Practice of Law
Cayetano V. Monsod
Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon
C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed
the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall
be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at
the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a
college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position
in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of
having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions
and special proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings
on behalf 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 appearance before judicial body,
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy
and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and
in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law
practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification
of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect
since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts,
and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The
respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years
does In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
Legal Education
Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. — All applicants
for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding section
shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that
they have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully
completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially
approved and recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of
the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or school
of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may
be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has
satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university
duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial
law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor
and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.
Section 6. Pre-Law. — No applicant for admission to the bar examination
shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the
Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had
pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized
university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a
four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a
bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as
major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish,
history and economics.
Citizenship
SECTION 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents
consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers,
high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields
shall be promoted by the State. The State shall encourage appropriate
technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit.
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Bar Examinations
Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. — All applicants for
admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence
required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the
beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of
this rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and
certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4
they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to
practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and
certificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at
the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and
citizenship.
Section 8. Notice of Applications. — Notice of applications for admission
shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers
published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days
before the beginning of the examination.
Section 9. Examination; subjects. — Applicants, not otherwise provided
for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be subjected to examinations in
the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile
Law; Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public
Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public);
Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and
Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and
Conveyancing).
Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing.
— Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes
into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the same for all
examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to
each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally
without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his
penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers without
much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use
a typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall
be allowed to be used.
The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are
necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of other
frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination
papers. No oral examination shall be given.
Section 11. Annual examination. — Examinations for admission to the
bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They
shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the
committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows:
First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor and Social
Legislation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation
(afternoon); Third day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law
(afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (afternoon).
Section 12. Committee of examiners. — Examinations shall be
conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the
Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the
Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated
by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the
Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The names of
the members of this committee shall be published in each volume of the
official reports.
Section 13. Disciplinary measures. — No candidate shall endeavor to
influence any member of the committee, and during examination the
candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or
receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or
any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and
the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action,
including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the
court.
Section 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may be
deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have
obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling
below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the
subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative weights:
Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent;
Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and
International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20
per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. — Not
later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon thereafter as
may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such
examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall
be filed with the clerk and may there be examined by the parties in
interest, after the court has approved the report.
Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. — Candidates who
have failed the bar examinations for three times shall be disqualified from
taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court
that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes
as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school.
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the
candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates
have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same
conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the
particular subject.
Lawyers Oath
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid
nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and
I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
Canon 1
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
SEC. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term “Affirmation” or “Oath” refers
to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by
the notary public through competent evidence of identity
as defined by these Rules; and
(c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the
contents of the instrument or document.
SEC. 5. Notarial Register. - “Notarial Register” refers to a permanently
bound book with numbered pages containing a chronological record
of notarial acts performed by a notary public.
SEC. 6. Jurat. - “Jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a
single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents
an instrument or document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as
defined by these Rules;
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the
notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to
such instrument or document.
SEC. 7. Notarial Act and Notarization. - “Notarial Act” and
“Notarization” refer to any act that a notary public is empowered to
perform under these Rules.
SEC. 9. Notary Public and Notary. - “Notary Public” and “Notary” refer
to any person commissioned to perform official acts under these
Rules.
SEC. 10. Principal. - “Principal” refers to a person appearing before
the notary public whose act is the subject of notarization.
SEC. 11. Regular Place of Work or Business. - The term “regular
place of work or business” refers to a stationary office in the city or
province wherein the notary public renders legal and notarial services.
SECTION 1. Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by
an Executive Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in
accordance with these Rules.
To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:
(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;
(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
 (3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1)
year and maintains a regular place of work or business in the
city or province where the commission is to be issued;
(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing
with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the
Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and
(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any
crime involving moral turpitude.
Sps. Santuyo vs Hidalgo
The sps herein accused respondent Hidalgo of serious misconduct and
dishonesty for breach of his lawyers oath and the notarial law.
Facts: The complainants stated that sometime in December 1991, they
purchased a parcel of land covered by a deed of sale. The deed of sale was
allegedly notarized by respondent lawyer and was entered in his notarial
register as Doc. No. 94 on Page No. 19 in Book No. III, Series of 1991.
Complainant spouses averred that about six years after the date of
notarization, they had a dispute with one Danilo German over the ownership
of the land. The case was estafa through falsification of a public document.
Later on, the complainants herein were alleged to have forged the
respondents notarial signature on said deed. The respondent then denies
having notarized any deed of sale covering the disputed property. He even
asserted that the law office he used to work with, by which, the petitioners
have gone to for the notarization, necessitated the respondent to hand over
documents to his superiors for notarial approval. The respondent furthers
that the complainants must have gone through the office and enticed one of
the secretaries, with the concurrence of the senior lawyers, to notarize the
document.
Later on, the complaint was referred to the IBP. The IBP noted that the
alleged forged signature of respondent on the deed of sale was different from
his signatures in other documents he submitted. However, the IBP ruled that
the respondent was also negligent because he allowed the office secretaries
to perform his notarial functions, including safekeeping of his notarial dry seal
and notarial register.
Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of negligence in the performance of his
duties as a notary public
Held: Considering that the responsibility attached to a notary public is
sensitive respondent should have been more discreet and cautious in the
execution of his duties as such and should not have wholly entrusted
everything to the secretaries; otherwise he should not have been
commissioned as notary public.
For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of the
document for notarization to the secretary there can be a possibility that
even the respondents signature which is the only one left for him to do can
be done by the secretary or anybody for that matter as had been the case
herein.
As it is respondent had been negligent not only in the supposed notarization
but foremost in having allowed the office secretaries to make the necessary
entries in his notarial registry which was supposed to be done and kept by
him alone; and should not have relied on somebody else.
Fallo: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo is hereby found
GUILTY of negligence in the performance of his duties as notary public and is
hereby SUSPENDED from his commission as a notary public for a period of
two years, if he is commissioned, or if he is not, he is disqualified from an
appointment as a notary public for a period of two years from finality of this
resolution, with a warning that a repetition of similar negligent acts would be
dealt with more severely.
Sicat vs Ariola
Sicat, complainant, a Board Member of the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of
Rizal, charged respondent, Atty. Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of
Cainta, Rizal, with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
committing fraud, deceit and falsehood in his dealings, particularly the
notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Juanito C
Benitez. According to complainant, respondent made it appear that Benitez
executed the said document, when in fact, he was already dead. Prior to all
of these, the Municipality of Cainta had entered into a contract with JC
Benitez Architect and Technical Management, represented by Benitez, for the
construction of low-cost houses. For the services rendered by the company,
the Municipality of Cainta paid a sum of money, but the check was received
and encashed by Cesar Goco in virtue of the SPA notarized by Ariola.
