confidence reposed by the Court in him as Bar Confidant. to whom he applied for admission, been apprised of the true situation,
Consequently, the re-evaluation that enabled respondent Galang to pass the 1971 neither the certificate of the board nor of the judge would have been
Bar examinations and to be admitted to the Bar is a complete nullity. The Bar forthcoming (State ex rel. Board of Law Examiners v. Podell, 207 N —
Confidant does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission W — 709 — 710).
of examinees to the Bar. He is not clothed with authority to determine whether or
not an examinee's answers merit re-evaluation or re-evaluation or whether the
Examiner's appraisal of such answers is correct. And whether or not the examinee The license of respondent Podell was revoke and annulled, and he was required to
benefited was in connivance or a privy thereto is immaterial. What is decisive is surrender to the clerk of court the license issued to him, and his name was stricken
whether the proceedings or incidents that led to the candidate's admission to the from the roll of attorneys (p. 710).
Bar were in accordance with the rules.
Likewise in Re Carpel, it was declared that:
B
[1] The power to admit to the bar on motion is conferred in the
Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964, in connection, among discretion of the Appellate Division.' In the exercise of the discretion,
others, with the character requirement of candidates for admission to the Bar, the court should be informed truthfully and frankly of matters tending to
provides that "every applicant for admission as a member of the Bar must be ... of show the character of the applicant and his standing at the bar of the
good moral state from which he comes. The finding of indictments against him, one
character ... and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of of which was still outstanding at the time of his motion, were facts
good moral character, and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, which should have been submitted to the court, with such explanations
have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines." Prior to 1964, or as were available. Silence respecting them was reprehensible, as
under the old Rules of Court, a bar applicant was required to produce before the tending to deceive the court (165 NYS, 102, 104; emphasis supplied).
Supreme Court satisfactory testimonials of good moral character (Sec. 2, Rule 127).
Under both rules, every applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all his
Carpel's admission to the bar was revoked (p. 105).
involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the
Court to fully ascertain or determine applicant's moral character. Furthermore, as to
what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the supreme Court to determine. Hence, Furthermore, respondent's persistent denial of his involvement in any criminal case
the necessity of laying before or informing the Court of one's personal record — despite his having been apprised by the Investigation of some of the circumstances
whether he was criminally indicted, acquitted, convicted or the case dismissed or is of the criminal case including the very name of the victim in that case(he finally
still pending — becomes more compelling. The forms for application to take the Bar admitted it when he was confronted by the victim himself, who was called to testify
examinations provided by the Supreme Court beginning the year 1965 require the thereon), and his continued failure for about thirteen years to clear his name in that
disclosure not only of criminal cases involving moral turpitude filed or pending criminal case up to the present time, indicate his lack of the requisite attributes of
against the applicant but also of all other criminal cases of which he has been honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is therefore unworthy of becoming a
accused. It is of course true that the application form used by respondent Galang member of the noble profession of law.
when he took the Bar for the first time in 1962 did not expressly require the
disclosure of the applicant's criminal records, if any. But as already intimated,
implicit in his task to show satisfactory evidence or proof of good moral character is
While this aspect of the investigation was not part of the formal resolution of the V, pp. 60-61, rec.; see also allegations 3 and 4, Exh. 1-Tomacruz, Adm. Case No.
Court requiring him to explain why his name should not be stricken from the Roll of 1164, p. 69, rec.; emphasis ours). And respondent Pablo: "... he told me that this
Attorneys, respondent Galang was, as early as August, 1973, apprised of his particular examinee seems to have passed in allot her subject except this subject
omission to reveal to the Court his pending criminal case. Yet he did not offer any and that if I can re-evaluate this examination notebook and increase the mark to at
explanation for such omission. least 75, this particular examinee will pass the bar examinations so I believe I asked
him 'Is this being done?' and he said 'Yes, that is the practice used to be done
before to help out examinees who are failing in just one subject' so I readily
Under the circumstances in which respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E.
acceded to his request and said 'Just leave it with me and I will try to re-evaluate'
Galang, was allowed to take the Bar examinations and the highly irregular manner
and he left it with me and what i did was to go over the book and tried to be as
in which he passed the Bar, WE have no other alternative but to order the surrender
lenient as I could. While I did not mark correct the answers which were wrong, what
of his attorney's certificate and the striking out of his name from the Roll of
I did was to be more lenient and if the answers was correct although it was not
Attorneys. For as WE said in Re Felipe del Rosario:
complete I raise the grade so I had a total of 78 instead of 68 and what I did was to
correct the grading sheet accordingly and initial the changes" (Vol. V, pp. 44-45,
The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be granted every one rec.; emphasis supplied).
who demands it, but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the
exercise of sound discretion. The standards of the legal profession are
It could not be seriously denied, however, that the favorable re-evaluations made by
not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the
respondents Pamatian, Montecillo, Manalo and Pardo notwithstanding their
penalties of the criminal law. It would be a disgrace to the Judiciary to
declarations that the increases in grades they gave were deserved by the examinee
receive one whose integrity is questionable as an officer of the court, to
concerned, were to a certain extent influenced by the misrepresentation and
clothe him with all the prestige of its confidence, and then to permit him
deception committed by respondent Lanuevo. Thus in their own words:
to hold himself as a duly authorized member of the bar (citing American
cases) [52 Phil. 399-401].
Montecillo —
What WE now do with respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, in
this present case is not without any precedent in this jurisdiction. WE had on Q And by reason of that information you made the re-evaluation of the
several occasions in the past nullified the admission of successful bar candidates to paper?
the membership of the Bar on the grounds, among others, of (a)misrepresentations
of, or false pretenses relative to, the requirement on applicant's educational
A Yeas, your Honor.
attainment [Tapel vs. Publico, resolution of the Supreme Court striking off the name
of Juan T. Publico from the Roll of Attorneys on the basis of the findings of the
Court Investigators contained in their report and recommendation, Feb. 23, 1962; In Q Would you have re-evaluated the paper of your own accord in the
re: Telesforo A. Diao, 7 SCRA 475-478; (b) lack of good moral character [In re: absence of such information?
Peralta, 101 Phil. 313-314]; and (c) fraudulent passing of the Bar examinations
[People vs. Romualdez -- re: Luis Mabunay, 57 Phil. 151; In re: Del Rosario, 52
Phil. 399 and People vs. Castro and Doe, 54 Phil. 42]. In the cases of Romualdez A No, your Honor, because I have submitted my report at that time"
(Mabunay) and Castro, the Court found that the grades of Mabunay and Castro (Vol. V, p. 33, rec.; see also allegations in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 & 5,
were falsified and they were convicted of the crime of falsification of public Affidavit of April 17, 1972, Exh. B-Montecillo; allegation No. 2, Answer
documents. dated march 19, 1973, Exh. A-Montecillo, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 40-
41, and 72, rec.).
IV
Pamatian —
RE: Administrative Case No. 1164, Assistant Solicitor General Bernardo Pardo
(now CFI Judge), Judge Ramon Pamatian(Later Associate Justice of the Court of 3. That sometime in the later part of January of this year, he brought
Appeals, now deceased)Atty. Manuel G. Montecillo, Atty. Fidel Manalo, Atty. back to me an examination booklet in Civil Law for re-evaluation
Manuel Tomacruz and Atty. Guillermo Pablo, Jr., respondents. because according to him the owner of the paper is on the borderline
and if I could reconsider his grade to 75% the candidate concerned will
get passing mark;
All respondents Bar examiners candidly admitted having made the re-evaluation
and/or re-correction of the papers in question upon the misrepresentation of
respondent BarConfidant Lanuevo. All, however, professed good faith; and that 4. That taking his word for it and under the belief that it was really the
they re-evaluated or increased the grades of the notebooks without knowing the practice and policy of the Supreme Court to do so and in the further
identity of the examinee who owned the said notebooks; and that they did the same belief that I was just manifesting cooperation in doing so, I re-evaluated
without any consideration or expectation of any. These the records clearly the paper and reconsidered the grade to 75%; ..." (Exh. 2-Pamatian,
demonstrate and WE are of the opinion and WE so declare that indeed the Adm. Case No. 1164, p. 55, rec.); and
respondents-examiners made the re-evaluation or re-correcion in good faith and
without any consideration whatsoever. 5. That the above re-evaluation was made in good faith and under the
belief that I am authorized to do so in view of them is representation of
Considering however the vital public interest involved in the matter of admission of said Atty. Victorio Lanuevo, ..." (Exh. 1-Pamatian, Adm. Case No.
members to the Bar, the respondents bar examiners, under the circumstances, 1164, pp. 33-34, rec.).
should have exercised greater care and caution and should have been more
inquisitive before acceding to the request of respondent Bar Confidant Lanuevo. Manalo —
They could have asked the Chairman of the Bar Examination Committee, who
would have referred the matter to the Supreme Court. At least the respondents-
examiners should have required respondent Lanuevo to produce or show them the (c) In revising the grade of the particular examinee concerned, herein
complete grades and/or the average of the examinee represented by respondent respondent carefully evaluated each and every answer written in the
Lanuevo to have failed only in their respective and particular subject and/or was on notebook. Testing the answer by the criteria laid down by the Court,
the borderline of passing to fully satisfy themselves that the examinee concerned and giving the said examinee the benefit of the doubt in view of Mr.
was really so circumstances. This they could have easily done and the stain on the Lanuevo's representation that it was only in that particular subject that
Bar examinations could have been avoided. said examinee failed, herein respondent became convinced that the
said examinee deserved a higher grade than that previously given him,
but he did not deserve, in herein respondent's honest appraisal, to be
Respondent Bar examiners Montecillo, Pamatian, and Manalo claimed and so given the passing grade of
declared under oath that the answers of respondent Galang really deserved or 75%. ..."(allegation 5-c, p. 38, Exh. 1-Manalo, rec.; emphasis supplied).
merited the increased grades; and so with respondent Pardo in connection with the
re-evaluation of Ernesto Quitaleg's answers in Political Law. With respect to
respondents Tomacruz and Pablo, it would appear that they increased the grades Pardo —
of Galang in their respective subject solely because of the misrepresentations of
Respondent Lanuevo. Hence, in the words of respondent Tomacruz: "You brought ... I considered it entirely humanly possible to have erred, because I
to me one paper and you said that this particular examinee had almost passed, corrected that particular notebook on December 31,1971, considering
however, in my subject he received 60 something, I cannot remember the exact especially the representation of the Bar Confidant that the said
average and if he would get a few points higher, he would get a passing average. I examinee had obtained higher grades in other subjects, the highest of
agreed to do that because I did not wish to be the one causing his failure. ..." (Vol. which was 84% in Remedial Law, if I recall
correctly. ... (allegation 7, Exh. 2-Pardo, Adm. Case No. 1164, p. 62, date of instrument — April 5, 1972, date of inscription — April 20,
rec.; emphasis supplied). 1972). [D-2 to D-4, Vol. III, rec.]. Respondent Lanuevo paid as down
payment the amount of only P17,000.00, which according to him is
equivalent to 20%, more or less, of the purchase price of P84,114.00.
With the misrepresentations and the circumstances utilized by respondent Lanuevo
Respondent Lanuevo claimed that P5,000.00 of the P17,000.00 was
to induce the herein examiners to make the re-evaluation adverted to, no one
his savings while the remaining the P12,000.00 came from his sister in
among them can truly claim that the re-evaluation effected by them was impartial or
Okinawa in the form of a loan and received by him through a niece
free from any improper influence, their conceded integrity, honesty and competence
before Christmas of 1971 in dollars ($2000) [Vol. VII, pp. 41-48; Vol.
notwithstanding.
VIII, pp. 2-3, rec.]
During the early stage of this investigation but after the Court had informed Respondent Ramon E. Galang further declared that he never went to the Office of
respondent Lanuevo of the serious irregularities in the 1971 Bar examinations the Philippine Veterans to follow up his educational benefits and claimed that he
alleged in Oscar Landicho's Confidential Letter and in fact, after Respondent does not even know the location of the said office. He does not also know whether
Lanuevo had filed on April 12, 1972 his sworn statement on the matter, as ordered beneficiaries of the G.I. Bill of Rights educational benefits are required to go to the
by the Court, respondent Lanuevo surprisingly filed his letter or resignation on Philippine Veterans Board every semester to submit their ratings (Vol. V, p. 86,
October 13, 1972 with the end in view of retiring from the Court. His resignation rec.). But respondent Galang admits that he had gone to the GSIS and City Court of
before he was required to show cause on March 5, 1973 but after he was informed Manila, although he insists that he never bothered to take a look at the neighboring
of the said irregularities, is indicative of a consciousness of guilt. buildings (Vol. V, pp. 93-94, rec.). The huge and imposing Philippine Veterans
Building is beside the GSIS building and is obliquely across the City Court building.
It must be noted that immediately after the official release of the results of the 1971
Bar examinations, respondent Lanuevo went on vacation and sick leave from March 2. Respondent Lanuevo stated that as an investigator in the Philippine Veterans
16, 1972 to January 15, 1973, obtaining the case value thereof in lump sum in the Board, he investigated claims for the several benefits given to veterans like
amount of P11,000.00. He initially claimed at the investigation that h e used a part educational benefits and disability benefits; that he does not remember, however,
thereof as a down payment for his BF Homes house and lot (Vol. VII, pp. 40-48, whether in the course of his duties as veterans investigator, he came across the
rec.), which he bought on April 5, 1972. application of Ramon E. Galang for educational benefits; and that he does not know
the father of Mr. Ramon E. Galang and has never met him (Vol. VII, pp. 28, 49,
rec.).
Criminal proceedings may be instituted against respondent Lanuevo under Section
3 (a & e) in relation to Section 9 of Republic Act No. 1379 (Anti-Graft Law) for:
3. Respondent Lanuevo, as a member of the USAFEE, belonged to the 91st
Infantry operating at Zambales and then Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, shortly before
(a) Persuading inducing or influencing another public officer to perform
the war (Vol. VII, pp. 48-49, rec.). Later he joined the guerrilla movement in Samar.
an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated
by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official
duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be presented, induced, or He used to be a member of the Philippine Veterans Legion especially while working
influenced to commit such violation or offense. with the Philippine Veterans Board(Vol. VII, p. 49, rec.).
xxx xxx xxx He does not know the Banal Regiment of the guerrillas, to which Galang's father
belonged. During the Japanese occupation, his guerrilla outfit was operating in
Samar only and he had no communications with other guerrilla organization in other
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
parts of the country.
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evidence bad faith or gross He attended meetings of the Philippine Veterans Legion in his chapter in Samar
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and only and does not remember having attended its meeting here in Manila, even while
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the he was employed with the Philippine Veterans Board. He is not a member of the
grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor (Vol. VII, p.51, rec.).
Section 8 of said Republic Act No. 3019 authorizes the dismissal or removal of a On November 27, 1941, while respondent Lanuevo was with the Philippine Army
public officer once it is determined that his property or money "is manifestly out of stationed at Camp Manacnac, Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, he was stricken with
proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful pneumonia and was hospitalized at the Nueva Ecija Provincial Hospital as a result
income and the income from legitimately acquired property ... " (Sec. 2, Rep. Act and was still confined there when their camp was bombed and strafed by Japanese
1379; Sec. 8, Rep. Act 3019). planes on December 13, 1941 (Sworn statement of respondent Lanuevo dated
August 27, 1973, Adm. Case No. 1162, p. 46, rec.).
