LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN

INTRODUCTION Appears in court not to represent any particular party

A. Definition of Terms but only to assist the court.
a. Legal Ethics is the embodiment of all principles of h. Amicus Curiae par excellence bar associations who
morality and refinement that should govern the conduct appear in court as amici curiae or friends of the court.
of every member of the bar. Acts merely as a consultant to guide the court in a
-broadly defined as the living of the spirit of the doubtful question or issue pending before it.
profession, which limits yet uplifts it as a livelihood. i. Bar refers to the legal profession.
(Agpalo 2009) j. Bench refers to the judiciary.
-branch of moral science which treats of the duties k. Lawyer this is the general term for a person trained in
which an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his the law and authorized to advice and represent others
colleagues in the profession and to the public. in legal matters
l. Attorneys-At-Lawthat class of persons who are
b. Terms use to describe a member of the legal profession licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear,
a. Lawyer, Attorney, Attorney-at-law-one skilled in prosecute and defend, and upon whom peculiar duties,
law responsibilities and liabilities are developed by law as a
b. Practicing Lawyer consequence.
c. Trial Lawyer m. Attorney in fact- simply an agent whose authority is
d. Advocate- a person learned in the law and duly strictly limited by the instrument appointing him. His
admitted to practice, who advises a client and authority is provided in a special power of attorney or
pleads for him in court general power of attorney or letter of attorney. He is not
e. Barrister-a person entitled to practice as an necessarily a lawyer.
advocate or counsel in superior courts in England n. Bar Associationan association of members of the legal
f. Counsel or Counselor-an advocate or leader, a profession like the IBP where membership is integrated
member of the legal profession. or compulsory.
g. Proctor, Solicitor-a person prosecuting or o. House Counselone who acts as attorney for business
defending suits in courts of chancery (7 CJS 702- though carried as an employee of that business and not
703) as an independent lawyer.
h. Spanish: Abogado p. Lead Counsel the counsel on either side of a litigated
i. Filipino: Manananggol action who is charged with the principal management
The term refers to that class of persons who by license are officers of the and direction of a partys case, as distinguished from
court empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend. A person who is a his juniors or subordinates.
member of the Philippine Bar who, by warrant of another, practices law, q. Practicing Lawyerone engaged in the practice of law
or acts professionally in legal formalities. who by license are officers of the court and who
Those who passed the Sharia Bar not entitled to be called Attorneys are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend a
unless admitted to the Philippine Bar. clients cause.
c. Counsel de parte: An attorney retained by a party
r. Pro se: is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on
litigant, usually for a fee, to prosecute or defend his
one's own behalf". This status is sometimes known as
cause in court.
propria persona (abbreviated to "proper"). In England
Implies freedom of choice either on the attorney or the
and Wales the comparable status is that of "litigant in
litigant.
person".
d. Counsel de oficio: Attorney appointed by the court.
B. Power to regulate practice of law
To defend an indigent defendant in a criminal action.
Art VIII, Sec 5(5) 1987 Constitution: Promulgate rules
To represent a destitute party.
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
e. Attorney of record: Attorney whose name, together with
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
his address, is entered in the record of the case as the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
designated counsel of the party litigant.
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
To whom judicial notices are sent.
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
f. A lawyer of counsel is an experienced lawyer, who
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same
is usually a retired member of judiciary employed by law
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
firms as consultant.
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
g. Amicus Curiae is: An experienced and impartial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
attorney invited by the court to appear and help in the
Supreme Court.
disposition of issues submitted to it.
It implies friendly intervention of counsel to call the
C. Duties of Attorneys: Rule 138, Sec 20 : It is the duty of
attention of the court to some matters of law or facts
an attorney:
which might otherwise escape its notice and in regard
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
to which it might go wrong.
Page 1

and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the

Philippines.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
justice and judicial officers; simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for
as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he all courts of the same grade, and shall not
believes to be honestly debatable under the law. diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
b. Congress: Art XII Sec 14 (2) 1987 Constitution:
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to
The practice of all professions in the Philippines
himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no
compensation in connection with his client's business except shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases
from him or with his knowledge and approval; prescribed by law.
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance Art XIII Sec 10 1987 Constitution: All courts
no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or existing at the time of the ratification of this
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which Constitution shall continue to exercise their
he is charged; jurisdiction, until otherwise provided by law. The
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the provisions of the existing Rules of Court, judiciary
continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's acts, and procedural laws not inconsistent with
cause, from any corrupt motive or interest; this Constitution shall remain operative unless
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the
the cause of the defenseless or oppressed; Congress.
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and
honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the
JUDICIAL CONTROL
guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law
a. Admission to practice is a judicial function-inherent
permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
power of the SC provided by the Constitution
liberty, but by due process of law.
D. Four Fold Duties of a Lawyer The power to admit applicants to the practice of law is judicial in
i. Duty to the society: A lawyer should not violate his nature and involves the exercise of judicial discretion.
responsibility to society, exemplar for righteousness, ready to Traditionally exercised by the Supreme Court as an inherent part
render to legal aid, foster social reforms, guardian of due of its judicial power.
process, aware of special role in the solution of special Rationale comes from the nature of a judicial function and the role
problems and be always ready to lend assistance to the study played by attorneys in the administration of justice.
and solution of social problems. The admission to the practice of law requires:
ii. Duty to the legal profession: A lawyer must show candor, 1. Previously established Rules and Principles. (By
fairness, courtesy and truthfulness, avoid encroachment in Constitutional mandate, a primary responsibility of the
the business of other lawyers and uphold the honor of legal Supreme Court)
profession 2. Concrete Facts, past or present, affecting determinate
iii. Duty to the courts: A lawyer must defend against criticism, individuals. (Brought about by the applicant for admission to
uphold authority and dignity, obey order and processes, and the bar)
assist in the administration of justice. 3. A Decision as to whether the facts are governed by rules
iv. Duty to the client: A lawyer must give his entire devotion to and principles. (Involves judicial adjudication which
his clients interest. essentially a function of the court)
E. Practice of Law is a Profession and not a Business: A To enable the court to properly discharge its responsibility for the
profession as a group of men and women pursuing a learned efficient and impartial administration and to elevate and maintain
art as a common calling in the spirit of public service. the standard of the legal profession requires that it must have the
i. 3 ELEMENTS primary duty to decide:
- Organization A. Who may be admitted to the bar as one of its officers
- Learning B. What are the causes for disciplinary action against him
- Spirit of public service C. Whether he should be disciplined, suspended,
ii. Purpose: public service not economic or not profit disbarred, or reinstated
LEGAL PROFESSION Any legislative or executive judgment substituting that of the
A. State Regulation Supreme Court in the admission to the practice of law or
a. Supreme Court: Art VIII, Sec 5(5) 1987 suspension, debarment, reinstatement infringes upon and
Constitution: Promulgate rules concerning the constitutes as an invalid exercise of the legislative or executive
protection and enforcement of constitutional power.
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all b. Legislative power to repeal, alter or supplement
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the The 1935 and 1973 Constitutions provide that the Supreme Court
Page 2

integrated bar, and legal assistance to the shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
to the practice of law but may be repealed, altered, or 1. Exercises regulatory power over law schools or certifies as
supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa. to the satisfactory completion of the prescribed courses of
The 1987 Constitution deleted such provision. law study by an applicant for admission to the bar
The legislature may, however, enact laws with respect to the first examination.
requisite for the admission to the bar (Previously established Rules 2. Assumes some responsibility for the quality of instruction
and training required of an applicant for membership in the
and Principles) that applicants should observe.
bar.
A. The legislature may pass a law for additional
d. Supreme court incidental powers (Incidental to its
qualifications for candidates for admission to the
primary authority to decide who may be admitted to the
practice or filling up deficiencies in the requirements for
bar):
admission to the bar.
1. Fixing minimum standards of instruction for all law schools
B. Such law may not, however, be given retroactive effect
to observe.
so as to entitle a person, not otherwise qualified, to be 2. Setting up of the necessary administrative
admitted. machinery to determine compliance therewith.
C. Such law will not preclude the Supreme Court from 3. By way of sanction, refusal to admit to the bar exams law
fixing other qualifications and requirements. graduates from schools failing to meet those standards. May
Reason: Legislature has no power to grant a layman the privilege be implemented through accreditation
to practice law nor control the Supreme Court in its responsibility B. What Constitute Practice of Law
to decide who may be admitted. G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991
The Legislature, in the exercise of its POLICE POWER may, RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner,
however, enact laws regulating the practice of law to protect the vs.
public and promote the public welfare. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION
A. A law declaring illegal and punishable the ON APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his
unauthorized practice of law. capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents.
B. Require further examination for any attorney desiring to Renato L. Cayetano for and in his own behalf.
practice before any quasi-judicial or administrative Sabina E. Acut, Jr. and Mylene Garcia-Albano co-counsel for
agency. petitioner.
Whatever law may be passes is merely in aid of the judicial power
to regulate. PARAS, J.:p
But the legislature MAY NOT pass a law that will control the We are faced here with a controversy of far-reaching proportions. While
Supreme Court in the performance of its function to decide who ostensibly only legal issues are involved, the Court's decision in this case
may enjoy the privilege of practicing law and any law of that kind is would indubitably have a profound effect on the political aspect of our
unconstitutional as an invalid exercise of legislative power. national existence.
RA 972 (the Bar Flunkers Act) aims to admit to the Bar, those The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C:
candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and
and inadequate preparation. By its declared objective, the law six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines
is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any
practice of the profession, as was exactly found by this Tribunal elective position in the immediately preceding -elections. However, a
in the aforesaid examinations. An adequate legal preparation is majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the
one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least
developed constantly and maintained firmly. ten years. (Emphasis supplied)
c. Executive power in relation to practice The aforequoted provision is patterned after Section l(l), Article XII-C of
The Chief Executive cannot, by executive order, admit a person to the 1973 Constitution which similarly provides:
the practice of law nor can he, by treaty with another country, There shall be an independent Commission on Elections composed of a
modify the rules on the admission to the bar. Chairman and eight Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens
A treaty, cannot be so interpreted as to entitle a holder of a law of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
degree obtained in another country to practice law in this country years of age and holders of a college degree. However, a majority
without complying with the requirements of existing law. thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar
Accordingly, a Filipino citizen who obtained a law degree in who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.'
another country is not entitled to be admitted to the Philippine (Emphasis supplied)
Bar without complying with the requirements. Regrettably, however, there seems to be no jurisprudence as to what
Prescribing standards for law schools constitutes practice of law as a legal qualification to an appointive office.
CHED acts as an agency or in aid of the Supreme Court in the Black defines "practice of law" as:
exercise of its primary authority to determine who may be admitted The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of
to practice since such authority is by Constitutional mandate and legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his
rests and remains exclusively with the high tribunal. consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting
Page 3

CHED merely: in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings,

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all
giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] ,
all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313,
engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179
out to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an A. 139,144). (Emphasis ours)
attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation
counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for briefing for new lawyers (1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the
services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.) practice of law in even broader terms as advocacy, counselling and
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. (Land public service.
Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650) One may be a practicing attorney in following any line of employment in
A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: the profession. If what he does exacts knowledge of the law and is of a
... for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, kind usual for attorneys engaging in the active practice of their
firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or profession, and he follows some one or more lines of employment such
appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings as this he is a practicing attorney at law within the meaning of the statute.
pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, (Barr v. Cardell, 155 NW 312)
body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity performs application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give
representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the
to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23)
acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the The following records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that
practice of law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v..C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. it has adopted a liberal interpretation of the term "practice of law."
2d 895, 340 Mo. 852) MR. FOZ. Before we suspend the session, may I make a manifestation
This Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v.Agrava, (105 which I forgot to do during our review of the provisions on the
Phil. 173,176-177) stated: Commission on Audit. May I be allowed to make a very brief statement?
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir).
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident The Commissioner will please proceed.
to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and MR. FOZ. This has to do with the qualifications of the members of the
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in Commission on Audit. Among others, the qualifications provided for by
addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken Section I is that "They must be Members of the Philippine Bar" I am
for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, quoting from the provision "who have been engaged in the practice
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance of law for at least ten years".
before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in excluding
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and members of the Bar who are now employed in the COA or Commission
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and on Audit, we would like to make the clarification that this provision on
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done or involve actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of this to mean that as long as the lawyers who are employed in the COA
facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis supplied) are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work
Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of work within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment as
performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to members or commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on
proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal Audit.
advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and execution This has been discussed by the Committee on Constitutional
of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust Commissions and Agencies and we deem it important to take it up on
relations and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no the floor so that this interpretation may be made available whenever this
direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to provision on the qualifications as regards members of the Philippine Bar
become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high engaging in the practice of law for at least ten years is taken up.
degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great MR. OPLE. Will Commissioner Foz yield to just one question.
capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate MR. OPLE. Is he, in effect, saying that service in the COA by a lawyer is
relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, equivalent to the requirement of a law practice that is set forth in the
so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn Article on the Commission on Audit?
between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance MR. FOZ. We must consider the fact that the work of COA, although it is
in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments auditing, will necessarily involve legal work; it will involve legal work. And,
Page 4

in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these therefore, lawyers who are employed in COA now would have the
manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
necessary qualifications in accordance with the Provision on as the planner, the diagnostician and the trial lawyer, the surgeon. I[t]
qualifications under our provisions on the Commission on Audit. And, need not [be] stress[ed] that in law, as in medicine, surgery should be
therefore, the answer is yes. avoided where internal medicine can be effective." (Business Star,
MR. OPLE. Yes. So that the construction given to this is that this is "Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
equivalent to the practice of law. In the course of a working day the average general practitioner will
MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different legal
MR. OPLE. Thank you. doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and
... ( Emphasis supplied) other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in
Section 1(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution, provides, among specialized practice will usually perform at least some legal services
others, that the Chairman and two Commissioners of the Commission on outside their specialty. And even within a narrow specialty such as tax
Audit (COA) should either be certified public accountants with not less practice, a lawyer will shift from one legal task or role such as advice-
than ten years of auditing practice, or members of the Philippine Bar who giving to an importantly different one such as representing a client before
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. an administrative agency. (Wolfram, supra, p. 687).
(emphasis supplied) By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is
Corollary to this is the term "private practitioner" and which is in many one of the relatively rare types a litigator who specializes in this work to
ways synonymous with the word "lawyer." Today, although many the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to
lawyers do not engage in private practice, it is still a fact that the majority have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client
of lawyers are private practitioners. (Gary Munneke, Opportunities in counselling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation. And
Law Careers [VGM Career Horizons: Illinois], [1986], p. 15). increasingly lawyers find that the new skills of evaluation and mediation
At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as are both effective for many clients and a source of employment. (Ibid.).
commonly understood, means "an individual or organization engaged in Most lawyers will engage in non-litigation legal work or in litigation work
the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.). Lawyers who practice that is constrained in very important ways, at least theoretically, so as to
alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called remove from it some of the salient features of adversarial litigation. Of
"firms." The firm is usually a partnership and members of the firm are the these special roles, the most prominent is that of prosecutor. In some
partners. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations and lawyers' work the constraints are imposed both by the nature of the client
the members called shareholders. In either case, the members of the and by the way in which the lawyer is organized into a social unit to
firm are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger or perform that work. The most common of these roles are those of
more inexperienced salaried attorneys called "associates." (Ibid.). corporate practice and government legal service. (Ibid.).
The test that defines law practice by looking to traditional areas of law In several issues of the Business Star, a business daily, herein below
practice is essentially tautologous, unhelpful in defining the practice of quoted are emerging trends in corporate law practice, a departure from
law as that which lawyers do. (Charles W. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics the traditional concept of practice of law.
[West Publishing Co.: Minnesota, 1986], p. 593). The practice of law is We are experiencing today what truly may be called a revolutionary
defined as the performance of any acts . . . in or out of court, commonly transformation in corporate law practice. Lawyers and other professional
understood to be the practice of law. (State Bar Ass'n v. Connecticut groups, in particular those members participating in various legal-policy
Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222, 140 A.2d 863, 870 [1958] [quoting decisional contexts, are finding that understanding the major emerging
Grievance Comm. v. Payne, 128 Conn. 325, 22 A.2d 623, 626 [1941]). trends in corporation law is indispensable to intelligent decision-making.
Because lawyers perform almost every function known in the commercial Constructive adjustment to major corporate problems of today requires
and governmental realm, such a definition would obviously be too global an accurate understanding of the nature and implications of the
to be workable.(Wolfram, op. cit.). corporate law research function accompanied by an accelerating rate of
The appearance of a lawyer in litigation in behalf of a client is at once the information accumulation. The recognition of the need for such improved
most publicly familiar role for lawyers as well as an uncommon role for corporate legal policy formulation, particularly "model-making" and
the average lawyer. Most lawyers spend little time in courtrooms, and a "contingency planning," has impressed upon us the inadequacy of
large percentage spend their entire practice without litigating a case. traditional procedures in many decisional contexts.
(Ibid., p. 593). Nonetheless, many lawyers do continue to litigate and the In a complex legal problem the mass of information to be processed, the
litigating lawyer's role colors much of both the public image and the self sorting and weighing of significant conditional factors, the appraisal of
perception of the legal profession. (Ibid.). major trends, the necessity of estimating the consequences of given
In this regard thus, the dominance of litigation in the public mind reflects courses of action, and the need for fast decision and response in
history, not reality. (Ibid.). Why is this so? Recall that the late Alexander situations of acute danger have prompted the use of sophisticated
SyCip, a corporate lawyer, once articulated on the importance of a lawyer concepts of information flow theory, operational analysis, automatic data
as a business counselor in this wise: "Even today, there are still processing, and electronic computing equipment. Understandably, an
uninformed laymen whose concept of an attorney is one who principally improved decisional structure must stress the predictive component of
tries cases before the courts. The members of the bench and bar and the policy-making process, wherein a "model", of the decisional context
the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed or a segment thereof is developed to test projected alternative courses
societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices of action in terms of futuristic effects flowing therefrom.
than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation Although members of the legal profession are regularly engaged in
and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves predicting and projecting the trends of the law, the subject of corporate
Page 5

spending more time doing what [is] loosely desccribe[d] as business finance law has received relatively little organized and formalized
counseling than in trying cases. The business lawyer has been described attention in the philosophy of advancing corporate legal education.
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Nonetheless, a cross-disciplinary approach to legal research has lawyer is one who surmounts them." (Business Star, "Corporate Finance
become a vital necessity. Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
Certainly, the general orientation for productive contributions by those Today, the study of corporate law practice direly needs a "shot in the
trained primarily in the law can be improved through an early introduction arm," so to speak. No longer are we talking of the traditional law teaching
to multi-variable decisional context and the various approaches for method of confining the subject study to the Corporation Code and the
handling such problems. Lawyers, particularly with either a master's or Securities Code but an incursion as well into the intertwining modern
doctorate degree in business administration or management, functioning management issues.
at the legal policy level of decision-making now have some appreciation Such corporate legal management issues deal primarily with three (3)
for the concepts and analytical techniques of other professions which are types of learning: (1) acquisition of insights into current advances which
currently engaged in similar types of complex decision-making. are of particular significance to the corporate counsel; (2) an introduction
Truth to tell, many situations involving corporate finance problems would to usable disciplinary skins applicable to a corporate counsel's
require the services of an astute attorney because of the complex legal management responsibilities; and (3) a devotion to the organization and
implications that arise from each and every necessary step in securing management of the legal function itself.
and maintaining the business issue raised. (Business Star, "Corporate These three subject areas may be thought of as intersecting circles, with
Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4). a shared area linking them. Otherwise known as "intersecting managerial
In our litigation-prone country, a corporate lawyer is assiduously referred jurisprudence," it forms a unifying theme for the corporate counsel's total
to as the "abogado de campanilla." He is the "big-time" lawyer, earning learning.
big money and with a clientele composed of the tycoons and magnates Some current advances in behavior and policy sciences affect the
of business and industry. counsel's role. For that matter, the corporate lawyer reviews the
Despite the growing number of corporate lawyers, many people could globalization process, including the resulting strategic repositioning that
not explain what it is that a corporate lawyer does. For one, the number the firms he provides counsel for are required to make, and the need to
of attorneys employed by a single corporation will vary with the size and think about a corporation's; strategy at multiple levels. The salience of
type of the corporation. Many smaller and some large corporations farm the nation-state is being reduced as firms deal both with global
out all their legal problems to private law firms. Many others have in- multinational entities and simultaneously with sub-national governmental
house counsel only for certain matters. Other corporation have a staff units. Firms increasingly collaborate not only with public entities but with
large enough to handle most legal problems in-house. each other often with those who are competitors in other arenas.
A corporate lawyer, for all intents and purposes, is a lawyer who handles Also, the nature of the lawyer's participation in decision-making within
the legal affairs of a corporation. His areas of concern or jurisdiction may the corporation is rapidly changing. The modem corporate lawyer has
include, inter alia: corporate legal research, tax laws research, acting out gained a new role as a stakeholder in some cases participating in the
as corporate secretary (in board meetings), appearances in both courts organization and operations of governance through participation on
and other adjudicatory agencies (including the Securities and Exchange boards and other decision-making roles. Often these new patterns
Commission), and in other capacities which require an ability to deal with develop alongside existing legal institutions and laws are perceived as
the law. barriers. These trends are complicated as corporations organize for
At any rate, a corporate lawyer may assume responsibilities other than global operations. ( Emphasis supplied)
the legal affairs of the business of the corporation he is representing. The practising lawyer of today is familiar as well with governmental
These include such matters as determining policy and becoming policies toward the promotion and management of technology. New
involved in management. ( Emphasis supplied.) collaborative arrangements for promoting specific technologies or
In a big company, for example, one may have a feeling of being isolated competitiveness more generally require approaches from industry that
from the action, or not understanding how one's work actually fits into the differ from older, more adversarial relationships and traditional forms of
work of the orgarnization. This can be frustrating to someone who needs seeking to influence governmental policies. And there are lessons to be
to see the results of his work first hand. In short, a corporate lawyer is learned from other countries. In Europe, Esprit, Eureka and Race are
sometimes offered this fortune to be more closely involved in the running examples of collaborative efforts between governmental and business
of the business. Japan's MITI is world famous. (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, a corporate lawyer's services may sometimes be engaged by Following the concept of boundary spanning, the office of the Corporate
a multinational corporation (MNC). Some large MNCs provide one of the Counsel comprises a distinct group within the managerial structure of all
few opportunities available to corporate lawyers to enter the international kinds of organizations. Effectiveness of both long-term and temporary
law field. After all, international law is practiced in a relatively small groups within organizations has been found to be related to indentifiable
number of companies and law firms. Because working in a foreign factors in the group-context interaction such as the groups actively
country is perceived by many as glamorous, tills is an area coveted by revising their knowledge of the environment coordinating work with
corporate lawyers. In most cases, however, the overseas jobs go to outsiders, promoting team achievements within the organization. In
experienced attorneys while the younger attorneys do their "international general, such external activities are better predictors of team
practice" in law libraries. (Business Star, "Corporate Law Practice," May performance than internal group processes.
25,1990, p. 4). In a crisis situation, the legal managerial capabilities of the corporate
This brings us to the inevitable, i.e., the role of the lawyer in the realm of lawyer vis-a-vis the managerial mettle of corporations are challenged.
finance. To borrow the lines of Harvard-educated lawyer Bruce Current research is seeking ways both to anticipate effective managerial
Wassertein, to wit: "A bad lawyer is one who fails to spot problems, a procedures and to understand relationships of financial liability and
Page 6

good lawyer is one who perceives the difficulties, and the excellent insurance considerations. (Emphasis supplied)