Respondent conteded that as early as May 12, 2000 (Benitez died in October
25, 2000), Benitez had already signed the SPA. He claimed that due to
inadvertence, it was only on January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it.
Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him on January 4, 2001 was not at all
necessary because Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco
sometime before his death, on May 12, 2000. Because it was no longer
necessary, the SPA was cancelled the same day he notarized it, hence, legally,
there was no public document that existed.
Issue: WON the respondent violated rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
Held:
However, the IBP, in its investigation ruled that, It is evident that the Special
Power of Attorney dated 4 January 2001 was part of a scheme of individuals
to defraud the Municipality of Cainta of money which was allegedly due them,
and that respondent by notarizing said Special Power of Attorney helped said
parties succeed in their plans. This was a breach of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, rule 1.01 of canon 1.
In the case at bar, the records show that Benitez died on October 25, 2000.
However, respondent notarized the SPA, purportedly bearing the signature
of Benitez, on January 4, 2001 or more than two months after the latters
death. The notarial acknowledgement of respondent declared that Benitez
appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his free and
voluntary act. Clearly, respondent lied and intentionally perpetuated an
untruthful statement. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and
routinary act.
Fallo: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., is found guilty of
gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let
copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and
entered in the records of respondent, and brought to the immediate
attention of the Ombudsman.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Ui Vs Bonifacio
The case here is an administrative complaint for disbarment against atty. Bonifacio
for allegedly being in a immoral relationship with Carlos Ui, the husband of
complainant, Leslie Ui
On January 24 1971, complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos Ui in QC:
 They had 4 children
 Sometime in December 1987, complainant found that the Carlos Ui was
having an illicit relationship with Respondent Bonifacio, with whom he begot
a daughter.
o Living together in Ayala Alabang Village Muntinlupa
 Ui admitted to complainant his illicit relationship
 Later on complainant visited respondent in her office in June 1988, and
introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos Ui
 Later on, sometime after the confrontation, respondent and Carlos Ui had a
second child
o The complainant met with the respondent and pleaded her to stop
their illicit relationship
o The respondent was even employed to the company of Carlos Ui
Story by respondent:
 She had known Carlos Ui as a bachelor
 That they got married in Hawaii in 1985
 But when she was confronted by the complainant about the
relationship, she got hurt and desolated upon such discovery, and left
for Honolulu, Hawaii
 She said that upon discovery of her paramour being a previously
married man, she cut of all her ties with him.
She contends that her relationship with the husband was not illicit because they were
married abroad, and that when she discovered her paramour’s true civil status, she
cut off her ties with him.
Story of Complainant:
That the respondent knew very well the civil status of Carlos Ui.
 That the reason why respondent went to Hawaii was to give birth there
The complainant, prior to this case, also filed a case against Carlos Ui with the crime
of Concubinage, but was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Proceedings before the IBP commission on bar council
Complainant filed a motion to Cite Respondent in Contempt of the Commission
wherein the respondent is charged for making false allegations.
  That respondent lied when she said that she married Carlos Ui on October
22, 1985, HOWEVER, the Certificate of Marriage certified by the State
Registrar by the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, Hawaii revealed
that the true date of marriage between Carlos Ui and Respondent wasa
October 22, 1987.
o Complainant said that respondent wanted to impress the IBP that
the birth of her child was within wedlock
Issue: WON respondent conducted herself immorally
Held:
Respondent says that the case should be dismissed on two grounds:
1. Respondent conducted herself consistent with the requirement of good
moral character for the practice of the legal profession
2. Complainant failed to prove her allegation that respondent conducted herself
in an immoral manner
Respondent contends that she was the victim here and not Leslie Ui for she did not
know her paramour’s civil status, and that upon learning that he was married, cut off
immediately all ties with him.
The commission on Bar discipline submitted a report finding that:
 Ui presented himself single to Bonifacio
 Nowadays, married men would court single women and present himself to
be single. Which makes the reasoning of Bonifacio believable
 The times when Ui and Bonifacio meet after the revelation was for matters of
the children
 The Commission did not find the respondent to be unprincipled or
disgraceful. She can even be viewed as the victim
Wherefore, the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.
Figueroa Vs Barranco
The complainant and respondent were townmates in Iloilo. They had a good
relationship even during their teenage days.
Later on, they had a child born in 1964. It was just after the child was born that
complainant alleged that the respondent promised to marry her after passing the bar
exams.
 Their relationship would continue, and that the promise of marriage was
made about 20-30 times.
 Later on, complainant found out that the respondent already married
another woman. Hence this petition
Upon the complainants motion, the court authorized the taking of testimonies of
witnesses by deposition in 1972.
 In 1974, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the case citing complainants
failure to comment on the motion of Judge Cuello
 Complainant stated that she has justifiable reason in failing to file the earlier
comment as required.
 The court denied the motion
On October 2, 1980, the court denied a motion to dismiss on the ground of
abandonment filed by respondent.
In 1988, respondent filed another Motion to Dismiss citing his election as member of
the Sangguniang Bayan, his active participation in civic organizations, and good
standing in the community as well as the length of time this case has been
pending as reasons to allow him to take his oath as a lawyer.
 The court agreed because the complainant did not prosecute the case for an
unreasonable period of time.
 Sometime later, the complainant opposed the decision of the court, but it
was dismissed.
Issue: WON respondents acts were considered to be grossly immoral?
The court referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation:
The IBP says that the respondent be allowed to take the lawyers oath, because the
facts of the case, with regards to the actions by the respondent, did not constitute a
“Gross immoral act”, but only hints to a doubtful moral character. A grossly immoral
act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree
Barrios v Martinez
This is a disbarment case filed against Respondent Martinez for being convicted by
final judgement for violation of BP blg 22.
The court required respondent to comment on said petitition within 10 days, but was
not able to, so the court finds him guilty of Contempt
Later on he submitted his comment stating that:
 He failed to respond to the resolution as he was undergoing medical
treatment at Camp Ruperto Kangleon in Leyte
 That Complainant Barrios passed away sometime in June 1997
  And this administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which was
decided in favor of the respondent (he was the plaintiff in said case)
o Since Barrios lost in that civil case, he filed this administrative case
Sometime, Atty Martinez had a case. He offered his legal service for free to the
plaintiff. When the plaintiff won, and was given a compensation of 90,000 by the
respondents, Atty Martinez asked that 2/3 of the cash be deposited to his wife as
attorneys fee. But it was later returned to the plaintiff with interest and moral and
exemplary damages.
Later on, the present case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation. The report mentions that:
 The respondent says that the case cannot continue because the
complainant have died, and that the case dies with him.
 The IBP disagrees with the contention of the respondent because as the
institution to see disciplinary sanctions, they have the capacity to initiate a
proceeding
 IBP considered the respondents conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude citing his estafa and violation of BP blg. 22, cases.
