LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 1
PART 2
DIFFERENT MODES OF INVESTIGATION
RULE 139-B
DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS
SECTION 1. How Instituted.—
Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or
discipline of attorneys may be taken by the
Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified
complaint of any person. The complaint shall state
clearly and concisely the facts complained of and
shall be supported by affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged
and/or by such documents as may substantiate said
facts.
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu
proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or
by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of
any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges
against any erring attorneys including those in the
government service: Provided, however, That all
charges against Justices of the Court of Appeals and
theSandiganbayan, and Judges of the Court of Tax
Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are
jointly charged with them, shall be filed with the
Supreme Court: Provided, further, That charges
filed against Justices and Judges before the IBP,
including those filed prior to their appointment in
the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to
the Supreme Court for disposition and
adjudication. (As amended by Bar Matter No. 1960,
May 1, 2000.)
Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be
filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary
of any of its chapters who shall forthwith transmit
the same to the IBP Board of Governors for
assignment to an investigator.
A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF
THE PHILIPPINES
SEC. 2. National Grievance Investigators.—The
Board of Governors shall appoint from among IBP
members an Investigator or, when special
circumstances so warrant, a panel of three (3)
investigators to investigate the complaint. All
Investigators shall take an oath of office in the form
prescribed by the Board of Governors. A copy of
the Investigator's appointment and oath shall be
transmitted to the Supreme Court.
An Investigator may be disqualified by reason
of relationship within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity to any of the parties or
their counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias, or
his having acted as counsel for either party, unless
the parties sign and enter upon the record their
written consent to his acting as such Investigator.
Where the Investigator does not disqualify himself,
a party may appeal to the IBP Board of Governors,
which by majority vote of the members present,
there being a quorum, may order his
disqualification.
Any Investigator may also be removed for
cause, after the hearing, by the vote of at least six
(6) members of the IBP Board of Governors. The
decision of the Board of Governors in all cases of
disqualification or removal shall be final.
SEC. 3. Duties of the National Grievance
Investigator.—The National Grievance Investigators
shall investigate all complaints against members of
the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP
Board of Governors.
SEC. 4. Chapter assistance to complainant.—
The proper IBP Chapter may assist the
complainants) in the preparation and filing of his
complaint(s).
SEC. 5. Service or dismissal.—If the complaint
appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall
direct that a copy thereof be served upon the
respondent, requiring him to answer the same
within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If
the complaint does not merit action, or if the
answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator
that the complaint is not meritorious, the same
may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon
his recommendation. A copy of the resolution of
dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and
the Supreme Court which may review the
case motu proprio or upon timely appeal of the
complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the
dismissal of the complaint.
No investigation shall be interrupted or
terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute
the same.
SEC. 6. Verification and service of answer.—The
answer shall be verified. The original and five (5)
legible copies of the answer shall be filed with the
Investigator, with proof of service of a copy thereof
on the complainant or his counsel.
SEC. 7. Administrative counsel.—The IBP Board
of Governors shall appoint a suitable member of
the Integrated Bar as counsel to assist the

complainant or the respondent during the
investigation in case of need for such assistance.
SEC. 8. Investigation.—Upon joinder of issues
or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the
Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed
with the investigation of the case. He shall have the
power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths.
The respondent shall be given full opportunity to
defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf,
and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if
upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to
appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte.
The Investigator shall terminate the
investigation within three (3) months from the date
of its commencement, unless extended for good
cause by the Board of Governors upon prior
application.
Willful failure to refusal to obey a subpoena or
any other lawful order issued by the Investigator
shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of
court. The corresponding charge shall be filed by
the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors
which shall require the alleged contemnor to show
cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP
Board of Governors may thereafter conduct
hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the
procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings before
the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as
practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days
from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board
of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen
(15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings
and recommendations, which shall forthwith be
transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action
and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.
SEC. 9. Depositions.—Depositions may be
taken in accordance with the Rules of Court with
leave of the investigators).
Within the Philippines, depositions may be
taken before any member of the Board of
Governors, the President of any Chapter, or any
officer authorized by law to administer oaths.
Depositions may be taken outside the
Philippines before a diplomatic or consular
representative of the Philippine Government or
before any person agreed upon by the parties or
designated by the Board of Governors.
Any suitable member of the Integrated Bar in
the Place where a deposition shall be taken may be
designated by the Investigator to assist the
complainant or the respondent in taking a
deposition.
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 2
PART 2
SEC. 10. Report of Investigator.—Not later than
thirty (30) days from the termination of the
investigation, the Investigator shall submit a report
containing his findings of fact and recom-
mendations to the IBP Board of Governors,
together with the stenographic notes and the
transcript thereof, and all the evidence presented
during the investigation. The submission of the
report need not await the transcription of the
stenographic notes, it being sufficient that the
report reproduce substantially from the
Investigator's personal notes any relevant and
pertinent testimonies.
SEC. 11. Defects.—No defect in a complaint,
notice, answer, or in the proceeding or the
Investigator's Report shall be considered as
substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon
considering the whole record, finds that such
defect has resulted or may result in a miscarriage of
justice, in which event the Board shall take such
remedial action as the circumstances may warrant,
including invalidation of the entire proceedings.
SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of
Governors.—
(a) Every case heard by an investigator
shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the record and evidence
transmitted to it by the Investigator with his
report. The decision of the Board upon such
review shall be in writing and shall clearly and
distinctly state the facts and the reasons on
which it is based. It shall be promulgated
within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days
from the next meeting of the Board following
the submittal of the Investigator's Report.
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a
majority of its total membership, determines
that the respondent should be suspended from
the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the
whole record of the case, shall forthwith be
transmitted to the Supreme Court for final
action.
(c) If the respondent is exonerated by
the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed
by it is less than suspension or disbarment
(such as admonition, reprimand, or find) it
shall issue a decision exonerating respondent
or imposing such sanction. The case shall be
deemed terminated unless upon petition of
the complainant or other interested party filed
with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15)