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Regarding the skills to apply by the corporate counsel, three factors are law territory. What transpires next is a dilemma of professional security:
apropos: Will the lawyer admit ignorance and risk opprobrium?; or will he feign
First System Dynamics. The field of systems dynamics has been found understanding and risk exposure? (Business Star, "Corporate Finance
an effective tool for new managerial thinking regarding both planning and law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
pressing immediate problems. An understanding of the role of feedback Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C.
loops, inventory levels, and rates of flow, enable users to simulate all Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received
sorts of systematic problems physical, economic, managerial, social, by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991.
and psychological. New programming techniques now make the system Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not
dynamics principles more accessible to managers including corporate possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice
counsels. (Emphasis supplied) of law for at least ten years.
Second Decision Analysis. This enables users to make better decisions On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the
involving complexity and uncertainty. In the context of a law department, nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18,
it can be used to appraise the settlement value of litigation, aid in 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as
negotiation settlement, and minimize the cost and risk involved in Chairman of the COMELEC.
managing a portfolio of cases. (Emphasis supplied) Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on
Third Modeling for Negotiation Management. Computer-based models Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and
can be used directly by parties and mediators in all lands of negotiations. taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying
All integrated set of such tools provide coherent and effective negotiation that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as
support, including hands-on on instruction in these techniques. A Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
simulation case of an international joint venture may be used to illustrate Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed
the point. the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86-55%. He has been a
[Be this as it may,] the organization and management of the legal dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its
function, concern three pointed areas of consideration, thus: inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license
Preventive Lawyering. Planning by lawyers requires special skills that fees as lawyer for more than ten years. (p. 124, Rollo)
comprise a major part of the general counsel's responsibilities. They After graduating from the College of Law (U.P.) and having hurdled the
differ from those of remedial law. Preventive lawyering is concerned with bar, Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. During his stint
minimizing the risks of legal trouble and maximizing legal rights for such in the World Bank Group (1963-1970), Monsod worked as an operations
legal entities at that time when transactional or similar facts are being officer for about two years in Costa Rica and Panama, which involved
considered and made. getting acquainted with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans
Managerial Jurisprudence. This is the framework within which are and coordinating legal, economic, and project work of the Bank. Upon
undertaken those activities of the firm to which legal consequences returning to the Philippines in 1970, he worked with the Meralco Group,
attach. It needs to be directly supportive of this nation's evolving served as chief executive officer of an investment bank and
economic and organizational fabric as firms change to stay competitive subsequently of a business conglomerate, and since 1986, has rendered
in a global, interdependent environment. The practice and theory of "law" services to various companies as a legal and economic consultant or
is not adequate today to facilitate the relationships needed in trying to chief executive officer. As former Secretary-General (1986) and National
make a global economy work. Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. Monsod's work involved being
Organization and Functioning of the Corporate Counsel's Office. The knowledgeable in election law. He appeared for NAMFREL in its
general counsel has emerged in the last decade as one of the most accreditation hearings before the Comelec. In the field of advocacy,
vibrant subsets of the legal profession. The corporate counsel hear Monsod, in his personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the
responsibility for key aspects of the firm's strategic issues, including Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human Development, has
structuring its global operations, managing improved relationships with worked with the under privileged sectors, such as the farmer and urban
an increasingly diversified body of employees, managing expanded poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action
liability exposure, creating new and varied interactions with public for the agrarian reform law and lately the urban land reform bill. Monsod
decision-makers, coping internally with more complex make or by also made use of his legal knowledge as a member of the Davide
decisions. Commission, a quast judicial body, which conducted numerous hearings
This whole exercise drives home the thesis that knowing corporate law (1990) and as a member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987),
is not enough to make one a good general corporate counsel nor to give and Chairman of its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, for
him a full sense of how the legal system shapes corporate activities. And which he was cited by the President of the Commission, Justice Cecilia
even if the corporate lawyer's aim is not the understanding of all of the Muoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments to reconcile government
law's effects on corporate activities, he must, at the very least, also gain functions with individual freedoms and public accountability and the
a working knowledge of the management issues if only to be able to party-list system for the House of Representative. (pp. 128-129 Rollo) (
grasp not only the basic legal "constitution' or makeup of the modem Emphasis supplied)
corporation. "Business Star", "The Corporate Counsel," April 10, 1991, Just a word about the work of a negotiating team of which Atty. Monsod
p. 4). used to be a member.
The challenge for lawyers (both of the bar and the bench) is to have more In a loan agreement, for instance, a negotiating panel acts as a team,
than a passing knowledge of financial law affecting each aspect of their and which is adequately constituted to meet the various contingencies
Page 7

work. Yet, many would admit to ignorance of vast tracts of the financial that arise during a negotiation. Besides top officials of the Borrower
concerned, there are the legal officer (such as the legal counsel), the
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
finance manager, and an operations officer (such as an official involved Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be
in negotiating the contracts) who comprise the members of the team. performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights,
(Guillermo V. Soliven, "Loan Negotiating Strategies for Developing the only condition being that the appointee should possess the
Country Borrowers," Staff Paper No. 2, Central Bank of the Philippines, qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot
Manila, 1982, p. 11). (Emphasis supplied) be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should
After a fashion, the loan agreement is like a country's Constitution; it lays have been preferred. This is a political question involving considerations
down the law as far as the loan transaction is concerned. Thus, the meat of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide. (emphasis
of any Loan Agreement can be compartmentalized into five (5) supplied)
fundamental parts: (1) business terms; (2) borrower's representation; (3) No less emphatic was the Court in the case of (Central Bank v. Civil
conditions of closing; (4) covenants; and (5) events of default. (Ibid., p. Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744) where it stated:
13). It is well-settled that when the appointee is qualified, as in this case, and
In the same vein, lawyers play an important role in any debt restructuring all the other legal requirements are satisfied, the Commission has no
program. For aside from performing the tasks of legislative drafting and alternative but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the Civil
legal advising, they score national development policies as key factors Service Law. The Commission has no authority to revoke an
in maintaining their countries' sovereignty. (Condensed from the work appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a
paper, entitled "Wanted: Development Lawyers for Developing Nations," particular position. It also has no authority to direct the appointment of a
submitted by L. Michael Hager, regional legal adviser of the United substitute of its choice. To do so would be an encroachment on the
States Agency for International Development, during the Session on Law discretion vested upon the appointing authority. An appointment is
for the Development of Nations at the Abidjan World Conference in Ivory essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever it is vested,
Coast, sponsored by the World Peace Through Law Center on August subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess the
26-31, 1973). ( Emphasis supplied) qualifications required by law. ( Emphasis supplied)
Loan concessions and compromises, perhaps even more so than purely The appointing process in a regular appointment as in the case at bar,
renegotiation policies, demand expertise in the law of contracts, in consists of four (4) stages: (1) nomination; (2) confirmation by the
legislation and agreement drafting and in renegotiation. Necessarily, a Commission on Appointments; (3) issuance of a commission (in the
sovereign lawyer may work with an international business specialist or Philippines, upon submission by the Commission on Appointments of its
an economist in the formulation of a model loan agreement. Debt certificate of confirmation, the President issues the permanent
restructuring contract agreements contain such a mixture of technical appointment; and (4) acceptance e.g., oath-taking, posting of bond, etc.
language that they should be carefully drafted and signed only with the . . . (Lacson v. Romero, No. L-3081, October 14, 1949; Gonzales, Law
advise of competent counsel in conjunction with the guidance of on Public Officers, p. 200)
adequate technical support personnel. (See International Law Aspects The power of the Commission on Appointments to give its consent to the
of the Philippine External Debts, an unpublished dissertation, U.S.T. nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections is
Graduate School of Law, 1987, p. 321). ( Emphasis supplied) mandated by Section 1(2) Sub-Article C, Article IX of the Constitution
A critical aspect of sovereign debt restructuring/contract construction is which provides:
the set of terms and conditions which determines the contractual The Chairman and the Commisioners shall be appointed by the
remedies for a failure to perform one or more elements of the contract. President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a
A good agreement must not only define the responsibilities of both term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed,
parties, but must also state the recourse open to either party when the three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five
other fails to discharge an obligation. For a complete debt restructuring years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment.
represents a devotion to that principle which in the ultimate analysis is Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the
sine qua non for foreign loan agreements-an adherence to the rule of law predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated
in domestic and international affairs of whose kind U.S. Supreme Court in a temporary or acting capacity.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said: "They carry no banners, Anent Justice Teodoro Padilla's separate opinion, suffice it to say that
they beat no drums; but where they are, men learn that bustle and bush his definition of the practice of law is the traditional or stereotyped notion
are not the equal of quiet genius and serene mastery." (See Ricardo J. of law practice, as distinguished from the modern concept of the practice
Romulo, "The Role of Lawyers in Foreign Investments," Integrated Bar of law, which modern connotation is exactly what was intended by the
of the Philippine Journal, Vol. 15, Nos. 3 and 4, Third and Fourth eminent framers of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, Justice Padilla's
Quarters, 1977, p. 265). definition would require generally a habitual law practice, perhaps
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of practised two or three times a week and would outlaw say, law practice
law". particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into once or twice a year for ten consecutive years. Clearly, this is far from
consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the the constitutional intent.
Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer- Upon the other hand, the separate opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz states
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a that in my written opinion, I made use of a definition of law practice which
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich really means nothing because the definition says that law practice " . . .
and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that is what people ordinarily mean by the practice of law." True I cited the
he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. definition but only by way of sarcasm as evident from my statement that
Besides in the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143 the definition of law practice by "traditional areas of law practice is
Page 8

SCRA 327, the Court said: essentially tautologous" or defining a phrase by means of the phrase
itself that is being defined.
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Justice Cruz goes on to say in substance that since the law covers RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO, Complainant,
almost all situations, most individuals, in making use of the law, or in vs.
advising others on what the law means, are actually practicing law. In ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO, Respondent.
that sense, perhaps, but we should not lose sight of the fact that Mr. DECISION
Monsod is a lawyer, a member of the Philippine Bar, who has been CARPIO, J.:
practicing law for over ten years. This is different from the acts of persons The Case
practicing law, without first becoming lawyers. This is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio for
Justice Cruz also says that the Supreme Court can even disqualify an violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for
elected President of the Philippines, say, on the ground that he lacks one defying the prohibition against private practice of law while working as
or more qualifications. This matter, I greatly doubt. For one thing, how government prosecutor.
can an action or petition be brought against the President? And even The Facts
assuming that he is indeed disqualified, how can the action be Ruthie Lim-Santiago ("complainant") is the daughter of Alfonso Lim and
entertained since he is the incumbent President? Special Administratrix of his estate. 1Alfonso Lim is a stockholder and the
We now proceed: former President of Taggat Industries, Inc. 2
The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio ("respondent") was the former Personnel
hearings on Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that he Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat Industries, Inc. 3 until his
possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. The appointment as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao,
judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an Cagayan in 1992. 4
acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a Taggat Industries, Inc. ("Taggat") is a domestic corporation engaged in
clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess the operation of timber concessions from the government. The
of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only where such Presidential Commission on Good Government sequestered it sometime
grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with in 1986, 5 and its operations ceased in 1997. 6
the Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat ("Taggat employees")
the exercise of the Court's corrective power, since no abuse, much less filed a criminal complaint entitled "Jesus Tagorda, Jr. et al. v. Ruthie Lim-
a grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of Santiago," docketed as I.S. No. 97-240 ("criminal complaint"). 7 Taggat
jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for has employees alleged that complainant, who took over the management
been clearly shown. and control of Taggat after the death of her father, withheld payment of
Additionally, consider the following: their salaries and wages without valid cause from 1 April 1996 to 15 July
(1) If the Commission on Appointments rejects a nominee by the 1997. 8
President, may the Supreme Court reverse the Commission, and thus in Respondent, as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, was assigned to
effect confirm the appointment? Clearly, the answer is in the negative. conduct the preliminary investigation. 9 He resolved the criminal
(2) In the same vein, may the Court reject the nominee, whom the complaint by recommending the filing of 651 Informations 10 for violation
Commission has confirmed? The answer is likewise clear. of Article 288 11 in relation to Article 116 12 of the Labor Code of the
(3) If the United States Senate (which is the confirming body in the U.S. Philippines. 13
Congress) decides to confirm a Presidential nominee, it would be Complainant now charges respondent with the following violations:
incredible that the U.S. Supreme Court would still reverse the U.S. 1. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Senate. Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of representing
Finally, one significant legal maxim is: conflicting interests. Respondent, being the former Personnel Manager
We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth and Retained Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very
life. well. Respondent should have inhibited himself from hearing,
Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat
of Judea asked Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing employees. 14Furthermore, complainant claims that respondent
Samson. Delilah agreed on condition that instigated the filing of the cases and even harassed and threatened
No blade shall touch his skin; Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the
No blood shall flow from his veins. complaint. 15
When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator 2. Engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government
placed an iron rod burning white-hot two or three inches away from in prosecutor
front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the man. Upon hearing of what had Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in the
happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself with anger, and private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor.
fuming with righteous fury, accused the procurator of reneging on his Complainant presented evidence to prove that respondent
word. The procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade touch his skin? Did received P10,000 as retainers fee for the months of January and
any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly relying on the February 1995, 16 another P10,000 for the months of April and May
letter, not the spirit of the agreement. 1995, 17 and P5,000 for the month of April 1996. 18
In view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby DISMISSED. Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent for violating Rule 15.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for defying the prohibition
A.C. No. 6705 March 31, 2006 against private practice of law while working as government prosecutor.
Page 9

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Respondent refutes complainants allegations and counters that The IBPs Report and Recommendation
complainant was merely aggrieved by the resolution of the criminal The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner Ma.
complaint which was adverse and contrary to her expectation. 19 Carmina M. Alejandro-Abbas ("IBP Commissioner Abbas") heard the
Respondent claims that when the criminal complaint was filed, case 36 and allowed the parties to submit their respective
respondent had resigned from Taggat for more than five memoranda. 37 Due to IBP Commissioner Abbas resignation, the case
years. 20 Respondent asserts that he no longer owed his undivided was reassigned to Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa ("IBP Commissioner
loyalty to Taggat. 21 Respondent argues that it was his sworn duty to Funa"). 38
conduct the necessary preliminary investigation. 22 Respondent After the parties filed their memoranda and motion to resolve the case,
contends that complainant failed to establish lack of impartiality when he the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVI-2004-479 ("IBP
performed his duty. 23 Respondent points out that complainant did not Resolution") dated 4 November 2004 adopting with modification 39 IBP
file a motion to inhibit respondent from hearing the criminal Commissioner Funas Report and Recommendation ("Report") finding
complaint 24 but instead complainant voluntarily executed and filed her respondent guilty of conflict of interests, failure to safeguard a former
counter-affidavit without mental reservation. 25 clients interest, and violating the prohibition against the private practice
Respondent states that complainants reason in not filing a motion to of law while being a government prosecutor. The IBP Board of Governors
inhibit was her impression that respondent would exonerate her from the recommended the imposition of a penalty of three years suspension from
charges filed as gleaned from complainants statement during the the practice of law. The Report reads:
hearing conducted on 12 February 1999: Now the issue here is whether being a former lawyer of Taggat conflicts
xxx with his role as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor in deciding I.S. No. 97-
Q. (Atty. Dabu). What do you mean you didnt think he would do it, 240. A determination of this issue will require the test of whether the
Madam Witness? matter in I.S. No. 97-240 will conflict with his former position of Personnel
A. Because he is supposed to be my fathers friend and he was working Manager and Legal Counsel of Taggat.
with my Dad and he was supposed to be trusted by my father. And he I.S. No. 97-240 was filed for "Violation of Labor Code" (see Resolution
came to me and told me he gonna help me. x x x. 26 of the Provincial Prosecutors Office, Annex "B" of Complaint). Herein
Respondent also asserts that no conflicting interests exist because he Complainant, Ruthie Lim-Santiago, was being accused as having
was not representing Taggat employees or complainant. Respondent the "management and control" of Taggat (p. 2, Resolution of the Prov.
claims he was merely performing his official duty as Assistant Provincial Pros. Office, supra).
Prosecutor. 27Respondent argues that complainant failed to establish Clearly, as a former Personnel Manager and Legal Counsel of Taggat,
that respondents act was tainted with personal interest, malice and bad herein Respondent undoubtedly handled the personnel and labor
faith. 28 concerns of Taggat. Respondent, undoubtedly dealt with and related
Respondent denies complainants allegations that he instigated the filing with the employees of Taggat. Therefore, Respondent
of the cases, threatened and harassed Taggat employees. Respondent undoubtedly dealt with and related with complainants in I.S. No. 97-240.
claims that this accusation is bereft of proof because complainant failed The issues, therefore, in I.S. No. 97-240, are very much familiar with
to mention the names of the employees or present them for cross- Respondent. While the issues of unpaid salaries pertain to the periods
examination. 29 1996-1997, the mechanics and personalities in that case are very much
Respondent does not dispute his receipt, after his appointment as familiar with Respondent.
government prosecutor, of retainer fees from complainant but claims that A lawyer owes something to a former client. Herein Respondent owes to
it Taggat, a former client, the duty to "maintain inviolate the clients
was only on a case-to-case basis and it ceased in 1996. 30 Respondent confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect
contends that the fees were paid for his consultancy services and not for him in any matter in which he previously represented him" (Natam v.
representation. Respondent submits that consultation is not the same as Capule, 91 Phil. 640; p. 231, Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 4th ed.)
representation and that rendering consultancy services is not Respondent argues that as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, he does not
prohibited. 31 Respondent, in his Reply-Memorandum, states: represent any client or any interest except justice. It should not be
x x x [I]f ever Taggat paid him certain amounts, these were paid forgotten, however, that a lawyer has an immutable duty to a former
voluntarily by Taggat without the respondents asking, intended as token client with respect to matters that he previously handled for that former
consultancy fees on a case-to-case basis and not as or for retainer fees. client. In this case, matters relating to personnel, labor policies, and labor
These payments do not at all show or translate as a specie of conflict of relations that he previously handled as Personnel Manager and Legal
interest. Moreover, these consultations had no relation to, or connection Counsel of Taggat. I.S. No. 97-240 was for "Violation of the Labor
with, the above-mentioned labor complaints filed by former Taggat Code." Here lies the conflict. Perhaps it would have been different had
employees. 32 I.S. No. 97-240 not been labor-related, or if Respondent had not been a
Respondent insists that complainants evidence failed to prove that when Personnel Manager concurrently as Legal Counsel. But as it is, I.S. No.
the criminal complaint was filed with the Office of the Provincial 97-240 is labor-related and Respondent was a former Personnel
Prosecutor of Cagayan, respondent was still the retained counsel or Manager of Taggat.
legal consultant. 33 xxxx
While this disbarment case was pending, the Resolution and Order While Respondent ceased his relations with Taggat in 1992 and the
issued by respondent to file 651 Informations against complainant was unpaid salaries being sought in I.S. No. 97-240 were of the years 1996
reversed and set aside by Regional State Prosecutor of Cagayan and 1997, the employees and management involved are the very
Page 10