It should be stressed, however, that respondent Lanuevo's aforementioned
Statements of Assets and Liabilities were not presented or taken up during the German Galang, father of respondent Galang, was a member of the Banal Guerilla
investigation; but they were examined as they are part of the records of this Court. Forces, otherwise known as the Banal Regiment. He was commissioned and
inducted as a member thereof on January 16, 1942 and was given the rank of first
lieutenant. His unit "was attached and served into the XI-Corps, US Army; XIII-C US
B. There are likewise circumstances indicating possible contacts between
Army, 43rd Div., US Army, stationed headquarters at Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija and
respondent Ramon E. Galang and/or his father and respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo
with the 38th Division, US army stationed at Corregidor in the mopping-up
before the latter become the bar Confidant.
operations against the enemies, from 9 May 1945 date of recognition to 31
December 1945, date of demobilization"(Affidavit of Jose Banal dated December
1. Respondent Ramon E. Galang was a beneficiary of the G.I Bill of Rights 22, 1947, Vol. IV, A-3, rec.).
educational program of the Philippine Veterans Board from his high school days
— 1951 to 1955 — up to his pre-law studies at the MLQ Educational Institution
It should be stressed that once the bar examiner has submitted the corrected
(now MLQ University) — 1955 to 1958. From 1948 to 1958, respondent Victorio D.
notebooks to the Bar Confidant, the same cannot be withdrawn for any purpose
Lanuevo was connected with the Philippine Veterans Board which is the
whatsoever without prior authority from the Court. Consequently, this Court
governmental agency entrusted with the affairs of our veterans including the
expresses herein its strong disapproval of the actuations of the bar examiners in
implementation of the Veterans Bill of Rights. From 1955 to 1958, Respondent
Administrative Case No. 1164 as above delineated.
Lanuevo successively held the position of Junior Investigator, Veterans Claims
Investigator, Supervising Veterans Investigator and Veterans Claims Investigator
(Service Record, p. 9, Adm. Case No. 1162). During that period of time, therefore, WHEREFORE, IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 1162, RESPONDENT VICTORIO
respondent Lanuevo had direct contacts with applicants and beneficiaries of the D. LANUEVO IS HEREBY DISBARRED AND HIS NAME ORDERED STRICKEN
Veterans Bill of Rights. Galang's educational benefits was approved on March 16, FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS; AND IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 1163,
1954, retroactive as of the date of waiver — July 31, 1951, which is also the date of RESPONDENT RAMON E. GALANG, alias Roman E. GALANG, IS HEREBY
filing (A, Vol. IV, rec.). LIKEWISE DISBARRED AND HIS NAME ALSO ORDERED STRICKEN FROM
THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.
It is alleged by respondent Ramon E. Galang that it was his father who all the time
attended to the availment of the said educational benefits and even when he was
already in Manila taking up his pre-law at MLQ Educational Institution from 1955 to
1958. In 1955, respondent Galang was already 19 years old, and from 1957 to
1958, he was employed as a technical assistant in the office of Senator Roy (Vol. V,
pp. 79-80, 86-87, rec.).[Subsequently, during the investigation, he claimed that he
was the private secretary of Senator Puyat in 1957 (Vol. VI, pp. 12-13, rec.)]. It
appears, however, that a copy of the notice-letter dated June 28, 1955 of the
Philippine Veterans Board to the MLQ Educational Institution on the approval of the
transfer of respondent Galang from Sta. Rita Institute to the MLQ Educational
Institution effective the first semester of the school year 1955-56 was directly
A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963 immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF the regular manner is equally essential..
TELESFORO A. DIAO,
vs. The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner. name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer's
diploma within thirty days. So ordered.
BENGZON, C.J.:
VILLASANTA April 30, 1957
After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953,
Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar. In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality,
vs.
About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely HILARION M. PERALTA, respondent.
represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the
requisite academic qualifications. The matter was in due course referred to Ramon J. Diaz for respondent.
the Solicitor General who caused the charge to be investigated; and later
he submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased from the PARAS, C. J.:
roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petition for
examination in this Court, he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up
law subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the G.R. No. L-9513 has a direct bearing on the present complaint. Said case
Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars: originated from a criminal action filed in the Court of First Instance of
Cagayan by the complainant against the respondent for a violation of
Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code of which the respondent was found
(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and guilty. The verdict, when appealed to the Court of Appeals, was affirmed.
The appeal by certiorari taken to this Court by the respondent was
(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never dismissed for lack of merit.
obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom — which contradicts the
credentials he had submitted in support of his application for The complaint seeks to disqualify the respondent, a 1954 successful bar
examination, and of his allegation therein of successful candidate, from being admitted to the bar. The basic facts are the same as
completion of the "required pre-legal education". those found by the Court of Appeals, to wit: On April 16, 1939, the
respondent was married to Rizalina E. Valdez in Rizal, Nueva Ecija. On or
Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao, practically before March 8, 1951, he courted the complainant who fell in love with
admits the first charge: but he claims that although he had left high school him. To have carnal knowledge of her, the respondent procured the
in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the preparation of a fake marriage contract which was then a blank document.
General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is He made her sign it on March 8, 1951. A week after, the document was
equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the brought back by the respondent to the complainant, signed by the Justice
educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of of the Peace and the Civil Registrar of San Manuel, Tarlac, and by two
3rd and 4th year high school. witnesses. Since then the complainant and the respondent lived together
as husband and wife. Sometime later, the complainant insisted on a
We have serious doubts, about the validity of this claim, what with religious ratification of their marriage and on July 7, 1951, the
respondent's failure to exhibit any certification to that effect (the corresponding ceremony was performed in Aparri by the parish priest of
equivalence) by the proper school officials. However, it is unnecessary to said municipality. The priest no longer required the production of a
dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly meritorious. Diao never marriage license because of the civil marriage contract shown to him. After
obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for the ceremony in Aparri, the couple returned to Manila as husband and wife
examination represented him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such and lived with some friends. The complainant then discovered that the
college. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano respondent was previously married to someone else; whereupon, she filed
University in April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due to the criminal action for a violation of Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code
confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records. in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan and the present complaint for
immorality in this court..
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of
facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice Upon consideration of the records of G.R. No. L-9513 and the complaint,
to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is immoral. He made
this stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity. His conviction in the criminal case involves moral turpitude. The
act of respondent in contracting the second marriage (even his act in
This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or making love to another woman while his first wife is still alive and their
"confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had his application marriage still valid and existing) is contrary to honesty, justice, decency,
disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also and morality.
have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began
his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before
obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been Thus lacking the good moral character required by the Rules of Court, the
permitted to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the respondent is hereby declared disqualified from being admitted to the bar.
applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to So ordered.
the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the
required pre-legal education(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of
Private Education," (emphasis on "previous").
Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar
examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed to take
it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such
admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is
hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is
[BAR MATTER No. 810. January 27, 1998] IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE 5 He is not, right now, in a position to say whether petitioner, since then
THE LAWYERS OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS, JR. has become morally fit for admission to the noble profession of the law. He
politely submits this matter to the sound and judicious discretion of the
RESOLUTION Hon. Court. [3]
FRANCISCO, J.: At the outset, the Court shares the sentiment of Atty. Gilbert D.
Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr., recently passed the 1996 Bar Camaligan and commiserates with the untimely death of his son.
Examinations.[1] His oath-taking was held in abeyance in view of the Courts Nonetheless, Atty. Gilbert D. Camaligan admits that [h]e is not, right now, in
resolution dated August 27, 1996 which permitted him to take the Bar a position to say whether petitioner since then has become morally fit x x x
Examinations subject to the condition that should (he) pass the same, (he) and submits petitioners plea to be admitted to the noble profession of law
shall not be allowed to take the lawyers oath pending approval of the Court to the sound and judicious discretion of the Court.
x x x due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In The petition before the Court requires the balancing of the reasons
Homicide. The conviction stemmed from petitioners participation in the for disallowing petitioners admission to the noble profession of law. His
initiation rites of the LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the SAN deliberate participation in the senseless beatings over a helpless neophyte
BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW, sometime in September 1991, where Raul I. which resulted to the latters untimely demise indicates absence of that moral
Camaligan, a neophyte, died as a result of the personal violence inflicted fitness required for admission to the bar. And as the practice of law is a
upon him. Thereafter, petitioner applied for and was granted probation. On privilege extended only to the few who possess the high standards of
May 16, 1995, he was discharged from probation and his case considered intellectual and moral qualifications the Court is duty bound to prevent the
closed and terminated. entry of undeserving aspirants, as well as to exclude those who have been
In this petition , received by the Court on May 5, 1997, petitioner admitted but have become a disgrace to the profession. The Court,
prays that he be allowed to take his lawyers oath at the Courts most nonetheless, is willing to give petitioner a chance in the same manner that
convenient time[2] attaching thereto the Order dated May 16, 1995 of the it recently allowed Al Caparros Argosino, petitioners co-accused below, to
Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 of Antique discharging him from his take the lawyers oath.[4]
probation, and certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and law Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr.s discharge from probation without
abiding character issued by: (a) the Mayor of the Municipality of Hamtic, any infraction of the attendant conditions therefor and the various
Antique; (b) the Officer-in-Charge of Hamtic Police Station; (c) the certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character
Sangguniang Kabataan of Pob. III, Hamtic, through its chairman and prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in
officers; (d) a member of the IBP Iloilo Chapter; (e) the Parish Priest and moral character and atone for the unfortunate death of Raul I. Camaligan.
Vicar General of St. Joseph Cathedral, San Jose, Antique, and (f) the The Court is prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial
President of the Parish Pastoral Council, Parish of Sta. Monica, Hamtic, notice of the general tendency of the youth to be rash, temerarious and
Antique. On July 15, 1997, the Court, before acting on petitioners uncalculating.[5] Let it be stressed to herein petitioner that the lawyers oath
application, resolved to require Atty. Gilbert D. Camaligan, father of the is not a mere formality recited for a few minutes in the glare of flashing
deceased hazing victim Raul I. Camaligan, to comment thereon. In cameras and before the presence of select witnesses. Petitioner is exhorted
compliance with the Courts directive, Atty. Gilbert D. Camaligan filed his to conduct himself beyond reproach at all times and to live strictly according
comment which states as follows: to his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. And, to paraphrase
Mr. Justice Padillas comment in the sister case of Re: Petition of Al Argosino
1 He fully appreciates the benign concern given by this Hon. Court in To Take The Lawyers Oath, Bar Matter No. 712, March 19, 1997, [t]he Court
allowing him to comment to the pending petition of Arthur M. Cuevas to sincerely hopes that Mr. Cuevas, Jr., will continue with the assistance he
take the lawyers oath, and hereby expresses his genuine gratitude to such has been giving to his community. As a lawyer he will now be in a better
gesture. position to render legal and other services to the more unfortunate members
of society.[6]
2 He conforms completely to the observation of the Hon. Court in its ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolved to allow petitioner Arthur
resolution dated March 19, 1997 in Bar Matter No.712 that the infliction of M. Cuevas, Jr., to take the lawyers oath and to sign the Roll of Attorneys on
severe physical injuries which approximately led to the death of the a date to be set by the Court, subject to the payment of appropriate fees.
unfortunate Raul Camaligan was deliberate (rather than merely accidental Let this resolution be attached to petitioners personal records in the Office
or inadvertent) thus, indicating serious character flaws on the part of those of the Bar Confidant.
who inflicted such injuries. This is consistent with his stand at the outset of
the proceedings of the criminal case against the petitioner and his co- SO ORDERED.
defendants that they are liable not only for the crime of homicide but
murder, since they took advantage of the neophytes helpless and
defenseless condition when they were beaten and kicked to death like a
useless stray dog, suggesting the presence of abuse of confidence, taking
advantage of superior strength and treachery (People vs. Gagoco, 58 Phil.
524).
Without passing judgment on the correctness or incorrectness WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer GUILTY of
of the disposition of the Honorable Commission on Bar gross immorality and, as recommended by the Integrated Bar of the
Discipline, herein respondent most humbly and respectfully Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, SUSPEND him from the
begs the compassion of the Honorable Court and states that practice of law for six (6) months effective upon notice hereof,
the gravity of the penalty imposed and meted out, depriving with WARNING that the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
herein respondent to earn a modest living for a period of six (6) more severely.
months, will further cause extreme hardship to his family of ten
(10) children.13 To enable us to determine the effectivity of the penalty imposed, the
respondent is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision
We referred the motion to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation. to this Court.
Upon finding that Atty. Ferrer lacked the degree of morality required of a
member of the bar for his illicit affair with Ms. Samaniego, with whom he Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant,
sired a child while he was lawfully married and with 10 children, the Office the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the courts all over the country.
of the Bar Confidant recommended that we affirm Resolution No. XVII- Let a copy of this Decision likewise be attached to the personal records of
2005-138 and deny the prayer for reduced penalty.14 the respondent.
We agree with the IBP on Atty. Ferrer's failure to give support to his SO ORDERED.
daughter with Ms. Samaniego. We also agree with the Office of the Bar
Confidant that Atty. Ferrer's affair with Ms. Samaniego showed his lack of
good moral character as a member of the bar. We dismiss, however, Ms.
Samaniego's charge of abandonment since Atty. Ferrer did not abandon
them. He returned to his family.
REBECCA B. ARNOBIT, A.C. No. 1481 Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
Complainant, ATTY. PONCIANO P. ARNOBIT, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in
Respondent. BRION, JJ. October 17, 2008 public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
DECISION
PER CURIAM: As this Court often reminds members of the bar, the requirement of good moral character
is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession
of legal learning. Good moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to
Rebecca B. Arnobit, in her affidavit-complaint[1] dated May 11, 1975, prays that the Court the legal profession, but it must also remain intact in order to maintain ones good standing
exercise its disciplinary power over her husband, respondent Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the
the grounds of Immorality and Abandonment. absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant
thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so
In her complaint, Rebecca alleged that she and respondent were married on August 20, because vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust
1942. Twelve children were born out of this union.Rebecca further alleged seeing and confidence; he deals with his clients property, reputation, his life, his all. [5]
respondent through law school, continuously supporting him until he passed the bar
examinations and became a member of the Philippine bar. Several years after, however, Immoral conduct has been described as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
or in 1968, respondent left the conjugal home and started cohabiting with one Benita shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the
Buenafe Navarro who later bore him four more children. Respondents infidelity, according community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral,
to Rebecca, impelled her to file a complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or
case for adultery against Benita and respondent later followed. so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. [6]
In his Answer[2] dated July 31, 1975, respondent admitted that Rebecca is his wedded wife
and the mother of their 12 children. He denied, however, having cohabited with Benita. And As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must
he pointed to his complaining wife as the cause of their separation, stating the observation also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest
that she was always traveling all over the country, ostensibly for business purposes, without moral standards of the community.[7] A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not
his knowledge and consent, x x x thereby neglecting her obligations toward her family. [3] only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also
so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is
Issues having been joined, hearings were conducted before the Office of the Solicitor flouting those moral standards.
General and, subsequently, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission
on Bar Discipline (Commission). At the hearings, Rebecca presented both oral and A review of the records readily reveals that despite the protracted delay in the hearings
documentary evidence to support her allegations of abandonment and immorality. mainly caused by respondents failure to appear, complainant relentlessly pursued this
administrative case against her husband. She was, to be sure, able to establish by clear,
Aside from her testimony, Rebecca presented two other witnesses, viz: Venancia M. convincing, and preponderant evidence his commission of marital infidelity and
Barrientos, her sister, who identified a letter dated August 28, 1970 written by respondent abandonment of his family.
to her, addressing her as Vending (Exhibit B-1), therein asking for forgiveness for the
unhappiness he caused his family; and Melecio Navarro, husband of Benita, who testified Although respondent in his answer denied abandoning complainant and their children and
about how respondent took his wife Benita as a mistress, knowing fully well of their lawful offered an explanation as to the cause of his and his wifes separation, he opted not to take
marriage. the witness stand and be cross- examined on his sworn answer. Neither did he bother to
call and present his alleged paramour, Benita, who could have had disproved an existing
adulterous relationship between them, or, at least, confirm his protestation about the
Rebecca also presented the affidavits of National Bureau of Investigation agents Eladio C. paternity of her four children. Significantly, Benitas husband, no less, risked personal
Velasco and Jose C. Vicente (Exhibits H-1 and H-2) to show the existence of a prima ridicule by testifying on the illicit liaison between his wife and respondent.
facie case for adultery. The pictures and baptismal and birth certificates of Mary Ann, Ma.