days from notice of the Board's resolution, the
Supreme Court orders otherwise.
(d) Notice of the resolution or decision
of the Board shall be given to all parties
through their counsel. A copy of the same shall
be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT
SEC. 13. Supreme Court Investigators.—In
proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme
Court or in other proceedings when the interest of
justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer
the case for investigation to the Solicitor General or
to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a
lower court, in which case the investigation shall
proceed in the same manner provided in sections 6
to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of
investigation shall be conducted directly by the
Supreme Court.
SEC. 14. Report of the Solicitor General or
other Court designated Investigator.—Based upon
the evidence adduced at the investigation, the
Solicitor General or other Investigator designated
by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme
Court a report containing his findings of fact and
recommendations together with the record and all
the evidence presented in the investigation for the
final action of the Supreme Court.
C. COMMON PROVISIONS
SEC. 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme
Court.—After receipt of respondent's answer or
lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme
Court, motu proprio, or at the instance of the IBP
Board of Governors upon the recommendation of
the Investigators, may suspend an attorney from
the practice of his profession for any of the causes
specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the
pendency of the investigation until such suspension
is lifted by the Supreme Court.
SEC. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of
Appeals or a Regional Trial Court.—The Court of
Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an
attorney from practice for any of the causes named
in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the
Supreme Court in the case.
SEC. 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals
or Regional Trial Court, further proceedings in
Supreme Court.—Upon such suspension, the Court
of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall forthwith
transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of
the order of suspension and a full statement of the
facts upon which the same was based. Upon
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 3
PART 2
receipt of such certified copy and statement, the
Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the
case and may revoke, shorten or extend the
suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may
warrant.
SEC. 18. Confidentiality.—Proceedings against
attorneys shall be private and confidential.
However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall
be published like its decisions in other cases.
SEC. 19. Expenses.—All reasonable and
necessary expenses incurred in relation to
disciplinary and disbarment proceedings are lawful
charges for which the parties may be taxed as
costs.
SEC. 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision.—
This Rule shall take effect on June 1, 1988 and shall
supersede the present Rule 139 entitled
"DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEYS." All
cases pending investigation by the Office of the
Solicitor General shall be transferred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors for investigation and disposition as
provided in this Rule except those cases where the
investigation has been substantially
completed. (Bar Matter No. 356, Resolution April
13, 1988.)
FERNANDEZ VS. GRECIA
CHARACTERS:
Alberto Fernandez -cardiologist
Isabelo Ongteco –head, OB-gyne
Achilles Bartolome -urologist
St. Lukes Medical Center
versus
Atty. Benjamin Grecia
-charged with dishonesty and grave misconduct in
connection with the theft of some pages from the
medical chart. –Aug. 20, 1991
-disbarred for his immoral complicity or unholy
alliance w/a Judge in QC to rip off banks and
Chinese’s business. –Nov.12, 1987
(3yrs later, he was reinstated in the profession)
Atty. Aves –respondent’s client
Fe Linda Aves –wife of Atty. Aves, died bec. Of pre-
eclampsia
Acting Branch of Clerk: Arnie Sandico and Avelina
Robles
-witnesses when Grecia tore the pages of the
medical chart
Sid-Grecia’s driver whom Grecia gave the pages.
PO3 Alabastro –proved that Sid is Grecia’s driver.

Facts:
Fe was 7ms. Pregnant, and was rushed to St. Lukes
complaining of dizziness, hypertension, and
abdominal pains with vaginal bleeding. Died.
Blaming the doctors for the death of his wife, Atty.
Aves filed a complaint against them and the
hospital. –Atty. Damaso et.al. vs. St. Lukes, et.al.
During the litigation in the lower court, Atty Grecia,
allegedly asked the clerk of court the
medical chart of the aforementioned patient which
was at that time in the court's possession, and
thereafter tore two pages identified as pages 72
and 73.
Fernandez et al filed a disbarment case against Atty
Grecia for theft of documents pertaining to the
latter’s case against the petitioners. (Fernandez et
al.)
In view of Atty Grecia's unprofessional conduct, the
petitioners filed the case for disbarment.
Issue: Whether or not the disbarment case is
meritorious.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court cited Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 in
the Rules of Professional Responsibility being
violated by Atty Grecia, notwithstanding that he
was once disbarred to practice law on November
12, 1987 for his 'unholy alliance' with a judge in
Quezon city to rip off banks and Chinese business
firms. And that 8 months after the Supreme Court
heeding his pleas for compassion and promise to
mend his ways, it was just eight months after that
he is faced with yet another disbarment case. In
evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses, the
court states that they are entirely credible and
without any guile not attempt at fabrication,
remaining constant even under pressure of cross-
examination, and absolutely no motive to testify
falsely against the respondent. To quote the
Supreme Court’s decision, they say that "by
descending to the level of a common thief,
respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced
the legal profession. He has demonstrated his
moral unfitness to continue as a member of the
honorable fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his
membership in the BAR."
Atty Grecia was then ordered disbarred, his license
to practice law in the Philippines cancelled and his
name was ordered to be stricken out of the Roll of
Attorneys.
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 4
PART 2
YUSECO VS. BERNAD
CHARACTERS:
Atty. Yuseco –counsel of Grecia
Benjamin Grecia –disbarred
versus
Juanito Bernad –Deputy Court Administrator
-charged with suppressing facts and making false
statements in his reports against the case of Grecia
–Fernandez,et.al. vs. Grecia
Facts:
Allegations against Bernad:
1. Atty. Grecia has no reason or motive to remove
or detach the alleged pages 72 and 73 of the
medical chart because the entries and contents
thereof are material and favourable to the claim of
his clients against complainants.
2. the court practices unholy alliance of Judge
Bernad.
3. massive suppression of whole body of evidence
decisive of the innocence of atty. Grecia.
4. Judge Bernad supressed and withheld from the
court the strong and positive declaration of judge
teresita capulong that atty. Grecia was not present
when the alleged incident happened and that she
did not ask him to explain anything.
5. Judge bernad supressed and withheld from the
court the admission of complainants’ lawyer, atty.
Bu castro, that he was the one who borrowed the
medical chart and not atty. Grecia.
6. Judge Bernad had supressed the fact that there
was no confusion and that the man from whom
Judge Capulong allegedly got the pages of the
medical chart stayed in the courtroom for
sometime but neither the clerk, the judge nor the
lawyers of the complainants caused his arrest filed
a motion for contempt or got his name and full
identity.
7. Judge Bernad criminally supressed and withheld
the fact that no complaint and no affidavit was filed
in the case and that the records of civil case no.
3548-v-91 do not contain any report, affidavit or
complaint or information on alleged untoward
incident.
8. Judge Bernad supressed the fact that long after
the alleged incident, the Quasha Law office got
back the medical chart without any protest or