 IBP recommended to the court for his disbarrment
Issue: WON violation of BP22 is considered a moral turpitude.
Held: MORAL TURPITUDE includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege,
demanding a high degree of good moral character, not only for admission but
also as a continuing requirement for the practice of law
 The court cited various cases wherein moral turpitude was a requirement for
a position.
In In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo, 43 we disbarred
a lawyer convicted of estafa||| (Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585, [November 12,
2004], 485 PHIL 1-18)
In In Re: Dalmacio De Los Angeles, 45 a lawyer was convicted of the crime of
attempted bribery in a final decision rendered by the Court of Appeals. "And since
bribery is admittedly a felony involving moral turpitude ||| (Barrios v. Martinez, A.C.
No. 4585, [November 12, 2004], 485 PHIL 1-18)
In In Re: Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon, 49 Atty. Vinzon was convicted of the crime of estafa
for misappropriating the amount of P7,000.00,||| (Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585,
[November 12, 2004], 485 PHIL 1-18)
Pimentel Vs. Llorente
Complainant alleges that, in violation of RA No. 6646, S27B, respondents tampered
with the votes received by him, resulting to certain senators obtaining number of votes
than what they actually received, while on the otherhand, the petitioner’s votes were
reduced.
 Complainant maintains that, by signing the Statements of Votes (SoVs) and
Certificate of Canvass (CoC), despite the respondent’s knowledge that some
of the entries were false.
o The respondent committed a serious breach of public trust and of
their lawyers’ oath.
 Respondent denies the allegation and states that the errors pointed by the
complainant were attributed to honest mistake, oversight, and or fatigue.
In his Consolidated Reply, complainant counters that respondents should be held
responsible for the illegal padding of the votes considering the nature and extent of
the irregularities and the fact that the canvassing of the election returns was done
under their control and supervision.
Later on, this case was referred to the IBP, and the IBP recommended that the case
be dismissed for lack of merit.
 The complainant also filed a criminal case for violation of RA No. 6646 which
was later dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
HOWEVER, on a petition for certiorari filed by the complainant, and holds the
respondent guilty of misconduct:
Respondent, however invokes the IBP recommendation for the dismissal of
petitoiner’s complaint on the basis that:
1. Respondents had no involvement in the tabulation of the election returns,
because when the SoVs were given to them, it only needed their signatures
2. Canvassing was done in the presence of watchers, representatives of
political parties, media, and the general public so the respondents would not
have risked the commission of any irregularity
3. Acts in RA 6646 are mala in se and not mala prohibita, and petitioner failed
to establish criminal intent on the part of the respondents
However the court said that, only a clear preponderance of evidence is required to
establish liability. As long as the pieces of evidence presented by complainant are
more convincing and worthy of belief than that of which is offered by the opposition,
then imposition of disciplinary sanction is justified.
ISSUE: WON the misconduct done by the respondents constitute a gross moral
turpitude
HELD:
What is involved here is a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial
candidates. The evidence submitted by petitioner reveals that, the votes received by
certain senatorial candidates exceeded the number of voters who actually voted in the
precints. And some 22 precincts were tabulated twice.
The mere fact that the respondent certified the SoVs as true and correct. Such
act constitute misconduct.
Respondent Llorente's contention that he merely certified the genuineness and due
execution of the SoVs but not their correctness is belied by the certification which
reads:
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Statement of Votes by . . . [p]recinct is true
and correct. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we sign these presents at the City/Municipality
of ___________ Province of ________ this _______ day of May, 1995. (Italics
supplied)
Respondent committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which lawyers must not
engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct”
In the end, the respondents were fined in the amount of 10,000 php, with a
WARNING that commission of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Cordova V. Cordova
Complainant Salvacion Delizo charged her husband, Atty Laurence Cordova, with
immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. The letter was referred to the
IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The commission, before acting on the complaint, required the complainant to submit a
verified complaint within 10 days. Complainant complied.
 Respondent was declared default for failure to file an answer to the
complaint within 15 days from notice. The respondent never moved to set
aside the order of default.
Later on, in a telegraphic message dated April 6, 1989, complainant informed the
commission on bar discipline that she and her husband had “reconciled”.
 The commission required the parties to appear before it for confirmation and
explanation of the telegraphic message
 Also, requiring them to file a formal motion to dismiss the complaint.
 The parties never responded and nothing was heard from either party
Since the complainant failed to submit her evidence ex parte before the commission,
the IBP recommended to the court to reprimand the respondent for his acts.
 Stating that any further acts of immorality in the future will be dealth with
more severely
FACTS (dulo ng case lumabas):
Complainant and Respondent were married on June 6, 1976, and had 2 children.
 Sometime, respondent cordova left his family, and went on to live in Surigao
del Sur with one Fely G. Holgado.
 Holgado was herself married but left her husband and children
Holgado and Cordova lived together in Bislig as husband and wife.
 They introduced themselves publicly as husbands and wife
 Cordova even gives money to Holgado to put up her sari-sari store business
in the public market whilst failing to support his legitimate family
Later on, Respondent Cordova and complainant wife had a reconciliation promising
the wife that he would separate from Holgado.
 Respondent however would come home from drunk, and continued to
neglect the support to his legitimate family.
Later, when complainant was returning from a trip, she would learn that Respondent
was no longer living in their conjugal home, and was later found out living with
another woman name, Luisita Magallanes, and has taken their younger daughter with
him.
 Respondent still failed to provide to his legitimate family.
 Later on the IBP would find another telegram stating that the parties have
reconciled once again
Issue: WON a statement of reconciliation absolves the respondent from past
immoral conducts
With the facts given, the IBP believes that such telegram of reconciliation does not
excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent
 Which reflects his character as member of the Bar, and of the Philippine Bar
if they were to tolerate this.
The Court ruled that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law indefinitely
and until further orders from this court.
 The Court will consider lifting his suspension when respondent
Cordova submits proof satisfactory to the Commission and this Court
that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate
family and that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he
has clung to. p||| (Cordova v. Cordova, A.C. No. 3249 (Resolution),
[November 29, 1989], 259 PHIL 278-283)
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Estrada V. Sandiganbayan 416 SCRA 465
Facts:
-Attorney Alan F. Paguia, as counsel for Estrada, averred that the respondent
justices have violated Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by attending
the ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution.
“Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political
questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall
not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly
endorse candidates for political office or participate in other partisan
political activities.”
-Also, petitioner contended that the justices have prejudged a case that would
assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The subsequent
decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (353 SCRA 452 and 356 SCRA 108)
is, petitioner states, a patent mockery of justice and due process.
-According to Atty. Paguia, during the hearing of his ‘Mosyong
Pangrekonsiderasyon’ on 11 June 2003, the three justices of the Special
Division of the Sandiganbayan made manifest their bias and partiality against
his client.