Luisa, Caridad, and Ponciano Jr., all surnamed Arnobit, were submitted to prove the fact The fact that respondents philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his
that respondent sired four illegitimate children out of his illicit cohabitation with Benita.[4] profession would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred
for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would
According to the investigating commissioner, respondent, despite due notice, repeatedly show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges with which his license and
absented himself when it was his turn to present evidence, adding that scheduled hearings the law invest him.[8] To borrow from Orbe v. Adaza, [t]he grounds expressed in Section
had to be postponed just to afford respondent ample opportunity to present his side of the 27, Rule 138,[9] of the Rules of Court are not limitative and are broad enough to cover any
controversy. The investigating commissioner also stated that, in most cases, respondent misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.[10] To reiterate,
would seek postponement, pleading illness, on the very date of the hearing. And according possession of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law,
to the Commission, its several directives for respondent to send by mail his affidavits and but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.
documentary exhibits in lieu of personal appearance so that the commission could finish
with the investigation proved futile. While the onus rests on the complainant proffering the charges to prove the same,
In its Report dated June 21, 1995, the Commission found respondent liable respondent owes himself and the Court the duty to show that he is morally fit to remain a
for abandonment and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three (3) member of the bar. Mere denial of wrongdoing would not suffice in the face of clear
months. The recommendation portion of the report reads, as follows: evidence demonstrating unfitness.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended to the Board of When ones moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his
Governors that the respondent be suspended from the practice cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves the individual concerned to meet the charges
of law for a period of three (3) months as a lesson for him to squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court,
change his ways. An indefinite suspension is not recommended that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys. [11] Respondent has not
because it has been gathered from complainant herself that discharged the burden in this regard. Although duly notified, he never attended the hearings
respondent supports himself through the practice of law which to rebut the serious charges brought against him, irresistibly suggesting that the charges
would be cruel for us to curtail at this time when he is already are true.
advanced in age the penalty of three (3) months suspension and
recording of such penalty in his record being sufficient to berate Undoubtedly, respondents act of leaving his wife and 12 children to cohabit and have
him as to his lack of responsibility as evidenced by his children with another woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to add insult to
abandonment of the children. [Report and Recommendation injury, there seems to be little attempt on the part of respondent to be discreet about his
rendered by Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas] liaison with the other woman.
On January 27, 1996, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XII-96-43 As we have already ruled, disbarment is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his
adopting and approving the Commission report aforementioned. lawful wife to maintain an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a
child.[12] In the instant case, respondents grossly immoral conduct compels the Court to
While the Court concurs with the inculpatory findings of the IBP on the charge of wield its power to disbar. The penalty is most appropriate under the premises.
abandonment, it cannot bring itself to agree that respondent is liable only for that offense.
As it were, the charge for gross immoral conduct has sufficiently been proven. Following WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED. Let a copy of this
established jurisprudence, respondent deserves to be disbarred. Decision be entered into the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant and
his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Likewise, copies of this Decision shall be
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: furnished the IBP and circulated by the Court Administrator to all appellate and trial courts.
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, This Decision takes effect immediately.
immoral or deceitful conduct:
SO ORDERED.
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.
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL (SLU-LHS) FACULTY and Quite remarkably, respondent, in his comment, denied the charges of child abuse, illegal
STAFF, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. deduction of salary and others which are still pending before the St. Louis University (SLU),
A.C. No. 6010 August 28, 2006 National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Prosecutors Office. He did not
discuss anything about the allegations of immorality in contracting a second marriage and
x--------------------------------------------------x malpractice in notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.
DECISION
After the filing of comment, We referred[16] the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: (IBP), for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBP conducted the mandatory preliminary conference.
This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint
Louis University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, The complainants, thereafter, submitted their position paper which is just a reiteration of
principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the following grounds: their allegations in their complaint.
1) Gross Misconduct: Respondent, on his part, expressly admitted his second marriage despite the existence of
From the records of the case, it appears that there is a pending criminal case for child his first marriage, and the subsequent nullification of the former. He also admitted having
abuse allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed before the notarized certain documents during the period when his notarial commission had already
Prosecutors Office of Baguio City; a pending administrative case filed by the Teachers, expired. However, he offered some extenuating defenses such as good faith, lack of malice
Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating Board created by SLU for his alleged and noble intentions in doing the complained acts.
unprofessional and unethical acts of misappropriating money supposedly for the teachers;
and the pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera After the submission of their position papers, the case was deemed submitted for
Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of salary by respondent. resolution.
On 30 March 2005, Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco submitted his report and
2) Grossly Immoral Conduct: recommended that:
In contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage; and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
3) Malpractice: recommended that respondent be administratively penalized for
In notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission. the following acts:
According to complainant, respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera on 31 May
1982 at Tuba, Benguet, before the then Honorable Judge Tomas W. Macaranas. He a. For contracting a second marriage
thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with one Mary Jane Pascua, before the without taking the appropriate legal
Honorable Judge Guillermo Purganan. On 4 October 1994, said second marriage was steps to have the first marriage
subsequently annulled for being bigamous. annulled first, he be suspended from
the practice of law for one (1) year,
On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deliberately subscribed and
and notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 to 1997, despite
expiration of respondents notarial commission on 31 December 1987. A b. For notarizing certain legal
Certification[1] dated 25 May 1999 was issued by the Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court documents despite full knowledge of
(RTC), Baguio City, to the effect that respondent had not applied for commission as Notary the expiration of
Public for and in the City of Baguio for the period 1988 to 1997. Respondent performed his notarial commission, he be
acts of notarization, as evidenced by the following documents: suspended from the practice of law
for another one (1) year or for a total
1. Affidavit of Ownership[2] dated 8 March 1991, executed by of two (2) years.[17]
Fernando T. Acosta, subscribed and sworn to before
Rolando Dela Cruz;
2. Affidavit[3] dated 26 September 1992, executed by Maria On 17 December 2005, the IBP Board of Governors, approved and adopted the
Cortez Atos, subscribed and sworn to before recommendation of Commissioner Pacheco, thus:
Rolando Dela Cruz;
3. Affidavit[4] dated 14 January 1992, executed RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
by Fanolex James A. Menos, subscribed and sworn to before ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation
Rolando Dela Cruz; of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case,
4. Affidavit[5] dated 23 December 1993, executed herein made part of this Resolution as Annex A and, finding the
by Ponciano V. Abalos, subscribed and sworn to before recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and
Rolando Dela Cruz; the applicable laws and rules, and considering that Respondent
5. Absolute Date of Sale[6] dated 23 June 1993, executed contracted a second marriage without taking appropriate legal
by Danilo Gonzales in favor of Senecio C. Marzan, notarized by steps to have the first marriage annulled, Atty. Rolando
Rolando DelaCruz; C. dela Cruz is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
6. Joint Affidavit By Two Disinherited Parties[7] dated 5 March one (1) year and for notarizing legal documents despite full
1994, executed by Evelyn knowledge of the expiration of his notarial commission Atty.
C. Canullas and Pastora C. Tacadena, subscribed and sworn Rolando C. dela Cruz is SUSPENDED from the practice of
to before Rolando Dela Cruz; law for another one (1) year, for a total of two (2) years
7. Sworn Statement[8] dated 31 May 1994, executed Suspension from the practice of law.[18]
by Felimon B. Rimorin, subscribed and sworn to before
Rolando Dela Cruz;
8. Deed of Sale[9] dated 17 August 1994, executed by This Court finds the recommendation of the IBP to fault respondent well taken, except as
Woodrow Apurado in favor of Jacinto Batara, notarized by to the penalty contained therein.
Rolando Dela Cruz;
9. Joint Affidavit by Two Disinterested Parties[10] dated 1 June At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but
1994, executed a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the qualifications
by Ponciano V. Abalos and Arsenio C. Sibayan, subscribed required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege
and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz; burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during
10. Absolute Deed of Sale[11] dated 23 March 1995, executed by good behavior, and he can be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by
Eleanor D.Meridor in favor of Leonardo N. Benter, notarized by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading
Rolando Dela Cruz; any constitutional privilege or right, an attorneys right to practice law may be resolved by a
11. Deed of Absolute Sale[12] dated 20 December 1996, proceeding to suspend, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to
executed by Mandapat in favor of Mario R. Mabalot, notarized exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the
by Rolando Dela Cruz; purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a
12. Joint Affidavit By Two Disinterested Parties[13] dated 17 April person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
1996, executed by Villiam C. Ambong and Romeo L. Quiming, responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney and, thus, to protect the public and those
subscribed and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz; charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney. Elaborating on
this, we said on Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting,[19] that the Bar should maintain a high standard
13. Conditional Deed of Sale[14] dated 27 February 1997, of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal
executed by Aurelia Demot Cados in favor of Jose Ma. profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
A. Pangilinan, notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz; clients. A member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might
14. Memorandum of Agreement[15] dated 19 July 1996, lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty
executed by JARCO represented by Mr. Johnny Teope and and integrity of the legal profession. Towards this end, an attorney may be disbarred or
AZTEC Construction represented by Mr. George Cham, suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which
notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz. include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of
these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his
professional or private capacity.
complainant, with some assistance from respondents parents. After respondent had
Equally worthy of remark is that the law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of finished his law course and gotten complainant pregnant, respondent abandoned the
standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is complainant without support and without the wherewithal for delivering his own child safely
committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a to a hospital.
lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen
at another.[20] Thus, not only his professional activities but even his private life, insofar as In the case of Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma,[28] respondent was also disbarred for his grossly
the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and immoral acts such as: first, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children; second, he
the courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. [21] lured an innocent young woman into marrying him; third, he mispresented himself as a
bachelor so he could contract marriage in a foreign land; and fourth, he availed himself of
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must complainants resources by securing a plane ticket from complainants office in order to
possess good moral character. Possession of such moral character as requirement to the marry the latters daughter. He did this without complainants knowledge. Afterwards, he
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice must be continuous. Otherwise, membership in even had the temerity to assure complainant that everything is legal.
the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral conduct. [22]
Such acts are wanting in the case at bar. In fact, no less than the respondent
In the case at bench, there is no dispute that respondent and Teresita Rivera contracted himself acknowledged and declared his abject apology for his misstep. He was humble
marriage on 31 May 1982 before Judge Tomas W. Macaranas. In less than a year, they enough to offer no defense save for his love and declaration of his commitment to his wife
parted ways owing to their irreconcilable differences without seeking judicial recourse. The and child.
union bore no offspring. After their separation in-fact, respondent never knew the
whereabouts of Teresita Rivera since he had lost all forms of communication with Based on the reasons stated above, we find the imposition of disbarment upon him to be
her. Seven years thereafter, respondent became attracted to one Mary Jane Pascua, who unduly harsh. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be
was also a faculty member of SLU-LHS. There is also no dispute over the fact that in 1989, imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character
respondent married Mary Jane Pascua in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Baguio City, of the lawyer as an officer of the Court. Disbarment should never be decreed where any
Branch 68. Respondent even admitted this fact. When the second marriage was entered lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired.[29] In line with this philosophy, we find that
into, respondents prior marriage with Teresita Rivera was still subsisting, no action having a penalty of two years suspension is more appropriate. The penalty of one (1) year
been initiated before the court to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity or annulment of suspension recommended by the IBP is too light and not commensurate to the act
respondents prior marriage to Teresita Rivera or a judicial declaration of presumptive death committed by respondent.
of Teresita Rivera. As to the charge of misconduct for having notarized several documents during
Respondent was already a member of the Bar when he contracted the the years 1988-1997 after his commission as notary public had expired, respondent humbly
bigamous second marriage in 1989, having been admitted to the Bar in 1985. As such, he admitted having notarized certain documents despite his knowledge that he no longer had
cannot feign ignorance of the mandate of the law that before a second marriage may be authority to do so. He, however, alleged that he received no payment in notarizing said
validly contracted, the first and subsisting marriage must first be annulled by the documents.
appropriate court. The second marriage was annulled only on 4 October 1994 before the
RTC of Benguet, Branch 9, or about five years after respondent contracted his second It has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty,
marriage. The annulment of respondents second marriage has no bearing to the instant meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest,
disbarment proceeding. Firstly, as earlier emphasized, the annulment came after the such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
respondents second bigamous marriage.Secondly, as we held in In re: Almacen, a public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one making
disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law
an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must
in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative case against him, or if an observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their
affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its course, then neither will the duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance
judgment of annulment of respondents second marriage also exonerate him from a would be undermined.[30]
wrongdoing actually committed. So long as the quantum of proof - clear preponderance of The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated
evidence - in disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, then liability as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyers act of notarizing
attaches.[23] documents without the requisite commission to do so as reprehensible, constituting as it
does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of public documents.[31]
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly immoral conduct as
a ground for disbarment. The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is done by a
member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do
The Court has laid down with a common definition of what constitutes so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action or one, performing a notarial act
immoral conduct, vis--vis, grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is that conduct which without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more
is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned
good and respectable members of the community and what is grossly immoral, that is, it when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood,
must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the
reprehensible to a high degree.[24] prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By
Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes immoral conduct. But is it so gross as to warrant acting as a notary public without the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise
his disbarment? Indeed, he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the
of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage In the case of Buensuceso v. Barera,[32] a lawyer was suspended for one
while the first marriage was still in place, is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and year when he notarized five documents after his commission as Notary Public had expired,
morality.[25] to wit: a complaint for ejectment, affidavit, supplemental affidavit, a deed of sale, and a
However, measured against the definition, we are not prepared to consider contract to sell. Guided by the pronouncement in said case, we find that a suspension of
respondents act as grossly immoral. This finds support in the following recommendation two (2) years is justified under the circumstances. Herein respondent notarized a total of
and observation of the IBP Investigator and IBP Board of Governors, thus: fourteen (14) documents[33] without the requisite notarial commission.
Other charges constituting respondents misconduct such as the pending criminal case for
The uncontested assertions of the respondent belies any child abuse allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed before the
intention to flaunt the law and the high moral standard of the Prosecutors Office of Baguio City; the pending administrative case filed by the Teachers,
legal profession, to wit: Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating Board created by SLU; and the pending
labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region,
a. After his first failed marriage and prior to his second marriage on alleged illegal deduction of salary by respondent, need not be discussed, as they are
or for a period of almost seven (7) years, he has not been still pending before the proper forums. At such stages, the presumption of innocence still
romantically involved with any woman; prevails in favor of the respondent.
b. His second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and
total love for his wife, whom he described to be very intelligent WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz guilty of immoral conduct, in
person; disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the
c. He never absconded from his obligations to support his wife practice of law for a period of two (2) years, and another two (2) years for notarizing
and child; documents despite the expiration of his commission or a total of four (4) years of
d. He never disclaimed paternity over the child and husbandry suspension.
(sic) with relation to his wife;
e. After the annulment of his second marriage, they have parted Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the
ways when the mother and child went to Australia; Court Administrator, as well as the IBP, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and recorded in
f. Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate.[26] the personal records of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
In the case of Terre v. Terre,[27] respondent was disbarred because his moral character
was deeply flawed as shown by the following circumstances, viz: he convinced the
complainant that her prior marriage to Bercenilla was null and void ab initio and that she
was legally single and free to marry him. When complainant and respondent had
contracted their marriage, respondent went through law school while being supported by
CANON 9 The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's
act of establishing a "legal clinic" and of concomitantly advertising the same
Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993 MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs.THE LEGAL CLINIC, through newspaper publications.
INC., respondent.
The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision of this Honorable
R E SO L U T I O N Court to perpetually restrain respondent from undertaking highly unethical
activities in the field of law practice as aforedescribed.4
REGALADO, J.: Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from
issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said xxx xxx xxx
petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to
the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law."
A. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the impression that
respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it renders legal
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows: services.
Annex A While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the public,
SECRET MARRIAGE? the advertisements in question give the impression that respondent is offering
P560.00 for a valid marriage. legal services. The Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so, as earlier
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. mentioned, apparently because this (is) the effect that the advertisements have
ANNULMENT. VISA. on the reading public.
THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am—
6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced, first of
GUAM DIVORCE. all, to the very name being used by respondent — "The Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a
DON PARKINSON name, it is respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of legal services for
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The legal problems, just like a medical clinic connotes medical services for medical
Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. problems. More importantly, the term "Legal Clinic" connotes lawyers, as the term
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. medical clinic connotes doctors.
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence.
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign
Furthermore, the respondent's name, as published in the advertisements subject
Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
of the present case, appears with (the) scale(s) of justice, which all the more
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
reinforces the impression that it is being operated by members of the bar and that
CLINIC, INC.1 Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
it offers legal services. In addition, the advertisements in question appear with a
picture and name of a person being represented as a lawyer from Guam, and this
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champterous, practically removes whatever doubt may still remain as to the nature of the
unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community service or services being offered.
in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is
ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as
It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering "legal support
hereinbefore quoted.
services" as claimed by it, or whether it offers legal services as any lawyer
actively engaged in law practice does. And it becomes unnecessary to make a
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement at distinction between "legal services" and "legal support services," as the
its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal respondent would have it. The advertisements in question leave no room for
support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic doubt in the minds of the reading public that legal services are being offered by
machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal lawyers, whether true or not.
services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly
in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona,2 reportedly
B. The advertisements in question are meant to induce the performance of acts
decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
contrary to law, morals, public order and public policy.
Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised herein, we
It may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, the advertisements in
required the (1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3)
question are only meant to inform the general public of the services being offered
Philippine Lawyers' Association (PLA), (4) U.P. Womens Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women
by it. Said advertisements, however, emphasize to Guam divorce, and any law
Lawyers Association of the Philippines (WLAP), and (6) Federacion International de Abogadas
student ought to know that under the Family Code, there is only one instance
(FIDA) to submit their respective position papers on the controversy and, thereafter, their
when a foreign divorce is recognized, and that is:
memoranda. 3 The said bar associations readily responded and extended their valuable
services and cooperation of which this Court takes note with appreciation and gratitude.
Article 26. . . .
The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not the services offered
by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is
either case, whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements herein validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained
complained of. abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine
Law.
Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case, we deem it proper and
enlightening to present hereunder excerpts from the respective position papers adopted by the
aforementioned bar associations and the memoranda submitted by them on the issues involved It must not be forgotten, too, that the Family Code (defines) a marriage as follows:
in this bar matter.
Admittedly, many of the services involved in the case at bar can be better
performed by specialists in other fields, such as computer experts, who by reason The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer to the issues stated
of their having devoted time and effort exclusively to such field cannot fulfill the herein, are wit:
exacting requirements for admission to the Bar. To prohibit them from
"encroaching" upon the legal profession will deny the profession of the great
benefits and advantages of modern technology. Indeed, a lawyer using a 1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
computer will be doing better than a lawyer using a typewriter, even if both are
(equal) in skill.
2. Such practice is unauthorized;
Both the Bench and the Bar, however, should be careful not to allow or tolerate
3. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical, but also misleading
the illegal practice of law in any form, not only for the protection of members of
and patently immoral; and
the Bar but also, and more importantly, for the protection of the public.
Technological development in the profession may be encouraged without
tolerating, but instead ensuring prevention of illegal practice. 4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to supress and punish the Legal
Clinic and its corporate officers for its unauthorized practice of law and for its
unethical, misleading and immoral advertising.
There might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to perform all of its
services, but only if such services are made available exclusively to members of
the Bench and Bar. Respondent would then be offering technical assistance, not xxx xxx xxx
legal services. Alternatively, the more difficult task of carefully distinguishing
between which service may be offered to the public in general and which should
be made available exclusively to members of the Bar may be undertaken. This, Respondent posits that is it not engaged in the practice of law. It claims that it
however, may require further proceedings because of the factual considerations merely renders "legal support services" to answers, litigants and the general
involved. public as enunciated in the Primary Purpose Clause of its Article(s) of
Incorporation. (See pages 2 to 5 of Respondent's Comment). But its advertised
services, as enumerated above, clearly and convincingly show that it is indeed
It must be emphasized, however, that some of respondent's services ought to be engaged in law practice, albeit outside of court.
prohibited outright, such as acts which tend to suggest or induce celebration
abroad of marriages which are bigamous or otherwise illegal and void under
Philippine law. While respondent may not be prohibited from simply disseminating As advertised, it offers the general public its advisory services on Persons and
information regarding such matters, it must be required to include, in the Family Relations Law, particularly regarding foreign divorces, annulment of
information given, a disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law, that certain marriages, secret marriages, absence and adoption; Immigration Laws,
course of action may be illegal under Philippine law, that it is not authorized or particularly on visa related problems, immigration problems; the Investments Law
capable of rendering a legal opinion, that a lawyer should be consulted before of the Philippines and such other related laws.
deciding on which course of action to take, and that it cannot recommend any
particular lawyer without subjecting itself to possible sanctions for illegal practice
of law. Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the aforesaid law,
the legal principles and procedures related thereto, the legal advices based
thereon and which activities call for legal training, knowledge and experience.
If respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be directed exclusively at
members of the Bar, with a clear and unmistakable disclaimer that it is not
authorized to practice law or perform legal services. Applying the test laid down by the Court in the aforecited Agrava Case, the
activities of respondent fall squarely and are embraced in what lawyers and
laymen equally term as "the practice of law."7
The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored. But nobody
should be allowed to represent himself as a "paralegal" for profit, without such
term being clearly defined by rule or regulation, and without any adequate and 4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:
effective means of regulating his activities. Also, law practice in a corporate form
may prove to be advantageous to the legal profession, but before allowance of
In resolving, the issues before this Honorable Court, paramount consideration
such practice may be considered, the corporation's Article of Incorporation and
should be given to the protection of the general public from the danger of being
exploited by unqualified persons or entities who may be engaged in the practice 1.7 That entities admittedly not engaged in the practice of law, such as
of law. management consultancy firms or travel agencies, whether run by lawyers or not,
perform the services rendered by Respondent does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that Respondent is not unlawfully practicing law. In the same vein,
At present, becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous four-year course of however, the fact that the business of respondent (assuming it can be engaged in
study on top of a four-year bachelor of arts or sciences course and then to take independently of the practice of law) involves knowledge of the law does not
and pass the bar examinations. Only then, is a lawyer qualified to practice law. necessarily make respondent guilty of unlawful practice of law.
While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdiction as an aid to the . . . . Of necessity, no one . . . . acting as a consultant can render
administration of justice, there are in those jurisdictions, courses of study and/or effective service unless he is familiar with such statutes and
standards which would qualify these paralegals to deal with the general public as regulations. He must be careful not to suggest a course of conduct
such. While it may now be the opportune time to establish these courses of study which the law forbids. It seems . . . .clear that (the consultant's)
and/or standards, the fact remains that at present, these do not exist in the knowledge of the law, and his use of that knowledge as a factor in
Philippines. In the meantime, this Honorable Court may decide to make measures determining what measures he shall recommend, do not constitute
to protect the general public from being exploited by those who may be dealing the practice of law . . . . It is not only presumed that all men know
with the general public in the guise of being "paralegals" without being qualified to the law, but it is a fact that most men have considerable
do so. acquaintance with broad features of the law . . . . Our knowledge of
the law — accurate or inaccurate — moulds our conduct not only
when we are acting for ourselves, but when we are serving others.
In the same manner, the general public should also be protected from the
Bankers, liquor dealers and laymen generally possess rather
dangers which may be brought about by advertising of legal services. While it
precise knowledge of the laws touching their particular business or
appears that lawyers are prohibited under the present Code of Professional
profession. A good example is the architect, who must be familiar
Responsibility from advertising, it appears in the instant case that legal services
with zoning, building and fire prevention codes, factory and
are being advertised not by lawyers but by an entity staffed by "paralegals."
tenement house statutes, and who draws plans and specification in
Clearly, measures should be taken to protect the general public from falling prey
harmony with the law. This is not practicing law.
to those who advertise legal services without being qualified to offer such
services. 8
But suppose the architect, asked by his client to omit a fire tower,
replies that it is required by the statute. Or the industrial relations
A perusal of the questioned advertisements of Respondent, however, seems to
expert cites, in support of some measure that he recommends, a
give the impression that information regarding validity of marriages, divorce,
decision of the National Labor Relations Board. Are they practicing
annulment of marriage, immigration, visa extensions, declaration of absence,
law? In my opinion, they are not, provided no separate fee is
adoption and foreign investment, which are in essence, legal matters , will be
charged for the legal advice or information, and the legal question
given to them if they avail of its services. The Respondent's name — The Legal
is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem.
Clinic, Inc. — does not help matters. It gives the impression again that
Respondent will or can cure the legal problems brought to them. Assuming that
Respondent is, as claimed, staffed purely by paralegals, it also gives the It is largely a matter of degree and of custom.
misleading impression that there are lawyers involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc., as
there are doctors in any medical clinic, when only "paralegals" are involved in The
Legal Clinic, Inc. If it were usual for one intending to erect a building on his land to
engage a lawyer to advise him and the architect in respect to the
building code and the like, then an architect who performed this
Respondent's allegations are further belied by the very admissions of its function would probably be considered to be trespassing on
President and majority stockholder, Atty. Nogales, who gave an insight on the territory reserved for licensed attorneys. Likewise, if the industrial
structure and main purpose of Respondent corporation in the aforementioned relations field had been pre-empted by lawyers, or custom placed a
"Starweek" article."9 lawyer always at the elbow of the lay personnel man. But this is not
the case. The most important body of the industrial relations
experts are the officers and business agents of the labor unions
5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:
and few of them are lawyers. Among the larger corporate
employers, it has been the practice for some years to delegate
Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements to solicit cases for special responsibility in employee matters to a management group
the purpose of gain which, as provided for under the above cited law, (are) illegal chosen for their practical knowledge and skill in such matter, and
and against the Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers in this country. without regard to legal thinking or lack of it. More recently,
consultants like the defendants have the same service that the
larger employers get from their own specialized staff.
Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an advertisement to solicit
cases, but it is illegal in that in bold letters it announces that the Legal Clinic, Inc.,
could work out/cause the celebration of a secret marriage which is not only illegal The handling of industrial relations is growing into a recognized
but immoral in this country. While it is advertised that one has to go to said profession for which appropriate courses are offered by our leading
agency and pay P560 for a valid marriage it is certainly fooling the public for valid universities. The court should be very cautious about declaring
marriages in the Philippines are solemnized only by officers authorized to do so [that] a widespread, well-established method of conducting
under the law. And to employ an agency for said purpose of contracting marriage business is unlawful, or that the considerable class of men who
is not necessary. customarily perform a certain function have no right to do so, or
that the technical education given by our schools cannot be used
by the graduates in their business.
No amount of reasoning that in the USA, Canada and other countries the trend is
towards allowing lawyers to advertise their special skills to enable people to
obtain from qualified practitioners legal services for their particular needs can In determining whether a man is practicing law, we should consider
justify the use of advertisements such as are the subject matter of the petition, for his work for any particular client or customer, as a whole. I can
one (cannot) justify an illegal act even by whatever merit the illegal act may serve. imagine defendant being engaged primarily to advise as to the law
The law has yet to be amended so that such act could become justifiable. defining his client's obligations to his employees, to guide his
client's obligations to his employees, to guide his client along the
path charted by law. This, of course, would be the practice of the
We submit further that these advertisements that seem to project that secret law. But such is not the fact in the case before me. Defendant's
marriages and divorce are possible in this country for a fee, when in fact it is not primarily efforts are along economic and psychological lines. The
so, are highly reprehensible. law only provides the frame within which he must work, just as the
zoning code limits the kind of building the limits the kind of building
the architect may plan. The incidental legal advice or information
It would encourage people to consult this clinic about how they could go about defendant may give, does not transform his activities into the
having a secret marriage here, when it cannot nor should ever be attempted, and practice of law. Let me add that if, even as a minor feature of his
seek advice on divorce, where in this country there is none, except under the work, he performed services which are customarily reserved to
Code of Muslim Personal Laws in the Philippines. It is also against good morals members of the bar, he would be practicing law. For instance, if as
and is deceitful because it falsely represents to the public to be able to do that part of a welfare program, he drew employees' wills.
which by our laws cannot be done (and) by our Code of Morals should not be
done.
Another branch of defendant's work is the representations of the
employer in the adjustment of grievances and in collective
In the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. 37, the Supreme Court held that solicitation bargaining, with or without a mediator. This is not per se the
for clients by an attorney by circulars of advertisements, is unprofessional, and practice of law. Anyone may use an agent for negotiations and may
offenses of this character justify permanent elimination from the Bar. 10 select an agent particularly skilled in the subject under discussion,
and the person appointed is free to accept the employment whether
or not he is a member of the bar. Here, however, there may be an
6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados:
exception where the business turns on a question of law. Most real
estate sales are negotiated by brokers who are not lawyers. But if
xxx xxx xxx the value of the land depends on a disputed right-of-way and the
principal role of the negotiator is to assess the probable outcome of
the dispute and persuade the opposite party to the same opinion, practice of law . . . . There being no legal impediment under the
then it may be that only a lawyer can accept the assignment. Or if a statute to the sale of the kit, there was no proper basis for the
controversy between an employer and his men grows from differing injunction against defendant maintaining an office for the purpose
interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is quite likely that of selling to persons seeking a divorce, separation, annulment or
defendant should not handle it. But I need not reach a definite separation agreement any printed material or writings relating to
conclusion here, since the situation is not presented by the proofs. matrimonial law or the prohibition in the memorandum of
modification of the judgment against defendant having an interest
in any publishing house publishing his manuscript on divorce and
Defendant also appears to represent the employer before against his having any personal contact with any prospective
administrative agencies of the federal government, especially purchaser. The record does fully support, however, the finding that
before trial examiners of the National Labor Relations Board. An for the change of $75 or $100 for the kit, the defendant gave legal
agency of the federal government, acting by virtue of an authority advice in the course of personal contacts concerning particular
granted by the Congress, may regulate the representation of problems which might arise in the preparation and presentation of
parties before such agency. The State of New Jersey is without the purchaser's asserted matrimonial cause of action or pursuit of
power to interfere with such determination or to forbid other legal remedies and assistance in the preparation of
representation before the agency by one whom the agency admits. necessary documents (The injunction therefore sought to) enjoin
The rules of the National Labor Relations Board give to a party the conduct constituting the practice of law, particularly with reference
right to appear in person, or by counsel, or by other representative. to the giving of advice and counsel by the defendant relating to
Rules and Regulations, September 11th, 1946, S. 203.31. specific problems of particular individuals in connection with a
'Counsel' here means a licensed attorney, and ther representative' divorce, separation, annulment of separation agreement sought
one not a lawyer. In this phase of his work, defendant may lawfully and should be affirmed. (State v. Winder, 348, NYS 2D 270 [1973],
do whatever the Labor Board allows, even arguing questions purely cited in Statsky, supra at p. 101.).
legal. (Auerbacher v. Wood, 53 A. 2d 800, cited in Statsky,
Introduction to Paralegalism [1974], at pp. 154-156.).
1.12. Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strictly non-diagnostic,
non-advisory. "It is not controverted, however, that if the services "involve giving
1.8 From the foregoing, it can be said that a person engaged in a lawful calling legal advice or counselling," such would constitute practice of law (Comment, par.
(which may involve knowledge of the law) is not engaged in the practice of law 6.2). It is in this light that FIDA submits that a factual inquiry may be necessary for
provided that: the judicious disposition of this case.
(a) The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem;. xxx xxx xxx
(b) The services performed are not customarily reserved to members of the bar; . 2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can give the impression
(or perpetuate the wrong notion) that there is a secret marriage. With all the
solemnities, formalities and other requisites of marriages (See Articles 2, et seq.,
(c) No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information.
Family Code), no Philippine marriage can be secret.