reservation that any page/s thereof were lost,
detached, torn or crumpled.
9. Judge Bernad did not exert effort to have the
mystery man produced before him so he can be
confronted. He alone can prove what paper/s were
given to him and who gave it to him.
10. Evidence of similar act of planting evidence by
the Quasha law office was suppressed by Judge
Bernad.
11. The police ha recently gotten hold of his
extremely vital witness, “the unidentified man”
mentioned in the decision of the court.
12. Judge bernad supressed and did not include in
his findings the facts which are decisively
destructive of his absolutely false findings.
RULING:
1. Respondent had no duty to complaint to
furnish him a copy of his report in the
disbarment case. That report was submitted
to the Court solely for its use.
2. Complainants cite 14 instances in w/c
respondent allegedly made false statements
in his report to the court.
3. What complainants must know is that, the
Court assumes full responsibility for all its
acts. Its personnel cannot answer and
should not be made to answer for acts of
the court.
4. Complainants allege that respondent
Bernad is a close personal friend of Atty.
Pompeyo Nolasco, counsel of the
complainants in the disbarment case
against Grecia,and that because of this,
Bernard’s objectivity and impartiality were
in grave doubt and and in serious question.
HELD: complaint is dismissed.
What complainants charge as suppression in the
report are omissions of facts which in the exercise
of sound judgment were found to be immaterial.
BARRIENTOS vs. DAAROL
CHARACTERS:
Victoria Barrientos – 20yrs. Old, college student
family friend of respondent
Versus
Transfiguracion Daarol – 41yrs. Old, ZANECO Gen.
Manager, family friend of petitioner, lawyer,
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 5
PART 2
previous student of petioner’s father; college
classmate of her mother; friend of her sister,
separated with his wife for 16yrs. But marriage was
not annulled yet, had a son, promised marriage to
the petitioner, suggests abortion.
FACTS:
TRANS had been known by the BARRIENTOS family
for quite sometime being the former student of
Victoria BARRIENTOS ’father and a former
classmate of Victoria BARRIENTOS’ mother. TRANS
courted BARRIENTOS and after a week of courtship,
BARRIENTOS accepted TRANS’ love. At this time,
TRANS was separated from his wife for 16 years.
BARRIENTOS, with her parent’s permission, was
TRANS’ partner during the Chamber Commerce
affair. After the event and before going home, they
parked the jeep at the beach and there they had
sexual intercourse.
They consummated the sexual act. This was their
set up until BARRIENTOS got pregnant. TRANS
suggested abortion but BARRIENTOS
disagreed. During her pregnancy until she gave
birth, it was BARRIENTOS’ family who took care of
her. TRANS asked them to go to Manila so they will
get married, but then when they arrived, TRANS
called them, admitting that he is already married
but will annul the previous marriage and will give
support for the baby. They went back to Zambales,
then when she was about to deliver the baby
TRANS asked them to go to Cebu to deliver the
baby, but they got no response from TRANS since
then. BARRIENTOS then filed an administrative case
against TRANS. with the National Electrification
Administration which was however
dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
Issue: W/n Trans should be disbarred.
HELD: "Good Moral Character is a condition which
precedes admission to the bar. It is a continuing
qualification which all lawyers must possess."
From the records, it is indubitable that BARRIENTOS
was never informed by TRANS of his real status as a
married individual. The fact of his previous
marriage was disclosed by TRANS only after
BARRIENTOS became pregnant. Moreover, TRANS
misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-
marry for having been separated from his wife for
16 years and evendangled a marriage
proposal.Interestingly enough, TRANS lived alone in
Dipolog City though his son also studies in the same
area. Moreover, he neverintroduced his son and
went around with his friends as though he was

never married. These circumstances belie TRANS’
claim that the BARRIENTOS family knew about his
marital status at the very start of the courtship.But
what surprises the Court is the perverted sense of
TRANS’ moral values when he said that “I see
nothing wrong withthis relationship despite my
being married”. Worse, he even suggested
abortion. The practice of law is a privilege accorded
only to those who measure up to the exacting
standards of mental and moralfitness. TRANS’
having exhibited debased morality, the Court
is constrained to impose upon him the most
severedisciplinary action --- disbarment.
AM No. RTJ-90-580
BALAOING VS. CALDERON
April 27, 1993
Ponente: Per Curiam
FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Balaoing filed several
administrative complaints against different judges.
His first complaint was against Hon. Dojillo which
was dismissed for lack of merit. Atty. Balaoing was
then required to show cause why on why he should
not be disciplinarily dealt with for suppressing
certain material facts and for engaging in forum
shopping. His explanation was declared
unsatisfactory by the court and he was severely
censured for having instituted a patently
unfounded and frivolous administrative action, and
warned that the commission by him of the same or
similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
He filed another administrative complaint against
Judge Maliwanag, charging the latter with grave
misconduct for failure and refusal to issue the
corresponding writ of execution prayed for by
complainant in his motion. The court resolved to
dismiss the complaint, suspend complainant from
the practice of law for one (1) year, and impose a
fine of P1 000 in violation of the canons of code of
professional responsibility.
Notwithstanding the above warnings, Balaoing
again filed administrative complaints to Judge
Maliwanag and Calderon for misconduct, grave
abuse of authority and malicious delay in the
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 6
PART 2
administration of justice. He further alleges that
respondent judge has been maliciously delaying the
disposition of several cases pending his sala.
He, yet again, filed a second-letter complaint
against Judge Calderon and his Officer-in-Charge
(OIC) Maniago for grave abuse of authority and
malicious delay in the administration of justice.
Judge Maliwanag, Judge Calderon, and OIC
Maniago filed their separate response to Atty.
Balaoing’s allegations, in which, the court found
their response to be satisfactory.
ISSUES:
DECISION:
The court dismissed the administrative complaints,
disbarred, and stricken Atty. Balaoing from the Roll
of Attorneys based on the ground that he wantonly
disregarded the court’s warning not to again file
baseless and frivolous administrative complaints
and he adamantly refused to abide by Canon 11,
Rule 11.03 and 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
CANON 11 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND
MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND
TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON
SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS . . .
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
AM NO. 1625
BAUTISTA VS. GONZALES
February 12, 1990
Ponente: Per Curiam
FACTS:
Bautista, Atty. Gonzales’ former client, filed a case
against the latter for malpractice, deceit, gross
misconduct, and violation of lawyer’s oath.