-Thus, he averred, Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario supposedly
employed foul and disrespectful language when she blurted
out, ‘Magmumukha naman kaming gago,’ (Rollo, p. 13.) and Justice Teresita
Leonardo-De Castro characterized the motion as insignificant even before the
prosecution could file its comments or opposition thereto, (Rollo, p. 12.)
remarking in open court that to grant Estrada’s motion would result in chaos
and disorder. (Ibid.) Prompted by the alleged ‘bias and partial attitude’ of the
Sandiganbayan justices, Attorney Paguia filed, on 14 July 2003, a motion for
their disqualification.
-The petitioner also asked the Court to include in its Joint Resolution the
TRUTH of the acts of Chief Justice Davide, et al., last January 20, 2001 in:
‘a) going to EDSA 2;
‘b) authorizing the proclamation of Vice-President Arroyo
as President on the ground of ‘permanent disability’
even without proof of compliance with the
corresponding constitutional conditions, e.g., written
declaration by either the President or majority of his
cabinet; and
‘c) actually proclaiming Vice-President Arroyo on that
same ground of permanent disability.
-In a letter, dated 30 June 2003, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr., and Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, he has demanded, in a
clearly disguised form of forum shopping, for several advisory opinions on
matters pending before the Sandiganbayan.
-Subsequently, the court ruled that the instant petition assailing the foregoing
orders must be DISMISSED for gross insufficiency in substance and for utter
lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion, an
indispensable requirement to warrant a recourse to the extraordinary relief of
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
-In a resolution, dated 08 July 2003, the Court strongly warned Attorney Alan
Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist from further making, directly
or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court or to its Members.
-Unmindful of the well-meant admonition to him by the Court, Attorney Paguia
appears to persist on end. In fact, on the 7th September 2003 issue of the
Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia wrote to say -
“What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s right to
due process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo
unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not observed.
There was no fair play since it appears that when President Estrada filed
his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices had already
committed to the other party - GMA - with a judgment already made and
waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the
charade of a formal hearing. After the justices had authorized the
proclamation of GMA as president, can they be expected to voluntarily
admit the unconstitutionality of their own act?”
Issue: WON Atty. Paguia committed a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held:
-Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness,
soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would be welcome for,
if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court and contribute to the
correction of an error if committed. (In Re Sotto, 82 Phil 595.) However,
Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his client’s case
within the judicial forum. Indeed, he has repeated his assault on the Court in
both broadcast and print media.
“Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a
member of the bar from making such public statements on any pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. By his acts, Attorney
Paguia may have stoked the fires of public dissension and posed a potentially
dangerous threat to the administration of justice.”
-It should be clear that the phrase “partisan political activities,” in its statutory
context, relates to acts designed to cause the success or the defeat of a
particular candidate or candidates who have filed certificates of candidacy to
a public office in an election. The taking of an oath of office by any incoming
President of the Republic before the Chief Justice of the Philippines is a
traditional official function of the Highest Magistrate. The assailed presence of
other justices of the Court at such an event could be no different from their
appearance in such other official functions as attending the Annual State of
the Nation Address by the President of the Philippines before the Legislative
Department.
-The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; but it will not countenance any
wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial system,
let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the
Philippines.
-Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer
should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers
and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing
sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and
authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in
seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.
-The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction,
to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer
of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
-WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for conduct unbecoming a
lawyer and an officer of the Court.
Zaldivar V. Gonzales
Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the
Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. Zaldivar
then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft
cases under the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting on the
petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to
temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations against
Zaldivar.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal
informations against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview
where he proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme Court; that the
Supreme Court’s issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta the “rich and
influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is
difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course”.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme
Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the
statements in the newspapers were true; that he was only exercising his
freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to
point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also said,
even attaching notes, that not less than six justices of the Supreme Court
have approached him to ask him to “go slow” on Zaldivar and to not
embarrass the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute
contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme
Court. His statements necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme
Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements constitute the grossest
kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very clearly
debase and degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire
system of administration of justice in the country.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What
Gonzalez seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression,
like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of
expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the
requirements of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental
public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of
the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free expression
and the integrity of the system of administering justice.
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a
Special Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic
and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the repository of the
judicial power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of
Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to
promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier than that of a
private practicing lawyer.
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms
must be bona fide. In the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one
where he alleged that members of the Supreme Court approached him, are
of no relation to the Zaldivar case.
The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of
law.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
----------
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
Castaneda V. Ago
FACTS
- Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of Manila
to recover certain machineries.
- Judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
- SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution; Ago’s motion
denied, levy was made on Ago’s house and lots; sheriff advertised the sale,
Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC ffirmed
dismissal
- Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain
sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied
- Sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago failed to
redeem
- Sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession to the
properties
- Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the
replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½ share in
their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of
QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda the Registed
of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final deed of sale; the battle on
the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued
- Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from
enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition
with the CA which also dismissed the petition; Agos appealed to SC which
dismissed the petition
- Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which
gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction.
ISSUES
Whether or not the Agos’ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy
RULINGS
No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment
of the sheriff’s sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long denied the
fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the
respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused legal
remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the
judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted
position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become
an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator
for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the
conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and
moral justice.
A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s
cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC does not
and cannot countenance is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of
his client’s position.
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his
case. If he finds his client’s cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to
advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the
incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client,
and temper his client’s propensity to litigate.
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES
AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of
the defenseless or the oppressed.
Ladesma V. Climaco
Facts:
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a
case pending in the sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964,
Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz,
Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a motion
to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent Judge
denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two
defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to
withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time
service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.
Issue:
Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in denying the motion
of the petitioner is a grave abuse of discretion?
Holding:
No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to
the duty rqeuired of the legal profession. He ought to have known that
membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The legal profession is
dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may be
required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the
administration of justice. The fact that such services are rendered without
pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.
Ratio:
“The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office are
Judges, or other officials or employees of the superior courts or the office of
the solicitor General (Section 32 Rule 127 of the Rules of Court [Section 35
of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court]. The lawyer involved not being
among them, remained as counsel of record since he did not file a motion to
withdraw as defendant-appellant’s counsel after his appointment as
Register of Deeds. Nor was substitution of attorney asked either by him or
by the new counsel for the defendant-appellant (People vs. Williams CA G.R.
Nos. 00375-76, February 28, 1963)
To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent
defendant, a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de officio (People v.
Daban) Moreover, The right of an accused in a criminal case to be
represented by counsel is a constitutional right of the highest importance,
and there can be no fair hearing with due process of law unless he is fully
informed of his rights in this regard and given opportunity to enjoy them
(People vs. Holgado, L-2809, March 22, 1950)
The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the
accused with a counsel de officio for such action as it may deem fit to
safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial Fiscal of Rizal vs. Judge
Muñoz Palma, L-15325, August 31, 1930)
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he
shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to
the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 138 Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme
Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
In Re Tagorda
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela.