All these must be considered in relation to the work for any particular client as a
2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. The second paragraph
whole.
thereof (which is not necessarily related to the first paragraph) fails to state the
limitation that only "paralegal services?" or "legal support services", and not legal
1.9. If the person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer, the Code of services, are available." 11
Professional Responsibility succintly states the rule of conduct:
A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law" becomes exigent for the
Rule 15.08 — A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation proper determination of the issues raised by the petition at bar. On this score, we note that the
concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is clause "practice of law" has long been the subject of judicial construction and interpretation. The
acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. courts have laid down general principles and doctrines explaining the meaning and scope of the
term, some of which we now take into account.
1.10. In the present case. the Legal Clinic appears to render wedding services
(See Annex "A" Petition). Services on routine, straightforward marriages, like Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
securing a marriage license, and making arrangements with a priest or a judge, procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform
may not constitute practice of law. However, if the problem is as complicated as those acts which are characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice
that described in "Rx for Legal Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill. 12
Concepcion-Richard Gomez case, then what may be involved is actually the
practice of law. If a non-lawyer, such as the Legal Clinic, renders such services
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and
then it is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are
secured, although such matter may or may not be pending in a court. 13
1.11. The Legal Clinic also appears to give information on divorce, absence,
annulment of marriage and visas (See Annexes "A" and "B" Petition). Purely
In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages in three principal
giving informational materials may not constitute of law. The business is similar to
types of professional activity: legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their
that of a bookstore where the customer buys materials on the subject and
rights and obligations, preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal
determines on the subject and determines by himself what courses of action to
principles not possessed by ordinary layman, and appearance for clients before public tribunals
take.
which possess power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty, and property according to
law, in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of law. 14
It is not entirely improbable, however, that aside from purely giving information,
the Legal Clinic's paralegals may apply the law to the particular problem of the
When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice
client, and give legal advice. Such would constitute unauthorized practice of law.
of law. 15 One who confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the
business to an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing
It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text which law. 16 Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the
publication of a legal text which purports to say what the law is conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. 17 One who renders an opinion as to
amount to legal practice. And the mere fact that the principles or the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law. 18
rules stated in the text may be accepted by a particular reader as a
solution to his problem does not affect this. . . . . Apparently it is
In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19 after citing the doctrines in several cases, we laid
urged that the conjoining of these two, that is, the text and the
down the test to determine whether certain acts constitute "practice of law," thus:
forms, with advice as to how the forms should be filled out,
constitutes the unlawful practice of law. But that is the situation with
many approved and accepted texts. Dacey's book is sold to the Black defines "practice of law" as:
public at large. There is no personal contact or relationship with a
particular individual. Nor does there exist that relation of confidence
and trust so necessary to the status of attorney and client. THIS IS The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal
THE ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL PRACTICE — THE principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not
REPRESENTATION AND ADVISING OF A PARTICULAR limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation,
PERSON IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION. At most the book but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions
assumes to offer general advice on common problems, and does and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all
not purport to give personal advice on a specific problem peculiar kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients
to a designated or readily identified person. Similarly the and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.
defendant's publication does not purport to give personal advice on
a specific problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified
person in a particular situation — in their publication and sale of the The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases on court.(Land Title Abstract and Trust
kits, such publication and sale did not constitutes the unlawful Co. v. Dworken , 129 Ohio St. 23, 193N. E. 650). A person is also considered to be in the
practice of law when he:
. . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the
associations or corporations as to their right under the law, or appears in a jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact
representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings, pending or prospective, that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight
before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission of authority holds, is not limited merely giving legal advice, contract drafting and so forth.
constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies and there, in such
representative capacity, performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or
defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published in the January 13, 1991
representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of the Philippines Star, entitled "Rx for Legal
rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court Problems," where an insight into the structure, main purpose and operations of respondent
or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. (State ex. corporation was given by its own "proprietor," Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales:
rel. Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S. W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).
This is the kind of business that is transacted everyday at The Legal Clinic, with
This Court, in the case of Philippines Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176- offices on the seventh floor of the Victoria Building along U. N. Avenue in Manila.
177),stated: No matter what the client's problem, and even if it is as complicated as the
Cuneta-Concepcion domestic situation, Atty. Nogales and his staff of lawyers,
who, like doctors are "specialists" in various fields can take care of it. The Legal
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems,
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and labor, litigation, and family law. These specialist are backed up by a battery of
special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf paralegals, counsellors and attorneys.
of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all
advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. Inspired by the trend in the medical
appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of field toward specialization, it caters to clients who cannot afford the services of
a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting the big law firms.
proceedings in attachment, and in matters or estate and guardianship have been
held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal
The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. "when they come, we start by
instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal
analyzing the problem. That's what doctors do also. They ask you how you
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263).
contracted what's bothering you, they take your temperature, they observe you for
the symptoms and so on. That's how we operate, too. And once the problem has
Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work been categorized, then it's referred to one of our specialists.
performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings
in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of
There are cases which do not, in medical terms, require surgery or follow-up
subjects and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an
treatment. These The Legal Clinic disposes of in a matter of minutes. "Things like
extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these
preparing a simple deed of sale or an affidavit of loss can be taken care of by our
transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are
staff or, if this were a hospital the residents or the interns. We can take care of
always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a
these matters on a while you wait basis. Again, kung baga sa hospital, out-
high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great
patient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It's just like a common cold or diarrhea,"
capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary
explains Atty. Nogales.
functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the
administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the
question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the Those cases which requires more extensive "treatment" are dealt with
lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice accordingly. "If you had a rich relative who died and named you her sole heir, and
and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the you stand to inherit millions of pesos of property, we would refer you to a
public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons specialist in taxation. There would be real estate taxes and arrears which would
possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at need to be put in order, and your relative is even taxed by the state for the right to
all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all transfer her property, and only a specialist in taxation would be properly trained to
attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules o Court, Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665- deal with the problem. Now, if there were other heirs contesting your rich relatives
666, citing In Re Opinion of the Justices [Mass], 194 N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode will, then you would need a litigator, who knows how to arrange the problem for
Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 197 A. 139, 144). presentation in court, and gather evidence to support the case. 21
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying the That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling.
aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the perceptive findings and What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the
observations of the aforestated bar associations that the activities of respondent, as advertised, services it renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against
constitute "practice of law." the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now assailed in this
proceeding.
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be
seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description Further, as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U.P. WILOCI, said reported facts
of the services it has been offering, to wit: sufficiently establish that the main purpose of respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts
for various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
Legal support services basically consists of giving ready information by trained
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
paralegals to laymen and lawyers, which are strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory,
engaged in the practice of law. 22
through the extensive use of computers and modern information technology in the
gathering, processing, storage, transmission and reproduction of information and
communication, such as computerized legal research; encoding and reproduction It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private respondent which
of documents and pleadings prepared by laymen or lawyers; document search; constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a
evidence gathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case; fact finding member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of the Rules
investigations; and assistance to laymen in need of basic institutional services of Court, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. 23
from government or non-government agencies, like birth, marriage, property, or
business registrations; educational or employment records or certifications,
obtaining documentation like clearances, passports, local or foreign visas; giving Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified
information about laws of other countries that they may find useful, like foreign in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and
divorce, marriage or adoption laws that they can avail of preparatory to emigration limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and
to the foreign country, and other matters that do not involve representation of professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from
clients in court; designing and installing computer systems, programs, or software the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the
for the efficient management of law offices, corporate legal departments, courts disciplinary control of the court. 24
and other entities engaged in dispensing or administering legal services. 20
The same rule is observed in the american jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would wish to
While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical draw support for his thesis. The doctrines there also stress that the practice of law is limited to
and technical knowhow, such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the those who meet the requirements for, and have been admitted to, the bar, and various statutes
efficient management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids and materials, or rules specifically so provide. 25 The practice of law is not a lawful business except for
these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule. members of the bar who have complied with all the conditions required by statute and the rules
of court. Only those persons are allowed to practice law who, by reason of attainments
previously acquired through education and study, have been recognized by the courts as
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and possessing profound knowledge of legal science entitling them to advise, counsel with, protect,
lawyers. Its contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent or defend the rights claims, or liabilities of their clients, with respect to the construction,
than real. In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and interpretation, operation and effect of law. 26 The justification for excluding from the practice of
adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all the respondent corporation will simply do is law those not admitted to the bar is found, not in the protection of the bar from competition, but
look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a in the protection of the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by
bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little
client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken control.27
as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and for the which
We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that the concept in the United bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities;
States of paralegals as an occupation separate from the law profession be adopted in this the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with
jurisdiction. Whatever may be its merits, respondent cannot but be aware that this should first their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented." 42
be a matter for judicial rules or legislative action, and not of unilateral adoption as it has done.
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As admitted by respondent, there are supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published
schools and universities there which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education, while principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief
there are none in the Philippines. 28As the concept of the "paralegals" or "legal assistant" biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program.
evolved in the United States, standards and guidelines also evolved to protect the general Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management or
public. One of the major standards or guidelines was developed by the American Bar contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower
Association which set up Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Education Programs the dignity or standing of the profession. 43
(1973). Legislation has even been proposed to certify legal assistants. There are also
associations of paralegals in the United States with their own code of professional ethics, such
as the National Association of Legal Assistants, Inc. and the American Paralegal Association. 29 The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a
statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone
number and special branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of the
In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept and limited acceptance of what may be opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address,
considered as paralegal service. As pointed out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have his
practice law are or have been allowed limited representation in behalf of another or to render name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. 44
legal services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or
regulations granting permission therefor. 30
Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which
respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said
Accordingly, we have adopted the American judicial policy that, in the absence of constitutional respondent corporation for services rendered, we find and so hold that the same definitely do
or statutory authority, a person who has not been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-mentioned exceptions.
for the proper administration of justice cannot be hindered by the unwarranted intrusion of an
unauthorized and unskilled person into the practice of law. 31 That policy should continue to be
one of encouraging persons who are unsure of their legal rights and remedies to seek legal The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, 45 which is repeatedly invoked
assistance only from persons licensed to practice law in the state. 32 and constitutes the justification relied upon by respondent, is obviously not applicable to the
case at bar. Foremost is the fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows
a lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon request of a written
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. 33 He is not supposed to exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons of Professional
use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in
or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. 34 Nor shall he pay or the Bates case contains a proviso that the exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any
give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, state unless and until it is implemented by such authority in that state." 46 This goes to show that
publicity to attract legal business. 35 Prior to the adoption of the code of Professional an exception to the general rule, such as that being invoked by herein respondent, can be made
Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not only if and when the canons expressly provide for such an exception. Otherwise, the prohibition
resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring stands, as in the case at bar.
newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in
which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar Association after the decision
self-laudation. 36 in Bates, on the attitude of the public about lawyers after viewing television commercials, it was
found that public opinion dropped significantly 47 with respect to these characteristics of lawyers:
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A
lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a Trustworthy from 71% to 14%
manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. 37 The prescription against advertising of Professional from 71% to 14%
legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that Honest from 65% to 14%
the practice of law is a profession. Thus, in the case of The Director of Religious Affairs. vs. Dignified from 45% to 14%
Estanislao R. Bayot 38 an advertisement, similar to those of respondent which are involved in
the present proceeding, 39 was held to constitute improper advertising or solicitation.
Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal and judicial systems, to
allow the publication of advertisements of the kind used by respondent would only serve to
The pertinent part of the decision therein reads: aggravate what is already a deteriorating public opinion of the legal profession whose integrity
has consistently been under attack lately by media and the community in general. At this point
in time, it is of utmost importance in the face of such negative, even if unfair, criticisms at times,
It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the to adopt and maintain that level of professional conduct which is beyond reproach, and to exert
respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of all efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the legal profession.
business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other
things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action,
unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises to advertise his services except in allowable instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized
his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and practice of law. 49 Considering that Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who is the prime incorporator,
his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc. is a member of the Philippine Bar, he
advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he is hereby reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts which are
defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely.
old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . . is the establishment of a well-merited
While we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or illegality of the purpose/s for
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but
which the Legal Clinic, Inc. was created should be passed upon and determined, we are
must be the outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.).
constrained to refrain from lapsing into an obiter on that aspect since it is clearly not within the
adjudicative parameters of the present proceeding which is merely administrative in nature. It is,
We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a of course, imperative that this matter be promptly determined, albeit in a different proceeding
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as and forum, since, under the present state of our law and jurisprudence, a corporation cannot be
the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the organized for or engage in the practice of law in this country. This interdiction, just like the rule
community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a against unethical advertising, cannot be subverted by employing some so-called paralegals
normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer supposedly rendering the alleged support services.
needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the
difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
The remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by respondent is the concern and
propaganda. 40
province of the Solicitor General who can institute the corresponding quo
warranto action, 50 after due ascertainment of the factual background and basis for the grant of
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the profession respondent's corporate charter, in light of the putative misuse thereof. That spin-off from the
enumerate exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to instant bar matter is referred to the Solicitor General for such action as may be necessary under
which they may be undertaken. The exceptions are of two broad categories, namely, those the circumstances.
which are expressly allowed and those which are necessarily implied from the restrictions. 41
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The Legal
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any
the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition,
"Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by
the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein. Let copies of this resolution be
branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Office of
with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinction; public or quasi-public the Solicitor General for appropriate action in accordance herewith.
offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in
G.R. No. L-46537 July 29, 1977 On July 19, 1977, respondent Deputy Sheriff Ricardo G. Carlos, acting
upon the writ of execution, issued by respondent Judge, levied on three
JOSE GUBALLA, petitioner, motor vehicles, of petitioner for the satisfaction of the judgment. 7
vs.
THE HON. EDUARDO P. CAGUIOA, RICARDO G. CARLOS and Hence the instant Petition.
DOMINGO FORTEZA, JR., respondents.
Respondent Judge's forthright denial of the Petition for Relief to frustrate a
SANTOS, J: In this petition for certiorari with Preliminary Injunction, dilatory maneuver is well-taken; and this Petition must be denied for lack
petitioner seeks to set aside the Order of respondent Judge dated July 12, of merit. The alleged fact that the person who represented petitioner at the
1977, denying his Petition for Relief from Judgment and allowing a writ of initial stage of the litigation, i.e., the filing of an Answer and the pretrial
execution to issue in Civil Case No. 680-V of the Court of First Instance of proceedings, turned out to be not a member of the Bar 8 did not amount to
Bulacan. a denial of petitioner's day in court. It should be noted that in the
subsequent stages of the proceedings, after the rendition of the judgment
The factual antecedents may be recited as follows: by default, petitioner was duly represented by bona fide members of the
Bar in seeking a reversal of the judgment for being contrary to law and
jurisprudence and the existence of valid, legal and justifiable defenses. In
Petitioner is an operator of a public utility vehicle which was involved, on other words, petitioner's rights had been amply protected in the
October 1, 1971, in an accident resulting to injuries sustained by private proceedings before the trial and appellate courts as he was subsequently
respondent Domingo Forteza Jr. As a consequence thereof, a complaint assisted by counsel. Moreover, petitioner himself was at fault as the order
for damages was filed by Forteza against petitioner with the Court of First of treatment as in default was predicated, not only on the alleged
Instance of Bulacan (Branch VIII), docketed as Civil Case No. 680-V. An counsel's failure to attend the pretrial conference on April 6, 1972, but
Answer thereto was filed on behalf of petitioner by Irineo W. Vida Jr., of likewise on his own failure to attend the same, without justifiable reason.
the law firm of Vida Enriquez, Mercado & Associates. 1 To allow this petition due course is to countenance further delay in a
proceeding which has already taken well over six years to resolve,
Because petitioner and counsel failed to appear at the pretrial conference
on April 6, 1972, despite due notice, petitioner was treated as in default WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Petition for certiorari with Preliminary
and private respondent was allowed to present his evidence ex parte. A Injunction is hereby dismissed. The law firm "Vida, Enriquez, Mercado &
decision was thereafter rendered by the trial court in favor of private Associates" of 209 Sampaguita Bldg., Cubao, Quezon City, is hereby
respondent Forteza Jr. A Motion for Reconsideration was then filed by ordered to explain, within ten (10) days from notice this Resolution, why
petitioner seeking the lifting of the order of default, the reopening of the Irineo W. Vida Jr. was permitted to sign the Answer in Civil Case No. 680-
case for the presentation of his evidence and the setting aside of the V of CFI, Bulacan, when he is not a member of the Bar.
decision. Said Motion for Reconsideration was signed by Ponciano
Mercado, another member of the law firm. The same was denied by the
lower Court and petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals assigning the G.R. No. L-23959 November 29, 1971
following alleged errors, to wit: PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU),
ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO TENAZAS petitioners, vs.
BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
a. That the Hon. Court erred in denying defendant Jose RELATIONS, & QUINTIN MUNING respondents.
Guballa his day in Court by declaring him in default, it being
contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter; Cipriano Cid & Associates for petitioners.
b. That this Hon. Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide Ceferino Magat and Manuel C. Gonzales for respondent Quintin Muning.
the case;
c. Award of damages in favor of plaintiff, more particularly REYES, J.B.L., J.: May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal
award of moral damages is contrary to law; and services rendered? This is the issue presented in this petition for review of
d. Defendant has valid, legal and justiciable defenses.2 an order, dated 12 May 1964, and the en banc resolution, dated 8
December 1964, of the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 72-
The appealed case was handled by Atty. Benjamin Bautista, an associate ULP-Iloilo, granting respondent Quintin Muning a non-lawyer, attorney's
of the same law firm. The decision appealed from was affirmed in toto by fees for professional services in the said case.
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 52610R. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed by petitioner, through a different counsel, Atty. The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No. 72-ULP-
Isabelo V.L. Santos II. However the same was denied and the decision Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After
became final on June 29, 1977 and was then remanded to the lower trial, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision, on 29 March
Court, presided by respondent Judge for execution. 3 1961, ordering the reinstatement with backwages of complainants Enrique
Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18 October
A Motion for Execution was thereafter filed by private respondent with the 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of record for the winning
lower Court which was granted by respondent Judge. 4 complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total
backwages. On 22 November 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a
On July 6, 1977, petitioner, through Atty. Isabelo V.L. Santos 11, filed a similar notice for a reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas
Petition for Relief from Judgment alleging his discovery that Irineo W. Vida on 3 December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-objection to
Jr., who prepared his Answer to the Complaint is not a member of the an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their backwages, and, on the same
Philippine Bar and that consequently, his rights had not been adequately day, Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of Services Rendered"
protected and his properties are in danger of being confiscated and/or equivalent to 20% of the backwages. Munings petition was opposed by
levied upon without due process of law. 5 Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer.
In an Order dated July 12, 1977, respondent Judge denied the Petition The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge was filed by
and directed the issuance of a writ of execution for the reasons that said Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the hearings
Petition is ". . a clear case of dilatory tactic on the part of counsel for were held in Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf of the
defendant-appellant ..." herein petitioner, and, that the grounds relied upon complainants were at first by Attorney Pacis and subsequently by
". . . could have been ventilated in the appeal before the Court of Appeals respondent Quintin Muning.
... " 6
On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the
backwages as compensation for professional services rendered in the
case, apportioned as follows:
Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates ............................................. 10% admitted to practice before the court or in the jurisdiction the
Quintin Muning ......................................................................... 10% services were rendered. 5
Atty. Atanacio Pacis ................................................................. 5%
No one is entitled to recover compensation for services as an
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer according to the attorney at law unless he has been duly admitted to practice ...
order, is sought to be voided in the present petition. and is an attorney in good standing at the time.6
Respondent Muning moved in this Court to dismiss the present petition on The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be
the ground of late filing but his motion was overruled on 20 January violated;7 that acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt of
1965.1 He asked for reconsideration, but, considering that the motion court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both,8 and the law
contained averments that go into the merits of the case, this Court will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act done
admitted and considered the motion for reconsideration for all purposes as in violation of law;9 and that if were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would
respondent's answer to the petitioner for review.2 The case was leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case of
considered submitted for decision without respondent's brief.3 necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact
that non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures. 10
Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle enunciated in Amalgamated
Laborers' Association, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L- And the general rule above-stated (referring to non-recovery of
23467, 27 March 1968,4 that an agreement providing for the division of attorney's fees by non-lawyers) cannot be circumvented when
attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union president is allowed to share the services were purely legal, by seeking to recover as an
in said fees with lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and "agent" and not as an attorney. 11
is immoral and cannot be justified. An award by a court of attorney's fees
is no less immoral in the absence of a contract, as in the present case. The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a non-lawyer may not be
awarded attorney's fees should suffice to refute the possible argument that
The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 that — appearances by non-lawyers before the Court of Industrial Relations
should be excepted on the ground that said court is a court of special
In the proceeding before the Court or Hearing Examiner jurisdiction; such special jurisdiction does not weigh the aforesaid reasons
thereof, the parties shall not be required to be represented by and cannot justify an exception.
legal counsel ...
The other issue in this case is whether or not a union may appeal an
is no justification for a ruling, that the person representing the party-litigant award of attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay of some of
in the Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is entitled to its members. This issue arose because it was the union PAFLU, alone,
attorney's fees: for the same section adds that — that moved for an extension of time to file the present petition for review;
union members Entila and Tenazas did not ask for extension but they
were included as petitioners in the present petition that was subsequently
it shall be the duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing filed, it being contended that, as to them (Entila and Tenazas), their
Officer to examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of inclusion in the petition as co-petitioners was belated.
the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of evidence.
We hold that a union or legitimate labor organization may appeal an award
thus making it clear that the representation should be exclusively of attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay of its members
entrusted to duly qualified members of the bar. because such union or labor organization is permitted to institute an action
in the industrial court, 12 on behalf of its members; and the union was
The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear or organized "for the promotion of the emloyees' moral, social and economic
defend in the said court on behalf of a party-litigant does not by itself well-being"; 13 hence, if an award is disadvantageous to its members, the
entitle the representative to compensation for such representation. For union may prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party, under Section 6,
Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, providing — Republic Act 875, which provides:
Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees. — Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases — Appeals. — Any person
An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client aggrieved by any order of the Court may appeal to the
no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, ... Supreme Court of the Philippines ...,
imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition to since more often than not the individual unionist is not in a position to bear
the recovery of attorney's fees. Such a relationship cannot exist unless the the financial burden of litigations.
client's representative in court be a lawyer. Since respondent Muning is
not one, he cannot establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Petitioners allege that respondent Muning is engaged in the habitual
Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore, practice of law before the Court of Industrial Relations, and many of them
recover attorney's fees. Certainly public policy demands that legal work in like him who are not licensed to practice, registering their appearances as
representation of parties litigant should be entrusted only to those "representatives" and appearing daily before the said court. If true, this is a
possessing tested qualifications and who are sworn, to observe the rules serious situation demanding corrective action that respondent court should
and the ethics of the profession, as well as being subject to judicial actively pursue and enforce by positive action to that purpose. But since
disciplinary control for the protection of courts, clients and the public. this matter was not brought in issue before the court a quo, it may not be
taken up in the present case. Petitioners, however, may file proper action
On the present issue, the rule in American jurisdictions is persuasive. against the persons alleged to be illegally engaged in the practice of law.
There, it is stated:
WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby set aside insofar as
But in practically all jurisdictions statutes have now been they awarded 10% of the backwages as attorney's fees for respondent
enacted prohibiting persons not licensed or admitted to the bar Quintin Muning. Said orders are affirmed in all other respects. Costs
from practising law, and under statutes of this kind, the great against respondent Muning.
weight of authority is to the effect that compensation for legal
services cannot be recovered by one who has not been
G.R. No. 111474 August 22, 1994 - FIVE J TAXI and/or JUAN S. Respondent NLRC held that the P15.00 daily deposits made by respondents to defray
ARMAMENTO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, any shortage in their "boundary" is covered by the general prohibition in Article 114 of the
DOMINGO MALDIGAN and GILBERTO SABSALON, respondents. Labor Code against requiring employees to make deposits, and that there is no showing
Edgardo G. Fernandez for petitioners. that the Secretary of Labor has recognized the same as a "practice" in the taxi industry.
Consequently, the deposits made were illegal and the respondents must be refunded
R E SO L U T I O N therefor.
REGALADO, J.:
Petitioners Five J Taxi and/or Juan S. Armamento filed this special civil action Article 114 of the Labor Code provides as follows:
for certiorari to annul the decision 1 of respondent National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) ordering petitioners to pay private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Art. 114. Deposits for loss or damage. — No employer shall require his
Sabsalon their accumulated deposits and car wash payments, plus interest thereon at the worker to make deposits from which deductions shall be made for the
legal rate from the date of promulgation of judgment to the date of actual payment, and reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools, materials, or equipment
10% of the total amount as and for attorney's fees. supplied by the employer, except when the employer is engaged in such
trades, occupations or business where the practice of making deposits is a
We have given due course to this petition for, while to the cynical the de minimis amounts recognized one, or is necessary or desirable as determined by the Secretary
involved should not impose upon the valuable time of this Court, we find therein a need to of Labor in appropriate rules and regulations.
clarify some issues the resolution of which are important to small wage earners such as
taxicab drivers. As we have heretofore repeatedly demonstrated, this Court does not exist It can be deduced therefrom that the said article provides the rule on deposits for loss or
only for the rich or the powerful, with their reputed monumental cases of national impact. damage to tools, materials or equipments supplied by the employer. Clearly, the same
It is also the Court of the poor or the underprivileged, with the actual quotidian problems does not apply to or permit deposits to defray any deficiency which the taxi driver may
that beset their individual lives. incur in the remittance of his "boundary." Also, when private respondents stopped
working for petitioners, the alleged purpose for which petitioners required such
Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon were hired by the unauthorized deposits no longer existed. In other case, any balance due to private
petitioners as taxi drivers 2 and, as such, they worked for 4 days weekly on a 24-hour respondents after proper accounting must be returned to them with legal interest.
shifting schedule. Aside from the daily "boundary" of P700.00 for air-conditioned taxi or
P450.00 for non-air-conditioned taxi, they were also required to pay P20.00 for car However, the unrebutted evidence with regard to the claim of Sabsalon is as follows:
washing, and to further make a P15.00 deposit to answer for any deficiency in their
"boundary," for every actual working day. YEAR DEPOSITS SHORTAGES VALES
1987 P 1,403.00 P 567.00 P 1,000.00
In less than 4 months after Maldigan was hired as an extra driver by the petitioners, he 1988 720.00 760.00 200.00
already failed to report for work for unknown reasons. Later, petitioners learned that he 1989 686.00 130.00 1,500.00
was working for "Mine of Gold" Taxi Company. With respect to Sabsalon, while driving a 1990 605.00 570.00
taxicab of petitioners on September 6, 1983, he was held up by his armed passenger 1991 165.00 2,300.00
who took all his money and thereafter stabbed him. He was hospitalized and after his ———— ———— ————
discharge, he went to his home province to recuperate. P 3,579.00 P 4,327.00 P 2,700.00
The foregoing accounting shows that from 1987-1991, Sabsalon was able to withdraw his
In January, 1987, Sabsalon was re-admitted by petitioners as a taxi driver under the deposits through vales or he incurred shortages, such that he is even indebted to
same terms and conditions as when he was first employed, but his working schedule was petitioners in the amount of P3,448.00. With respect to Maldigan's deposits, nothing was
made on an "alternative basis," that is, he drove only every other day. However, on mentioned questioning the same even in the present petition. We accordingly agree with
several occasions, he failed to report for work during his schedule. the recommendation of the Solicitor General that since the evidence shows that he had
not withdrawn the same, he should be reimbursed the amount of his accumulated cash
deposits. 5
On September 22, 1991, Sabsalon failed to remit his "boundary" of P700.00 for the
previous day. Also, he abandoned his taxicab in Makati without fuel refill worth P300.00.
Despite repeated requests of petitioners for him to report for work, he adamantly refused. On the matter of the car wash payments, the labor arbiter had this to say in his decision:
Afterwards it was revealed that he was driving a taxi for "Bulaklak Company." "Anent the issue of illegal deductions, there is no dispute that as a matter of practice in
the taxi industry, after a tour of duty, it is incumbent upon the driver to restore the unit he
has driven to the same clean condition when he took it out, and as claimed by the
Sometime in 1989, Maldigan requested petitioners for the reimbursement of his daily respondents (petitioners in the present case), complainant(s) (private respondents
cash deposits for 2 years, but herein petitioners told him that not a single centavo was left herein) were made to shoulder the expenses for washing, the amount doled out was paid
of his deposits as these were not even enough to cover the amount spent for the repairs directly to the person who washed the unit, thus we find nothing illegal in this practice,
of the taxi he was driving. This was allegedly the practice adopted by petitioners to much more (sic) to consider the amount paid by the driver as illegal deduction in the
recoup the expenses incurred in the repair of their taxicab units. When Maldigan insisted context of the law." 6 (Words in parentheses added.)
on the refund of his deposit, petitioners terminated his services. Sabsalon, on his part,
claimed that his termination from employment was effected when he refused to pay for
the washing of his taxi seat covers. Consequently, private respondents are not entitled to the refund of the P20.00 car wash
payments they made. It will be noted that there was nothing to prevent private
respondents from cleaning the taxi units themselves, if they wanted to save their P20.00.
On November 27, 1991, private respondents filed a complaint with the Manila Arbitration Also, as the Solicitor General correctly noted, car washing after a tour of duty is a practice
Office of the National Labor Relations Commission charging petitioners with illegal in the taxi industry, and is, in fact, dictated by fair play.
dismissal and illegal deductions. That complaint was dismissed, the labor arbiter holding
that it took private respondents two years to file the same and such unreasonable delay
was not consistent with the natural reaction of a person who claimed to be unjustly On the last issue of attorney's fees or service fees for private respondents' authorized
treated, hence the filing of the case could be interpreted as a mere afterthought. representative, Article 222 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 3 of Presidential
Decree No. 1691, states that non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any labor
arbiter only (1) if they represent themselves, or (2) if they represent their organization or
Respondent NLRC concurred in said findings, with the observation that private the members thereof. While it may be true that Guillermo H. Pulia was the authorized
respondents failed to controvert the evidence showing that Maldigan was employed by representative of private respondents, he was a non-lawyer who did not fall in either of
"Mine of Gold" Taxi Company from February 10, 1987 to December 10, 1990; that the foregoing categories. Hence, by clear mandate of the law, he is not entitled to
Sabsalon abandoned his taxicab on September 1, 1990; and that they voluntarily left their attorney's fees.
jobs for similar employment with other taxi operators. It, accordingly, affirmed the ruling of
the labor arbiter that private respondents' services were not illegally terminated. It,
however, modified the decision of the labor arbiter by ordering petitioners to pay private Furthermore, the statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from
respondents the awards stated at the beginning of this resolution. his client a reasonable compensation for his services 7 necessarily imports the existence
of an attorney-client relationship as a condition for the recovery of attorney's fees, and
such relationship cannot exist unless the client's representative is a lawyer. 8
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied by the NLRC, this petition is
now before us imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of said public respondent.
WHEREFORE, the questioned judgment of respondent National Labor Relations
Commission is hereby MODIFIED by deleting the awards for reimbursement of car wash
This Court has repeatedly declared that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like expenses and attorney's fees and directing said public respondent to order and effect the
the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific computation and payment by petitioners of the refund for private respondent Domingo
matters, are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, finality if such findings are Maldigan's deposits, plus legal interest thereon from the date of finality of this resolution
supported by substantial evidence. 3 Where, however, such conclusions are not up to the date of actual payment thereof.
supported by the evidence, they must be struck down for being whimsical and capricious
and, therefore, arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. 4
SO ORDERED.