Rodolfo B. Cadelina last 4 January 1999. 34 Hence, the criminal personalities he dealt with as Personnel Manager and Legal Counsel of
complaint was dismissed. 35 Taggat. Respondent dealt with these persons in his fiduciary relations
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
with Taggat. Moreover, he was an employee of the corporation and part employment. 49 In essence, what a lawyer owes his former client is to
of its management. maintain inviolate the clients confidence or to refrain from doing anything
xxxx which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously
As to the propriety of receiving "Retainer Fees" or "consultancy fees" represented him. 50
from herein Complainant while being an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, In the present case, we find no conflict of interests when respondent
and for rendering legal consultancy work while being an Assistant handled the preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint filed by
Provincial Prosecutor, this matter had long been settled. Government Taggat employees in 1997. The issue in the criminal complaint pertains
prosecutors are prohibited to engage in the private practice of law (see to non-payment of wages that occurred from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997.
Legal and Judicial Ethics, Ernesto Pineda, 1994 ed., p. 20; People v. Clearly, respondent was no longer connected with Taggat during that
Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109; Aquino v. Blanco 70 Phil. 647). The act of period since he resigned sometime in 1992.
being a legal consultant is a practice of law. To engage in the practice of In order to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests,
law is to do any of those acts that are characteristic of the legal evidence must be presented to prove that respondent used against
profession (In re: David, 93 Phil. 461). It covers any activity, in or out of Taggat, his former client, any confidential information acquired through
court, which required the application of law, legal principles, practice or his previous employment. The only established participation respondent
procedures and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience (PLA had with respect to the criminal complaint is that he was the one who
v. Agrava, 105 Phil. 173; People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 111; Cayetano conducted the preliminary investigation. On that basis alone, it does not
v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210). necessarily follow that respondent used any confidential information from
Respondent clearly violated this prohibition. his previous employment with complainant or Taggat in resolving the
As for the secondary accusations of harassing certain employees of criminal complaint.
Taggat and instigating the filing of criminal complaints, we find the The fact alone that respondent was the former Personnel Manager and
evidence insufficient. Retained Counsel of Taggat and the case he resolved as government
Accordingly, Respondent should be found guilty of conflict of interest, prosecutor was labor-related is not a sufficient basis to charge
failure to safeguard a former clients interest, and violating the prohibition respondent for representing conflicting interests. A lawyers immutable
against the private practice of law while being a government duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond
prosecutor. 40 the lawyers employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose
The IBP Board of Governors forwarded the Report to the Court as upon the lawyer the duty to protect the clients interests only on matters
provided under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B 41 of the Rules of Court. that he previously handled for the former client and not for matters that
The Ruling of the Court arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.
The Court exonerates respondent from the charge of violation of Rule Further, complainant failed to present a single iota of evidence to prove
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code"). However, the her allegations. Thus, respondent is not guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of
Court finds respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the the Code.
Code of Professional Responsibility against unlawful Respondent engaged in the private practice of law while working as a
conduct. 42 Respondent committed unlawful conduct when he violated government prosecutor
Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public The Court has defined the practice of law broadly as
Officials and Employees or Republic Act No. 6713 ("RA 6713"). x x x any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
Canon 6 provides that the Code "shall apply to lawyers in government legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the
service in the discharge of their official duties." 43 A government lawyer practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the
is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind
interests." 44However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
prohibition to represent conflicting interests does not apply when no knowledge or skill." 51
conflict of interest exists, when a written consent of all concerned is given "Private practice of law" contemplates a succession of acts of the same
after a full disclosure of the facts or when no true attorney-client nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a
relationship exists. 45 Moreover, considering the serious consequence of lawyer. 52
the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear Respondent argues that he only rendered consultancy services to
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the Taggat intermittently and he was not a retained counsel of Taggat from
administrative penalty. 46 1995 to 1996 as alleged. This argument is without merit because the law
Respondent is also mandated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 not to engage does not distinguish between consultancy services and retainer
in "unlawful x x x conduct." Unlawful conduct includes violation of the agreement. For as long as respondent performed acts that are usually
statutory prohibition on a government employee to "engage in the private rendered by lawyers with the use of their legal knowledge, the same falls
practice of [his] profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, within the ambit of the term "practice of law."
provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with [his] Nonetheless, respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to
official functions." 47 complainant while working as a government prosecutor. Even the
Complainants evidence failed to substantiate the claim that respondent receipts he signed stated that the payments by Taggat were for
represented conflicting interests "Retainers fee." 53 Thus, as correctly pointed out by complainant,
In Quiambao v. Bamba, 48 the Court enumerated various tests to respondent clearly violated the prohibition in RA 6713.
determine conflict of interests. One test of inconsistency of interests is However, violations of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary action
Page 11

whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client any under the Code of Professional Responsibility unless the violations also
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous constitute infractions of specific provisions of the Code of Professional
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Responsibility. Certainly, the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal
violations of RA 6713 the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage in private
Public Officials and Employees unless the acts involved also law practice." Counsel then argued that the JP Court in entertaining the
transgress provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. appearance of City Attorney Fule in the case is a violation of the above
Here, respondents violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of ruling. On December 17, 1960 the JP issued an order sustaining the
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage legality of the appearance of City Attorney Fule.
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Respondents Under date of January 4, 1961, counsel for the accused presented a
"Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this
admission that he received from Taggat fees for legal services while
Case," this time invoking Section 32, Rule 27, now Sec. 35, Rule 138,
serving as a government prosecutor is an unlawful conduct, which
Revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.
constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01.
Counsel claims that City Attorney Fule falls under this limitation. The JP
Respondent admitted that complainant also charged him with unlawful Court ruled on the motion by upholding the right of Fule to appear and
conduct when respondent stated in his Demurrer to Evidence: further stating that he (Fule) was not actually enagaged in private law
In this instant case, the complainant prays that the respondent be practice. This Order was appealed to the CFI of Laguna, presided by the
permanently and indefinitely suspended or disbarred from the practice of Hon. Hilarion U. Jarencio, which rendered judgment on December 20,
the law profession and his name removed from the Roll of Attorneys on 1961, the pertinent portions of which read:
the following grounds: The present case is one for malicious mischief. There being no
xxxx reservation by the offended party of the civil liability, the civil action was
d) that respondent manifested gross misconduct and gross violation of deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action. The offended party
his oath of office and in his dealings with the public. 54 had, therefore, the right to intervene in the case and be represented by
On the Appropriate Penalty on Respondent a legal counsel because of her interest in the civil liability of the accused.
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court of a
sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. 55 justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the
aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the
Under Civil Service Law and rules, the penalty for government
aid of an attorney. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice
employees engaging in unauthorized private practice of profession is
of the Peace Court as an agent or friend of the offended party. It does
suspension for six months and one day to one year. 56 We find this
not appear that he was being paid for his services or that his appearance
penalty appropriate for respondents violation in this case of Rule 1.01, was in a professional capacity. As Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. he had no control or intervention whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio GUILTY of committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna, because the
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled by the
Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Carlos B. Office of the Provincial Fiscal and not by the City Attorney of San Pablo.
Sagucio from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality There could be no possible conflict in the duties of Assistant City Attorney
of this Decision. Fule as Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo and as private prosecutor
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant in this criminal case. On the other hand, as already pointed out, the
to be appended to respondents personal record as an attorney, the offended party in this criminal case had a right to be represented by an
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all agent or a friend to protect her rights in the civil action which was
courts in the country for their information and guidance. impliedly instituted together with the criminal action.
In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Asst. City Attorney Ariston
D. Fule may appear before the Justice of the Peace Court of Alaminos,
G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965 Laguna as private prosecutor in this criminal case as an agent or a friend
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, of the offended party.
vs. WHEREFORE, the appeal from the order of the Justice of the Peace
SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant. Court of Alaminos, Laguna, allowing the apprearance of Ariston D. Fule
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. as private prosecutor is dismissed, without costs.
Magno T. Buese for defendant-appellant. The above decision is the subject of the instant proceeding.
PAREDES, J.: The appeal should be dismissed, for patently being without merits.
Aside from the considerations advanced by the learned trial judge,
On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged heretofore reproduced, and which we consider plausible, the fallacy of
Simplicio Villanueva with the Crime of Malicious Mischief before the the theory of defense counsel lies in his confused interpretation of
Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality. Said accused was Section 32 of Rule 127 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules), which
represented by counsel de officio but later on replaced by counsel de provides that "no judge or other official or employee of the superior courts
parte. The complainant in the same case was represented by City or of the office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice
Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients." He claims
as private prosecutor, after securing the permission of the Secretary of that City Attorney Fule, in appearing as private prosecutor in the case
Justice. The condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he was engaging in private practice. We believe that the isolated
would appear at the trial of the case, he would be considered on official appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice within
leave of absence, and that he would not receive any payment for his the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an
services. The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a
was questioned by the counsel for the accused, invoking the case of
Page 12

succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual

Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, et al., exercise (State vs. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA, M.S. 768).
L-1532, Nov. 28, 1947, wherein it was ruled that "when an attorney had
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted No applicant shall be admitted to the bar
as customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as examinations unless he has satisfactorily
customarily and demanding payment for such services (State vs. Bryan, completed the following courses in a law school or
4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644, 647). The appearance as counsel on one university duly recognized by the government: civil
occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law,
practice of law. The following observation of the Solicitor General is public and private international law, political law,
noteworthy: labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have
taxation and legal ethics.
presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal
C. Citizenship: Art XII Sec 14(2) Const: The practice of all
profession and that his professional services are available to the public
professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of
his said services. citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
For one thing, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been D. Bar Examinations :
given permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of Justice, to Rule 138 Sec 7-16 ROC
represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative. Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. All
CONFORMABLY WITH ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme
from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, in all respects, with costs against Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen
appellant. (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
C. Essential Criteria Of Engaging In The Practice Of Law period the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if
1. Habituality- implies customarily or habitually holding oneself embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license
out to the public as a lawyer evidencing the fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory
2. Compensation- implies that one must have evidence that the same has not been revoked, and certificates as
presented himself to be in the active practice and that his to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same
professional services are available to the public for time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship.
compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in Section 8. Notice of Applications. Notice of applications
consideration of his said services. for admission shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court
in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice, or procedure
least ten (10) days before the beginning of the examination.
which calls for legal knowledge, training and
Section 9. Examination; subjects. Applicants, not
experience.
otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be
4. Attorney-client relationship subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law;
III. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law;
A. Legal Education Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public
B. Educational Qualification Officers); International Law (Private and Public); Taxation;
a. Pre-Law: Rule 138 Sec 6 ROC: No applicant for Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and
admission to the bar examination shall be Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and
admitted unless he presents a certificate that he Conveyancing).
has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers,
before he began the study of law, he had pursued and in writing. Persons taking the examination shall not bring
and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions
recognized university or college, requiring for shall be the same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English
admission thereto the completion of a four-year or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee. Examinees shall
high school course, the course of study prescribed answer the questions personally without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his
therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences
penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers
with any of the following subjects as major or field
without much loss of time, the Supreme Court may allow such
of concentration: political science, logic, english,
examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only
spanish, history and economics. noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used.
b. Law Proper: Rule 138 Sec 5 ROC: All applicants The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are
for admission other than those referred to in the necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of
two preceding section shall, before being admitted other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the
to the examination, satisfactorily show that they examination papers. No oral examination shall be given.
have regularly studied law for four years, and Section 11. Annual examination. Examinations for
successfully completed all prescribed courses, in admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in
a law school or university, officially approved and the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated
recognized by the Secretary of Education. The by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects
affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International
certificate from the university or school of law, Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon);
Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third
Page 13

shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further

day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon);
evidence may be required by the court.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and Practical Time for filing proof of qualifications.All applicants for admission
Exercises (afternoon). shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court a duly accomplished
Section 12. Committee of examiners. Examinations shall application form together with supporting documents concerning
be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by his qualifications at least 15 days before the beginning of the
the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice examination.
of the Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be
Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits as to
designated by the court to serve for one year, and eight members
their age, residence, and citizenship. (Rule 138, Sec. 7)
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 Notice of applications.Notice of applications for admission shall
published in each volume of the official reports. be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers
Section 13. Disciplinary measures. No candidate shall published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least 10 days
endeavor to influence any member of the committee, and during before the beginning of the examination. (Rule 138, sec. 8)
examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other American lawyers in active practice of law in the Philippines
nor shall they give or receive any assistance. The candidate who before July 4, 1946 or a Filipino citizen enrolled as attorney in
violates this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be the United States before July 4, 1946, who desires admission
barred from the examination, and the same to count as a failure without examination should:
against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent 1. File a petition with the Court along with his
disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court. 2. License to practice
Section 14. Passing average. In order that a candidate 3. Evidence that it has not been revoked
may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he 4. Certificates of professional standing.
must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects,
Disclosure of involvement in any criminal case
without falling below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the
Applicant must show that no charges against him involving moral
average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the
turpitude have been filed or pending in court in the Philippines (Rule
following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social
Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 138, Sec 2, Rules of Court)
10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, To enable the court to resolve whether a particular crime involves
10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical moral turpitude, applicant must disclose any crime of which he has
Exercises, 5 per cent. been charged.
Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination If what has been concealed does not involve moral turpitude, it is
papers. Not later than February 15th after the examination, or the fact of concealment and not the commission of the crime itself
as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file that makes him morally unfit.
its report on the result of such examination. The examination Burden of proof to show qualifications
papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk and Applicant assumes the burden of proof to establish his
may there be examined by the parties in interest, after the court qualifications to the satisfaction of the court.
has approved the report.
After having presented prima facie evidence of his qualifications,
Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course.
any one objecting to his admission may offer contrary evidence to
Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for three times
overcome such prima facie showing. Burden of proof shifts to the
shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they
show the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and complainant.
passed regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a Written examinations
pre-bar review course in a recognized law school. Annual examination: Examinations for admission to the bar of the
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be
candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the held in four days to be designated by the chairman of the committee on
candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the bar examiners.
subjects under the same conditions as ordinary students and the The subjects shall be distributed as follows:
ratings obtained by them in the particular subject. 1. First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor
Procedure for Admission: and Social Legislation (afternoon);
Bar Examination Committee 2. Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon);
Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar 3. Third day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law
examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court. This (afternoon);
committee shall be composed of: 4. Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and
1. A Justice of the Supreme Court, as chairman and designated Practical Exercises (afternoon).
by the court to serve for one year. The questions shall be the same for all examinees.
2. Eight (8) members of the Philippine bar, who shall serve Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from
as examiners in the 8 bar subjects and hold office for a period anyone.
of one year. Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his
3. Bar Confidant as liaison officer between the Court and penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers
Chairman and the Committee members. Also a deputy clerk without much loss of time, the Supreme Court may allow such
of court. examinee to use a noiseless typewriter.
Page 14

Application and supporting documents Restrictions to insure integrity in examination

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
1. An examinee is prohibited from bringing papers, books faster and easier for everyone concerned. (In Re: Argosino, 270
or notes into the examination room. SCRA 26)
2. He is not to communicate with the other examinees during the By taking the lawyers oath, a lawyer becomes the guardian of truth
exam. and the rule of law and an indispensable instrument in the fair and
3. He is not to influence any member of the committee on bar impartial administration of justice. Good moral character includes
exams. at least common honesty. Deception and other fraudulent acts are
4. To keep the examinees identity a secret and thus avoid not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
any influence to bear upon the examiner in the valuation of dishonorable, they reveal a basic moral flaw. (Olbes vs.
his answers: Deciembre, 457 SCRA 341)
a. The exam papers shall be identified by Issuance of Certificate
numbers. After taking oath, the Supreme Court admits him as a member of
b. The name of the examinee is written in a piece of the bar for all courts of the Philippines.
paper and sealed in an envelope. An order be entered that a certificate of such record be given him
5. Any candidate who violates any of the rules concerning the by the clerk of court.
conduct of examination will be barred from taking such and Such certificate is his license to practice law.
the same will be counted as a failure against him. Thereafter, he signs the roll of attorneys, which is the official record
The conduct of the bar exams involves public interest. containing the names and signatures of those who are authorized
Any charge of anomaly requires prompt action from the Court to to practice law.
prevent erosion of public faith in the bar and in the court. Payment of IBP dues and privilege tax
Correction and revaluation of grades Membership by every attorney in the IBP is compulsory.
The bar examiners correct the examination papers and submit the Obligation to support it financially.
grades and corrected papers to the bar confidant. o Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such
The bar confidant tallies the individual grades of every examinee, annual dues as the Board of Governors shall
computes the general average, and prepares a comparative determine with the approval of the Supreme Court.
data showing the percentage of passing and failing in relation Default in payment for 6 months shall warrant
to a certain average. suspension.
Results are submitted to the Examination Committee and o Default in such payment for 1 year shall be a
to the Court. ground for removal of the name of the delinquent
Any request for revaluation of the answers and the grades member from the Roll of Attorneys.
given should be made by the examinee addressed to the Court. o However, no action involving suspension or removal
Administration of Oath from the roll shall be effective without final approval of
Qualified applicants shall take and subscribe to the Oath of Office the Supreme Court.
as a Lawyer. Conditions sine qua non to the privilege to practice law and to the
A prerequisite to the admission of practice of law and may retention of his name in the roll of attorneys :
only be taken before the Supreme Court. 1. Continued membership
The court may deny the petition to take the lawyers oath for: 2. Regularly paying membership dues and other lawful
o Grave misconduct; assessments that it may levy.
o Pending complaint against the applicant A lawyer must comply with the requirement regarding
LAWYERS OATH (MEMORIZE!!) payment of membership even though his practice is limited.
I , do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the The exemption from payment of individual income taxes for senior
Republic of the Philippines; I will support and defend its Constitution and citizens does not include payment of IBP membership dues.
obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, Complainant, B. M. No. 1036 June 10,
authorities therein; I will do no falsehood nor consent to its commission; 2003
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or -versus-
unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will not delay any EDWIN L. RANA,
mans cause for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer Respondent.
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good DECISION
fidelity as well to the court as to my clients; and I will impose upon
myself this obligation voluntarily, without any mental reservation or CARPIO, J.:
purpose of evasion. .
So help me God. The Case
The lawyers oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the
practicing law. Every lawyer should at all times weigh his actions requisite moral integrity for membership in the legal profession.
according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the Possession of moral integrity is of greater importance than possession
lawyers oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly of legal learning. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on the
according to the lawyers oath and the Code of Professional morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice law even
Page 15

responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly fairer, if he passes the bar examinations. chan robles virtual law library

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
The Facts
On 22 June 2001, complainant filed her Reply to respondents Comment
Respondent Edwin L. Rana ("respondent") was among those who and refuted the claim of respondent that his appearance before the
passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. MBEC was only to extend specific assistance to Bunan. Complainant
alleges that on 19 May 2001 Emily Estipona-Hao ("Estipona-Hao") filed
On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of a petition for proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor.
successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, Respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in this petition. When
complainant Donna Marie Aguirre ("complainant") filed against respondent appeared as counsel before the MBEC, complainant
respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant questioned his appearance on two grounds: (1) respondent had not
charged respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2) he was an employee of the
misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. government. chan robles virtual law library

The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar Respondent filed a Reply (Re: Reply to Respondents Comment)
during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at the Philippine reiterating his claim that the instant administrative case is "motivated
International Convention Center. However, the Court ruled that mainly by political vendetta."
respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of
the charge against him. Thus, respondent took the lawyers oath on the On 17 July 2001, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar
scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. Confidant ("OBC") for evaluation, report and recommendation.

Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of law and OBCs Report and Recommendation
grave misconduct. Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a
lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC as
before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers ("MBEC") of counsel for Bunan in the May 2001 elections. The minutes of the MBEC
Mandaon, Masbate. Complainant further alleges that respondent filed proceedings show that respondent actively participated in the
with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection proceedings. The OBC likewise found that respondent appeared in the
to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the MBEC proceedings even before he took the lawyers oath on 22 May
Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself 2001. The OBC believes that respondents misconduct casts a serious
as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. The OBC also
Bunan," and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan believes that respondents unauthorized practice of law is a ground to
("Bunan"). deny his admission to the practice of law. The OBC, therefore,
recommends that respondent be denied admission to the Philippine Bar.
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is
a municipal government employee, being a secretary of the On the other charges, OBC stated that complainant failed to cite a law
Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not which respondent allegedly violated when he appeared as counsel for
allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative Bunan while he was a government employee. Respondent resigned as
body. secretary and his resignation was accepted. Likewise, respondent was
authorized by Bunan to represent him before the MBEC.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant
accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate The Courts Ruling
George Bunan ("Bunan") without the latter engaging respondents
services. Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that respondent
ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate. engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve
admission to the Philippine Bar.
On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing respondent to
take the lawyers oath but disallowed him from signing the Roll of Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the
Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him. In the same records show that respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22
resolution, the Court required respondent to comment on the complaint May 2001, before respondent took the lawyers oath. In the pleading
against him. entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in
Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001,
In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his "specific respondent signed as "counsel for George Bunan." In the first paragraph
assistance" to represent him before the MBEC. Respondent claims that of the same pleading respondent stated that he was the "(U)ndersigned
"he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but as a person Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T.
who knows the law." Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 BUNAN." Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he had
pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. "authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him" before
He explains, however, that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or the MBEC and similar bodies. chan robles virtual law library
represented himself as an "attorney" in the pleading.
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also
On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent "retained" respondent as her counsel. On the same date, 14 May 2001,
claims that he submitted his resignation on 11 May 2001 which was Erly D. Hao informed the MBEC that "Atty. Edwin L. Rana has been
allegedly accepted on the same date. He submitted a copy of the authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal counsel of the party and
Certification of Receipt of Revocable Resignation dated 28 May 2001 the candidate of the said party." Respondent himself wrote the MBEC
signed by Vice-Mayor Napoleon Relox. Respondent further claims that on 14 May 2001 that he was entering his "appearance as counsel for
the complaint is politically motivated considering that complainant is the Mayoralty Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM-
daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing candidate for mayor of PPC." On 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao
Page 16

Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent prays that the complaint be dismissed in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for the proclamation of
for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
On the charge of violation of law, complainant contends that the law does
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyers oath. not allow respondent to act as counsel for a private client in any court or
Clearly, respondent engaged in the practice of law without being a administrative body since respondent is the secretary of the
member of the Philippine Bar. Sangguniang Bayan.