On July 15, 1976, complainant submitted an
amended complaint for disbarment alleging that
Atty. Gonzales committed the following acts:
1. He accepted a case with the Fortunados
wherein he agreed to pay all expenses,
including court fees, for a contingent fee of
fifty percent (50%) of the value of property
of litigation.
2. He acted as counsel for Fortunados where
Eugenio Lopez, Jr. is one of the defendants
and without the case terminated, he acted
as counsel for Lopez, Jr. in another case.
3. He transferred one-half of the properties of
the Fortunados while the said properties
are the subject of a pending litigation.
4. He induced Bautista to enter in a contract
for the development of the land while
claiming that he acquired fifty percent
(50%) thereof as counsel for the
Fortunados, while knowing that the said
property was already sold at a public
auction.
5. He filed falsified documents to the Court of
First Instance and Fiscal’s Office of Quezon
City.
6. Harassing complainant by filing several
complaints without legal basis.
Court referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor
General. Five years after, respondent Gonzales filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that the long delay in the resolution of the
complaint against him constitutes a violation of his
constitutional right to due process and speedy
disposition of cases. Solicitor General (SG)
explained that the delay in the investigation was
due to the numerous requests for postponement of
scheduled hearings filed by both parties and
motions for extension to file their memoranda.
Upon the Court’s order to submit his report and
recommendation within thirty (30) days, the SG
submitted a report recommending the suspension
of Atty. Gonzales for six (6) months.
On April 14, 1989, Respondent Gonzales filed a
motion to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) pursuant to Rule 139-B of the
Revised Rules of Court. He manifested that he
intends to submit more evidence before the IBP. He
also claims that under Rule 139, SG’s preliminary
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 7
PART 2
investigation is limited to determining whether
there is sufficient ground to proceed with the case
and he still has to file an administrative complaint
against him. He also invokes section 20 of Rule 139-
B.
ISSUES:
Procedural Issue/s:
1. W/N to allow respondent’s motion to refer
the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP)
Substantive Issue/s:
1. W/N Gonzales committed the acts of
misconduct alleged by complainant
Bautista.
DECISION:
The court denied respondent’s motion to refer the
case to the IBP on the following grounds:
1. The court is not required to refer the
complaints against lawyers to the IBP.
2. Referring the case to the IBP is not needed
since the SG’s investigation has been
substantially completed.
3. The investigation conducted a thorough and
comprehensive investigation thus
respondent’s assertion that he still has
some evidence to present is not tenable
since he was already given that opportunity
during the course of the SG’s investigation.
The court accepted SG’s recommendation and
ordered the six (6) months suspension of Atty.
Gonzales based on the following findings:
1. By executing the transfer of one-half (1/2)
of the Fortunados property which was still
subject to a pending litigation, he violated
the law prohibiting a lawyer from acquiring
his client's property or interest involved in
any litigation in which he may take part by
virtue of his profession. A purchase by a
lawyer of his client’s property in litigation
constitutes a breach of professional ethics.
2. By failing to disclose to Bautista, during the
land development agreement was entered
into, that the land covered had already

been sold at a public auction, he violated
the principle that a lawyer should observe
honesty and fairness even in his private
dealings and failure to do so is a ground for
disciplinary action against him.
3. By submitting falsified documents to the
Court of First Instance of Quezon City, he
violated section 20 (d) of Rule 138 which
provides that “A lawyer should never seek
to mislead the court by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law”.
4. By agreeing to accept a case and to pay all
expenses, including court fees, for a
contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the
value of property of litigation, he violated
Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not
properly agree with a client to pay or bear
the expenses of litigation.
Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan
Facts: The case stemmed from the resolution of the
Supreme Court stopping the respondent from
investigating graft cases involvingAntique Gov.
Enrique Zaldivar. The Court ruled that since the
adoption of the 1987 Constitution, respondent’s
powers as Tanodbayan have been superseded by
the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman, he
however becomes the Special Prosecutor of the
State, and can only conduct an investigation and
file cases only when so authorized by
theOmbudsman. A motion for reconsideration was
filed by the respondent wherein he included
statements which were unrelated in the Issue
raised in the Court. This include: (a)That he had
been approached twice by a leading member of the
court and he was asked to 'go slow on Zaldivar and
'not to be too hard on him; (b) That he "was
approached and asked to refrain from investigating
the COA report on illegal disbursements in the
Supreme Court because 'it will embarass the
Court;" and (c) that in several instances, the
undersigned respondent was called over the phone
by a leading member of the Court and was asked to
dismiss the cases against two Members of the
Court." Statements of the respondent saying that
the SC’s order '"heightens the people's
apprehension over the justice system in this
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 8
PART 2
country, especially because the people have been
thinking that only the small fly can get it while big
fishes go scot-free” was publicized in
leading newspapers.
Now, the Court Resolved to require respondent to
explain in writing why he should not be punished
for contempt of court for making such public
statements reported in the media. Respondent
then sought to get some members of the Court to
inhibit themselves in the resolution of the Zaldivar
case for alleged bias and prejudice against him. A
little later, he in effect asked the whole Court to
inhibit itself from passing upon the Issue involved
in proceeding and to pass on responsibility for this
matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
upon the ground that respondent cannot expect
due process from this Court, that the Court has
become incapable of judging him impartially and
fairly. The Court found respondent guilty of
contempt of court and indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law. Now, he assails
said conviction, invoking his freedom of speech.
Counsel for respondent urges that it is error "for
this Court to apply the "visible tendency" rule
rather than the "clear and present danger" rule in
disciplinary and contempt charges."
Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of
the freedom of speech/expression.
Held: There was no violation. The Court did not
purport to announcea new doctrine of "visible
tendency," it was simply paraphrasing Section 3 (d)
of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court which
penalizes a variety of contumacious conduct
including: "any improper conduct tending, directly
or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the
administration of justice."
Under either the "clear and present danger" test or
the "balancing-of-interest test," the Court held that
the statements made by respondent Gonzalez are
of such a nature and were made in such a manner
and under such circumstances, as to transcend the

permissible limits of free speech. What is here at
stake is the authority of the Supreme Court to
confront and prevent a "substantive evil" consisting
not only of the obstruction of a free and fair
hearing of a particular case but also the avoidance
of the broader evil of the degradation of the
judicial system of a country and the destruction
of the standards ofprofessional conduct required
from members of the bar and officers of the courts,
which has some implications to the society.
Narag vs. Narag
Facts:
Atty. Narag’s spouse filed a petition for
disbarment in the IBP alleging that her husband
courted one of his students, later maintaining her
as a mistress and having children by her. Atty.
Narag claims that his wife was a possessive, jealous
woman who abused him and filed the complaint
out of spite. IBP disbarred him, hence, this
petition.
Held:
Narag failed to prove his innocence because
he failed to refute the testimony given against him
and it was proved that his actions were of public
knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering to
his wife and children. Good moral character is a
continuing qualification required of every member
of the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the
exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme
Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice
law. (Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for
Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the
practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all
members. Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of
gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred. Grossly immoral means it must be so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or 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. As a lawyer, one must not only
refrain from adulterous relationships but must not
behave in a way that scandalizes the public by
creating a belief that he is flouting those moral
standards.
STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 9
PART 2
RULE 138-A
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
SECTION 1. Conditions for Student Practice.—
A law student who has successfully completed his
3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed law
curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law
school's clinical legal education program approved
by the Supreme Court, may appear without
compensation in any civil, criminal or
administrative case before any trial court, tribunal,
board or officer, to represent indigent clients
accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.
SEC. 2. Appearance.—The appearance of the
law student authorized by this rule, shall be under,
the direct supervision and control of a member of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly
accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings,
motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be
filed, must be signed by the supervening attorney
for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
SEC. 3. Privileged communications.—The Rules
safeguarding privileged communications between
attorney and client shall apply to similar
communications made to or received by the law
student, acting for the legal clinic.
SEC. 4. Standards of conduct and supervision.
—The law student shall comply with the standards
of professional conduct governing members of the
Bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate
supervision of student practice may be a ground for
disciplinary action. (SC Circular No. 19, prom. Dec.
19, 1986.
RULE 139
DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF
ATTORNEYS*
SECTION 1. Motion or complaint.—Proceedings
for the removal or suspension of attorneys may be
taken by the Supreme Court on its own motion or
upon the complaint under oath of another in
writing. The complaint shall set out distinctly,
clearly, and concisely the facts complained of,
supported by affidavits, if any, of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged
and shall be accompanied with copies of such
documents as may substantiate said facts.
SEC. 2. Service or dismissal.—If the complaint
appears to merit action, a copy thereof shall be
served upon the respondent, requiring him to
answer the same within ten (10) days from the date