Adm. Case No. 6290 - ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA, Complainant, Further, the respondent averred that this disbarment
ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO, Respondent. July 14, 2004 complaint was filed by the complainant to get even with her. She
terminated complainants employment after receiving numerous
RESOLUTION complaints that the complainant extorted money from different people
with the promise of processing their passports and marriages to
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: In a verified complaint for disbarment filed with the foreigners, but she reneged on her promise. Likewise, this disbarment
Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines complaint is politically motivated: some politicians offered to re-hire the
(IBP) on 30 May 2000, complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former complainant and her cohorts should they initiate this complaint, which
employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio in her law they did and for which they were re-hired. The respondent also flaunted
office, charged the latter with deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and the fact that she had received numerous awards and citations for civic
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. works and exemplary service to the community. She then prayed for the
dismissal of the disbarment case for being baseless.
On deceit, the complainant alleged that the respondent has
been falsely representing herself to be married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, The IBP referred this case to Investigating Commissioner
Jr., who has a prior and subsisting marriage with another Atty. Kenny H. Tantuico.
woman. However, through spurious means, the respondent and
Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., were able to obtain a false marriage During the hearing on 30 August 2000, the parties agreed
contract,[1] which states that they were married on 10 February 1980 in that the complainant would submit a Reply to respondents Answer,
Manila. Certifications from the Civil Registry of Manila[2] and the while the respondent would submit a Rejoinder to the Reply. The parties
National Statistics Office (NSO)[3] prove that no record of marriage also agreed that the Complaint, Answer, and the attached affidavits
exists between them. The false date and place of marriage between the would constitute as the respective direct testimonies of the parties and
two are stated in the birth certificates of their two children, Donnabel the affiants.[11]
Tenorio[4] and Felicisimo Tenorio III.[5]But in the birth certificates of their
two other children, Oliver Tenorio[6] and John Cedric Tenorio,[7] another In her Reply, the complainant bolstered her claim that the
date and place of marriage are indicated, namely, 12 February 1980 in respondent cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband by
Malaybalay, Bukidnon. submitting (1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office[12] where the
name of Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a senior partner; and (2)
As to grossly immoral conduct, the complainant alleged that a Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card[13] signed by
the respondent caused the dissemination to the public of a libelous the respondent as Chairperson where her husband is identified as Atty.
affidavit derogatory to Makati City Councilor Divina Alora Jacome. The Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr. She added that respondents husband even
respondent would often openly and sarcastically declare to the appeared in court hearings.
complainant and her co-employees the alleged immorality of Councilor
Jacome. In her Rejoinder, respondent averred that she neither formed
a law partnership with her husband nor allowed her husband to appear
On malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the in court on her behalf. If there was an instance that her husband
complainant alleged that the respondent (1) cooperated in the illegal appeared in court, he did so as a representative of her law firm. The
practice of law by her husband, who is not a member of the Philippine letterhead submitted by the complainant was a false reproduction to
Bar; (2) converted her clients money to her own use and benefit, which show that her husband is one of her law partners. But upon cross-
led to the filing of an estafa case against her; and (3) threatened the examination, when confronted with the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio
complainant and her family on 24 January 2000 with the Law Office bearing her signature, she admitted that Felicisimo R.
statement Isang bala ka lang to deter them from divulging respondents Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo A. Panghulan,
illegal activities and transactions. who is also not a lawyer, are named as senior partners because they
have investments in her law office.[14]
In her answer, the respondent denied all the allegations
against her. As to the charge of deceit, she declared that she is legally The respondent further declared that she married Felicisimo
married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr. They were married on 12 February R. Tenorio, Jr., on 12 February 1980 in Quezon City, but when she later
1980 as shown by their Certificate of Marriage, Registry No. 2000-9108 discovered that their marriage contract was not registered she applied
of the Civil Registry of Quezon City.[8] Her husband has no prior and for late registration on 5 April 2000. She then presented as evidence a
subsisting marriage with another woman. certified copy of the marriage contract issued by the Office of the Civil
Registrar General and authenticated by the NSO. The erroneous
As to the charge of grossly immoral conduct, the respondent entries in the birth certificates of her children as to the place and date
denied that she caused the dissemination of a libelous and defamatory of her marriage were merely an oversight.[15]
affidavit against Councilor Jacome. On the contrary, it was Councilor
Jacome who caused the execution of said document. Additionally, the Sometime after the parties submitted their respective Offer of
complainant and her cohorts are the rumormongers who went around Evidence and Memoranda, the complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw
the city of Makati on the pretext of conducting a survey but did so to Complaint on 13 November 2002 after allegedly realizing that this
besmirch respondents good name and reputation. disbarment complaint arose out of a misunderstanding and
misappreciation of facts. Thus, she is no longer interested in pursuing
The charge of malpractice or other gross misconduct in office the case. This motion was not acted upon by the IBP.
was likewise denied by the respondent. She claimed that her Cristal-
Tenorio Law Office is registered with the Department of Trade and In her Report and Recommendation dated 30 September
Industry as a single proprietorship, as shown by its Certificate of 2003, IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline Milagros V. San Juan found
Registration of Business Name.[9] Hence, she has no partners in her law that the complainant failed to substantiate the charges of deceit and
office. As to the estafa case, the same had already been dropped grossly immoral conduct. However, she found the respondent guilty of
pursuant to the Order of 14 June 1996 issued by Branch 103 of the the charge of cooperating in the illegal practice of law by Felicisimo R.
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.[10] The respondent likewise denied Tenorio, Jr., in violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of
that she threatened the complainant with the words Isang bala ka Professional Responsibility based on the following evidence: (1) the
lang on 24 January 2000. letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office, which lists Felicisimo R.
Tenorio, Jr., as a senior partner; (2) the Sagip Communication Radio
Group identification card of Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., signed by
respondent as Chairperson; (3) and the Order dated 18 June 1997 We, however, affirm the IBPs finding that the respondent is guilty of
issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court in Criminal Cases Nos. 20729 assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. A lawyer who allows a non-
20734, whereinFelicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., entered his appearance as member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice
counsel and even moved for the provisional dismissal of the cases for law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of
failure of the private complainants to appear and for lack of interest to Professional Responsibility, which read as follows:
prosecute the said cases. Thus, Commissioner San Juan
recommended that the respondent be reprimanded. Canon 9 A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly
assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
In its Resolution No. XVI-2003-228 dated 25 October 2003,
the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any
the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner San Juan. The unqualified person the performance of any task
modification consisted in increasing the penalty from reprimand to which by law may only be performed by a
suspension from the practice of law for six months with a warning that member of the Bar in good standing.
a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.
The term practice of law implies customarily or habitually
We agree with the findings and conclusion of Commissioner holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a
San Juan as approved and adopted with modification by the Board of source of livelihood or in consideration of his services. Holding ones self
Governors of the IBP. out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose like
identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a
At the outset, we find that the IBP was correct in not acting client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general
on the Motion to Withdraw Complaint filed by complainant practice of law.[19] Such acts constitute unauthorized practice of law.
Cambaliza. In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,[16] we declared:
In this case, Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he
holds himself out as one. His wife, the respondent herein, abetted and
The affidavit of withdrawal of the aided him in the unauthorized practice of the legal profession.
disbarment case allegedly executed by
complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the At the hearing, the respondent admitted that the letterhead
respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office listed Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., Gerardo
may proceed regardless of interest or lack of A. Panghulan, and Maricris D. Battung as senior partners. She admitted
interest of the complainant. What matters is that the first two are not lawyers but paralegals. They are listed in the
whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by letterhead of her law office as senior partners because they have
the record, the charge of deceit and grossly investments in her law office.[20] That is a blatant misrepresentation.
immoral conduct has been duly proven. This
rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary The Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card is
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or another proof that the respondent assisted Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in
disbarment is not in any sense a civil action misrepresenting to the public that he is a lawyer. Notably, the
where the complainant is a plaintiff and the identification card stating that he is Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr., bears
respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary the signature of the respondent as Chairperson of the Group.
proceedings involve no private interest and
afford no redress for private grievance. They are The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and
welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of policy.Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
preserving courts of justice from the official individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The
ministration of persons unfit to practice in permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited
them. The attorney is called to answer to the privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
court for his conduct as an officer of the moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public,
court. The complainant or the person who called the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty
the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary
misconduct is in no sense a party, and has control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose
generally no interest in the outcome except as is attained.Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not
all good citizens may have in the proper to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or
administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency,
on record warrants, the respondent may be personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part,
suspended or disbarred despite the desistance subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized
of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. practice of law.[21]
Hence, notwithstanding the Motion to Withdraw Complaint, this
disbarment case should proceed accordingly. WHEREFORE, for culpable violation of Canon 9 and Rule
9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Ana
The IBP correctly found that the charges of deceit and grossly Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
immoral conduct were not substantiated. In disbarment proceedings, for a period of six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning that
the complainant has the burden of proving his case by convincing a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
evidence.[17] With respect to the estafa case which is the basis for the severely.
charge of malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the
respondent is not yet convicted thereof. In Gerona vs. Let copies of this Resolution be attached to respondent
Datingaling,[18] we held that when the criminal prosecution based on the Cristal-Tenorios record as attorney in this Court and furnished to the
same act charged is still pending in court, any administrative disciplinary IBP and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts.
proceedings for the same act must await the outcome of the criminal
case to avoid contradictory findings. SO ORDERED.
[B.M. No. 139. October 11, 1984.] In a comprehensive and well-documented Report which is hereby
made a part of this Resolution, the Clerk of Court
RE: ELMO S. ABAD, 1978 Successful Bar Examinee, ATTY. concluded:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN, JR., President of the Philippine Trial
Lawyers Association, Inc., Complainant, v. ELMO S. "The aforesaid documentary and testimonial evidence, as well as
ABAD, Respondent. the above report of the NBI, have clearly proved that respondent
Abad is still practicing law despite the decision of this Court of
SYLLABUS March 28, 1983."cralaw virtua1aw library
1. REMEDIAL LAW; ADMISSION TO THE BAR; A SUCCESSFUL The Clerk of Court makes the following
BAR EXAMINEE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND recommendations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
PENALIZED FOR UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW; CASE
AT BAR. — In a comprehensive and well-documented Report the "a. imposed a fine of P2,000.00 payable within ten (10) days from
Clerk of Court concluded that the documentary and testimonial receipt of this resolution or an imprisonment of twenty (20) days in
evidence, as well as the report of the National Bureau of case of non-payment thereof, with warning of drastic disciplinary
Investigation, have clearly proved that respondent Abad is still action of imprisonment in case of any further practice of law after
practicing law despite the decision of the Supreme Court of March receipt of this resolution; and
28, 1983 which held the respondent in contempt of court for
unauthorized practice of law. The Report has found as a fact, over b. debarred from admission to the Philippine Bar until such time
the denials of the respondent under oath, that he signed Exhibits that the Court find him fit to become such a member.
B, C, and D, and that he made appearances in Metro Manila
courts. This aspect opens the respondent to a charge for perjury. "It is further recommended that a circular be issued to all courts in
Elmo S. Abad is ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00 within ten (10) the Philippines through the Office of the Court Administrator that
days from notice, failing which he shall be imprisoned for twenty respondent Elmo S. Abad has not been admitted to the Philippine
(20) days. He is also warned that if he persists in the unauthorized Bar and is therefore not authorized to practice law."cralaw
practice of law he shall be dealt with more severely. The Court virtua1aw library
Administrator is directed to circularize all courts in the country that
the respondent has not been authorized to practice law, a copy of We find the Report to be in order and its recommendations to be
which to be sent to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Clerk well-taken. However, the latter are not sufficiently adequate in
of Court is directed to file with the City Fiscal of Manila an dealing with the improper activities of the Respondent.
appropriate complaint for false testimony against the Respondent.
The Report has found as a fact, over the denials of the respondent
2. ID.; ATTORNEYS; LAWYER HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR under oath, that he signed Exhibits B, C, and D, and that he made
COLLABORATING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW WITH ONE WHO appearances in Metro Manila courts. This aspect opens the
IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE BAR; CASE AT BAR. — The Report respondent to a charge for perjury.
of the Clerk of Court reveals that Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe
collaborated with the respondent as counsels for Antonio S. The Report also reveals that Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe collaborated
Maravilla one of the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 26084, 26085 with the respondent as counsels for Antonio S. Maravilla one of the
and 26086 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Exhibit D). accused in Criminal Case Nos. 26084, 26085 and 26086 of the
Atty. Jacobe is required to explain within ten (10) days from notice Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. (Exhibit D.) Atty. Jacobe
why he should not be disciplined for collaborating and associating should be called to account for his association with
in the practice of the law with the respondent who is not a member the Respondent.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
of the bar.
WHEREFORE, Elmo S. Abad is hereby ordered to pay a fine of
DECISION P2,000.00 within ten (10) days from notice, failing which he shall
be imprisoned for twenty (2) days. he is also warned that if he
ABAD SANTOS, J.: persists in the unauthorized practice of law he shall be dealt with
more severely.
On March 28, 1983, this Court held respondent ELMO S. ABAD in
contempt of court for unauthorized practice of law and he was The Court Administrator is directed to circularize all courts in the
fined P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case he failed to country that the respondent has not been authorized to practice
pay the fine. (121 SCRA 217.) He paid the fine. law. A copy of the circular should be sent to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.
On May 5, 1983, Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., the complainant,
filed a MOTION TO CIRCULARIZE TO ALL METRO MANILA The Clerk of Court is directed to file with the City Fiscal of Manila
COURTS THE FACT THAT ELMO S. ABAD IS NOT an appropriate complaint for false testimony against
AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW.chanrobles law library the Respondent.
Asked to comment on the Motion, Mr. Abad opposed it. He denied Finally, Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe is required to explain within ten (10)
the allegation in the Motion that he had been practicing law even days from notice why he should not be disciplined for collaborating
after our Decision of March 28, 1983. and associating in the practice of the law with the respondent who
is not a member of the bar.
Because the Motion and the Opposition raised a question of fact,
in Our resolution of April 10, 1984, We directed "the Clerk of Court SO ORDERED.
to conduct an investigation in the premises and submit a report
thereon with appropriate recommendation."cralaw virtua1aw library
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L. 19 May 2001 pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes
RANA, respondent. in the canvassing. He explains, however, that he did not sign the
pleading as a lawyer or represented himself as an attorney in the
DECISION pleading.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan,
respondent claims that he submitted his resignation on 11 May 2001
Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess which was allegedly accepted on the same date. He submitted a
the requisite moral integrity for membership in the legal profession. copy of the Certification of Receipt of Revocable Resignation dated
Possession of moral integrity is of greater importance than 28 May 2001 signed by Vice-Mayor Napoleon Relox. Respondent
possession of legal learning. The practice of law is a privilege further claims that the complaint is politically motivated considering
bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit that complainant is the daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing
cannot practice law even if he passes the bar examinations. candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent prays that
the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and that he be allowed
The Facts to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent Edwin L. Rana (respondent) was among those On 22 June 2001, complainant filed her Reply to respondents
who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. Comment and refuted the claim of respondent that his appearance
before the MBEC was only to extend specific assistance to Bunan.
On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath- Complainant alleges that on 19 May 2001 Emily Estipona-Hao
taking of successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine (Estipona-Hao) filed a petition for proclamation as the winning
Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre (complainant) filed against candidate for mayor. Respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-
respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Hao in this petition. When respondent appeared as counsel before
Bar. Complainant charged respondent with unauthorized practice of the MBEC, complainant questioned his appearance on two grounds:
law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave (1) respondent had not taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2) he was
misrepresentation. an employee of the government.
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member Respondent filed a Reply (Re: Reply to Respondents
of the Bar during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at the Comment) reiterating his claim that the instant administrative case
Philippine International Convention Center. However, the Court is motivated mainly by political vendetta.
ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending
the resolution of the charge against him. Thus, respondent took the On 17 July 2001, the Court referred the case to the Office of
lawyers oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and recommendation.