In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,[1] the Court elucidated Respondent tendered his resignation as secretary of the Sangguniang
that: Bayan prior to the acts complained of as constituting unauthorized
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in practice of law. In his letter dated 11 May 2001 addressed to Napoleon
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident Relox, vice- mayor and presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan,
to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and respondent stated that he was resigning "effective upon your
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in acceptance."[10] Vice-Mayor Relox accepted respondents resignation
addition, conveyancing. In general, all advice to clients, and all action effective 11 May 2001.[11] Thus, the evidence does not support the
taken for them in matters connected with the law, incorporation services, charge that respondent acted as counsel for a client while serving as
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.
before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies. While there was no
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of law. chan robles virtual law library
facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). [Italics supplied] x x x
chan robles virtual law library WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the
In Cayetano v. Monsod,[2] the Court held that "practice of law" means Philippine Bar.
any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the SO ORDERED.
practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by
members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render E. Good Moral Character
any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill. Continued possession of good moral character after
admission is a requirement for enjoyment of privilege to practice.
Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared
in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without Moral character is what a person really is as distinguished from
license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized good reputation or opinion generally entertained of him.
practice of law. Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully well Includes at least common honesty.
that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as Opposite of immorality, which is the indifference to the moral norms
"counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent of society.
has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.[3]
This requirement aims to maintain and uphold the high moral
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a standard and the dignity of the legal profession.
privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special A.C. No. 5095 November 28, 2007
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this FATHER RANHILIO C. AQUINO, LINA M. GARAN, ESTRELLA C.
privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, LOZADA, POLICARPIO L. MABBORANG, DEXTER R. MUNAR,
educational attainment, and even public trust[4] since a lawyer is an MONICO U. TENEDRO, ANDY R. QUEBRAL, NESTOR T. RIVERA,
officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to EDUARDO C. RICAMORA, ARTHUR G. IBAEZ, AURELIO C.
practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law CALDEZ and DENU A. AGATEP, complainants,
is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar vs.
examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without ATTY. EDWIN PASCUA, respondent.
a license.[5] DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. In Beltran,
Jr. v. Abad,[6] a candidate passed the bar examinations but had not For our resolution is the letter-complaint dated August 3, 1999 of Father
taken his oath and signed the Roll of Attorneys. He was held in contempt Ranhilio C. Aquino, then Academic Head of the Philippine Judicial
of court for practicing law even before his admission to the Bar. Under Academy, joined by Lina M. Garan and the other above-named
Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in complainants, against Atty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary Public in Cagayan.
the unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court.[7] In his letter-complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified
chan robles virtual law library two documents committed as follows:
(1) He made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-Complaint" of
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the one Joseph B. Acorda entering the same as "Doc. No. 1213, Page No.
lawyers oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998".
finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed (2) He also made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-
the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only a Complaint" of one Remigio B. Domingo entering the same as "Doc. No.
qualification to become an attorney-at-law.[8] Respondent should know 1214, Page 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998.
that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be Father Aquino further alleged that on June 23 and July 26, 1999, Atty.
performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court Angel Beltran, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, certified
and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.[9] that none of the above entries appear in the Notarial Register of Atty.
Page 17

Pascua; that the last entry therein was Document No. 1200 executed on

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
December 28, 1998; and that, therefore, he could not have notarized A member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which
Documents Nos. 1213 and 1214 on December 10, 1998. might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the
In his comment on the letter-complaint dated September 4, 1999, Atty. public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession (Maligsa
Pascua admitted having notarized the two documents on December 10, v. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 409).
1998, but they were not entered in his Notarial Register due to the As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Pascua is
oversight of his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli, whose affidavit was mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his office,
attached to his comment. such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public
The affidavit-complaints referred to in the notarized documents were filed interest.
by Atty. Pascua with the Civil Service Commission. Impleaded as A member of the Bar may be disciplined or disbarred for any misconduct
respondents therein were Lina M. Garan and the other above-named in his professional or private capacity. The Court has invariably imposed
complainants. They filed with this Court a "Motion to Join the Complaint a penalty for notaries public who were found guilty of dishonesty or
and Reply to Respondent's Comment." They maintain that Atty. Pascua's misconduct in the performance of their duties.
omission was not due to inadvertence but a clear case of falsification.1 In Villarin v. Sabate, Jr. (325 SCRA 123), respondent lawyer was
On November 16, 1999, we granted their motion.2 suspended from his Commission as Notary Public for a period of one
Thereafter, we referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant for year for notarizing a document without affiants appearing before him,
investigation, report and recommendation. and for notarizing the same instrument of which he was one of the
On April 21, 2003, the Office of the Bar Confidant issued its Report and signatories. The Court held that respondent lawyer failed to exercise due
Recommendation partly reproduced as follows: diligence in upholding his duties as a notary public.
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. In Arrieta v. Llosa (282 SCRA 248), respondent lawyer who certified
For this reason, notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply under oath a Deed of Absolute Sale knowing that some of the vendors
with the formalities and the basic requirement in the performance of their were dead was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
duties (Realino v. Villamor, 87 SCRA 318). months, with a warning that another infraction would be dealt with more
Under the notarial law, "the notary public shall enter in such register, in severely. In said case, the Court did not impose the supreme penalty of
chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, disbarment, it being the respondent's first offense.
or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to, or In Maligsa v. Cabanting (272 SCRA 409), respondent lawyer was
acknowledging the instrument, xxx xxx. The notary shall give to each disbarred from the practice of law, after being found guilty of notarizing
instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number a fictitious or spurious document. The Court considered the seriousness
corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the of the offense and his previous misconduct for which he was suspended
instrument the page or pages of his register on which the same is for six months from the practice of law.
recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries" (Sec. 246, Article It appearing that this is the first offense of Atty. Pascua, a suspension
V, Title IV, Chapter II of the Revised Administrative Code). from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months may be considered
Failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial enough penalty for him as a lawyer. Considering that his offense is also
register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law is a a ground for revocation of notarial commission, the same should also be
ground for revocation of his commission (Sec. 249, Article VI). imposed upon him.
In the instant case, there is no question that the subject documents PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully recommended that the
allegedly notarized by Atty. Pascua were not recorded in his notarial notarial commission of Atty. EDWIN V. PASCUA, if still existing, be
register. REVOKED and that he be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but due to period of six (6) months."3
oversight of his staff. Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape After a close review of the records of this case, we resolve to adopt the
liability. His failure to enter into his notarial register the documents that findings of facts and conclusion of law by the Office of the Bar Confidant.
he admittedly notarized is a dereliction of duty on his part as a notary We find Atty. Pascua guilty of misconduct in the performance of his
public and he is bound by the acts of his staff. duties for failing to register in his Notarial Register the affidavit-
The claim of Atty. Pascua that it was simple inadvertence is far from true. complaints of Joseph B. Acorda and Remigio B. Domingo.
The photocopy of his notarial register shows that the last entry which he "Misconduct" generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct
notarized on December 28, 1998 is Document No. 1200 on Page 240. motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.4 The
On the other hand, the two affidavit-complaints allegedly notarized on term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent.5
December 10, 1998 are Document Nos. 1213 and 1214, respectively, The penalty to be imposed for such act of misconduct committed by a
under Page No. 243, Book III. Thus, Fr. Ranhilio and the other lawyer is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. In Arrieta v.
complainants are, therefore, correct in maintaining that Atty. Pascua Llosa,6 wherein Atty. Joel A. Llosa notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale
falsely assigned fictitious numbers to the questioned affidavit- knowing that some of the vendors were already dead, this Court held
complaints, a clear dishonesty on his part not only as a Notary Public, that such wrongful act "constitutes misconduct" and thus imposed upon
but also as a member of the Bar. him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months,
This is not to mention that the only supporting evidence of the claim of this being his first administrative offense. Also, in Vda. de Rosales v.
inadvertence by Atty. Pascua is the affidavit of his own secretary which Ramos,7 we revoked the notarial commission of Atty. Mario G. Ramos
is hardly credible since the latter cannot be considered a disinterested and suspended him from the practice of law for six months for violating
witness or party. the Notarial Law in not registering in his notarial book the Deed of
Noteworthy also is the fact that the questioned affidavit of Acorda (Doc. Absolute Sale he notarized. In Mondejar v. Rubia,8 however, a lesser
No. 1213) was submitted only when Domingo's affidavit (Doc. No. 1214) penalty ofone month suspension from the practice of law was imposed
was withdrawn in the administrative case filed by Atty. Pascua against on Atty. Vivian G. Rubia for making a false declaration in the document
Lina Garan, et al. with the CSC. This circumstance lends credence to the she notarized.
submission of herein complainants that Atty. Pascua ante-dated another In the present case, considering that this is Atty. Pascua's first offense,
affidavit-complaint making it appear as notarized on December 10, 1998 we believe that the imposition of a three-month suspension from the
and entered as Document No. 1213. It may not be sheer coincidence practice of law upon him is in order. Likewise, since his offense is a
then that both documents are dated December 10, 1998 and numbered ground for revocation of notarial commission, the same should also be
Page 18

as 1213 and 1214. imposed upon him.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edwin Pascua is declared GUILTY of misconduct Needless to stress, a public office is a position of trust and public service
and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a demands of every government official or employee, no matter how lowly
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be his position may be, the highest degree of responsibility and integrity and
dealt with more severely. His notarial commission, if still existing, is he must remain accountable to the people. Moreover, his failure to
ordered REVOKED. adduce evidence in support of his defense is a tacit admission of his guilt.
SO ORDERED. Let this be a final reminder to him that the government is serious enough
to [weed out] misfits in the government service, and it will not be
JBC No. 013 August 22, 2007 irresolute to impose the severest sanction regardless of personalities
Re: Non-disclosure Before the Judicial and Bar Council of the involved. Accordingly, respondents continuance in office becomes
Administrative Case Filed Against Judge Jaime V. Quitain, in His untenable.
Capacity as the then Asst. Regional Director of the National Police WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the NAPOLCOM, Assistant
Commission, Regional Office XI, Davao City. Regional Director Jaime Vega Quitain is hereby DISMISSED from the
DECISION service, with forfeiture of pay and benefits, effective upon receipt of a
copy hereof.
PER CURIAM: Done in the City of Manila, this 10th day of April in the year of our Lord,
Judge Jaime Vega Quitain was appointed Presiding Judge of the nineteen hundred and ninety-five.
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Davao City on May 17, 2003.1 (Sgd. by President Fidel V. Ramos)
Subsequent thereto, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) By the President:
received confidential information that administrative and criminal (Sgd.)
charges were filed against Judge Quitain in his capacity as then TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.
Assistant Regional Director, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), Executive Secretary7
Regional Office 11, Davao City, as a result of which he was dismissed In a letter8 dated October 22, 2003 addressed to DCA Lock, Judge
from the service per Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 183 dated April 10, Quitain denied having committed any misrepresentation before the JBC.
1995. He alleged that during his interview, the members thereof only inquired
In the Personal Data Sheet (PDS)2 submitted to the Judicial and Bar about the status of the criminal cases filed by the NAPOLCOM before
Council (JBC) on November 26, 2001, Judge Quitain declared that there the Sandiganbayan, and not about the administrative case
were five criminal cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 18438, 18439, 22812, simultaneously filed against him. He also alleged that he never received
22813, and 22814) filed against him before the Sandiganbayan, which from the Office of the President an official copy of A.O. No. 183
were all dismissed. No administrative case was disclosed by Judge dismissing him from the service.
Qutain in his PDS. Thereafter, DCA Lock directed Judge Quitain to explain within ten (10)
To confirm the veracity of the information, then Deputy Court days from notice why he did not include in his PDS, which was sworn to
Administrator (DCA) Christopher O. Lock (now Court Administrator) before a notary public on November 22, 2001, the administrative case
requested from the Sandiganbayan certified copies of the Order(s) filed against him, and the fact of his dismissal from the service.9
dismissing the criminal cases.3On even date, letters4 were sent to the In his letters10 dated March 13, 2004 and June 17, 2004, respondent
NAPOLCOM requesting for certified true copies of documents relative to explained that during the investigation of his administrative case by the
the administrative complaints filed against Judge Quitain, particularly NAPOLCOM Ad Hoc Committee, one of its members suggested to him
A.O. No. 183 dated April 10, 1995 dismissing him from the service. that if he resigns from the government service, he will no longer be
Likewise, DCA Lock required Judge Quitain to explain the alleged prosecuted; that following such suggestion, he tendered his irrevocable
misrepresentation and deception he committed before the JBC.5 resignation from NAPOLCOM on June 1, 199311 which was immediately
In a letter6 dated November 28, 2003, the NAPOLCOM furnished the accepted by the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a copy of A.O. No. 183 showing Governments; that he did not disclose the case in his PDS because he
that respondent Judge was indeed dismissed from the service for Grave was of the "honest belief" that he had no more pending administrative
Misconduct for falsifying or altering the amounts reflected in case by reason of his resignation; that his resignation "amounted to an
disbursement vouchers in support of his claim for reimbursement of automatic dismissal" of his administrative case considering that "the
expenses. A.O. 183 partly reads: issues raised therein became moot and academic"; and that had he
THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES known that he would be dismissed from the service, he should not have
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 183 applied for the position of a judge since he knew he would never be
DISMISSING FROM THE SERVICE ASSISTANT REGIONAL appointed.
DIRECTOR JAIME VEGA QUITAIN, NATIONAL POLICE Finding reasonable ground to hold him administratively liable, then Court
COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 11 Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now a member of this Court)
This refers to the administrative complaint against Jaime Vega Quitain, and then DCA Lock submitted a Memorandum12 dated September 3,
Assistant Regional Director, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), 2004 to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., which states:
Regional Office No. 11, Davao City, for Grave Misconduct (Violation of In order that this Office may thoroughly and properly evaluate the matter,
Art. 48, in relation to Arts. 171 and 217 of the Revised Penal Code and we deemed it necessary to go over the records of the subject
Art. IX of the Civil Service Law) filed by the NAPOLCOM. administrative case against Judge Jaime V. Quitain, particularly the
xxxx matter that pertains to Administrative Order No. 183 dated 10 April 1995.
After circumspect study, I am in complete accord with the above findings On 15 May 2004, we examined the records of said administrative case
and recommendation of the NAPOLCOM. on file with the NAPOLCOM, Legal Affairs Service, and secured certified
It was established that the falsification could not have been [true] copies of pertinent documents.
consummated without respondents direct participation, as it was upon After careful perusal of the documents and records available, including
his direction and approval that disbursement vouchers were prepared the letters-explanations of Judge Jaime V. Quitain, this Office finds that
showing the falsified amount. The subsequent endorsement and there are reasonable grounds to hold him administratively liable.
encashment of the check by respondent only shows his complete An examination of the Personal Data Sheet submitted by Judge Quitain
disregard for the truth which per se constitutes misconduct and with the Judicial and Bar Council, which was subscribed and sworn to
Page 19

dishonesty of the highest order. By any standard, respondent had before Notary Public Bibiano M. Bustamante of Davao City on 22
manifestly shown that he is unfit to discharge the functions of his office. November 2001, reveals that he concealed material facts and even

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
committed perjury in having answered "yes" to Question No. 24, but Quitain[,] who is running for a council seat, expressed confidence that he
without disclosing the fact that he was dismissed from the government would soon be vindicated in court against the group that plotted his
service. Question No. 24 and his answer thereto are hereunder quoted ouster from office: He said his only appeal was for Interior and Local
as follows: Government Secretary Rafael Alunan to grant him his day in court to
24. Have you ever been charged with or convicted of or otherwise answer the charges.
imposed a sanction for the violation of any law, decree, ordinance or "Whoever was behind all of these things, I have long forgiven them,"
regulation by any court, tribunal or any other government office, agency Quitain said.
or instrumentality in the Philippines or in any foreign country or found "Just give me the chance to clear my name because this is the only
guilty of an administrative offense or imposed any administrative legacy that I can give my children," Quitain said.
sanction? [ / ] Yes [ ] No. If your answer is "Yes" to any of the questions, While the records of the subject administrative case on file with the
give particulars. NAPOLCOM Office does not bear proof of receipt of Administrative
But all dismissed (acquitted) Order No. 183 by Judge Quitain, the same does not necessarily mean
Sandiganbayan Criminal Cases Nos. 18438, 18439 that he is totally unaware of said Administrative Order. As shown by the
Date of [Dismissal] August 2, 1995 above-quoted newspaper clippings, Judge Quitain even aired his appeal
Sandiganbayan Criminal Cases Nos. 22812, 22813, 22814 and protest to said Administrative Order.
Date of [Dismissal] July 17, 2000 xxxx
As borne out by the records, Judge Quitain deliberately did not disclose Judge Quitain asseverated that he should not have applied with the JBC
the fact that he was dismissed from the government service. At the time had he known that he was administratively charged and was
he filled up and submitted his Personal Data Sheet with the Judicial and consequently dismissed from the service since he will not be considered.
Bar Council, he had full knowledge of the subject administrative case, as But this may be the reason why he deliberately concealed said fact. His
well as Administrative Order No. 183 dismissing him from the claim that he did not declare the administrative case in his Personal Data
government service. Based on the certified documents secured from the Sheet because of his honest belief that there is no administrative or
Office of the NAPOLCOM, the following data were gathered: criminal case that would be filed against him by reason of his resignation
1. In compliance with the "Summons" dated 19 March 1993, signed by and the assurance made by the NAPOLCOM that no administrative case
Commissioner Alexis C. Canonizado, Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee of will be filed, does not hold water. It is rather absurd for him to state that
the NAPOLCOM, Judge Jaime V. Quitain, through Atty. Pedro S. his resignation from the NAPOLCOM amounts to an automatic dismissal
Castillo, filed his Answer (dated 29 March 1993) to the administrative of whatever administrative case filed against him because when he
complaint lodged against him by the Napolcom; resigned and relinquished his position, the issues raised therein became
2. On 30 March 1993, Judge Quitain received a copy of the "Notice of moot and academic. He claims that he did not bother to follow up the
Hearing" of even date, signed by Mr. Canonizado, in connection with the formal dismissal of the administrative case because of said belief. All
formal hearing of the subject administrative case scheduled on 30 April these are but futile attempts to exonerate himself from administrative
1993; culpability in concealing facts relevant and material to his application in
3. Administrative Order No. 183, dismissing Judge Quitain from the the Judiciary. As a member of the Bar, he should know that his
service, was dated 10 April 1995. On 18 April 1995, newspaper items resignation from the NAPOLCOM would not obliterate any administrative
relative to the dismissal of Judge Quitain were separately published in liability he may have incurred[,] much less, would it result to the
the Mindanao Daily Mirror and in the Mindanao Times, the contents of automatic dismissal of the administrative case filed against him. The
which read as follows: acceptance of his resignation is definitely without prejudice to the
Mindanao Times: continuation of the administrative case filed against him. If such would
Dismissed NAPOLCOM chief airs appeal be the case, anyone charged administratively could easily escape from
Former National Police Commission (Napolcom) acting regional director administrative sanctions by the simple expedient of resigning from the
Jaime Quitain yesterday appealed for understanding to those allegedly service. Had it been true that Judge Quitain honestly believes that his
behind his ouster from his post two years ago. Quitain, who was one of resignation amounts to the automatic dismissal of his administrative
the guests in yesterdays Kapehan sa Dabaw, wept unabashedly as he case, the least he could have done was to personally verify the status
read his prepared statement on his dismissal from government service. thereof. He should not have relied on the alleged assurance made by the
Quitain claimed that after Secretary Luis Santos resigned from the NAPOLCOM.
Department of Interior and Local Governments in 1991, a series of On the strength of his misrepresentation, Judge Quitain misled the
administrative charges were hurled against him by some regional Judicial and Bar Council by making it appear that he had a clean record
employees. and was qualified to join the Judiciary. His prior dismissal from the
"I was dismissed from the Napolcom Office without due process," Quitain government service is a blot on his record, which has gone [worse] and
said. has spread even more because of his concealment of it. Had he not
He also said he had no idea as to who the people (sic) are behind the concealed said vital fact, it could have been taken into consideration
alleged smear campaign leveled against him. when the Council acted on his application. His act of dishonesty renders
"Whoever is behind all this, I have long forgiven you. My only appeal to him unfit to join the Judiciary, much less remain sitting as a judge. It even
you, give me my day in court, give me the chance to clear my name, the appears that he was dismissed by the NAPOLCOM for misconduct and
only legacy that I can leave to my children," Quitain said in his statement. dishonesty.
"It is my constitutional right to be present in all proceedings of the Thus, the OCA recommended that: (1) the instant administrative case
administrative case," he also said. against respondent be docketed as an administrative matter; and (2) that
Quitain was appointed Assistant Regional Director of Napolcom in 1991 he be dismissed from the service with prejudice to his reappointment to
by then President Corazon Aquino upon the recommendation of any position in the government, including government-owned or
Secretary Santos. He was later designated Napolcom acting regional controlled corporations, and with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
director for Region XI. except accrued leave credits.
Mindanao Daily Mirror: Respondent was required to Comment.13
Quitain vows to clear name In compliance with the Courts Resolution respondent filed his
Former assistant regional director Jaime Quitain of the National Police Comment14 contending that before he filed his application for RTC
Page 20