of service. If the complaint does not merit action,
or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the
Supreme Court that the complaint is not
meritorious, the same shall be dismissed.
SEC. 3. Investigation by Solicitor General.—
Upon the issues raised by the complaint and
answer, or upon failure of the respondent to
answer, the case shall be referred to the Solicitor
General for investigation to determine if there is
sufficient ground to proceed with the prosecution
of the respondent. In the investigation conducted
by the Solicitor General, the respondent shall be
given full opportunity to defend himself, to produce
witnesses on his own behalf, and to be heard by
himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable
notice, the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceed ex parte.
SEC. 4. Report of the Solicitor General.—Based
upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, if the
Solicitor General finds no sufficient ground to
proceed against the respondent, he shall submit a
report to the Supreme Court containing his findings
of fact and conclusion, whereupon the respondent
shall be exonerated unless the court orders
differently.
SEC. 5. Complaint of the Solicitor General.
Answer of respondent.—If the Solicitor General
finds sufficient ground to proceed against the
respondent, he shall file the corresponding
complaint, accompanied with all the evidence
introduced in his investigation, with the Supreme
Court, and the respondent shall be served by the
clerk of the Supreme Court with a copy of the
complaint with direction to answer the same within
fifteen (15) days.
SEC. 6. Evidence produced before Solicitor
General available.—The evidence produced before
the Solicitor General in his investigation may be
considered by the Supreme Court in the final
decision of the case, if the respondent had an
opportunity to object and cross-examine. If in the
respondent's answer no statement is made as to
any intention of introducing additional evidence,
the case shall be set down for hearing, upon the
filing of such answer or upon the expiration of the
time to file the same.
SEC. 7. Commissioner to investigate and
recommend. Rules of evidence.—Upon receipt of
the respondent's answer, wherein a statement is
made as to his desire to introduce additional
evidence, the case shall be referred to a
commissioner who, in the discretion of the court,
may be the clerk of the Supreme Court, a judge of
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 10
PART 2
the Regional Trial Court, or an attorney-at-law for
investigation, report, and recommendation. The
Solicitor General or his representative shall appear
before the commissioner to conduct the
prosecution. The respondent shall be given full
opportunity to defend himself, to produce
additional evidence in his own behalf, and to be
heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon
reasonable notice the respondent fails to appear,
the investigation shall proceed ex parte. The rules
of evidence shall be applicable to proceedings of
this nature.
SEC. 8. Report of commissioner and hearing.—
Upon receipt of the report of the commissioner,
copies of which shall be furnished the Solicitor
General and the respondent, the case shall be set
down for hearing before the court, following which
the case shall be considered submitted to the court
for its final determination.
SEC. 9. Procedure in Court of Appeals or
Regional Trial Court.—As far as may be applicable,
the procedure above outlined shall likewise govern
the filing and investigation of complaints against
attorneys in the Court of Appeals or in Regional
Trial Court. In case of suspension of the
respondent, the judge of Regional Trial Court or
Justice of the Court of Appeals shall forthwith
transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of
the order of suspension and a full statement of the
facts upon which same is based.
SEC. 10. Confidential.—Proceedings against
attorneys shall be private and confidential, except
that the final order of the court shall be made
public as in other cases coming before the court.
RULE 139-A
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Section 1. Organization. — There is hereby
organized an official national body to be known as
the "Integrated Bar of the Philippines," composed
of all persons whose names now appear or may
hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court.
Section 2. Purposes. — The fundamental purposes
of the Integrated Bar shall be to elevate the
standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
discharge its public responsibility more effectively.

Section 3. Regions. — The Philippines is hereby
divided into nine Regions of the Integrated Bar, to
wit:
(a) Northern Luzon, consisting of the
provinces of Abra, Batanes, Benguet,
Cagayan, Ifugao, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur,
Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, La Union,
Mountain Province, Nueva Vizcaya, and
Quirino.
(b) Central Luzon, consisting of the
provinces of Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija,
Pampanga, Pangasinan, Tarlac, and
Zambales;
(c) Greater Manila, consisting of the City of
Manila and Quezon City;
(d) Southern Luzon, consisting of the
provinces of Batangas, Cavite, Laguna,
Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental
Mindoro, Quezon, and Rizal;
(e) Bicolandia, consisting of the provinces of
Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur,
Catanduanes, Masbate, and Sorsogon;
(f) Eastern Visayas, consisting of the
provinces of Bohol, Cebu, Eastern Samar,
Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar, and
Southern Leyte;
(g) Western Visayas, consisting of the
provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Iloilo,
Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental,
Palawan, Romblon, and Siquijor.
(h) Eastern Mindanao, consisting of the
provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan Del
Sur, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Davao del Norte,
Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Misamis
Oriental, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del
Sur; and
(i) Western Mindanao, consisting of the
cities of Basilan and Zamboanga, and the
provinces of Cotabato, Lanao del Norte,
Lanao del Sur, Misamis Occidental, South
Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, and
Zamboanga del Sur.
In the event of the creation of any new province,
the Board of Governors shall, with the approval of
the Supreme Court, determine the Region to which
the said province shall belong.
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 11
PART 2
Section 4. Chapters. — A Chapter of the Integrated
Bar shall be organized in every province. Except as
hereinbelow provided, every city shall be
considered part of the province within which it is
geographically situated.
A separate Chapter shall be organized in each of
the following political subdivisions or areas;
(a) The sub-province of Aurora;
(b) Each congressional district of the City of
Manila;
(c) Quezon City;
(d) Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;
(e) Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong and
San Juan del Monte;
(f) Cebu City; and
(g) Zamboanga City and Basilan City.
Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a
particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered a
member of the Chapter of the province, city,
political subdivision or area where his office, or, in
the absence thereof, his residence is located. In no
case shall any lawyer be a member of more than
one Chapter.
Each Chapter shall have its own local government
as provided for by uniform rules to be prescribed
by the Board of Governors and approved by the
Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 19 of this
Rule notwithstanding.
Chapters belonging to the same Region may hold
regional conventions on matters and problems of
common concern.
Section 5. House of Delegates. — The Integrated
Bar shall have a House of Delegates of not more
than one hundred twenty members who shall be
apportioned among all the Chapters as nearly as
may be according to the number of their respective
members, but each Chapter shall have at least one
Delegate. On or before December 31, 1974, and
every four years thereafter, the Board of Governors
shall make an apportionment of Delegates.
The term of the office of Delegate shall begin on
the date of the opening of the annual convention
of the House and shall end on the day immediately