Before his election, he campaigned that he is a lawyer and a notary
public; that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as
execution of deeds of sale, etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients
collect debts; that he offers free consultation; that he is willing to
serve the poor.
When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague,
Isable advising the latter that even though he was elected as a
provincial board member, he can still practice law; that he wants the
lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that he is willing to receive
works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc.;
that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge of
three pesos.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.
HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a
young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the
establishment of a well- merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome
of character and conduct. Solicitation of business by circulars or
advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not
warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally
unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of
any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies
advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering
retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be
influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by
furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner
of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the
importance of the lawyer’s position, and all other like self-laudation,
defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are
intolerable.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit,
except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make
it his duty to do so.
Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young
inexperienced lawyer and that he was unaware of the impropriety of
his acts. So instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the
practice of law for a month.
Ulep vs Legal Clinic
n 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its
aim, according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and
to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms.
Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic
because of the latter’s advertisements which contain the following:
Secret marriage? Divorce.ABSENCE.ANNULMENT.VISA ETC
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled
“Rx for Legal Problems” in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein
Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists
that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated
it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby
Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who,
like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it.
The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law,
medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These
specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and
attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view
of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs
The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is
merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic
offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice
of law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement
may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law
however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed
mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include 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 undoubtedly beyond the domain of
paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in
the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the
services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of
law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted
as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts. 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 skills as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic
seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and
other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such
is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are
allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must
be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of
publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a
normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A
good and reputable lawyer 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
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as
allowed forms of advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his
specialization
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE
ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Khan v Simbillo 409 SCRA 299
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which
reads:“Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]”. Espeleta, a
staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo
who answered. She claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert
in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within 4-
6mos provided thecase will not involve separation of property and
custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements were also
published.An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the
IBP for investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend
Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did
not appear in the advertisement, he admitted the acts imputed against
him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that it was time to
lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of
the public isn’t served in any wayby the prohibition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.
HELD:
Yes!The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the
primary duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a
secondary consideration while duty to public service and administration of
justice should be primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary
interest.Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage
specialist” he erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still
considered as sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise
disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond.Solicitation of business is not
altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be compatible with the
dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyer’s
name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --- a
lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor
may a lawyer permit his name to be published the contents of which are
likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed
name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner
is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications
that said partner is deceased.
Dacanay vs Baker
In November 1979, Atty. Vicente Torres sent a letter to one Rosie
Clurman, represented by Atty. Adriano Dacanay, asking Clurman to
release some shares to Torres’ client. The letterhead contained the
name “Baker & McKenzie”. Dacanay denied Clurman’s liability and
at the same time he asked why is Torres using the letterhead “Baker
& McKenzie”, a foreign partnership established in Chicago, Illinois.
No reply was received so Dacanay filed an administrative complaint
enjoining Torres from using “Baker & McKenzie”.
Later, Torres said that he is an associate of the law firm Guerrero &
Torres; that their law firm is a member of Baker & McKenzie; that the
said foreign firm has members in 30 cities all over the world; that
they associated with them in order to make a representation that
they can render legal services of the highest quality to multinational
business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and
investment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the use of a foreign law office name is
allowed.
HELD: No. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot
practice law in the Philippines. Such use of foreign law firm name is
unethical therefore Torres and his law firm are enjoined from using
“Baker & McKenzie” in their practice of law.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from
the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice law currently.
Art 6, Sec 14. - No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies
Samonte v. Gatdula
Facts:
Respondent Gatdula was charged with grave misconduct in engaging in the
private practice of law. Complainant was the representative of her sister for
ejectment pending with the MTC. The execution of that decision in favor of
plaintiff was enjoined by Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City where respondent
is the Branch Clerk of Court. Complainant alleged that respondent tried to
convince her to change his lawyer if she wanted the execution of the
judgment to proceed and even gave her his calling card with the name
"Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera Law Offices'' with address
at 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City which
complainant attached to her affidavit-complaint. Respondent, when asked to
comment, claimed that it was complainant who showed him said calling card
and asked him if he could handle the case but to which he refused as he was
not connected with the law firm, though he was invited to join the firm. The
case was set for hearing for several times but complainant nor her counsel
did not appear. The return of the service stated that complainant was abroad.
Respondent testified in his own behalf and vehemently denied complainant's
allegation. He, however, did not deny that his name appeared on the calling
card or that the calling card was printed without his knowledge and consent.
The Court ruled that the inclusion or retention of respondent's name in the
professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which is a violation of
Section 7, subparagraph (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials or Employees).
The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with the dispensation of
justice from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk must not only be
characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above
suspicion.
Issue: WON the respondent violated canon 3.03 for engaging in the private
practice of law while holding public office.
Held: Yes. While the respondent vehemently denies the complainant's
allegations, he does not deny that his name appears on the calling card
attached to the complaint, which admittedly came into the hands of the
complainant. The above explanation tendered by the Respondent is an
admission that it is his name which appears on the calling card, a permissible
form of advertising or solicitation of legal services. Respondent does not
claim that the calling card printed without his knowledge or consent, and the
calling card carries his name primarily and the name of Baligod, Gatdula,
Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address at 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717
Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in the left corner. The card clearly gives
the impression that he is connected with the said law firm. The
inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act of
solicitation which violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No.
6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees."
"(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions."
The conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office charged
with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest
clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His
conduct, at all times must not only be characterized by propriety and
decorum but above all else must be above suspicion. Responded was
reprimanded and ordered by the court to exclude his name in the firm name
of any office engaged in the private practice of law.
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to
representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business.
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM
AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,
PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN
THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN
DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT
SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
RA 6713 Sec 4 – Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees
(A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as
standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official
duties:
(a) Commitment to public interest. - Public officials and
employees shall always uphold the public interest over
and above personal interest. All government resources
and powers of their respective offices must be employed
and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and
economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds
and revenues.
(b) Professionalism. - Public officials and employees shall
perform and discharge their duties with the highest
degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and
skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion
and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage
wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers
of undue patronage.
(c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and
employees shall remain true to the people at all times.
They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not
discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the
underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights
of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law,
good morals, good customs, public policy, public order,
public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense
or extend undue favors on account of their office to their
relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with
respect to appointments of such relatives to positions
considered strictly confidential or as members of their
personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.
(d) Political neutrality. - Public officials and employees
shall provide service to everyone without unfair
discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or
preference.