Commission (Napolcom) vowed yesterday to clear his name in court Judge with the JBC, he had no knowledge that he was administratively
from charges of tampering with an official receipt.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
dismissed from the NAPOLCOM service as the case was "secretly heard probity. These are qualifications specifically required of appointees to the
and decided." He averred that: Judiciary by Sec. 7(3), Article VIII of the Constitution.17
1. Being a religious lay head and eventually the Pastoral Head of the In this case, Judge Quitain failed to disclose that he was administratively
Redemptorist Eucharistic Lay Ministry in Davao City and the surrounding charged and dismissed from the service for grave misconduct per A.O.
provinces, he was recruited as one of the political followers of then Mayor No. 183 dated April 10, 1995 by no less than the former President of the
Luis T. Santos of Davao City, who later became the Secretary of the Philippines. He insists that on November 26, 2001 or before he filed with
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and was the JBC his verified PDS in support of his application for RTC Judge, he
instrumental in his appointment as Assistant Regional Director of the had no knowledge of A.O. No. 183; and that he was denied due process.
National Police Commission, Region XI; He further argues that since all the criminal cases filed against him were
2. After Secretary Luis T. Santos was replaced as DILG Secretary, the dismissed on August 2, 1995 and July 17, 2000, and considering the fact
political followers of his successor, who were the same followers that he resigned from office, his administrative case had become moot
involved in the chain of corruption prevalent in their department, began and academic.
quietly pressing for his (Quitain) resignation as Assistant Regional Respondents contentions utterly lack merit.
Director; No amount of explanation or justification can erase the fact that Judge
3. Finding difficulty in attacking his honesty and personal integrity, his Quitain was dismissed from the service and that he deliberately withheld
detractors went to the extent of filing criminal charges against him; this information. His insistence that he had no knowledge of A.O. No.
4. Before these criminal charges were scheduled for trial, he was being 183 is belied by the newspaper items published relative to his dismissal.
convinced to resign in exchange for the dismissal of said criminal It bears emphasis that in the Mindanao Times dated April 18, 1995,18
charges, but when he refused to do so, he was unjustifiably detailed or Judge Quitain stated in one of his interviews that "I was dismissed from
"exiled" at the DILG central office in Manila; the (Napolcom) office without due process." It also reads: "Quitain, who
5. Upon his "exile" in Manila for several months, he realized that even was one of the guests in yesterdays Kapehan sa Dabaw, wept
his immediate superiors cooperated with his detractors in instigating for unabashedly as he read his prepared statement on his dismissal from
his removal. Hence, upon advice of his relatives, friends and the heads the government service." Neither can we give credence to the contention
of their pastoral congregation, he resigned from his position in that he was denied due process. The documents submitted by the
NAPOLCOM on condition that all pending cases filed against him, NAPOLCOM to the OCA reveal that Commissioner Alexis C.
consisting of criminal cases only, shall be dismissed, as in fact they were Canonizado, Chairman Ad Hoc Committee, sent him summons on March
dismissed; 19, 1993 informing him that an administrative complaint had been filed
6. From then on he was never formally aware of any administrative case against him and required him to file an answer.19 Then on March 29,
filed against him. Hence, when he submitted his Personal Data Sheet 1993, respondent, through his counsel, Atty. Pedro Castillo, filed an
before the Judicial and Bar Council in support of his application as RTC Answer.20 In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is
judge, he made the following answer in Question No. 23: simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain ones side
23. Is there any pending civil, criminal, or administrative (including or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
disbarment) case or complaint filed against you pending before any complained of. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral
court, prosecution office, any other office, agency or instrumentality of arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due
the government, or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines? process.21 Furthermore, as we have earlier mentioned and which Judge
He could only give a negative answer since there was no pending Quitain ought to know, cessation from office by his resignation does not
administrative case filed against him that he knows; warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him
7. Had he known that there was an administrative case filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said administrative
he would have desisted from applying as a judge and would have given case moot and academic.22Judge Quitain was removed from office after
his full attention to the said administrative case, if only to avoid ensuing investigation and was found guilty of grave misconduct. His dismissal
embarrassment; and from the service is a clear proof of his lack of the required qualifications
8. The filing of the administrative case against him as well as the to be a member of the Bench.
proceedings had thereon and the decision rendered therein, without his More importantly, it is clear that Judge Quitain deliberately misled the
knowledge, could have probably occurred during his "exile period" when JBC in his bid to gain an exalted position in the Judiciary. In Office of the
he was detailed indefinitely in Manila. The proceedings had in the said Court Administrator v. Estacion, Jr.,23 this Court stressed:
administrative case are null and void since he was denied due process. x x x The important consideration is that he had a duty to inform the
Respondents Comment was submitted to the OCA for evaluation, report appointing authority and this Court of the pending criminal charges
and recommendation.15 against him to enable them to determine on the basis of his record,
OCA submitted its Memorandum16 dated August 11, 2005 stating eligibility for the position he was seeking. He did not discharge that duty.
therein that it was adopting its earlier findings contained in its His record did not contain the important information in question because
Memorandum dated September 3, 2004. Based on the documents he deliberately withheld and thus effectively hid it. His lack of candor is
presented, it can not be denied that at the time Judge Quitain applied as as obvious as his reason for the suppression of such a vital fact, which
an RTC judge, he had full knowledge of A.O. No. 183 dismissing him he knew would have been taken into account against him if it had been
from government service. Considering that Judge Quitains explanations disclosed."
in his Comment are but mere reiterations of his allegations in the Thus, we find respondent guilty of dishonesty. "Dishonesty" means
previous letters to the OCA, the OCA maintained its recommendation "disposition to lie, cheat or defraud; unworthiness; lack of integrity."24
that Judge Quitain be dismissed from the service with prejudice to his Section 8(2), Rule 14025 of the Rules of Court classifies dishonesty as
reappointment to any position in the government, including government- a serious charge. Section 11, same Rules, provides the following
owned or controlled corporations, and with forfeiture of all retirement sanctions:
benefits except accrued leave credits. SEC. 11. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge,
The Court fully agrees with the disquisition and the recommendation of any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
the OCA. 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as
It behooves every prospective appointee to the Judiciary to apprise the the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or
appointing authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial appointment to any public office, including government-owned or
Page 21

office, including such circumstances as may reflect on his integrity and controlled corporations. Provided, however, That the forfeiture of
benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than RESOLUTION
three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or NACHURA, J.:
3. A fine of not less than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
In Re: Inquiry on the Appointment of Judge Enrique A. Cube,26 we held: Before the Court is a petition for review of Administrative Case No. 2984
By his concealment of his previous dismissal from the public service, with plea for reinstatement in the practice of law filed by Ismael F. Mejia
which the Judicial and Bar Council would have taken into consideration (Mejia) who is already seventy-one years old and barred from the
in acting on his application, Judge Cube committed an act of dishonesty practice of law for fifteen years.
that rendered him unfit to be appointed to, and to remain now in, the The antecedent facts that led to Mejias disbarment are as follows.
Judiciary he has tarnished with his falsehood. On January 23, 1987, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained
WHEREFORE, Judge Enrique A. Cube of the Metropolitan Trial Court of attorney, Ismael F. Mejia, of the following administrative offenses:
Manila is DISMISSED with prejudice to his reappointment to any position 1) misappropriating and converting to his personal use:
in the government, including government-owned or controlled a) part of the sum of P27,710.00 entrusted to him for payment of real
corporations, and with forfeiture of all retirement benefits. This decision estate taxes on property belonging to Bernardo, situated in a subdivision
is immediately executory. known as Valle Verde I; and
We cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and integrity on the part b) part of another sum of P40,000.00 entrusted to him for payment of
of all those who are in the service of the Judiciary.27 We have often taxes and expenses in connection with the registration of title of Bernardo
stressed that the conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding to another property in a subdivision known as Valle Verde V;
judge to the lowliest clerk of court, must always be beyond reproach and 2) falsification of certain documents, to wit:
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be a) a special power of attorney dated March 16, 1985, purportedly
free from any suspicion that may taint the Judiciary. We condemn, and executed in his favor by Bernardo (Annex P, par. 51, complainants
will never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all affidavit dates October 4, 1989);
those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the b) a deed of sale dated October 22, 1982 (Annex O, par. 48, id.); and
norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish c) a deed of assignment purportedly executed by the spouses Tomas
the faith of the people in the Judiciary.28lavvphil and Remedios Pastor, in Bernardos favor (Annex Q, par. 52, id.);
Considering the foregoing, Judge Quitain is hereby found guilty of grave 3) issuing a check, knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in
misconduct. He deserves the supreme penalty of dismissal. payment of a loan obtained from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00,
However, on August 9, 2007, the Court received a letter from Judge and thereafter, replacing said check with others known also to be
Quitain addressed to the Chief Justice stating that he is tendering his insufficiently funded.1
irrevocable resignation effective immediately as Presiding Judge of the On July 29, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc rendered a Decision Per
Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Davao City. Acting on said letter, "the Curiam, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Court Resolved to accept the irrevocable resignation of Judge Jaime V. WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES the [sic] respondent, Atty. Ismael
Quitain effective August 15, 2007, without prejudice to the decision of F. Mejia, guilty of all the charges against him and hereby imposes on him
the administrative case."29 the penalty of DISBARMENT. Pending finality of this judgment, and
Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by the Court effective immediately, Atty. Ismael F. Mejia is hereby SUSPENDED from
without prejudice does not render moot and academic the instant the practice of law. Let a copy of this Decision be spread in his record in
administrative case. The jurisdiction that the Court had at the time of the the Bar Confidants Office, and notice thereof furnished the Integrated
filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the Bar of the Philippines, as well as the Court Administrator who is
respondent judge by his resignation and its consequent acceptance DIRECTED to inform all the Courts concerned of this Decision.
without prejudice by this Court, has ceased to be in office during the SO ORDERED.
pendency of this case. The Court retains its authority to pronounce the On June 1, 1999, Mejia filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to
respondent official innocent or guilty of the charges against him. A reengage in the practice of law. On July 6, 1999, the Supreme Court En
contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful Banc issued a Resolution denying the petition for reinstatement.
and dangerous implications.30Indeed, if innocent, the respondent official On January 23, 2007, Mejia filed the present petition for review of
merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government Administrative Case No. 2984 with a plea for reinstatement in the
which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive practice of law. No comment or opposition was filed against the petition.2
the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to
the situation.31 a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The action will
WHEREFORE, in view of our finding that JUDGE JAIME V. QUITAIN is depend on whether or not the Court decides that the public interest in
guilty of grave misconduct which would have warranted his dismissal the orderly and impartial administration of justice will continue to be
from the service had he not resigned during the pendency of this case, preserved even with the applicants reentry as a counselor at law. The
he is hereby meted the penalty of a fine of P40,000.00. It appearing that applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court
he has yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other privileges, if any, that he is a person of good moral character, a fit and proper person to
the Court likewise ORDERS the FORFEITURE of all benefits, except practice law. The Court will take into consideration the applicants
earned leave credits which Judge Quitain may be entitled to, and he is character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character
PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement and appointment to of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to
any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment
government-owned and/or controlled corporations. and the application for reinstatement.3
This Decision is immediately executory. In the petition, Mejia acknowledged his indiscretions in the law
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Judge Jaime V. Quitains 201 profession.1avvphi1 Fifteen years had already elapsed since Mejias
File. name was dropped from the Roll of Attorneys. At the age of seventy-one,
SO ORDERED. he is begging for forgiveness and pleading for reinstatement. According
to him, he has long repented and he has suffered enough. Through his
Adm. Case No. 2984 August 31, 2007 reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his children and redeem the
RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, Complainant, indignity that they have suffered due to his disbarment.
Page 22

vs. After his disbarment, he put up the Mejia Law Journal, a publication
ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA, Respondent. containing his religious and social writings. He also organized a religious

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
organization and named it "El Cristo Movement and Crusade on Miracle 2) respondent's alleged violation of the so-called "rotation rule"
of Heart and Mind." enunciated in Administrative Matter No. 491 dated 06 October 1989 (in
The Court is inclined to grant the present petition. Fifteen years has the Matter: 1989 IBP Elections).
passed since Mejia was punished with the severe penalty of disbarment. Complainant averred that the respondent, in appropriating for his own
Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejias disbarment, benefit funds due his client, was found to have performed an act
it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of advanced constituting moral turpitude by the Hearing Referee Bill Dozier, Hearing
years. While the age of the petitioner and the length of time during which Department San Francisco, State Bar of California in Administrative
he has endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the sole measure in Case No. 86-0-18429. Complainant alleged that the respondent was
allowing a petition for reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the then forced to resign or surrender his license to practice law in the said
rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other state in order to evade the recommended three (3) year suspension.
transgression has been attributed to him, and he has shown remorse. Complainant asserted that the respondent lacks the moral competence
Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his necessary to lead the country's most noble profession.
punishment has lasted long enough. Thus, while the Court is ever Complainant, likewise, contended that the respondent violated the so-
mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to called "rotation rule" provided for in Administrative Matter No. 491 when
show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its he transferred to IBP Agusan del Sur Chapter. He claimed that the
purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to respondent failed to meet the requirements outlined in the IBP By-Laws
punish but to correct offenders. pertaining to transfer of Chapter Membership. He surmised that the
We reiterate, however, and remind petitioner that the practice of law is a respondent's transfer was intended only for the purpose of becoming the
privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of next IBP National President. Complainant prayed that the respondent be
mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful enjoined from assuming office as IBP National President.
compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the continuing Meanwhile, in his Comment dated 2 May 2005, respondent stated that
requirements for enjoying the privilege to practice law.4 the issues raised in above-mentioned Complaint were the very issues
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for reinstatement in raised in an earlier administrative case filed by the same complainant
the Roll of Attorneys by Ismael F. Mejia is hereby GRANTED. against him. In fact, according to him, the said issues were already
SO ORDERED. extensively discussed and categorically ruled upon by this Court in its
Decision dated 11 December 2005 in Administrative Case No. 6052 (In
A.C. No. 6697 July 25, 2006 Re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. Leonard De Vera). Respondent prayed
ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ, complainant, that the instant administrative complaint be dismissed following the
vs. principle of res judicata.
ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA, respondent. On 15 June 2005, both parties appeared before the Office of the Bar
x-------------------------x Confidant for presentation of evidence in support of their respective
Bar Matter No. 1227 July 25, 2006 allegations.
RE: OATH-TAKING OF ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA, INCOMING Subsequently, in a Memorandum dated 20 June 2005, complainant
PRESIDENT OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. maintained that there is substantial evidence showing respondent's
x-------------------------x moral baseness, vileness and depravity, which could be used as a basis
A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC July 25, 2006 for his disbarment. Complainant stressed that the respondent never
IN THE MATTER OF THE REMOVAL OF ATTY. LEONARD S. DE denied that he used his client's money. Complainant argued that the
VERA FROM THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AS EXECUTIVE respondent failed to present evidence that the Supreme Court of
VICE PRESIDENT AND GOVERNOR. California accepted the latter's resignation and even if such was
IN THE MATTER OF THE LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. LEONARD accepted, complainant posited that this should not absolve the
S. DE VERA DATED MAY 18, 2005 TO FORTHWITH respondent from liability.
DENY/DISAPPROVE THE IBP RESOLUTION UNJUSTLY, Moreover, complainant added that the principle of res judicata would not
ILLEGALLY, ARBITRARILY, AND ABRUPTLY REMOVING HIM apply in the case at bar. He asserted that the first administrative case
FROM THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE IBP FOR ABSOLUTE filed against the respondent was one for his disqualification. x x x.
LACK OF BASIS AND FOR FLAGRANT DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. Bar Matter No. 1227
A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC
DECISION As earlier adverted to, Bar Matter No. 1227 refers to Atty. de Vera's letter-
Per Curiam: request to this Court to schedule his oath taking as IBP National
Before Us are three consolidated cases revolving around Integrated Bar President. A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC, on the other hand, is a letter-report
of the Philippines (IBP) Governor and Executive Vice-President (EVP) dated 19 May 2005 of IBP National President Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz (IBP
Atty. Leonard de Vera. The first pertains to a disbarment case President Cadiz) furnishing this Court with the IBP's Resolution, dated
questioning Atty. de Vera's moral fitness to remain as a member of the 13 May 2005, removing Atty. De Vera as member of the IBP Board and
Philippine Bar, the second refers to Atty. de Vera's letter-request to as IBP EVP, for committing acts inimical to the IBP Board and the IBP in
schedule his oath taking as IBP National President, and the third case general.2
concerns the validity of his removal as Governor and EVP of the IBP by The controversy in Bar Matter No. 1227 and A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC arose
the IBP Board. The resolution of these cases will determine the national from the regular meeting of the IBP Board of Governors held on 14
presidency of the IBP for the term 2005-2007. January 2005. In said meeting, by 2/3 vote (6 voting in favor and 2
A.C. No. 6697 against), the IBP Board approved the withdrawal of the Petition filed
The Office of the Bar Confidant, which this Court tasked to make an before this Court docketed as "Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Jose
investigation, report and recommendation on subject case,1 summarized Anselmo I. Cadiz, et al. vs. Senate of the Philippines, et al. Petition for
the antecedents thereof as follows: Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary
In a Complaint dated 11 April 2005, complainant Zoilo Antonio Velez Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, SC-R165108." The
moved for the suspension and/or disbarment of respondent Atty. Petition was intended to question the legality and/or constitutionality of
Leonard de Vera based on the following grounds: Republic Act No. 9227, authorizing the increase in the salaries of judges
Page 23

1) respondent's alleged misrepresentation in concealing the suspension and justices, and to increase filing fees.3
order rendered against him by the State Bar of California; and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
The two IBP Governors who opposed the said Resolution approving the On 18 May 2005, Atty. de Vera aired his sentiments to this Court by
withdrawal of the above-described Petition were herein respondent writing the then Hon. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. a letter
Governor and EVP de Vera and Governor Carlos L. Valdez.4 captioned as "Urgent Plea to Correct a Glaring Injustice of the IBP Board
On 19 January 2005, IBP President Cadiz informed this Court of the of Governors; Vehement Protest to the Board Resolution Abruptly
decision taken by the IBP Board to withdraw the afore-mentioned Removing Atty. Leonard de Vera from the Board of Governors in Patent
Petition. Attached to his letter was a copy of the IBP Board's 14 January Violation of Due Process; Petition to Deny/Disapprove the Completely
2005 Resolution.5 Unjustified and Highly Arbitrary Resolution Precipitately Ousting Atty. de
On 15 April 2005, Bar Matter No. 1227, pertaining to Atty. de Vera's Vera from the Board of Governors in Less Than Twenty Four (24) Hours
request for oathtaking as National President, was filed. The same was from Notice and Judgment Without Formal Investigation."12
subsequently consolidated with A.C. No. 6697, the disbarment case filed In the said letter, Atty. de Vera strongly and categorically denied having
against Atty. de Vera.6 committed acts inimical to the IBP and its Board. He alleged that on the
On 22 April 2005, a plenary session was held at the 10th National IBP basis of an unverified letter-complaint filed by IBP Governor Rivera, the
Convention at the CAP-Camp John Hay Convention Center, Baguio City. IBP Board voted to expel him posthaste, without just cause and in
It was at this forum where Atty. de Vera allegedly made some untruthful complete disregard of even the minimum standards of due process.
statements, innuendos and blatant lies in connection with the IBP Pertinent portions of his letter read:
Board's Resolution to withdraw the Petition questioning the legality of It is evident that the Board of Governors has committed a grave and
Republic Act No. 9227.7 serious injustice against me especially when, as the incumbent
On 10 May 2005, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order Executive Vice President of the IBP, I am scheduled to assume my
(TRO) enjoining Atty. de Vera from assuming office as IBP National position as National President of the IBP on July 1, 2005. x x x
President.8 I was denied the very basic rights of due process recognized by the
On 12 May 2005, IBP Gov. Romulo A. Rivera wrote IBP National Supreme Court even in administrative cases:
President Cadiz a letter wherein he prayed for the removal of Atty. de 1. The denial of the right to answer the charges formally or in writing. The
Vera as member of the IBP Board for having committed acts which were complaint against me was in writing.
inimical to the IBP Board and the IBP.9 2. The denial of the right to answer the charges within a reasonable
On 13 May 2005, in the 20th Regular Meeting of the Board held at the period of time after receipt of the complaint.
Waterfront Hotel, Cebu City, the IBP Board, by 2/3 vote, resolved to 3. The denial of the right to a fair hearing.
remove Atty. de Vera as member of the IBP Board of Governors and as 4. The denial of the right to confront the accuser and the witnesses
IBP Executive Vice President.10 Quoted hereunder is the dispositive against me. I challenged Gov. Rivera to testify under oath so I could
portion of said Resolution: question him. He refused. I offered to testify under oath so I could be
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY questioned. My request was denied.
RESOLVED, that Governor Leonard S. de Vera is REMOVED as a 5. The denial of my right to present witnesses on my behalf.
member of the IBP Board of Governors and Executive Vice President for 6. The denial of my right to an impartial judge. Governor Rivera was my
committing acts inimical to the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP, to accuser, prosecutor, and judge all at the same time.
wit: 7. Gov. Rivera's prejudgment of my case becomes even more evident
1. For making untruthful statements, innuendos and blatant lies in public because when his motion to expel me was lost in a 5-3 votes (due to his
about the Supreme Court and members of the IBP Board of Governors, inhibition to vote), Gov. Rivera asked for another round of voting so he
during the Plenary Session of the IBP 10th National Convention of can vote to support his own complaint and motion to expel me.13
Lawyers, held at CAP-Camp John Hay Convention Center on 22 April (Emphasis and underscoring in original.)
2005, making it appear that the decision of the IBP Board of Governors On 27 May 2005, the IBP Board responded to the 18 May 2005 letter of
to withdraw the PETITION docketed as "Integrated Bar of the Atty. de Vera.14 In their Reply, the IBP Board explained to this Court that
Philippines, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, et al. vs. The Senate of the their decision to remove Atty. de Vera was based on valid grounds and
Philippines, et al., Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer for was intended to protect itself from a recalcitrant member. Among the
the Issuance of A Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary grounds cited and elucidated by the IBP Board were the following:
Injunction, S.C.-R. 165108", was due to influence and pressure from the (i) Atty. de Vera engaged himself in a negative media campaign and
Supreme Court of the Philippines; solicited resolutions from IBP Chapters to condemn the IBP Board of
2. For making said untruthful statements, innuendos and blatant lies that Governors for its decision to withdraw the Petition, all with the end in
brought the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP as a whole in public view of compelling or coercing the IBP Board of Governors to reconsider
contempt and disrepute; the decision to withdraw the Petition.
3. For violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for (ii) Atty. de Vera embarrassed, humiliated and maligned the IBP Board
Lawyers which mandates that "A lawyer shall observe and maintain the of Governors and the IBP National President in public or during the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on Plenary Session at the 10th National Convention of Lawyers.
similar conduct by others", by making untruthful statements, innuendos (iii) Rather than pacify the already agitated 'solicited' speakers (at the
and blatant lies during the Plenary Session of the IBP 10th National plenary session), Atty. de Vera "fanned the fire", so to speak, and went
Convention of Lawyers in Baguio City; to the extent of making untruthful statements, innuendos and blatant lies
4. For instigating and provoking some IBP chapters to embarrass and about the Supreme Court and some members of the IBP Board of
humiliate the IBP Board of Governors in order to coerce and compel the Governors. He deliberately and intentionally did so to provoke the
latter to pursue the aforesaid PETITION; members of the IBP Board of Governors to engage him in an
5. For falsely accusing the IBP National President, Jose Anselmo I. acrimonious public debate and expose the IBP Board of Governors to
Cadiz, during the Plenary Session of the 10th National Convention in public ridicule.
Baguio City of withholding from him a copy of Supreme Court Resolution, (iv) Atty. de Vera uttered untruthful statements, innuendos and blatant
dated 25 January 2005, granting the withdrawal of the PETITION, lies, e.g., that some of the members of the IBP Board of Governors voted
thereby creating the wrong impression that the IBP National President in favor of the withdrawal of the petition (without mentioning names)
deliberately prevented him from taking the appropriate remedies with because "nakakahiya kasi sa Supreme Court, nakakaawa kasi ang
respect thereto, thus compromising the reputation and integrity of the Supreme Court, kasi may mga kaibigan tayo sa Court." He made it
Page 24