preceding the date of the opening of the next
succeeding annual convention. No person may be a
Delegate for more than two terms.
The House shall hold an annual convention at the
call of the Board of Governors at any time during
the month of April of each year for the election of
Governor, the reading and discussion of reports
including the annual report of the Board of
Governors, the transaction of such other business
as may be referred to it by the Board, and the
consideration of such additional matters as may be
requested in writing by at least twenty Delegates.
Special conventions of the House may be called by
the Board of Governors to consider only such
matters as the Board shall indicate. A majority of
the Delegates who have registered for a
convention, whether annual or special, shall
constitute a quorum to do business.
Section 6. Board of Governors. — The Integrated
Bar shall be governed by a Board of Governors.
Nine Governors shall be elected by the House of
Delegates from the nine Regions on the
representation basis of one Governor from each
Region. Each Governor shall be chosen from a list
of nominees submitted by the Delegates from the
Region, provided that not more than one nominee
shall come from any Chapter. The President and the
Executive Vice President, if chosen by the
Governors from outside of themselves as provided
in Section 7 of this Rule, shall ipso facto become
members of the Board.
The members of the Board shall hold office for a
term of one year from the date of their election
and until their successors shall have been duly
elected and qualified. No person may be a
Governor for more than two terms.
The Board shall meet regularly once every three
months, on such date and such time and place as it
shall designate. A majority of all the members of
the Board shall constitute a quorum to do business.
Special meetings may be called by the President or
by five members of the Board.
Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, the
Board shall adopt By-Laws and promulgate Canons
of Professional Responsibility for all members of
the Integrated Bar. The By-Laws and the Canons
may be amended by the Supreme Court motu
propio or upon the recommendation of the Board
of Governors.
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 12
PART 2
The Board shall prescribe such other rules and
regulations as may be necessary and proper to
carry out the purposes of the Integrated Bar as well
as the provisions of this Rule.
Section 7. Officers. — The Integrated Bar shall have
a President and an Executive Vice President who
shall be chosen by the Governors immediately after
the latter's election, either from among themselves
or from other members of the Integrated Bar, by
the vote of at least five Governors. Each of the
regional members of the Board shall be ex
officio Vice President for the Region which he
represents.
The President and the Executive Vice President
shall hold office for a term of one year from the
date of their election and until their successors
shall have duly qualified. The Executive Vice
President shall automatically become the President
for the next succeeding full term. The Presidency
shall rotate from year to year among all the nine
Regions in such order or rotation as the Board of
Governors shall prescribe. No person shall be
President or Executive Vice President of the
Integrated Bar for more than one term.
The Integrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a
Treasurer, and such other officers and employees as
may be required by the Board of Governors, to be
appointed by the President with the consent of the
Board, and to hold office at the pleasure of the
Board or for such terms as it may fix. Said officers
and employees need not be members of the
Integrated Bar.
Section 8. Vacancies. — In the event the President
is absent or unable to act, his duties shall be
performed by the Executive Vice President; and in
the event of the death, resignation, or removal of
the President, the Executive Vice President shall
serve as Acting President during the remainder of
the term of the office thus vacated. In the event of
the death, resignation, removal, or disability of
both the President and the Executive Vice
President, the Board of Governors shall elect an
Acting President to hold office until the next
succeeding election or during the period of
disability.
The filling of vacancies in the House of Delegates,
Board of Governors, and all other positions of
Officers of the Integrated Bar shall be as provided
in the By-Laws. Whenever the term of an office or
position is for a fixed period, the person chosen to

fill a vacancy therein shall serve only for the
unexpired term.
Section 9. Membership dues. — Every member of
the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as
the Board of Governors shall determine with the
approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collection
from each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare
Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the
compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.
Section 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. —
Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule,
default in the payment of annual dues for six
months shall warrant suspension of membership in
the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for
one year shall be a ground for the removal of the
name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
Attorneys.
Section 11. Voluntary termination of membership;
re-instatement. — A member may terminate his
membership by filing a written notice to that effect
with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar, who shall
immediately bring the matter to the attention of
the Supreme Court. Forthwith he shall cease to be
a member and his name shall be stricken by the
Court from the Roll of Attorneys. Reinstatement
may be made by the Court in accordance with rules
and regulations prescribed by the Board of
Governors and approved by the Court.
Section 12. Grievance procedures. — The Board of
Governors shall provide in the By-Laws for
grievance procedures for the enforcement and
maintenance of discipline among all the members
of the Integrated Bar, but no action involving the
suspension or disbarment of a member or the
removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys
shall be effective without the final approval of the
Supreme Court.
Section 13. Non-political Bar. — The Integrated Bar
shall be strictly non-political, and every activity
tending to impair this basic feature is strictly
prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No
lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial,
or prosecutory office in the Government or any
political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall
be eligible for election of appointment to any
position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter
thereof shall be consideredipso facto resigned from
his position as of the moment he files his certificate
of candidacy for any elective public office or
accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial,
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 13
PART 2
or prosecutory office in the Government or any
political subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
Section 14. Positions honorary. — Except as may be
specifically authorized or allowed by the Supreme
Court, no Delegate or Governor and no national or
local Officer or committee member shall receive
any compensation, allowance or emolument from
the funds of the Integrated Bar for any service
rendered therein or be entitled to reimbursement
for any expense incurred in the discharge of his
functions.
Section 15. Fiscal matters. — The Board of
Governors shall administer the funds of the
Integrated Bar and shall have the power to make
appropriations and disbursements therefrom. It
shall cause proper Books of Accounts to be kept
and Financial Statements to be rendered and shall
see to it that the proper audit is made of all
accounts of the Integrated Bar and all the Chapters
thereof.
Section 16. Journal. — The Board of Governors
shall cause to be published a quarterly Journal of
the Integrated Bar, free copies of which shall be
distributed to every member of the Integrated Bar.
Section 17. Voluntary Bar associations. — All
voluntary Bar associations now existing or which
may hereafter be formed may co-exist with the
Integrated Bar but shall not operate at cross-
purposes therewith.
Section 18. Amendments. — This Rule may be
amended by the Supreme Court motu propio or
upon the recommendation of the Board of
Governors or any Chapter of the Integrated Bar.
Section 19. Organizational period. — The
Commission on Bar Integration shall organize the
local Chapters and toward this end shall secure the
assistance of the Department of Justice and of all
Judges throughout the Philippines. All Chapter
organizational meetings shall be held on Saturday,
February 17, 1973. In every case, the Commission
shall cause proper notice of the date, time and
place of the meeting called to organize a Chapter
shall constitute a quorum for the purpose,
including the election of a President, a Vice
President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and five
Directors.
The Commission shall initially fix the number of
Delegates and apportion the same among all the
Chapters as nearly as may be in proportion to the