(e) Responsiveness to the public. - Public officials and
employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate
service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or
when required by the public interest, public officials and
employees shall provide information of their policies and
procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure
openness of information, public consultations and
hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions,
simplify and systematize policy, rules and procedures,
avoid red tape and develop an understanding and
appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing
in the country, especially in the depressed rural and urban
areas.
(f) Nationalism and patriotism. - Public officials and
employees shall at all times be loyal to the Republic and
to the Filipino people, promote the use of locally produced
goods, resources and technology and encourage
appreciation and pride of country and people. They shall
endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty
against foreign intrusion.
(g) Commitment to democracy. - Public officials and
employees shall commit themselves to the democratic
way of life and values, maintain the principle of public
accountability, and manifest by deeds the supremacy of
civilian authority over the military. They shall at all times
uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country above
loyalty to persons or party.
(h) Simple living. - Public officials and employees and
their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their
positions and income. They shall not indulge in
extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.
(B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt positive measures
to promote (1) observance of these standards including the
dissemination of information programs and workshops authorizing
merit increases beyond regular progression steps, to a limited
number of employees recognized by their office colleagues to be
outstanding in their observance of ethical standards; and (2)
continuing research and experimentation on measures which
provide positive motivation to public officials and employees in
raising the general level of observance of these standards.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is
not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or
the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
PEOPLE V PINEDA
FACTS:
Defendants are charged with five criminal cases of murder by the City Fiscal.
However, two of the defendants moved to consolidate the five criminal
cases into one and disregard the other four. Their plea is that said cases
arose out of the same incident and motivated by one impulse. The
respondent Judge approved the motion and directed the City Fiscal to unify
all the five criminal cases, and to file one single information and drop the
other four cases. The City Fiscal sought reconsideration thereof. . The
respondent Judge denied the motion to reconsider. Hence, City Fiscal, in
behalf of the People, moved this case for certiorari.
ISSUE
WON the certiorari should be granted
RULING
NO. The question of instituting a criminal charge is one addressed to the
sound discretion of the investigating Fiscal. It stands to reason then to say
that in a clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and the
fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the
defendant, those of the Fiscal's should normally prevail. In this regard, he
cannot ordinarily be subject to dictation. It should not to be understood as
saying that criminal prosecution may not be blocked in exceptional cases. A
relief in equity "may be availed of to stop it purported enforcement of a
criminal law where it is necessary (a) for the orderly administration of
justice; (b) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive
and vindictive manner; (c) to avoid multiplicity of actions; (d) to afford
adequate protection to constitutional rights; and (e) in proper cases,
because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was 'held invalid.' "
Upon the record as it stands, the writ of certiorari prayed for is hereby
granted
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter
to interfere with his public duties.
Misamin vs. San Juan (Adm Case 1418 August 31, 1976)
Facts: Herein respondent admits having appeared as counsel for the New
Cesar’s Bakery in the proceeding before the NLRC while he held office as
captain in the Manila Metropolitan Police. Respondent contends that the
law did not prohibit him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He
contends that his appearance as counsel while holding a government
position is not among the grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the
suspension or removal of attorneys.
Issue: Whether or not the administrative case against the defendant should
prospe
Held: The court ruled in the negative. The court ruled that the matter is to
be decided in an administrative proceeding as noted in the
recommendation of the Solicitor General. Nonetheless, the court held that
while the charges have to be dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate
for respondent member of the bar to avoid all appearances of impropriety.
Certainly, the fact that the suspicion could be entertained that far from
living true to the concept of a public office being a public trust, he did make
use, not so much of whatever legal knowledge he possessed, but the
influence that laymen could assume was inherent in the office held not only
to frustrate the beneficent statutory scheme that labor be justly
compensated but also to be at the beck and call of what the complainant
called alien interest, is a matter that should not pass unnoticed.
Respondent, in his future actuations as a member of the bar should refrain
from laying himself open to such doubts and misgivings as to his fitness not
only for the position occupied by him but also for membership in the bar. He
is not worthy of membership in an honorable profession who does not even
take care that hishonor remains unsullied.
VITRIOLO V DASIG
FACTS:
1. This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty.
Felina S. Dasig, an official of CHED. They allege Vitriolo committed acts that
are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court; attempted to extort sums of money; violated her oath as attorney-at-
law; instigated the commission of a crime; authored and sent to then
President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which maligned the
good names and reputation of CHED Directors.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent attorney-at-law, may be disciplined by
this Court for her malfeasance violative of CPR 6.02
RULING:
Yes, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars
lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests.
Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of
monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or
which may be affected by the functions of his office. Respondent was found
liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the Attorney’s
Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and was ordered
DISBARRED
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service.
RA 6713 Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to
acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in
the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited
acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public
officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer,
employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee
in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by
their office unless expressly allowed by law;
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise
which has a regular or pending official transaction with their
office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year
after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in
the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned
cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the
office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall
likewise apply.
RA 3019 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to
acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a
private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
PCGG V. Sandiganbayan
FACTS
In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered
financial difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial support
to Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings
on its current account with Central Bank. Despite the mega loans GENBANK
failed to recover from its financial woes. The Central Bank issued a
resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and unable to resume business
with safety to its depositors, creditors and the general public, and ordering
its liquidation. A public bidding of GENBANK’s assets was held where Lucio
Tan group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza
filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and supervision of the
court in GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. After EDSA
Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-
gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos, his family and cronies. Pursuant to
this mandate, the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for
reversion, reconveyance, restitution against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al.
PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired
by them by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with
former Pres. Marcos. The abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are
represented as their counsel, former Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG filed
motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan
et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that Mendoza as then Sol Gen and
counsel to Central Bank actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK
which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan et. al., which
subsequently became Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to disqualify
invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits
former government lawyers from accepting “engagement” or employment
in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said
service. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denyting PCGG’s motion to
disqualify respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an
inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s former function as SolGen
and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs
recourse to this court assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE
Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
respondent Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after
leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said
service.”
HELD
The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03.
Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem when
he acted as SOlGen and later as counsel of respondents et.al. before the
Sandiganbayan. However there is still the issue of whether there exists a
“congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza
from representing respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the meaning of
“matter” and the metes and bounds of “intervention” that he made on the
matter. Beyond doubt that the “matter” or the act of respondent Mendoza
as SolGen involved in the case at bar is “advising the Central Bank, on how
to proceed with the said bank’s liquidation and even filing the petition for its
liquidation in CFI of Manila. The Court held that the advice given by
respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate GENBANK is not the
“matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that
“drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures,
regulations and laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do
not fall within the scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify.
Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the Central
Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of
GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not
an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG
does not include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent
Mendoza because his alleged intervention while SolGen is an intervention
on a matter different from the matter involved in the Civil case of
sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the “intervention”. The
applicable meaning as the term is used in the Code of Professional Ethics is
that it is an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject
proceedings. The evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist where
the government lawyer does not act which can be considered as innocuous
such as “ drafting, enforcing, or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.” The
court rules that the intervention of Mendoza is not significant and
substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives assistance in the
liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court is not strictly as a court of justice
but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the claims of
creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the SolGen is not that of the usual
court litigator protecting the interest of government.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics:
“ A lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public
employ, should not after his retirement accept employment in connection
with any matter which he has investigated or passed upon while in such
office or employ.”
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public position
as a vehicle to promote or advance his private interests extends beyond his
tenure on certain matters in which he intervened as a public official. Rule
6.03 makes this restriction specifically applicable to lawyers who once held
public office.” A plain reading shows that the interdiction 1. applies to a
lawyer who once served in the government and 2. relates to his accepting
“engagement or employment” in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in the service.
Lim Santiago V. Sagucio
Facts:
Complainant charges respondent with the following violations:
1. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting
interests. Respondent, being the former Personnel Manager and Retained
Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very well. Respondent
should have inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and deciding the
case filed by Taggat employees. Furthermore, complainant claims that
respondent instigated the filing of the cases and even harassed and
threatened Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the
complaint.
2. Engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government
prosecutor
Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in the
private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor.
Complainant presented evidence to prove that respondent received
P10,000 as retainer’s fee for the months of January and February 1995,
another P10,000 for the months of April and May 1995, and P5,000 for the
month of April 1996.
Issue:
whether or not being a former lawyer of Taggat conflicts with respondent’s
role as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Whether or not respondent is engaged in the practice of law
Ruling:
1. The Court exonerates respondent from the charge of violation of Rule
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (“Code”). However, the
Court finds respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility against unlawful conduct. Respondent
committed unlawful conduct when he violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or
Republic Act No. 6713 (“RA 6713”).
Canon 6 provides that the Code “shall apply to lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official duties.” A government lawyer is thus
bound by the prohibition “not [to] represent conflicting interests.”
However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition to
represent conflicting interests does not apply when no conflict of interest
exists, when a written consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure
of the facts or when no true attorney-client relationship exists. Moreover,
considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the
imposition of the administrative penalty.
Respondent is also mandated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 not to engage in
“unlawful x x x conduct.” Unlawful conduct includes violation of the
statutory prohibition on a government employee to “engage in the private
practice of [his] profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with [his]
official functions.”
2. “Private practice of law” contemplates a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer.
Respondent argues that he only rendered consultancy services to Taggat
intermittently and he was not a retained counsel of Taggat from 1995 to
1996 as alleged. This argument is without merit because the law does not
distinguish between consultancy services and retainer agreement. For as
long as respondent performed acts that are usually rendered by lawyers
with the use of their legal knowledge, the same falls within the ambit of the
term “practice of law.”
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.
In Re 1989 Election of the IBP
FACTS: In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International
Convention Center, the newly-elected officers were set to take their oath
of office on July 4, 1989 before the Supreme Court en banc. However,
disturbed by the widespread reports received by some members of the
Court from lawyers who had witnessed or participated in the
proceedings and the adverse comments published in the columns of
some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and overspending
by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of president
of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and
Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes, and the
officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting,
all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit
such activities, the Supreme Court en banc, exercising its power of
supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend the oath-taking
of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.
The prohibited acts are against the IBP By-Laws more specifically
Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-
political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Sec. 14.
Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections and Section 12[d] of
the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations of the above rules: Any
violation of the rules governing elections or commission of any of the
prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14 [Prohibited Acts and
Practices Relative to Elections) of the By-laws of the Integrated Bar
shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his removal
from office if elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions
upon any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated Bar.
ISSUE Whether or not the candidates violated the IBP By-Laws.
DECISION: The candidates and many of the participants in that election
not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal
profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their
obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to
"promote respect for law and legal processes" and to abstain from
'activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional
Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers
themselves, who are supposed to be millions of the law, engage in
unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP
formulated for their observance.
The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency
of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The
spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another,
certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the
public's esteem.
The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the evasions,
denials and outright prevarications that tainted the statements of the
witnesses, including tome of the candidates, during the initial hearing
conducted by it before its fact-finding committee was created. The
subsequent investigation conducted by this Committee has revealed that
those parties had been less than candid with the Court and seem to have
conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold vital
information from it to conceal the irregularities committed during the
campaign.
Santos V Llamas
Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar
membership dues. It appears that Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years
now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his
pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he has been
using this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent, who
is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a “limited” practice of law
and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of
income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of membership
dues.
Held: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated
Bar shall pay annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant
suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year,
default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from the
Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only
engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by
respondent does not include exemption from payment of membership or
association dues.

In addition, by indicating “IBP Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby

misprepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues
to the Rizal Chpater, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also
a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow
the court to be misled by any artifice.

Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues,
whichever is later
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application
for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the
bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character,
education, or other relevant attribute.
The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance and active service to the
community is a just and reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of
indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of two years. Furthermore,
the Court noted that Zaguirre’s further claim for the support of her child
should be addressed to the proper court in a proper case.
Tan V. Sabandal

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on DOCTRINES:
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life,
The practice of law is not a matter of right.
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than
Zaguirre V. Castillo
truthfulness or candor.
FACTS:
FACTS:
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had
Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to
an affair with Carmelita Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to
take his oath in view of the finding of the Court that he was guilty of
1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and before the release of its
unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he had filed numerous petitions
results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s daughter. The
for him to be allowed to take his lawyer's oath.
latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child
and promising for her support which did not materialize after the birth of Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the
the child. The Court found him guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which province where Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on respondent's
Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration. moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In compliance therewith, the
executive judge stated in his comment that he is not aware of any acts
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and
committed by the respondent as would disqualify him to from admission to
agrees to support her. In his defense, the latter presented different
the Bar. However, he added that respondent has a pending civil case before
certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer and proving his good moral
his court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent, then
character. His wife even submitted a handwritten letter stating his
working as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to have
amicability as a husband and father despite the affair. More than a year
secured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which,
since the original decision rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his
upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible of
willingness to support the child to the Court and attached a photocopy of
acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the bank.
post-dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to
The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land subsequently sold at public
December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00 each.
auction and respondent has not redeemed the land since then.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct and
should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension.
HELD:
The case was however been settled through amicable settlement. The said
amicable settlement canceled the OCT under Free Patent in the name of
Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the surrender of the
certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of
public domain the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with
respondent refraining from exercising acts of possession or ownership over
the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and
interest.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law
considering that he already submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his
good moral character, and his pending civil case has been terminated.