IBP National President and the IBP as a whole.11 appear that the IBP Board of Governors approved the resolution,

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
withdrawing the petition, due to "influence" or "pressure" from the Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold office for the unexpired
Supreme Court.15 portion of the term or during the period of disability.
The IBP Board explained that Atty. de Vera's actuation during the Unless otherwise provided in these By-Laws, all other officers and
Plenary Session was "the last straw that broke the camel's back." He employees appointed by the President with the consent of the Board
committed acts inimical to the interest of the IBP Board and the IBP; shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such term as the
hence, the IBP Board decided to remove him. Board may fix.24
On 3 June 2005, Atty. de Vera furnished the Court with copies of To bolster his position, Atty. de Vera stressed that when both the
resolutions and a position paper coming from various IBP Chapters all President and the EVP die, resign, are removed, or are disabled, the IBP
condemning his expulsion from the IBP Board and as IBP EVP.16 By-Laws only provides for the election of an Acting President and that no
On 15 June 2005, IBP President Cadiz informed Chief Justice Davide mention for an election for EVP was made. Thus, when such election for
that in a special meeting of the IBP Board held at the EDSA Shangri-la EVP occurs, such is contrary to the express provision of the IBP By-
Plaza on 13 June 2005, the IBP Board took note of the vacancy in the Laws.
position of the IBP EVP brought about by Atty. de Vera's removal. In his Atty. de Vera also argued that even if he were validly removed as IBP
stead, IBP Governor Pura Angelica Y. Santiago was formally elected and EVP, his replacement should come from Eastern Mindanao and not from
declared as IBP EVP.17 any other region, due to the Rotation Rule embodied in par. 2, Section
On 17 June 2005, Atty. de Vera protested against the election of Atty. 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws.
Santiago.18 On 20 June 2005, Atty. Santiago voluntarily relinquished the In response to Atty. de Vera's averments, the 2003-2005 IBP Board,
EVP position through a letter addressed to the IBP Board.19 Thus, on through its counsel, submitted a Reply dated 27 January 2006 and
25 June 2005, during its last regular meeting, the IBP Board elected a clarified as follows:
new EVP in the person of IBP Governor Jose Vicente B. Salazar to (i) The IBP Board of Governors is vested with sufficient power and
replace Atty. Santiago. authority to protect itself from an intractable member by virtue of Article
On 28 June 2005, IBP National President Cadiz, through a letter VI, Section 44 of the IBP By-Laws;
addressed to Chief Justice Davide, reported to this Court Atty. Salazar's (ii) Atty. de Vera was removed as a member of the IBP Board and as IBP
election.20 IBP National President Cadiz also requested, among other EVP not because of his disagreement with the IBP Board's position but
things, that Atty. Salazar's election be approved and that he be allowed because of the various acts that he committed which the IBP Board
to assume as National President in the event that Atty. de Vera is determined to be inimical to the IBP Board and the IBP as a whole;
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law or should his removal (iii) Atty. de Vera cannot exculpate himself from liability by invoking his
from the 2003-2005 Board of Governors and as EVP is approved by this constitutional right to Free Speech because, as a member of the Bar, it
Court.21 Also on 28 June 2005, Atty. de Vera protested the election of is his sworn duty to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
Atty. Salazar.22 and to judicial officers and to insist on similar conduct by others;
In his Extended Comment23 dated 25 July 2005, Atty. de Vera (iv) The IBP Board, in effecting the removal of Atty. de Vera, observed
maintained that there was absolutely no factual or legal basis to sustain the fundamental principles of due process. As the records would bear,
the motion to remove him from the IBP Board because he violated no Atty. de Vera was duly notified of the Regular Meeting of the IBP Board
law. He argued that if the basis for his removal as EVP was based on held on 13 May 2004; was furnished a copy of Governor Rivera's Letter-
the same grounds as his removal from the IBP Board, then his removal Complaint the day before the said meeting; was furnished a copy of the
as EVP was likewise executed without due notice and without the least said Meeting's Agenda; and was allowed to personally defend himself
compliance with the minimum standards of due process of law. and his accuser, Gov. Rivera;
Atty. de Vera strongly averred that, contrary to the utterly false and (v) Atty. de Vera was validly removed because the required number of
malicious charges filed against him, the speakers at the Plenary Session votes under Section 44 of the IBP By-Laws to remove Atty. de Vera as a
of the Baguio Convention, although undeniably impassioned and member of the IBP Board and as IBP EVP was duly complied with;
articulate, were respectful in their language and exhortations, not once (vi) Atty. de Vera's replacement as IBP EVP need not come from Eastern
undermining the stature of the IBP in general and the IBP Board of Mindanao Region because: (a) the rotation rule under Article VII, Section
Governors in particular. He posited that speaking in disagreement with 47, par. 2 of the IBP By-Laws had already been complied with when Atty.
the Resolution of the Board during the Convention's Plenary Session is de Vera, who hails from Eastern Mindanao, was elected IBP EVP; and
not a valid cause to remove or expel a duly-elected member of the IBP (b) the rotation rule need not be enforced if the same will not be
Board of Governors; and the decision to remove him only shows that the practicable, possible, feasible, doable or viable; and, finally, that
right to freedom of speech or the right to dissent is not recognized by the (vii) Atty. Salazar was validly elected as IBP EVP and, thus, should now
incumbent IBP Board. be allowed to take his oath as IBP National President.25
Anent the charges that he accused the National President of withholding The Court's Ruling
a copy of this Court's Resolution granting the withdrawal of the Petition AC No. 6697
questioning the legality of Republic Act No. 9227, Atty. de Vera avowed In his Memorandum26 dated 20 June 2005, complainant tendered the
that he made no such remarks. As regards the election of a new IBP following issues for the consideration of the Court:
EVP, Atty. de Vera contended that the said election was illegal as it was I.
contrary to the provisions of the IBP By-Laws concerning national WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT ATTORNEY LEONARD S.
officers, to wit: DEVERA (sic) COMMITED MALPRACTICE WHICH AMOUNTED TO
Section. 49. Term of office. - The President and the Executive Vice MORAL T[U]RPITUDE IN THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND IN
President shall hold office for a term of two years from July 1 following THE PHILIPPINES, IN THE COURSE OF HIS PRACTICE OF LAW.
their election until 30 June of their second year in office and until their II.
successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified. WHETHER OR NOT THE OATH OF OFFICE AS LAWYER IS
In the event the President is absent or unable to act, his functions and ATTACHED TO THE PERSON OF ATTORNEY LEONARD S. DEVERA
duties shall be performed by the Executive Vice President, and in the (sic) WHEREVER HE MAY GO AND NOT NECESSARILY BOUND BY
event of death, resignation, or removal of the President, the Executive THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Vice President shall serve as Acting President for the unexpired portion III.
of the term. In the event of death, resignation, removal or disability of WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE
Page 25

both the President and the Executive Vice President, the Board of THE MORAL T[U]RPITUDE, AS BASIS FOR DISBARMENT OF
RESPONDENT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
IV. The same is provided in Section 29-2 of the IBP By-Laws. In fact, under
WHETHER OR NOT RES JUDICATA APPLIES IN THIS CASE, DUE this Section, transfer of IBP membership is allowed as long as the lawyer
TO ADMIN. CASE NO. [6052]27 complies with the conditions set forth therein, thus:
The disposition of the first three related issues hinges on the resolution xxx
of the fourth issue. Consequently, we will start with the last issue. The only condition required under the foregoing rule is that the transfer
A.C. No. 6052 is not a bar to the filing of the present administrative case. must be made not less than three months prior to the election of officers
In disposing of the question of res judicata, the Bar Confidant opined: in the chapter to which the lawyer wishes to transfer.
To reiterate, the instant case for suspension and/or disbarment against In the case at bar, respondent De Vera requested the transfer of his IBP
respondent Leonard De Vera is grounded on the following: membership to Agusan del Sur on 1 August 2001. One month thereafter,
1) respondent's alleged misrepresentation in concealing the suspension IBP National Secretary Jaime M. Vibar wrote a letter addressed to Atty.
order rendered against him by the State Bar in California; and Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr., Secretary of IBP PPLM Chapter and Atty.
2) respondent's alleged violation of the so-called "rotation rule" Lyndon J. Romero, Secretary of IBP Agusan del Sur Chapter, informing
enunciated in Administrative Matter No. 491 dated 06 October 1989 (In them of respondent de Vera's transfer and advising them to make the
the Matter: 1989 IBP Elections). necessary notation in their respective records. This letter is a substantial
It appears that the complainant already raised the said issues in an compliance with the certification mentioned in Section 29-2 as
earlier administrative case against the respondent. Verily, these issues aforequoted. Note that de Vera's transfer was made effective sometime
were already argued upon by the parties in their respective pleadings, between 1 August 2001 and 3 September 2001. On 27 February 2003,
and discussed and ruled upon by this Court in its Decision dated 11 the elections of the IBP Chapter Officers were simultaneously held all
December 2003 in Administrative Matter No. 6052 (In Re: Petition to over the Philippines, as mandated by Section 29.a of the IBP By-Laws
Disqualify Atty. Leonard de Vera). which provides that elections of Chapter Officers and Directors shall be
As such, with respect to the first issue, this Court held that: held on the last Saturday of February of every other year. Between 3
"As for the administrative complaint filed against him by one of his clients September 2001 and 27 February 2003, seventeen months had elapsed.
when he was practicing law in California, which in turn compelled him to This makes respondent de Vera's transfer valid as it was done more than
surrender his California license to practice law, he maintains that it three months ahead of the chapter elections held on 27 February 2003.
cannot serve as basis for determining his moral qualification (or lack of In the case of Romulo G. Dinsay vs. Atty. Leopoldo D. Cioco
it) to run for the position he is aspiring for. He explains that there is as (Administrative Case No. 2995, 27 November 1996), this Court declared
yet no final judgment finding him guilty of the administrative charge, as that:
the records relied upon by the petitioners are mere preliminary findings "The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
of a hearing referee which are recommendatory findings of an IBP proceedings and not to the exercise of the [Court's] administrative
Commissioner on Bar Discipline which are subject to the review of and powers."
the final decision of the Supreme Court. He also stresses that the In the said case, respondent Clerk of Court Cioco was dismissed from
complainant in the California administrative case has retracted the service for grave misconduct highly prejudicial to the service for
accusation that he misappropriated the complainant's money, but surreptitiously substituting the bid price in a Certificate of Sale from
unfortunately the retraction was not considered by the investigating P3,263,182.67 to only P730,000.00. Thereafter a complaint for
officer. xxx" disbarment was filed against the respondent on the basis of the same
"On the administrative complaint that was filed against respondent De incident. Respondent, interposing res judicata, argued that he may no
Vera while he was still practicing law in California, he explained that no longer be charged on the basis of the same incident. This Court held that
final judgment was rendered by the California Supreme Court finding him while the respondent is in effect being indicted twice for the same
guilty of the charge. He surrendered his license to protest the misconduct, this does not amount to double jeopardy as both
discrimination he suffered at the hands of the investigator and he found proceedings are admittedly administrative in nature. This Court qualified
it impractical to pursue the case to the end. We find these explanations that, in the first case, the respondent was proceeded against as an erring
satisfactory in the absence of contrary proof. It is a basic rule on evidence court personnel under the Court's supervisory power over courts while,
that he who alleges a fact has the burden to prove the same. In this case, in the second case, he was disciplined as a lawyer under the Court's
the petitioners have not shown how the administrative complaint affects plenary authority over membersof the legal profession.
respondent De Vera's moral fitness to run for governor. In subsequent decisions of this Court, however, it appears that res
On the other hand, as regards the second issue: judicata still applies in administrative cases. Thus, in the case of Atty.
"Petitioners contend that respondent de Vera is disqualified for the post Eduardo C. De Vera vs. Judge William Layague (Administrastive Matter
because he is not really from Eastern Mindanao. His place of residence No. RTJ-93-986), this Court ruled that:
is in Paraaque and he was originally a member of the PPLM IBP "While double jeopardy does not lie in administrative cases, it would be
Chapter. He only changed his IBP Chapter membership to pave the way contrary to equity and substantial justice to penalize respondent judge a
for his ultimate goal of attaining the highest IBP post, which is the second time for an act which he had already answered for.";
national presidency. Petitioners aver that in changing his IBP Likewise, in the recent case of Executive Judge Henry B. Basilia vs.
membership, respondent De Vera violated the domicile rule. Judge Amado L. Becamon, Lolita Delos Reyes and Eddie Delos Reyes
The contention has no merit. Under the last paragraph of Section 19, (Administrative Matter No. MTJ-02-1404, 14 December 2004), this Court
Article II, a lawyer included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court held that:
can register with the particular IBP Chapter of his preference or choice, "Applying the principle of res judicata or bar by prior judgment, the
thus: present administrative case becomes dismissible.
xxx xxx
It is clearly stated in the aforequoted section of the By-Laws that it is not Under the said doctrine, a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of
automatic that a lawyer will become a member of the chapter where his competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and
place of residence or work is located. He has the discretion to choose conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the
the particular chapter where he wishes to gain membership. Only when same parties and for the same cause. It provides that
he does not register his preference that he will become a member of the [a] final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent
Chapter of the place where he resides or maintains office. The only jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies;
Page 26

proscription in registering one's preference is that a lawyer cannot be a and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the
member of more than one chapter at the same time. same claim, demand, or cause of action. Res judicata is based on the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
ground that the party to be affected, or some other with whom he is in There is nothing in the By-Laws which explicitly provides that one must
privity, has litigated the same matter in the former action in a court of be morally fit before he can run for IBP governorship. For one, this is so
competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again. because the determination of moral fitness of a candidate lies in the
This principle frees the parties from undergoing all over again the rigors individual judgment of the members of the House of Delegates. Indeed,
of unnecessary suits and repetitious trials. At the same time, it prevents based on each member's standard of morality, he is free to nominate and
the clogging of court dockets. Equally important, res judicata stabilizes elect any member, so long as the latter possesses the basic
rights and promotes the rule of law." requirements under the law. For another, basically the disqualification of
In the instant administrative case, it is clear that the issues raised by the a candidate involving lack of moral fitness should emanate from his
complainant had already been resolved by this Court in an earlier disbarment or suspension from the practice of law by this Court, or
administrative case. The complainant's contention that the principle ofres conviction by final judgment of an offense which involves moral
judicata would not apply in the case at bar as the first administrative case turpitude.30
was one for disqualification while the instant administrative complaint is What this simply means is that absent a final judgment by the Supreme
one for suspension and/or disbarment should be given least credence. It Court in a proper case declaring otherwise, every lawyer aspiring to hold
is worthy to note that while the instant administrative complaint is the position of IBP Regional Director is presumed morally fit. Any person
denominated as one for suspension and/or disbarment, it prayed neither who begs to disagree will not be able to find a receptive audience in the
the suspension nor the disbarment of the respondent but instead merely IBP through a petition for disqualification but must first file the necessary
sought to enjoin the respondent from assuming office as IBP National disbarment or suspension proceeding against the lawyer concerned.
President.28 And this is precisely what complainant has chosen to do in the instant
Contrary to the findings of the Bar Confidant, Adm. Case No. 6052 case. As his petition is sufficient in form and substance, we have given it
entitled, "In Re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. Leonard de Vera, on Legal due course pursuant to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. And, considering
and Moral Grounds, From Being Elected IBP Governor for Eastern that this case is not barred by the prior judgment in Adm. Case No. 6052,
Mindanao in the May 31 IBP Election" and promulgated on 11 December the only issue left for consideration is whether or not Atty. de Vera can
2003 does not constitute a bar to the filing of Adm. Case No. 6697. be suspended or disbarred under the facts of the case and the evidence
Although the parties in the present administrative case and in Adm. Case submitted by complainant.
No. 6052 are identical, their capacities in these cases and the issues The recommendation of the hearing officer of the State Bar of California,
presented therein are not the same, thereby barring the application ofres standing alone, is not proof of malpractice.
judicata. In the case of the Suspension From The Practice of Law In The Territory
In order that the principle of res judicata may be made to apply, four of Guam of Atty. Leon G. Maquera,31we were confronted with the
essential conditions must concur, namely: (1) the judgment sought to bar question of whether or not a member of the Philippine Bar, who is
the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered concomitantly an attorney in a foreign jurisdiction and who was
by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) suspended from the practice of law in said foreign jurisdiction, can be
the disposition of the case must be a judgment or order on the merits, sanctioned as member of the Philippine Bar for the same infraction
and (4) there must be between the first and second action identity of committed in the foreign jurisdiction.
parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action.29 In We take the issue in Atty. Maquera one notch higher in the case of Atty.
the absence of any one of these elements, Atty. de Vera cannot argue de Vera who was admitted to the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction
res judicata in his favor. (State Bar of California, U.S.A.) and against whom charges were filed in
It is noteworthy that the two administrative cases involve different subject connection with his practice in said jurisdiction. However, unlike the case
matters and causes of action. In Adm. Case No. 6052, the subject matter of Atty. Maquera, no final judgment for suspension or disbarment was
was the qualification of Atty. de Vera to run as a candidate for the position meted against Atty. de Vera despite a recommendation of suspension of
of IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao. In the present administrative three years as he surrendered his license to practice law before his case
complaint, the subject matter is his privilege to practice law. In the first could be taken up by the Supreme Court of California.
administrative case, complainants' cause of action was Atty. de Vera's In Maquera, we emphasized that the judgment of suspension against a
alleged violation or circumvention of the IBP By-laws. In the present Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction does not automatically result in his
administrative case, the primary cause of action is Atty. de Vera's alleged suspension or disbarment in the Philippines as the acts giving rise to his
violation of lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. suspension are not grounds for disbarment and suspension in this
Finally, the two administrative cases do not seek the same relief. In the jurisdiction. Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer may
first case, the complainants sought to prevent Atty. de Vera from transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines only if
assuming his post as IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao. In the present the basis of the foreign court's action includes any of the grounds for
case, as clarified by complainant in his Memorandum, what is being disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction. We likewise held that the
principally sought is Atty. de Vera's suspension or disbarment. judgment of the foreign court merely constitutes prima facie evidence of
The distinctions between the two cases are far from trivial. The previous unethical acts as lawyer.
case was resolved on the basis of the parties' rights and obligations The Maquera ruling is consistent with Rule 39, Section 48, of the Rules
under the IBP By-laws. We held therein that Atty. de Vera cannot be of Court which provides:
disqualified from running as Regional Governor as there is nothing in the Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. - The effect of a
present IBP By-laws that sanctions the disqualification of candidates for judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
IBP governors. Consequently, we stressed that the petition had no firm jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
ground to stand on. Likewise, we held that the complainants therein were xxxx
not the proper parties to bring the suit as the IBP By-laws prescribes that (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment
only nominees - which the complainants were not - can file with the IBP or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties
President a written protest against the candidate. The Court's statement, and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
therefore, that Atty. de Vera cannot be disqualified on the ground that he In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence
was not morally fit was mere obiter dictum. Precisely, the IBP By-laws of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
do not allow for pre-election disqualification proceedings; hence, Atty. de clear mistake of law or fact.
Vera cannot be disqualified on the basis of the administrative findings of In Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. v. Fasgi Enterprises, Inc.,32 we
Page 27

a hearing officer of the State Bar of California suspending him from the explained that "[a] foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding
practice of law for three years. We held in that case that in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice Willis) gave him authority to use the same and that, unfortunately, the
in the foreign forum." hearing officer did not consider this explanation notwithstanding the fact
In herein case, considering that there is technically no foreign judgment that the elder Willis testified under oath that he "expected de Vera might
to speak of, the recommendation by the hearing officer of the State Bar use the money for a few days."
of California does not constitute prima facie evidence of unethical By insisting that he was authorized by his client's father and attorney-in-
behavior by Atty. de Vera. Complainant must prove by substantial fact to use the funds, Atty. de Vera has impliedly admitted the use of the
evidence the facts upon which the recommendation by the hearing Willis funds for his own personal use.
officer was based. If he is successful in this, he must then prove that In fact, Atty. de Vera did not deny complainant's allegation in the latter's
these acts are likewise unethical under Philippine law. memorandum that he (de Vera) received US$12,000.00 intended for his
There is substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of Atty. de Vera client and that he deposited said amount in his personal account and not
independent of the recommendation of suspension by the hearing officer in a separate trust account and that, finally, he spent the amount for
of the State Bar of California personal purposes.42
Section 27 of Rule 138 of our Rules of Court states: At this point, it bears stressing that in cases filed before administrative
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; and quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended supported by substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conclusion.43 It means such evidence which affords a substantial basis
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.44
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take Beyond doubt, the unauthorized use by a lawyer of his client's funds is
before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful highly unethical. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an emphatic about this, thus:
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of CANON 16. A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME TO HIS
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. POSSESSION.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
competent court or other disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction received for or from the client.
where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and
disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
acts hereinabove enumerated. In Espiritu v. Ulep45 we held that
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary The relation between attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature.
agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or Being such, it requires utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity and
suspension.33 disinterestedness on the part of the attorney. Its fiduciary nature is
Disciplinary action against a lawyer is intended to protect the court and intended for the protection of the client.
the public from the misconduct of officers of the court and to protect the The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates every lawyer to hold
administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this in trust all money and properties of his client that may come into his
important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable men in possession. Accordingly, he shall account for all money or property
whom courts and clients may repose confidence.34 The statutory collected or received for or from the client. Even more specific is the
enunciation of the grounds for disbarment on suspension is not to be Canon of Professional Ethics:
taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal
a lawyer. The inherent power of the court over its officers cannot be benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed
restricted.35 in him by his client.
Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property
committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and
to the term "Malpractice."36 That meaning is in consonance with the accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be
elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a commingled with his own or be used by him.
business.37 Consequently, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds or
Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules on property held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption
ethical code of his profession or which is unbecoming a member of that that he has appropriated the same for his own use to the prejudice of,
profession.38 and in violation of the trust reposed in him by, his client. It is a gross
Now, the undisputed facts: violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics; it impairs
1. An administrative case against Atty. de Vera was filed before the State the public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.
Bar of California, docketed then as Adm. Case No. 86-0-18429. It arose Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them are in gross
from an insurance case Atty. de Vera handled involving Julius Willis, III violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public
who figured in an automobile accident in 1986. Atty. de Vera was confidence in the legal profession. Those who are guilty of such infraction
authorized by the elder Willis (father of Julius who was given authority may be disbarred or suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
by the son to control the case because the latter was then studying in (Emphases supplied.)
San Diego California) for the release of the funds in settlement of the In herein case, as it is admitted by Atty. de Vera himself that he used his
case. Atty. de Vera received a check in settlement of the case which he client's money for personal use, he has unwittingly sealed his own fate
then deposited to his personal account;39 since this admission constitutes more than substantial evidence of
2. The Hearing referee in the said administrative case recommended that malpractice. Consequently, Atty. de Vera now has the burden of
Atty. de Vera be suspended from the practice of law for three years;40 rebutting the evidence which he himself supplied.
and In his defense, Atty. de Vera claims that he was duly authorized by the
3. Atty. de Vera resigned from the California Bar which resignation was elder Willis to use the funds intended for the latter's son. Atty. de Vera
accepted by the Supreme Court of California.41 also points out that he had restituted the full amount of US$12,000.00
Page 28