number of their respective members, but each
Chapter shall have at least one Delegate. The
President of each Chapter shall concurrently be its
Delegate to the House of Delegates. The Vice
President shall be his alternate, except where the
Chapter is entitled to have more than one Delegate,
in which case the Vice President shall also be a
Delegate.
The Board of Directors of the Chapter shall in
proper cases elect additional as well as alternate
Delegates.
The House of Delegates shall convene in the City of
Manila on Saturday, March 17, 1973 for the
Purpose of electing a Board of Governors. The
Governors shall immediately assume office and
forthwith meet to elect the Officers of the
Integrated Bar. The Officers so chosen shall
immediately assume their respective positions.
Section 20. Effectivity. — This Rule shall take effect
on January 16, 1973.
POWER OF THE COURT TO DEFEND ITSELF
In re Jurado
Facts:
Emil Jurado, a journalist, wrote about alleged
improprieties and irregularities in the judiciary over
several months (from about Oct. 1992-Mar. 1993).
CJ Narvasa created an Ad Hoc Committee to
Investigate Reports of Corruption in the Judiciary.
The Committee invited Jurado twice but he failed to
show up on both occasions.
Court ordered Jurado to file a comment on letter
and affidavit from PLDT, affidavits from the travel
agencies patronized by PLDT, and from Atty. Veto.
All of the above categorically denied Jurado’s
allegations.
Issues:
1. Liability for published statements
demonstrably false or misleading, and
derogatory of the courts and individual
judges
2. WON freedom of speech may be invoked
Rules:
1. Zaldivar vs. Gonzalez
2. NCC Art. 19
3. Phil. Journalist’s Code of Ethics
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 14
PART 2
Decision/Ratio Decidendi: Guilty of CONTEMPT; fine
of P1,000.
Freedom of expression is not absolute; it needs to
be adjusted to and accommodated with the
requirements of equally important public interests.
Both free press and independent judiciary are
indispensable to a free society.
Court my hold anyone to answer for utterances
offensive to its dignity, honor or reputation which
tend to put it in disrepute, obstruct the
administration of justice, or interfere with the
disposition of its business or the performance of its
functions in an orderly manner. Jurado made no
bona fide effort to ascertain his allegations.
Publication which tends to degrade the courts and
to destroy public confidence in them or that which
tends to bring them in any way into disrepute,
constitutes likewise criminal contempt, and is
likewise punishable by courts. Courts would lose
their utility if public confidence in them is
destroyed.
In re Tulfo
Facts:
Ramon Tulfo wrote two articles: 1) “Idiotic
Decision” on the Supreme Court legalizing
checkpoints; and, 2) “Sangkatutak na Bobo” where
he referred to the members of the Supreme Court
as “stupid” for having rendered such decision on
checkpoints.
Issues:
1. WON Tulfo’s articles can be considered in
contempt of court
2. WON freedom of speech may be invoked
Decision/Ratio Decidendi: Adjudged in CONTEMPT
OF COURT; GRAVELY CENSURED with the
STRONGEST WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar misconduct will be dealt with
MORE SEVERELY.
Contempt of court (def): defiance of the authority,
justice or dignity of the court. Any improper
conduct which tends, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
justice is punishable for indirect contempt.
The inherent power of courts to punish any
publication calculated to interfere with the
administration of justice is not restricted by the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press,
for freedom of the press is subordinate to the
authority, integrity and independence of the
judiciary and the proper administration of justice.
Reading through the two Tulfo articles, it is plain
that Tulfo intended to ridicule and degrade the

Court and its members before the public, not
merely to criticize its decision on the merits, as he
would like the Court to believe based on his
Explanation.
Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute;
neither is it a license to insult the Court and its
members and to impair the authority, integrity and
dignity of the Court.
WHAT IS THE PRACTICE OF LAW?
GR No. 110113
Cayetano vs. Monsod
September 03, 1991
Ponente: Justice Paras
FACTS:
Respondent Monsod was nominated by President
Aquino to the position of COMELEC Chairman.
Petitioner Cayetano opposed the motion on the
ground that Monsod failed to satisfy the
qualification, set by the law, of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Notwithstanding petitioner’s opposition, the
Commission on Appointments (COAP) confirmed
the nomination of Monsod as COMELEC Chairman;
after which, Monsod took his oath and assumed
office. Hence, this instant petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition by Cayetano, as a citizen and taxpayer,
challenging the validity of COAP’s confirmation of
Monsod’s appointment and praying that the said
appointment be declared null and void.
Atty. Monsod passed the bar examinations in 1960.
He has been a duly paying member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and has also been
paying his professional license fees as lawyer for
more than years. Monsod’s life is as follows:
Respondent Monsod's activities since his
passing the Bar examinations in 1961 consist of
the following:
1961-1963: M.A. in Economics (Ph. D.
candidate), University of Pennsylvania
1963-1970: World Bank Group — Economist,
Industry Department; Operations, Latin
American Department; Division Chief, South
Asia and Middle East, International Finance
Corporation
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 15
PART 2
1970-1973: Meralco Group — Executive of
various companies, i.e., Meralco Securities
Corporation, Philippine Petroleum Corporation,
Philippine Electric Corporation
1973-1976: Yujuico Group — President, Fil-
Capital Development Corporation and affiliated
companies
1976-1978: Finaciera Manila — Chief Executive
Officer
1978-1986: Guevent Group of Companies —
Chief Executive Officer
1986-1987: Philippine Constitutional
Commission — Member
1989-1991: The Fact-Finding Commission on
the December 1989 Coup Attempt — Member
ISSUES:
W/N Respondent Monsod has successfully satisfied
the condition “engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years” as provided by the law.
DECISION:
The court denied Cayetano’s petition and affirmed
COAP’s confirmation of Monsod as COMELEC
Chairman.
The court gave light to the fundamental question in
the instant case, i.e. what constitutes the practice
of law? The court, in answering the question,
considered the modern concept of law practice and
the liberal construction intended by the framers of
the Constitution.
On the modern concept of law practice
Practice of law 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 those
acts which are characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render
any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge
or skill."
On the Liberal Construction intended by the
framers of the 1986 Constitution