HELD:
His petition must be denied.
Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right.
It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the
law but who are also known to possess good moral character.
It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the
Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free
patent title over the property which he could not but have known was a
public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his
moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public
service, which cannot be erased by the termination of the case and where
no determination of guilt or innocence was made because the suit has been
compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair dealings.
Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil case
for Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting
several petitions and motions for reconsiderations reveal his lack of candor
and truthfulness
Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it
has been defined as "including at least common dishonesty." It has also
been held that no moral qualification for membership is more important
than truthfulness or candor.
Tapucar V. Tapucar
In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant Remedios
Ramirez Tapucar sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Lauro L.
Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct for
cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Peña under scandalous
circumstances.
Prior to this complaint, respondent was already administratively charged
four times for conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. in Administrative
Matter No. 1740, resolved on April 11, 1980, respondent, at that time the
Judge of Butuan City, was meted the penalty of six months suspension
without pay, while in Administrative Matter Nos. 1720, 1911 and 2300-CFI,
which were consolidated, this Court on January 31, 1981 ordered the
separation from service of respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated canon 1 of the code of professional
responsibility
Ruling:
Yes.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to
the courts and to his clients. Exacted from him, as a member of the
profession charged with the responsibility to stand as a shield in the defense
of what is right, are such positive qualities of decency, truthfulness and
responsibility that have been compendiously described as “moral
character.” To achieve such end, every lawyer needs to strive at all times to
honor and maintain the dignity of his profession, and thus improve not only
the public regard for the Bar but also the administration of justice.
 CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,
FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to
those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Camacho vs. Pangulayan
FACTS:
1. PANGULAYAN INDICTED FOR VIOLATION OF CANON 9: Lawyer should not
communicate upon subject of controversy with a party represented by
counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the
matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. Lawyer must avoid
everything that may tend to mislead party not represented by counsel and
should not advise him as to law.
1. HIRED LAWYER OF DEFENDANTS who had compromised agreements with
CAMACHO’S CLIENTS.
2. Required them to waive all kinds of claims they might have had against
AMACC (principal defendant) and to terminate all civil, criminal and
administrative proceedings filed against it.
i. Denied that they had negotiations, discussion, formulation or execution.
ii. No longer connected with Pagulayan and Associates Law Offices.
iii. Re-Admission Agreements nothing to do with DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE
involving 9 students of AMACC.
1. Civil case involved publishing of features or articles in Editorial Board of
DATALINE.
2. Found guilty by Student Disciplinary Tribunal of using indecent language
and unauthorized use of student publication funds.
3. Expulsion
a. Students appeal and was denied by the AMACC President which gave rise
to civil case.
b. During civil case, apology letters and Re-Admission Agreements were
separately executed by some expelled students.
ISSUE:
Does the Re-Admission Agreements have nothing to do with DISMISSAL
OF CIVIL CASE involving 9 students of AMACC?
HELD:
3 MONTHS SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL OF CASE AGAINST OTHER
RESPONDENTS THAT DID NOT TAKE PART IN THE NEGOTIATION.
1. Individual letters and Re-Admission Agreements were formalized in which
PANGULAYAN was already counsel of AMACC.
1. Had full knowledge; did not discuss it with the student’s parents or their
counsel.
i. Re-Admission Agreements affected the dismissal of the civil case because
signatories agreed to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative
proceedings against AMACC.
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN
THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Aguirre V. Rana
Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the
scheduled mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a
Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar.
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the
lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys
up to now
Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as
counsel for a candidate in an election.
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a
municipal government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not allowed by law to
act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant
accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate
George Bunan without the latter engaging respondent’s services.
Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent
the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law
and thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar
Ruling
the Court 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 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.
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 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.
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the
lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally
makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar
examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential
requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his
lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll
of Attorneys.
OCA V. Ladaga
FACTS: Atty. Ladaga, an RTC Branch Clerk of Court, acted as pro bono
counsel for a relative in a criminal case, without the previous authority from
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as required by the Administrative
Code. An administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Ladaga for
practicing law without permission from the Department Head (CJ) as
required by law. Atty. Ladaga justified his appearance as he merely gave a
free legal assistance to a relative and that he was on an approved leave of
absence during his appearances as such counsel. Moreover, the presiding
judge of the court to which he is assigned knew his appearances as such
counsel.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ladaga’s appearances as a pro bono counsel for a
relative constitutes practice of law as prohibited by the Administrative Code
HELD: No. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of the statute should
be customarily or habitually holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer and
demanding payment for such services. It does not pertain to isolated court
appearances as in this case. Nevertheless, for his failure to obtain a prior
permission from the head of the Department (CJ) as required by law,
respondent was reprimanded.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a
member of the bar in good standing.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law,
except:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate
that, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonable
period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a
deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is
retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the
sharing agreement. enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and
consequently, to the due administration of justice.
Halili v CIR (136 SCRA 112)
The Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any conduct on his part
Facts: showing his unfitness for the confidence and trust which characterize
the attorney and client relations, and the practice of law before the
The cases involve disputes regarding claims for overtime of more than
courts, or showing such a lack of personal honesty or of good moral
five hundred bus drivers and conductors of Halili Transit. The disputes
character as to render him unworthy of public confidence.
were eventually settled when the contending parties reached an
Agreement where the Administratrix would transfer to the employees In the case, the expeditious manner by which Arbiter Valenzuela
the title to a tract of land in Caloocan, Rizal. The parcel of land was granted Atty. Pineda's motion for such authority to sell the property
eventually registered in the name of the Union. makes the entire transaction dubious and irregular.
Significantly Atty. Pineda's act of filing a motion praying for authority to
The Union, through Atty. Pineda, filed an urgent motion with the
sell was by itself an admission on his part that he did not possess the
Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) requesting for authority to
authority to sell the property. He could not and did not even wait for
sell and dispose of the property.
valid authority but instead previously obtained the same from the labor
Atty. Espinas, (the original counsel) established the award of 897 arbiter whom he knew was not empowered to so authorize.
workers' claim. When Atty. Pineda appeared for the Union in these
cases, still an associate of the law firm, his appearance carried the Atty. Pineda is found guilty of indirect contempt of court for which he
firm name “B.C. Pineda and Associates," giving the impression that he is sentenced to imprisonment and directed to show cause why he
was the principal lawyer in these cases. should not be disbarred
Atty. Pineda, without authority from the Supreme Court but relying on
the earlier authority given him by the Ministry of Labor, filed another
urgent motion, praying that the Union be authorized to sell the lot. The
sale was finally consummated, resulting in the execution of an escrow
agreement.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pineda and Arbiter Valenzuela should be held in
contempt.
Held:
YES. Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity
of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and
administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or
prejudice parties’ litigant or their witnesses during litigation.