Atty. de Vera vehemently insists that the foregoing facts do not prove even before the filing of the administrative case against him in the State
that he misappropriated his client's funds as the latter's father (the elder Bar of California.46

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Aside from these self-serving statements, however, we cannot find Lawyer's Oath do not prohibit nor punish lawyers from aspiring to be IBP
anywhere in the records of this case proof that indeed Atty. de Vera was National President and from doing perfectly legal acts in accomplishing
duly authorized to use the funds of his client. In Radjaie v. Atty. such goal.
Alovera47 we declared that Bar Matter No. 1227
When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough Administrative Matter No. 05-5-15-SC
that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and To resolve Bar Matter No. 1227 and Administrative Matter No. 05-5- 15-
overcome the evidence against him. He must show proof that he still SC, the following issues must be addressed:
maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is I. Whether the IBP Board of Governors acted with grave abuse of
expected of him. discretion in removing Atty. de Vera as Governor and EVP of the IBP on
Atty. de Vera cannot rely on the statement made by the hearing officer 13 May 2005.
that the elder Willis had indeed testified that he "expected de Vera might i. Whether the IBP Board of Governors complied with administrative due
use the money for a few days." As Atty. de Vera had vigorously objected process in removing Atty. de Vera.
to the admissibility of the document containing this statement, he is now ii. Whether the IBP removed Atty. De Vera for just and valid cause.
estopped from relying thereon. Besides, that the elder Willis "expected II. Whether Governor Salazar was validly elected as EVP of the IBP on
de Vera might use the money for a few days" was not so much an 25 June 2005, and can consequently assume the Presidency of the IBP
acknowledgment of consent to the use by Atty. de Vera of his client's for the term 2005-2007.
funds as it was an acceptance of the probability that Atty. de Vera might, The IBP Board observed due process in its removal of Atty. de Vera as
indeed, use his client's funds, which by itself did not speak well of the IBP Governor
character of Atty. de Vera or the way such character was perceived. We start the discussion with the veritable fact that the IBP Board is
In the instant case, the act of Atty. de Vera in holding on to his client's vested with the power to remove any of its members pursuant to Section
money without the latter's acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of 44, Article VI of the IBP By-Laws, which states:
integrity and propriety. It is clear that Atty. de Vera, by depositing the Sec. 44. Removal of members. If the Board of Governors should
check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit is guilty determine after proper inquiry that any of its members, elective or
of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical behavior. He otherwise, has for any reason become unable to perform his duties, the
caused dishonor, not only to himself but to the noble profession to which Board, by resolution of the Majority of the remaining members, may
he belongs. For, it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the declare his position vacant, subject to the approval of the Supreme
profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Court.
profession betrays their trust and confidence.48 Respondent violated his Any member of the Board, elective or otherwise, may be removed for
oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client. cause, including three consecutive absences from Board meetings
Nevertheless, we do not agree with complainant's plea to disbar without justifiable excuse, by resolution adopted by two-thirds of the
respondent from the practice of law. The power to disbar must be remaining members of the Board, subject to the approval of the Supreme
exercised with great caution.49 Where any lesser penalty can Court.
accomplish the end desired, disbarment should not be decreed. In case of any vacancy in the office of Governor for whatever cause, the
In Mortera v. Pagatpatan,50 we imposed upon Atty. Pagatpatan two delegates from the region shall by majority vote, elect a successor from
years suspension from his practice of law for depositing the funds meant among the members of the Chapter to which the resigned governor is a
for his client to his personal account without the latter's knowledge. In member to serve as governor for the unexpired portion of the term.
Reyes v. Maglaya;51 Castillo v. Taguines;52 Espiritu v. Atty. Cabredo (Emphasis supplied)
IV,53 the respondents were meted one year suspension each for failing Under the aforementioned section, a member of the IBP Board may be
to remit to their clients monies in the amounts of P1,500.00; P500.00, removed for cause by resolution adopted by two-thirds (2/3) of the
and P51,161.00, respectively, received by them for their clients without remaining members of the Board, subject to the approval of this Court.
the latter's permission. In Dumadag v. Atty. Lumaya,54 we indefinitely In the main, Atty. de Vera questions his removal from the Board of
suspended respondent for failure to remit to his client the amount of the Governors on procedural and substantive grounds. He argues that he
measly sum of P4,344.00 representing the amount received pursuant to was denied "very basic rights of due process recognized by the
a writ of execution. Considering the amount involved here Honorable Court even in administrative cases" like the right to answer
US$12,000.00, we believe that the penalty of suspension for two (2) formally or in writing and within reasonable time, the right to present
years is appropriate. witnesses in his behalf, the right to a fair hearing. Atty. de Vera protests
Transferring IBP membership to a chapter where the lawyer is not a the fact that he was not able to cross-examine the complainant, IBP Gov.
resident of is not a ground for his suspension or disbarment Romulo H. Rivera (Atty. Rivera) and that Atty. Rivera voted as well for
Complainant insists that Atty. de Vera's transfer of membership from the his expulsion which made him accuser, prosecutor and judge at the
Pasay, Paraaque, Las Pias and Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter to the same time. Atty. de Vera emphasized the fact that Atty. Rivera initially
Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter is a circumvention of the rotation rule as it inhibited himself from voting on his own motion. However, when his
was made for the sole purpose of becoming IBP National President. inhibition resulted in the defeat of his motion as the necessary 2/3 votes
Complainant stresses that Atty. de Vera is not a resident of Agusan del could not be mustered, Atty. Rivera asked for another round of voting so
Sur nor does he hold office therein. he could vote to support his own motion.
In Adm. Case No. 6052, we held that Atty. de Vera's act of transferring The IBP Board counters that since its members were present during the
to another IBP Chapter is not a ground for his disqualification for the post plenary session, and personally witnessed and heard Atty. de Vera's
of IBP Governor as the same is allowed under Section 19 of the IBP By- actuations, an evidentiary or formal hearing was no longer necessary.
Laws with the qualification only that the transfer be made not less than Since they all witnessed and heard Atty. de Vera, it was enough that he
three months immediately preceding any chapter election. was given an opportunity to refute and answer all the charges imputed
As it was perfectly within Atty. de Vera's right to transfer his membership, against him. They emphasized that Atty. de Vera was given a copy of
it cannot be said that he is guilty of unethical conduct or behavior. And the complaint and that he was present at the Board Meeting on 13 May
while one may incessantly argue that a legal act may not necessarily be 2005 wherein the letter-complaint against him was part of the agenda.
ethical, in herein case, we do not see anything wrong in transferring to Therein, he was given the opportunity to be heard and that, in fact, Atty.
an IBP chapter that -- based on the rotation rule will produce the next de Vera did argue his case.
Page 29

IBP EVP who will automatically succeed to the National Presidency for We are in agreement with the IBP Board.
the next term. Our Code of Professional Responsibility as well as the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
First, it needs stressing that the constitutional provision on due process be unable to resolve said motion impartially. This being the case, the
safeguards life, liberty and property.55 It cannot be said that the position votes of Attys. Rivera and de Vera should be stricken-off which means
of EVP of the IBP is property within the constitutional sense especially that only the votes of the seven remaining members are to be counted.
since there is no right to security of tenure over said position as, in fact, Of the seven remaining members, five voted for expulsion while two
all that is required to remove any member of the board of governors for voted against it which still adds up to the 2/3 vote requirement for
cause is a resolution adopted by 2/3 of the remaining members of the expulsion.
board. The IBP Board removed Atty. de Vera as IBP Governor for just and valid
Secondly, even if the right of due process could be rightfully invoked, still, cause
in administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the All the concerned parties to this case agree that what constitutes cause
opportunity to explain one's side.56 At the outset, it is here emphasized for the removal of an IBP Governor has not been defined by Section 44
that the term "due process of law" as used in the Constitution has no of the IBP By-Laws albeit it includes three consecutive absences from
fixed meaning for all purposes due "to the very nature of the doctrine Board meetings without justifiable excuse. Thus, the IBP Board argues
which, asserting a fundamental principle of justice rather than a specific that it is vested with sufficient power and authority to protect itself from
rule of law, is not susceptible of more than one general statement."57 an intractable member whose removal was caused not by his
The phrase is so elusive of exact apprehension,58 because it depends disagreement with the IBP Board but due to various acts committed by
on circumstances and varies with the subject matter and the necessities him which the IBP Board considered as inimical to the IBP Board in
of the situation.59 particular and the IBP in general.
Due process of law in administrative cases is not identical with "judicial Atty. de Vera, on the other hand, insists that speaking in disagreement
process" for a trial in court is not always essential to due process. While with the Resolution of the Board during the Convention's Plenary
a day in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, it is otherwise in Session is not a valid cause to remove or expel a duly-elected member
administrative proceedings since they rest upon different principles. The of the IBP Board of Governors and the decision to remove him only
due process clause guarantees no particular form of procedure and its shows that the right to freedom of speech or the right to dissent is not
requirements are not technical. Thus, in certain proceedings of recognized by the IBP Board.
administrative character, the right to a notice or hearing are not essential After weighing the arguments of the parties and in keeping with the
to due process of law. The constitutional requirement of due process is fundamental objective of the IBP to discharge its public responsibility
met by a fair hearing before a regularly established administrative more effectively, we hereby find that Atty. de Vera's removal from the
agency or tribunal. It is not essential that hearings be had before the IBP Board was not capricious or arbitrary.
making of a determination if thereafter, there is available trial and tribunal Indubitably, conflicts and disagreements of varying degrees of intensity,
before which all objections and defenses to the making of such if not animosity, are inherent in the internal life of an organization, but
determination may be raised and considered. One adequate hearing is especially of the IBP since lawyers are said to disagree before they
all that due process requires. What is required for "hearing" may differ as agree.
the functions of the administrative bodies differ.60 However, the effectiveness of the IBP, like any other organization, is
The right to cross-examine is not an indispensable aspect of due diluted if the conflicts are brought outside its governing body for then
process.61 Nor is an actual hearing always essential62 especially under there would be the impression that the IBP, which speaks through the
the factual milieu of this case where the members of the IBP Board -- Board of Governors, does not and cannot speak for its members in an
upon whose shoulders the determination of the cause for removal of an authoritative fashion. It would accordingly diminish the IBP's prestige and
IBP governor is placed subject to the approval of the Supreme Court repute with the lawyers as well as with the general public.
all witnessed Atty. de Vera's actuations in the IBP National Convention As a means of self-preservation, internecine conflicts must thus be
in question. adjusted within the governing board itself so as to free it from the
It is undisputed that Atty. de Vera received a copy of the complaint stresses that invariably arise when internal cleavages are made public.
against him and that he was present when the matter was taken up. From The doctrine of majority rule is almost universally used as a mechanism
the transcript of the stenographic notes of the 13 May 2005 meeting for adjusting and resolving conflicts and disagreements within the group
wherein Atty. de Vera was removed, it is patent that Atty. de Vera was after the members have been given an opportunity to be heard. While it
given fair opportunity to defend himself against the accusations made by does not efface conflicts, nonetheless, once a decision on a contentious
Atty. Rivera. matter is reached by a majority vote, the dissenting minority is bound
Atty. de Vera, however, additionally questions the fact that Atty. Rivera, thereby so that the board can speak with one voice, for those elected to
who authored the complaint against him, also voted for his expulsion the governing board are deemed to implicitly contract that the will of the
making him accuser, prosecutor and judge at the same time. Atty. de majority shall govern in matters within the authority of the board.63
Vera likewise laments the fact that Atty. Rivera initially inhibited himself The IBP Board, therefore, was well within its right in removing Atty. de
from voting but when this resulted in the defeat of his motion for lack of Vera as the latter's actuations during the 10th National IBP Convention
the necessary 2/3 vote, he agreed to another round of voting and that, were detrimental to the role of the IBP Board as the governing body of
this time, he voted in favor of his motion. the IBP. When the IBP Board is not seen by the bar and the public as a
For the record, of the nine governors comprising the IBP Board, six voted cohesive unit, it cannot effectively perform its duty of helping the
for Atty. de Vera's expulsion (including Atty. Rivera) while 3 voted against Supreme Court enforce the code of legal ethics and the standards of
it (including Atty. de Vera). legal practice as well as improve the administration of justice.
Section 44 (second paragraph) of the IBP By-Laws provides: In view of the importance of retaining group cohesiveness and unity, the
Any member of the Board, elective or otherwise, may be removed for expulsion of a member of the board who insists on bringing to the public
cause, including three consecutive absences from Board meetings his disagreement with a policy/resolution approved by the majority after
without justifiable excuse, by resolution adopted by two-thirds of due discussion, cannot be faulted. The effectiveness of the board as a
theremaining members of the Board, subject to the approval of the governing body will be negated if its pronouncements are resisted in
Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied.) public by a board member.
Under the rules, a resolution for expulsion of an IBP Governor is done Indeed, when a member of a governing body cannot accept the voice of
via a resolution adopted by 2/3 of the remaining members. The phrase the majority, he should resign therefrom so that he could criticize in public
"remaining members" refers to the members exclusive of the the majority opinion/decision to his heart's content; otherwise, he
Page 30

complainant member and the respondent member. The reason therefore subjects himself to disciplinary action by the body.
is that such members are interested parties and are thus presumed to

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
The removal of Atty. de Vera as member of the Board of Governors ipso Article VI, Section 41(g) of the IBP By-Laws expressly grants to the
facto meant his removal as EVP as well Board the authority to fill vacancies, however arising, in the IBP positions,
The removal of Atty. de Vera as member of the Board of Governors ipso subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Integration Rule,68 and
facto meant his removal as EVP as well. Section 47, Article VII of the By- Section 11 (Vacancies),69 Section 44 (Removal of members),70 Section
Laws of the IBP provides: 47 (National officers),71 Section 48 (other officers),72 and Section 49
SEC. 47. National Officers. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall (Terms of Office)73 of the By-Laws. The IBP Board has specific and
have a President and Executive Vice President to be chosen by the sufficient guidelines in its Rules and By-Laws on how to fill-in the
Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much vacancies after the removal of Atty. de Vera. We have faith and
as practicable, on a rotation basis. x x x confidence in the intellectual, emotional and ethical competencies of the
Thus, to be EVP of the IBP, one must necessarily be a member of IBP remaining members of the 2005-2007 Board in dealing with the situation
Board of Governors. Atty. de Vera's removal from the Board of within the bounds of the IBP Rules and By-Laws.
Governors, automatically disqualified him from acting as IBP EVP. To The election by the 2003-2005 IBP Board of Governors of a new EVP,
insist otherwise would be contrary to Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws. who will assume the Presidency for the term 2005-2007, was well within
The Court will not interfere with the Resolution of the IBP Board to the authority and prerogative granted to the Board by the IBP By-Laws,
remove Atty. de Vera since it was rendered without grave abuse of particularly Article VII, Section 47, which provides that "[t]he EVP shall
discretion automatically become President for the next succeeding term." The
While it is true that the Supreme Court has been granted an extensive phrase "for the next succeeding term" necessarily implies that the EVP
power of supervision over the IBP,64 it is axiomatic that such power that should succeed Atty. Cadiz as IBP President for the next succeeding
should be exercised prudently. The power of supervision of the Supreme term (i.e., 2005-2007) should come from the members of the 2003-2005
Court over the IBP should not preclude the IBP from exercising its IBP Board of Governors. Hence, in A.M. No. 05-7-19-SC, we restrained
reasonable discretion especially in the administration of its internal now IBP EVP Feliciano Bautista from assuming the position of Acting
affairs governed by the provisions of its By-Laws. The IBP By-Laws were President because we have yet to resolve the question as to who shall
precisely drafted and promulgated so as to define the powers and succeed Atty. Cadiz from the 2003-2005 IBP Board of Governors.
functions of the IBP and its officers, establish its organizational structure, Accordingly, the elections of Governor Santiago on 13 June 2005 as IBP
and govern relations and transactions among its officers and members. EVP, and thereafter, Governor Salazar on 25 June 2005, as the new IBP
With these By-Laws in place, the Supreme Court could be assured that EVP, upon the relinquishment of Gov. Santiago of the position, were
the IBP shall be able to carry on its day-to-day affairs, without the Court's valid.
interference. Neither can this Court give credence to the argument of Atty. De Vera
It should be noted that the general charge of the affairs and activities of that, assuming his removal as IBP Governor and EVP was valid, his
the IBP has been vested in the Board of Governors. The members of the replacement as IBP EVP should come from Eastern Mindanao Region
Board are elective and representative of each of the nine regions of the pursuant to the rotation rule set forth in Article VII, Section 47, of the IBP
IBP as delineated in its By-Laws.65 The Board acts as a collegiate body By-Laws.
and decides in accordance with the will of the majority. The foregoing According to Article VII, Section 47, of the IBP By-Laws, the EVP shall
rules serve to negate the possibility of the IBP Board acting on the basis be chosen by the Board of Governors from among the nine Regional
of personal interest or malice of its individual members. Hence, the Governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. This is based on
actions and resolutions of the IBP Board deserve to be accorded the our pronouncements in Bar Matter 491, wherein we ruled:
disputable presumption66 of validity, which shall continue, until and "ORDER
unless it is overcome by substantial evidence and actually declared xxxx
invalid by the Supreme Court. In the absence of any allegation and 3. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-
substantial proof that the IBP Board has acted without or in excess of its President elected by the Board of Governors (composed of the
authority or with grave abuse of discretion, we shall not be persuaded to governors of the nine [9] IBP regions) from among themselves (as
overturn and set aside the Board's action or resolution. provided in Sec. 47, Art. VII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be restored.
There is no question that the IBP Board has the authority to remove its The right of automatic succession by the Executive Vice-President to the
members as provided in Article VI, Section 4467 of the IBP By-Laws. presidency upon the expiration of their two-year term (which was
Issue arises only as to whether the IBP Board abused its authority and abolished by this Court's resolution dated July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter No.
discretion in resolving to remove Atty. de Vera from his post as an IBP 287) should be as it is hereby restored.
Governor and EVP. As has been previously established herein, Atty. de 4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the Executive Vice-
Vera's removal from the IBP Board was in accordance with due process President shall automatically succeed to the office of president. The
and the IBP Board acted well within the authority and discretion granted incoming board of governors shall then elect an Executive Vice-
to it by its By-Laws. There being no grave abuse of discretion on the part President from among themselves. The position of Executive Vice-
of the IBP Board, we find no reason to interfere in the Board's resolution President shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. One who has
to remove Atty. de Vera. served as president may not run for election as Executive Vice-President
The election of Atty. Salazar by the IBP Board as IBP EVP in in a succeeding election until after the rotation of the presidency among
replacement of Atty. De Vera was conducted in accordance with the the nine (9) regions shall have been completed; whereupon, the rotation
authority granted to the Board by the IBP By-Laws shall begin anew.
In the same manner, we find no reason to disturb the action taken by the xxxx
2003-2005 IBP Board of Governors in holding a special election to fill-in (Emphasis Supplied)"
the vacant post resulting from the removal of Atty. de Vera as EVP of the In Bar Matter 491, it is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP which is
IBP since the same is a purely internal matter, done without grave abuse actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors. The rotation with
of discretion, and implemented without violating the Rules and By-Laws respect to the Presidency is merely a result of the automatic succession
of the IBP. rule of the IBP EVP to the Presidency. Thus, the rotation rule pertains in
With the removal of Atty. de Vera from the Board, by virtue of the IBP particular to the position of IBP EVP, while the automatic succession rule
Board Resolution dated 13 May 2005, he was also removed from his pertains to the Presidency. The rotation with respect to the Presidency
post as EVP; thus, there was a resultant vacancy in the position of IBP is but a consequence of the automatic succession rule provided in
Page 31