Attorneys up to now. OBCs Report and Recommendation
Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of
law and grave misconduct. Complainant alleges that respondent, The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before the
while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the MBEC as counsel for Bunan in the May 2001 elections. The minutes
May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election of the MBEC proceedings show that respondent actively participated
Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon, Masbate.Complainant further in the proceedings. The OBC likewise found that respondent
alleges that respondent filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 appeared in the MBEC proceedings even before he took the lawyers
May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the oath on 22 May 2001. The OBC believes that respondents
Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice- misconduct casts a serious doubt on his moral fitness to be a
Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself as counsel member of the Bar. The OBC also believes that respondents
for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan, and unauthorized practice of law is a ground to deny his admission to
signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan (Bunan). the practice of law. The OBC therefore recommends that
respondent be denied admission to the Philippine Bar.
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that
respondent is a municipal government employee, being a secretary On the other charges, OBC stated that complainant failed to
of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, cite a law which respondent allegedly violated when he appeared as
respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any counsel for Bunan while he was a government employee.
court or administrative body. Respondent resigned as secretary and his resignation was
accepted. Likewise, respondent was authorized by Bunan to
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, represent him before the MBEC.
complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice
mayoralty candidate George Bunan (Bunan) without the latter The Courts Ruling
engaging respondents services. Complainant claims that
respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that
of the winning vice mayoralty candidate. respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus
On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
respondent to take the lawyers oath but disallowed him from signing Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001.
the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him. However, the records show that respondent appeared as counsel
In the same resolution, the Court required respondent to comment for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001, before respondent took the lawyers
on the complaint against him. oath. In the pleading entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the
In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-
specific assistance to represent him before the MBEC. Respondent Mayor dated 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for
claims that he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer George Bunan. In the first paragraph of the same pleading
but as a person who knows the law. Respondent admits signing the respondent stated that he was the (U)ndersigned Counsel for, and
in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T. The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably
BUNAN. Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he strict. In Beltran, Jr. v. Abad,[6] a candidate passed the bar
had authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him examinations but had not taken his oath and signed the Roll of
before the MBEC and similar bodies. Attorneys. He was held in contempt of court for practicing law even
before his admission to the Bar. Under Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao the Rules of Court, a person who engages in the unauthorized
also retained respondent as her counsel. On the same date, 14 May practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court.[7]
2001, Erly D. Hao informed the MBEC that Atty. Edwin L. Rana has
been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal counsel of the True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and
party and the candidate of the said party. Respondent himself wrote took the lawyers oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of
the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he was entering his appearance as Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that
counsel for Mayoralty Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the
the REFORMA LM-PPC. On 19 May 2001, respondent signed as bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-
counsel for Estipona-Hao in the petition filed before the MBEC law.[8] Respondent should know that two essential requisites for
praying for the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers
candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of
Attorneys.[9]
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyers
oath. Clearly, respondent engaged in the practice of law without On the charge of violation of law, complainant contends that
being a member of the Philippine Bar. the law does not allow respondent to act as counsel for a private
client in any court or administrative body since respondent is the
In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,[1] the Court secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.
elucidated that:
Respondent tendered his resignation as secretary of the
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases Sangguniang Bayan prior to the acts complained of as constituting
or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and unauthorized practice of law. In his letter dated 11 May 2001
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the addressed to Napoleon Relox, vice- mayor and presiding officer of
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent stated that he was resigning
before judges and courts, and in addition, conveyancing. In effective upon your acceptance.[10] Vice-Mayor Relox accepted
general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in respondents resignation effective 11 May 2001.[11] Thus, the
matters connected with the law, incorporation services, evidence does not support the charge that respondent acted as
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an counsel for a client while serving as secretary of the Sangguniang
appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, Bayan.
enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation,
proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in evidence shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to
matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies.
law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal While there was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had
instruments, where the work done involves the determination by no authority to practice law.
the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5
Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). (Italics supplied) x x x WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED
admission to the Philippine Bar.
In Cayetano v. Monsod,[2] the Court held that practice of law
SO ORDERED.
means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually
performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to
practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use
of legal knowledge or skill.
Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when
he appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various
pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the
charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself
counsel knowing fully well that he was not a member of the Bar.
Having held himself out as counsel knowing that he had no authority
to practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a
member of the Philippine Bar.[3]
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right
but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with
special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of
this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge,
educational attainment, and even public trust[4] since a lawyer is an
officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to
practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice
of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has
passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had
practiced law without a license.[5]
A.C. No. 7036 JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM, Complainant, Present: - appears as one of the signatories of the document as the donors wife. However,
versus - VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, Honorata Rosil died on March 12, 2003, as shown by the Certificate of
and BERSAMIN, JJ. Promulgated: ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA, Death[15] issued by the Civil Registrar of Ibohon, Cotabato.
Respondent. June 29, 2009
Judge Laquindanum testified that Atty. Quintana continued to notarize
DECISION documents in the years 2006 to 2007 despite the fact that his commission as notary
public for and in the Province of Maguindanao and Cotabato City had already
expired on December 31, 2005, and he had not renewed the same.[16] To support her
PUNO, C.J.: This administrative case against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (Atty. claim, Judge Laquindanum presented the following: (1) Affidavit of Loss [of]
Quintana) stemmed from a letter[1] addressed to the Court filed by Executive Judge Title[17] executed by Betty G. Granada with subscription dated April 8, 2006
Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum (Judge Laquindanum) of the Regional Trial Court of at Cotabato City; (2) Certificate of Candidacy[18] of Mr. Elias Diosanta Arabis with
Midsayap, Cotabato requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed on him for subscription dated July 18, 2006; (3) Affidavit of Loss [of] Drivers License[19] executed
performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial by Anecito C. Bernabe with subscription dated February 20, 2007 at Midsayap,
jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission, and for Cotabato; and (4) Affidavit of Loss[20] executed by Santos V. Magbanua with
allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence. subscription dated February 22, 2007 at Midsayap, Cotabato.
In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-
8-02-SC, executive judges are required to closely monitor the activities of notaries For his part, Atty. Quintana admitted that all the signatures appearing in
public within the territorial bounds of their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries the documents marked as exhibits of Judge Laquindanum were his except for the
public shall not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Hence, following: (1) Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card[21] executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2)
she wrote a letter[2] to Atty. Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within Affidavit of Loss of Drivers License[22]executed by Elenita D. Ballentes; and (3)
the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which is Affidavit of Loss[23] executed by Santos V. Magbanua. He explained that those
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial documents were signed by his wife and were the result of an entrapment operation
commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) since certain of Judge Laquindanum: to let somebody bring and have them notarized by his wife,
documents[3] notarized by him had been reaching her office. when they knew that his wife is not a lawyer. He also denied the he authorized his
wife to notarize documents. According to him, he slapped his wife and told her to stop
However, despite such directive, respondent continuously performed doing it as it would ruin his profession.
notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato as evidenced by: (1) the Affidavit of Loss of
ATM Card[4] executed by Kristine C. Guro; and (2) the Affidavit of Loss of Drivers Atty. Quintana also claimed that Judge Laquindanum did not act on his
License[5] executed by Elenita D. Ballentes. petition, because he did not comply with her requirements for him to transfer his
membership to the Kidapawan Chapter, wherein her sister, Atty. Aglepa, is the IBP
Under Sec. 11, Rule III[6] of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. President.
Quintana could not extend his notarial acts beyond Cotabato Cityand
the Province of Maguindanao because Midsayap, Cotabato is not part On the one hand, Judge Laquindanum explained that she was only
of Cotabato City or the Province of Maguindanao. Midsayap is part of performing her responsibility and had nothing against Atty. Quintana.The reason why
the Province of Cotabato. The City within she did not act on his petition was that he had not paid his IBP dues, [24] which is a
the province of Cotabato is Kidapawan City, and not Cotabato City. requirement before a notarial commission may be granted. She told his wife to secure
Judge Laquindanum also alleged that, upon further investigation of the matter, it was a certification of payment from the IBP, but she did not return.
discovered that it was Atty. Quintanas wife who performed notarial acts whenever he
was out of the office as attested to by the Joint Affidavit[7] executed by Kristine C. This was denied by Atty. Quintana, who claimed that he enclosed in his
Guro and Elenita D. Ballentes. Response the certification of good standing and payments of his IBP dues. However,
when the same was examined, there were no documents attached thereto. Due to
In a Resolution dated February 14, 2006,[8] we required Atty. Quintana oversight, Atty. Quintana prayed that he be given time to send them later which was
to comment on the letter of Judge Laquindanum. granted by the Hearing Officer.
In his Response,[9] Atty. Quintana alleged that he filed a petition for Finally, Atty. Quintana asked for forgiveness for what he had done and
notarial commission before Branch 18, Regional Trial Court, Midsayap, promised not to repeat the same. He also asked that he be given another chance and
Cotabato. However, the same was not acted upon by Judge Laquindanum for three not be divested of his privilege to notarize, as it was the only bread and butter of his
weeks. He alleged that the reason for Judge Laquindanums inaction was that she family.
questioned his affiliation with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cotabato City
Chapter, and required him to be a member of IBP Kidapawan City Chapter and to On March 5, 2007, Atty. Quintana submitted to the OBC the
obtain a Certification of Payments from the latter chapter. Because of this, he opted documents[25] issued by the IBP Cotabato City Chapter to prove that he had paid his
to withdraw his petition. After he withdrew his petition, he claimed that Judge IBP dues.
Laquindanum sent a clerk from her office to ask him to return his petition, but he did
not oblige because at that time he already had a Commission for Notary In a Manifestation[26] dated March 9, 2007, Judge Laquindanum
Public[10] issued by Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional Trial Court, submitted a Certification[27] and its entries show that Atty. Quintana paid his IBP dues
Branch 14, Cotabato City. for the year 2005 only on January 9, 2006 per Official Receipt (O.R.) No.
610381. Likewise, the arrears of his IBP dues for the years 1993, 1995, 1996, and
Atty. Quintana lamented that he was singled out by Judge Laquindanum, 1998 to 2003 were also paid only on January 9, 2006 per O.R. No. 610387. Hence,
because the latter immediately issued notarial commissions to other lawyers without when he filed his petition for notarial commission in 2004, he had not yet completely
asking for so many requirements. However, when it came to him, Judge paid his IBP dues.
Laquindanum even tracked down all his pleadings; communicated with his clients;
and disseminated information through letters, pronouncements, and directives to In its Report and Recommendation,[28] the OBC recommended that Atty.
court clerks and other lawyers to humiliate him and be ostracized by fellow lawyers. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two (2) years;
and that if his notarial commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2)
Atty. Quintana argued that he subscribed documents in his office at years. The OBC found the defenses and arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be
Midsayap, Cotabato; and Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato.He contended without merit, viz:
that he did not violate any provision of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, because
he was equipped with a notarial commission.He maintained that he did not act outside Apparently, respondent has extended his
the province of Cotabato since Midsayap, Cotabato, where he practices his legal notarial acts in Midsayap and Kabacan, Cotabato, which is
profession and subscribes documents, is part of the province of Cotabato. He already outside his territorial jurisdiction to perform as
claimed that as a lawyer of good moral standing, he could practice his legal profession Notary Public.
in the entire Philippines.
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Atty. Quintana further argued that Judge Laquindanum had no authority Practice provides, thus:
to issue such directive, because only Executive Judge Reno E. Concha, who issued
his notarial commission, and the Supreme Court could prohibit him from notarizing in Jurisdiction and
the Province of Cotabato. Term A person commissioned
as notary public may perform
In a Resolution dated March 21, 2006,[11] we referred this case to the notarial acts in any place within
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation, report and recommendation. the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court for a
In the February 28, 2007 Hearing[12] before the OBC presided by Atty. period of two (2) years
Ma. Crisitina B. Layusa (Hearing Officer), Judge Laquindanum presented a Deed of commencing the first day of
Donation,[13] which was notarized by Atty. Quintana in 2004.[14] Honorata Rosil
January of the year in which the been commissioned as notary public as specifically
commissioning court is made, provided for under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He
unless earlier revoked [or] the must have submitted himself to the commissioning court by
notary public has resigned filing his petition for issuance of his notarial (sic) Notarial
under these Rules and the Rules Practice. The commissioning court may or may not grant the
of Court. said petition if in his sound discretion the petitioner does not
meet the required qualifications for [a] Notary Public. Since
Under the rule[,] respondent may perform his respondent herein did not submit himself to the procedural
notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the rules for the issuance of the notarial commission, he has no
commissioning Executive Judge Concha, which is in reason at all to claim that he can perform notarial act[s] in
Cotabato City and the [P]rovince of Maguindanao only. But the entire country for lack of authority to do so.
definitely he cannot extend his commission as notary public
in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of Likewise, contrary to the belief of respondent,
the province of Cotabato as he is not commissioned thereat complainant being the commissioning court in Midsayap,
to do such act. Midsayap and Kabacan are not part of Cotabato has the authority under Rule XI of the 2004 Rules
either Cotabato City or [P]rovince of Maguindanao but part on Notarial Practice to monitor the duties and
of the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the claim of responsibilities including liabilities, if any, of a notary public
respondent that he can exercise his notarial commission in commissioned or those performing notarial acts without
Midsayap, Cotabato because Cotabato City is part of authority in her territorial jurisdiction.[29]
the province of Cotabato is absolutely devoid of merit.
xxxx
xxxx
We adopt the findings of the OBC. However, we find the penalty of suspension from
Further, evidence on record also shows that the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and suspension of Atty.
there are several documents which the respondents wife Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) years more appropriate considering the
has herself notarized. Respondent justifies that he cannot gravity and number of his offenses.
be blamed for the act of his wife as he did not authorize the
latter to notarize documents in his absence. According to After a careful review of the records and evidence, there is no doubt that
him[,] he even scolded and told his wife not to do it anymore Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of
as it would affect his profession. Professional Responsibility when he committed the following acts: (1) he notarized
documents outside the area of his commission as a notary public; (2) he performed
In the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. notarial acts with an expired commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his
Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 the Court held, thus: absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was
already dead at that time.
A notary public is
personally accountable for all The act of notarizing documents outside ones area of commission is not
entries in his notarial register; to be taken lightly. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on
He cannot relieve himself of this Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.[30] Notarizing
responsibility by passing the documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the
buck to their (sic) secretaries laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is
deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to
A person who is commissioned as a notary indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes. [31] Notarizing
public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of
register. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,[32] Rule 1.01 of the Code
his wifes act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyers oath which unconditionally requires
documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally
his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot
wife, who acts as his secretary. relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of
violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers
Likewise, evidence reveals that respondent not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
notarized in 2004 a Deed of Donation (Rollo, p. 79) wherein,
(sic) Honorata Rosel (Honorata Rosil) one of the affiants All told, Atty. Quintana fell miserably short of his obligation under Canon
therein, was already dead at the time of notarization as 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs every lawyer to uphold at
shown in a Certificate of Death (Rollo, p.80) issued by the all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Civil Registrar General of Libungan, Cotabato. That Atty. Quintana relies on his notarial commission as the sole source of income
for his family will not serve to lessen the penalty that should be imposed on him. On
Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on the contrary, we feel that he should be reminded that a notarial commission should
Notarial Practice provides, thus[:] not be treated as a money-making venture.It is a privilege granted only to those who
are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. As we have declared on
A person shall not perform a notarial act if several occasions, notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is
the person involved as signatory to the instrument or invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
document (1) is not in the notarys presence personally authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily
at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing
known to the notary public through competent evidence upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be
of identity as defined by these Rules. underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a
public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof
Clearly, in notarizing a Deed of Donation of the authenticity thereof.[33]
without even determining the presence or qualifications of
affiants therein, respondent only shows his gross IN VIEW WHEREOF, the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q.
negligence and ignorance of the provisions of the 2004 Quintana, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being
Rules on Notarial Practice. commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a WARNING
xxxx that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more severely. He is
DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to
Furthermore, respondent claims that he, being determine when his suspension shall take effect.
a lawyer in good standing, has the right to practice his
profession including notarial acts in the Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal records of
entire Philippines. This statement is barren of merit. respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies furnished the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Court Administrator for circulation to all
While it is true that lawyers in good standing are courts in the country.
allowed to engage in the practice of law in
the Philippines.(sic) However, not every lawyer even in SO ORDERED.
good standing can perform notarial functions without having