Mr. Foz clarified that the term “law practice”, as a
qualification of the members of Commission on
Audit (COA), does not necessarily refer to actual
practice of law outside COA but as long as the
lawyers who are employed in COA are using their
legal knowledge or talent in their respective work,
then they are qualified to be considered for
appointment as members, commissioner, or
chairman of the COA.
Applying these in the case at bar, the court held
that Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-
entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poor — verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement — that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
Justice Padilla
What constitutes practice of law? As commonly
understood, "practice" refers to the actual
performance or application of knowledge as
distinguished from mere possession of knowledge;
it connotes an active, habitual, repeated or
customary action. To "practice" law, or any
profession for that matter, means to exercise or
pursue an employment or profession actively,
habitually, repeatedly or customarily.
A lawyer, who is employed as a business executive
or a corporate manager, other than as head or
attorney of a Legal Department of a corporation or
a governmental agency, cannot be said to be in the
practice of law.
I am persuaded that if ever he did perform any of
the tasks which constitute the practice of law, he
did not do so HABITUALLY for at least ten (10) years
prior to his appointment as COMELEC Chairman.
Justice Cruz
The effect of the definition given in the ponencia is
to consider virtually every lawyer to be engaged in
the practice of law even if he does not earn his
living, or at least part of it, as a lawyer.
It is conceded that he has been engaged in business
and finance, in which areas he has distinguished
himself, but as an executive and economist and not
as a practicing lawyer. The plain fact is that he has
occupied the various positions listed in his resume
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 16
PART 2
by virtue of his experience and prestige as a
businessman and not as an attorney-at-law whose
principal attention is focused on the law.
Justice Gutierrez, Jr.
He has never engaged in the practice of law for
even one year. He is a member of the bar but to say
that he has practiced law is stretching the term
beyond rational limits. A person may have passed
the bar examinations. But if he has not dedicated
his life to the law, if he has not engaged in an
activity where membership in the bar is a
requirement I fail to see how he can claim to have
been engaged in the practice of law.
The Constitution uses the phrase "engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years." The
deliberate choice of words shows that the practice
envisioned is active and regular, not isolated,
occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental,
seasonal, or extemporaneous. To be "engaged" in
an activity for ten years requires committed
participation in something which is the result of
one's decisive choice. It means that one is occupied
and involved in the enterprise; one is obliged or
pledged to carry it out with intent and attention
during the ten-year period.
Bar Matter No. 553
Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc.
June 17, 1993
Ponente: Justice Regalado
FACTS:
Petitioner Ulep filed the instant petition praying
that respondent The Legal Clinic, Inc. (TLC) be order
to cease and desist from issuing advertisements
similar to Annex “A” and “B” and to perpetually
prohibit persons or entities from making
advertisements pertaining to exercise of law
profession. Petitioner alleges that such
advertisements are unethical and demeaning of the
law profession, and destructive of the confidence
of the community in the integrity of the members
of the bar.
Respondent, on the other hand, claims that it is not
engage in the practice of law but in rendering of
“legal support services” through paralegals with
use of modern computers and electronic machines.
Annex A

SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
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
GUAM DIVORCE.
DON PARKINSON
An Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on
Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning
Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage.
Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota
Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of
Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa
for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita,
Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232;
521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
ISSUE/S:
W/N TLC’s practice constitutes practice of law.
W/N such practice may be allowed to be
advertised.
DECISION:
Court granted the petition and ordered respondent
TLC to restrain from issuing publication or
dissemination of any advertisement in any form of
the same tenor and purpose as Annexes “A” and
“B” and from conducting directly or indirectly, any
activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law
or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated
herein.
TLC’s services involved activities which are in the
scope of the practice of law.
In order to reach its decision, the Court first
defined the scope of the term “practice of law”. It
held that Practice of law 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
LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 17
PART 2
perform those acts which are characteristics of the
profession. Generally, to practice law is to give
notice or render any kind of service, which device
or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill."
In application to the case at bar, respondent TLC’s
contention that it merely gives out legal
information which is non-advisory and non-
diagnostic to laymen and lawyers is untenable. It
strains the credulity of this Court that all the
respondent corporation will simply do is look for
the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and
stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its
attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily
have to explain to the client the intricacies of the
law and advise him or her on the proper course of
action to be taken as may be provided for by said
law. That activity falls squarely within the
jurisprudential definition of "practice of law."
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals
to carry out its services is not controlling. What is
important is that it is engaged in the practice of law
by virtue of the nature of the services it renders
which thereby brings it within the ambit of the
statutory prohibitions against the advertisements
which it has caused to be published and are now
assailed in this proceeding.
TLC’s advertisement violates the Code of
Professional Responsibility; lawyers, in general,
are restrained from advertising their practice of
law.
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
manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods.
However, there are exceptions to this general rule:
1. Publication in reputable law lists, in a
manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief
biographical and informative data
2. The use of an ordinary simple professional
card.
Respondent TLC’s advertisement does not fall
within the aforementioned exceptions, as such,
they must be restrained from continuing making
publications or disseminations in any form and of
the same tenor and purpose as Annexes “A” and
“B”.
 LEGAL PROFESSION NOTES 18
PART 2

more stringent than for most other government

AM No. SDC-97-2-P
Alawi vs. Alauya
February 24, 1997
Ponente: Chief Justice Narvasa
FACTS:
Petitioner Alawi filed a complaint against
Respondent Alauya accusing him of the following:
1. Alauya made malicious and libelous charges
against her without solid grounds through
manifest ignorance and bad faith; resulting
in undue injury to her honor and
reputation.
2. Usurpation of the title of “attorney” which
only regular members of the Philippine Bar
may properly use.
On his comment, Respondent contends that he was
merely acting in defense of his rights and doing
only what "is expected of any man unduly
prejudiced and injured," who had suffered "mental
anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and
untold financial suffering," In addition, he justified
his use of the title “attorney” by asserting that it is
lexically synonymous with “Counsellors-at-law”, a
title to which Shari’a lawyers have a rightful claim,
and that he prefers the title of “attorney” because
“counselor” is often mistaken for “councilor”
connoting a local legislator. Withal, he does not
consider himself a lawyer.
workers. As a man of the law, he may not use
language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous,
menacing, or otherwise improper. As a judicial
employee, it is expected that he accord respect for
the person and the rights of others at all times, and
that his every act and word should be characterized
by prudence, restraint, courtesy, dignity. His radical
deviation from these salutary norms might perhaps
be mitigated, but cannot be excused, by his
strongly held conviction that he had been
grievously wronged.
Alauya, as a Shari’a lawyer, is not allowed to use
the title “Attorney”
The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who,
having obtained the necessary degree in the study
of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations,
have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and remain members thereof in good
standing; and it is they only who are authorized to
practice law in this jurisdiction.

ISSUE/S:

W/N Alauya’s contention that his actions were

justified since he was merely acting in defense of
rights
W/N Alauya, a Shari’a lawyer, is allowed to use the
title “Attorney”

DECISION:
The court resolved to reprimand Alauya for the use
of excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent
language, i.e., language unbecoming a judicial
officer, and for usurping the title of attorney; and
warned him that any similar or other impropriety
or misconduct in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

Alauya’s contention that his actions were justified

since he was merely acting in defense of rights is
untenable
As a member of the Shari'a Bar and an officer of a
Court, Alawi is subject to a standard of conduct