EVP. Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
In the case at bar, the rotation rule was duly complied with since upon Governor and Executive Vice President of the Integrated Bar of the
the election of Atty. De Vera as IBP EVP, each of the nine IBP regions Philippines, the said Resolution having been rendered without grave
had already produced an EVP and, thus, the rotation was completed. It abuse of discretion;
is only unfortunate that the supervening event of Atty. de Vera's removal 3) AFFIRM the election by the Board of Governors of Atty. Jose Vicente
as IBP Governor and EVP rendered it impossible for him to assume the B. Salazar as Executive Vice President of the Integrated Bar of the
IBP Presidency. The fact remains, however, that the rotation rule had Philippines for the remainder of the term 2003-2005, such having been
been completed despite the non-assumption by Atty. de Vera to the IBP conducted in accordance with its By-Laws and absent any showing of
Presidency. grave abuse of discretion; and
Moreover, the application of the rotation rule is not a license to disregard 4) DIRECT Atty. Jose Vicente B. Salazar to immediately take his oath of
the spirit and purpose of the automatic succession rule, but should be office and assume the Presidency of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
applied in harmony with the latter. The automatic succession rule affords for the term 2005-2007 in accordance with the automatic succession rule
the IBP leadership transition seamless and enables the new IBP National in Article VII, Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws, upon receipt of this
President to attend to pressing and urgent matters without having to Resolution.
expend valuable time for the usual adjustment and leadership SO ORDERED.
consolidation period. The time that an IBP EVP spends assisting a sitting
IBP President on matters national in scope is in fact a valuable and A. Law Student Practice Rule RULE 138-A ROC
indispensable preparation for the eventual succession. It should also be Section 1. Conditions for student practice. A law student who has
pointed out that this wisdom is further underscored by the fact that an successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed
IBP EVP is elected from among the members of the IBP Board of law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal
Governors, who are serving in a national capacity, and not from the education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without
members at large. It is intrinsic in the IBP By-Laws that one who is to
compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial
assume the highest position in the IBP must have been exposed to the
court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by
demands and responsibilities of national leadership.
It would therefore be consistent with the purpose and spirit of the the legal clinic of the law school.
automatic succession rule for Governor Salazar to assume the post of Section 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student authorized
IBP President. By electing the replacement EVP from among the by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member
members of the 2003-2005 Board of Governors, the IBP benefits from of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school.
the experience of the IBP EVP of 2003-2005 in this case, Governor Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be
Salazar who would have served in a national capacity prior to his filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the
assumption of the highest position. legal clinic.
It will also be inconsistent with the purpose and spirit of the automatic Section 3. Privileged communications. The Rules safeguarding
succession rule if the EVP for the term 2003-2005 will be elected privileged communications between attorney and client shall apply to
exclusively by the members of the House of Delegates of the Eastern similar communications made to or received by the law student, acting
Mindanao region. This Court notes that the removal of Atty. De Vera in for the legal clinic.
13 May 2005 was about a month before the expiration of the term of
Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. The law student
office of the 2003-2005 Board of Governors. Hence, the replacement
Governor would not have been able to serve in a national capacity for shall comply with the standards of professional conduct governing
two years prior to assuming the IBP Presidency. members of the Bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate
In any case, Section 47 of the IBP Rules uses the phrase "as much as supervision of student practice may be a ground for disciplinary action.
practicable" to clearly indicate that the rotation rule is not a rigid and (Circular No. 19, dated December 19, 1986).
inflexible rule as to bar exceptions in compelling and exceptional G.R. No. 154207 April 27, 2007
circumstances. FERDINAND A. CRUZ, Petitioner,
It is in view of the foregoing that the argument advanced by Atty. De Vera vs.
that the IBP national presidency should be assumed by a nominee from ALBERTO MINA, HON. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO and HON.
Eastern Mindanao region from where he comes, can not hold water. It ZENAIDA LAGUILLES, Respondents.
would go against the intent of the IBP By-Laws for such a nominee would
be bereft of the wealth of experience and the perspective that only one DECISION
who is honed in service while serving in a national post in the IBP would AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
have. Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
We therefore rule that the IBP Board of Governors acted in accordance Court, grounded on pure questions of law, with Prayer for Preliminary
with the IBP By-Laws, in electing Atty. Salazar as IBP EVP and in Injunction assailing the Resolution dated May 3, 2002 promulgated by
ensuring a succession in the leadership of the IBP. Had the Board of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 116, Pasay City, in Civil Case
Governors not done so, there would have been no one qualified to No. 02-0137, which denied the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
assume the Presidency of the IBP on 1 July 2005, pursuant to Section against the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 45, Pasay City, in
47 of the IBP By-Laws. Criminal Case No. 00-1705;1 and the RTCs Order dated June 5, 2002
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we rule as follows: denying the Motion for Reconsideration. No writ of preliminary injunction
1) SUSPEND Atty. Leonard de Vera in A.C. No. 6697 from the practice was issued by this Court.
of law for TWO (2) YEARS, effective from the finality of this Resolution. The antecedents:
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal record of Atty. On September 25, 2000, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the
Leonard de Vera and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private prosecutor, in Criminal
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to Case No. 00-1705 for Grave Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is
all courts; the complaining witness.
2) DISMISS the letter-complaint of Atty. Leonard de Vera, dated 18 May The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies his
2005, in A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC, praying for the disapproval of the appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule
Page 32

Resolution, dated 13 May 2005, of the Board of Governors of the 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in
Integrated Bar of the Philippines removing him from his posts as Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.2 that a non-lawyer may appear before

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. The petitioner ABEYANCE TRIAL, WHEN WHAT WAS DENIED BY THE
furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior conformity of RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS THE ISSUANCE OF THE
the public prosecutor and a written authority of Mariano Cruz appointing WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and WHEN THE
him to be his agent in the prosecution of the said criminal case. RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS YET TO DECIDE ON
However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied THE MERITS OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI;
permission for petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the ground IV.
that Circular No. 19 governing limited law student practice in conjunction THE RESPONDENT COURT[s] ARE CLEARLY IGNORING THE LAW
with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law Student Practice Rule) should WHEN THEY PATENTLY REFUSED TO HEED TO [sic] THE CLEAR
take precedence over the ruling of the Court laid down in Cantimbuhan; MANDATE OF THE LAPUT, CANTIMBUHAN AND BULACAN CASES,
and set the case for continuation of trial.3 AS WELL AS BAR MATTER NO. 730, PROVIDING FOR THE
On February 13, 2002, petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS BEFORE THE LOWER COURTS
Reconsideration seeking to reverse the February 1, 2002 Order alleging (MTCS).4
that Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, does not have the This Court, in exceptional cases, and for compelling reasons, or if
effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule 138, for the authority to interpret warranted by the nature of the issues reviewed, may take cognizance of
the rule is the source itself of the rule, which is the Supreme Court alone. petitions filed directly before it.5
In an Order dated March 4, 2002, the MeTC denied the Motion for Considering that this case involves the interpretation, clarification, and
Reconsideration. implementation of Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Bar Matter
On April 2, 2002, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for No. 730, Circular No. 19 governing law student practice and Rule 138-A
Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and of the Rules of Court, and the ruling of the Court in Cantimbuhan, the
Temporary Restraining Order against the private respondent and the Court takes cognizance of herein petition.
public respondent MeTC. The basic question is whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear
After hearing the prayer for preliminary injunction to restrain public before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant.
respondent MeTC Judge from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 00- The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as
1705 pending the Certiorari proceedings, the RTC, in a Resolution dated encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, prohibits the petitioner,
May 3, 2002, resolved to deny the issuance of an injunctive writ on the as a law student, from entering his appearance in behalf of his father,
ground that the crime of Grave Threats, the subject of Criminal Case No. the private complainant in the criminal case without the supervision of an
00-1705, is one that can be prosecuted de oficio, there being no claim attorney duly accredited by the law school.
for civil indemnity, and that therefore, the intervention of a private Rule 138-A or the Law Student Practice Rule, provides:
prosecutor is not legally tenable. RULE 138-A
On May 9, 2002, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion for LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
Reconsideration. The petitioner argues that nowhere does the law Section 1. Conditions for Student Practice. A law student who has
provide that the crime of Grave Threats has no civil aspect. And last, successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed
petitioner cites Bar Matter No. 730 dated June 10, 1997 which expressly law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal
provides for the appearance of a non-lawyer before the inferior courts, education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without
as an agent or friend of a party litigant, even without the supervision of a compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial
member of the bar. court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by
Pending the resolution of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration the legal clinic of the law school.
before the RTC, the petitioner filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration Sec. 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student authorized by
dated June 7, 2002 with the MeTC seeking the reversal of the March 4, this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member
2002 Denial Order of the said court, on the strength of Bar Matter No. of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school.
730, and a Motion to Hold In Abeyance the Trial dated June 10, 2002 of Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be
Criminal Case No. 00-1705 pending the outcome of the certiorari filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the
proceedings before the RTC. legal clinic.
On June 5, 2002, the RTC issued its Order denying the petitioners However, in Resolution6 dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730, the
Motion for Reconsideration. Court En Banc clarified:
Likewise, in an Order dated June 13, 2002, the MeTC denied the The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an
petitioners Second Motion for Reconsideration and his Motion to Hold in inferior court, where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In
Abeyance the Trial on the ground that the RTC had already denied the inferior courts, a law student may appear in his personal capacity without
Entry of Appearance of petitioner before the MeTC. the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138 provides:
On July 30, 2002, the petitioner directly filed with this Court, the instant Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. - In the court of a justice of the
Petition and assigns the following errors: peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an
I. agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an
the respondent regional trial court abused its discretion when it resolved attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally
to deny the prayer for the writ of injunction of the herein petitioner despite or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or
petitioner having established the necessity of granting the writ; by a duly authorized member of the bar.
II. Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or
THE RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.7
TANTAMOUNT TO IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, WHEN IT RESOLVED (Emphasis supplied)
TO DENY THE PRAYER FOR THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY The phrase "In the court of a justice of the peace" in Bar Matter No. 730
INJUNCTION AND THE SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR is subsequently changed to "In the court of a municipality" as it now
RECONSIDERATION OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER ON THE BASIS appears in Section 34 of Rule 138, thus:8
THAT [GRAVE] THREATS HAS NO CIVIL ASPECT, FOR THE SAID SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. In the Court of a
BASIS OF DENIAL IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW; municipality a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of
III. an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of
Page 33

THE RESPONDENT METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation
DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION TO HOLD IN

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
personally or by aid of an attorney and his appearance must be either according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good
personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. (Emphasis supplied) fidelity as well to the court as to my clients; and I will impose upon
which is the prevailing rule at the time the petitioner filed his Entry of myself this obligation voluntarily, without any mental reservation or
Appearance with the MeTC on September 25, 2000. No real distinction purpose of evasion.
exists for under Section 6, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, the term So help me God.
"Municipal Trial Courts" as used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan B.M. No. 712 March 19, 1997
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. RESOLUTION
There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule 138
and Rule 138-A. In the former, the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an PADILLA, J.:
agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed, while the latter Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in
rule provides for conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a 1993. The Court however deferred his oath-taking due to his previous
friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts. conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide.
Petitioner expressly anchored his appearance on Section 34 of Rule 138. The criminal case which resulted in petitioner's conviction, arose from
The court a quo must have been confused by the fact that petitioner the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in
referred to himself as a law student in his entry of appearance. Rule 138- September 1991. Petitioner and seven (7) other accused initially entered
A should not have been used by the courts a quo in denying permission pleas of not guilty to homicide charges. The eight (8) accused later
to act as private prosecutor against petitioner for the simple reason that withdrew their initial pleas and upon re-arraignment all pleaded guilty to
Rule 138-A is not the basis for the petitioners appearance. reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts On the basis of such pleas, the trial court rendered judgment dated 11
by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law February 1993 imposing on each of the accused a sentence of
student. As succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section imprisonment of from two (2) years four (4) months :and one (1) day to
34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or a friend of a four (4) years.
party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts. On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein petitioner's application
Petitioner further argues that the RTC erroneously held that, by its very for probation.
nature, no civil liability may flow from the crime of Grave Threats, and, On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an order approving a report dated
for this reason, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not possible. 6 April 1994 submitted by the Probation Officer recommending
It is clear from the RTC Decision that no such conclusion had been petitioner's discharge from probation.
intended by the RTC. In denying the issuance of the injunctive court, the On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed before this Court a petition to be allowed
RTC stated in its Decision that there was no claim for civil liability by the to take the lawyer's oath based on the order of his discharge from
private complainant for damages, and that the records of the case do not probation.
provide for a claim for indemnity; and that therefore, petitioners On 13 July 1995, the Court through then Senior Associate Justice
appearance as private prosecutor appears to be legally untenable. Florentino P. Feliciano issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al C.
Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that he may now be regarded
liable for a felony is also civilly liable except in instances when no actual as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed
damage results from an offense, such as espionage, violation of upon those seeking admission to the bar.
neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against popular In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less
representation.9 The basic rule applies in the instant case, such that than fifteen (15) certifications/letters executed by among others two (2)
when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious
liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship
criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior victim, through joint efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused
to the criminal action.10 in the criminal case.
The petitioner is correct in stating that there being no reservation, waiver, On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan,
nor prior institution of the civil aspect in Criminal Case No. 00-1705, it father of Raul, to comment on petitioner's prayer to be allowed to take
follows that the civil aspect arising from Grave Threats is deemed the lawyer's oath.
instituted with the criminal action, and, hence, the private prosecutor may In his comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty. Camaligan states that:
rightfully intervene to prosecute the civil aspect. a. He still believes that the infliction of severe physical injuries which led
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution and to the death of his son was deliberate rather than accidental. The offense
Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 116, Pasay City are therefore was not only homicide but murder since the accused took
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45, advantage of the neophyte's helplessness implying abuse of confidence,
Pasay City is DIRECTED to ADMIT the Entry of Appearance of petitioner taking advantage of superior strength and treachery.
in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 as a private prosecutor under the direct b. He consented to the accused's plea of guilt to the lesser offense of
control and supervision of the public prosecutor. reckless imprudence resulting in homicide only out of pity for the mothers
No pronouncement as to costs. of the accused and a pregnant wife of one of the accused who went to
SO ORDERED. their house on Christmas day 1991 and Maundy Thursday 1992, literally
on their knees, crying and begging for forgiveness and compassion.
G. Lawyers Oath They also told him that the father of one of the accused had died of a
I , do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the heart attack upon learning of his son's involvement in the incident.
Republic of the Philippines; I will support and defend its Constitution and c. As a Christian, he has forgiven petitioner and his co-accused for the
obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted death of his son. However, as a loving father who had lost a son whom
authorities therein; I will do no falsehood nor consent to its commission; he had hoped would succeed him in his law practice, he still feels the
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or pain of an untimely demise and the stigma of the gruesome manner of
his death.
Page 34

unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will not delay any
mans cause for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
d. He is not in a position to say whether petitioner is now morally fit for In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty.
admission to the bar. He therefore submits the matter to the sound MARCIAL A. EDILLON (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD - 1).
discretion of the Court.
The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the SYNOPSIS
strict intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are
instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. It is the For respondent's stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues to the
sworn duty of this Court not only to "weed out" lawyers who have become Integrated Bar of the Philippines since the latter's constitution,
a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of equal notwithstanding due notice, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar
importance, to prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer's oath, thereby of the Philippines unanimously adopted and submitted to the Supreme
further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent years has Court a resolution recommending the removal of respondent's name
undoubtedly become less than irreproachable. from its Roll of Attorneys, pursuant to Par. 2, Sec. 24, Art. III of the By-
The resolution of the issue before us required weighing and reweighing Laws of the IBP.
of the reasons for allowing or disallowing petitioner's admission to the Respondent, although conceding the propriety and necessity of the
practice of law. The senseless beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan integration of the Bar of the Philippines, questions the all-encompassing,
constituted evident absence of that moral fitness required for admission all-inclusive scope of membership therein and the obligation to pay
to the bar since they were totally irresponsible, irrelevant and uncalled membership dues arguing that the provisions therein (Section 1 and 9 of
for. the Court Rule 139-A) constitute an invasion of his constitutional right in
In the 13 July 1995 resolution in this case we stated: the sense that he is being compelled, as a precondition to maintaining
. . . participation in the prolonged and mindless physical behavior, [which] his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and
makes impossible a finding that the participant [herein petitioner] was to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this
then possessed of good moral character. 1 compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is
In the same resolution, however, we stated that the Court is prepared to admittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to
consider de novo the question of whether petitioner has purged himself liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Respondent
of the obvious deficiency in moral character referred to above. likewise questions the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to strike his
Before anything else, the Court understands and shares the sentiment name from the Roll of Attorneys, contending that this matter is not among
of Atty. Gilbert Camaligan. The death of one's child is, for a parent, a the justiciable cases triable by the Court but is of an administrative nature
most traumatic experience. The suffering becomes even more pertaining to an administrative body.
pronounced and profound in cases where the death is due to causes The Supreme Court unanimously held that all legislation directing the
other than natural or accidental but due to the reckless imprudence of integration of the Bar are valid exercise of the police power over an
third parties. The feeling then becomes a struggle between grief and important profession; that to compel a lawyer to be a member of the IBP
anger directed at the cause of death. is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate; that the
Atty. Camaligan's statement before the Court- manifesting his having requirement to pay membership fees is imposed as a regulatory
forgiven the accused is no less than praiseworthy and commendable. It measure designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and
is exceptional for a parent, given the circumstances in this case, to find purposes of integration; that the penalty provisions for non-payment are
room for forgiveness. not void as unreasonable or arbitrary; that the Supreme Court's
However, Atty. Camaligan admits that he is still not in a position to state jurisdiction and power to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of
if petitioner is now morally fit to be a lawyer. Attorneys is expressly provided by Art.X, Section 5(5) of the Constitution
After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner and held as an inherent judicial function by a host of decided cases; and
Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys that the provisions of Rules of Court 139-A ordaining the integration of
and practice the legal profession with the following admonition: the Bar of the Philippines and the IBP By-Laws complained of are neither
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes unconstitutional nor illegal.
that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, Respondent disbarred and his name ordered stricken from the Roll of
the various certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine Attorneys.
concern for civic duties and public service.
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone SYLLABUS
for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit 1.ATTORNEYS; BAR INTEGRATION; NATURE AND PURPOSE. An
of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must
rash, temerarious and uncalculating. belong, as distinguished from bar associations organized by individual
We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary. Integration of the
ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL Bar is essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded
TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as
when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by or
strictly according to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional under the direction of the State, an integrated Bar is an official national
Responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, body of which all lawyers are required to be members. They are,
fairer and easier for everyone concerned. therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the
The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue with the Bar, including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for
assistance he has been giving to his community. As a lawyer he will now the effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a
be in a better position to render legal and other services to the more code of professional ethics or professional responsibility breach of which
unfortunate members of society. constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper
PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino is hereby cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the
ALLOWED to take the lawyer's oath on a date to be set by the Court, to offending member.
sign the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter, to practice the legal profession. 2. ID.; ID.; INTEGRATION OF THE BAR, A VALID EXERCISE OF
SO ORDERED. POLICE POWER; PRACTICE OF LAW NOT A VESTED RIGHT BUT A
PRIVILEGE. All legislation directing the integration of the Bar have
Page 35

H. Membership to IBP been uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of the police
[A.C. No. 1928. August 3, 1978.] power over an important profession. The practice of law is not a vested

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
right but a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with public interest power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the
because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section
to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and 5 of the 1973 Constitution) from requiring members of a privileged class,
takes part in one of the most important functions of the State the such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the
administration of justice as an officer of the Court. The practice of law expenses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite
being clothed with public interest, the holder of this privilege must submit apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure,
to a degree of control for the common good, to the extent of the interest designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of
he has created. The expression "affected with a public interest" is the integration.
equivalent of "subject to the exercise of the police power" 8. ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY PROVISIONS, NOT VOID. If the power to
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; LEGISLATION TO EFFECT THE INTEGRATION OF THE impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize, then a penalty
PHILIPPINE BAR. The Congress in enacting Republic Act No. 6397, designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided
approved on September 17, 1971, authorizing the Supreme Court to altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary. The
"adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as such
such conditions as it shall see fit," it did so in the exercise of the must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact
paramount police power of the State. The Act's avowal is to "raise the compliance with the lawyer s public responsibilities.
standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, 9. ID.;
and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively," POWER TO PASS UPON FITNESS TO REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE
the Supreme Court in ordaining the integration of the Bar through its BAR VESTED IN THE SUPREME COURT. The matters of admission,
Resolution promulgated on January 9, 1973, and the President of the suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers and their
Philippines in decreeing the constitution of the IBP into a body corporate regulation and supervision have been and are indisputably recognized
through Presidential Decree No. 181 dated May 4, 1973, were prompted as inherent judicial functions and responsibilities. The power of the
by fundamental considerations of public welfare and motivated by a Supreme Court to regulate the conduct and qualifications of its officers
desire to meet the demands of pressing public necessity. does not depend upon constitutional or statutory grounds. It has
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; IMPOSITION OF RESTRAINTS JUSTIFIED. The limitations no less real because they are inherent. The very burden of
State, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with and the duty is itself a guaranty that the power will not be misused or
regulate personal liberty, property and occupations. Persons and prostituted.
property may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure 10. ID.; ID.;
the general prosperity and welfare of the State (U.S. vs. Gomez Jesus, CASE AT BAR. The provisions of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court
31 Phil. 218), for, as the Latin maxim goes, "Salus populi est supreme ordaining the integration of the Bar of the Philippines and the By-Laws of
lex." The public welfare is the supreme law. To this fundamental principle the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is neither unconstitutional nor illegal,
of government the rights of individuals are subordinated. Liberty is a and a lawyer's stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues to the
blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to Integrated Bar of the Philippines, notwithstanding due notice, in violation
prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy of said Rule and By-Laws, is a ground for disbarment and striking out of
(Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726). It is an undoubted power of the his name from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.
State to restrain some individuals from all freedom, and all individuals
from some freedom. RESOLUTION
5. ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTION VESTS SUPREME COURT WITH CASTRO, C.J p:
PLENARY POWER IN ALL CASES REGARDING ADMISSION TO AND The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney
SUPERVISION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW. Even without the in the Philippines.
enabling Act (Republic Act No. 6397), and looking solely to the language On November 29, 1975, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP for
of the provision of the Constitution granting the Supreme Court the power short) Board of Governors unanimously adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in
"to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all Administrative Case No. MDD-1 (In the Matter of the Membership Dues
courts, and the admission to the practice of law, "(Sec. 5[5], Art. X, 1973 Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon) recommending to the Court the
Costitution) it at once becomes indubitable that this constitutional removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for
declaration vests the Supreme Court with plenary power in all cases "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP since the
regarding the admission to and supervision of the practice of law. latter's constitution notwithstanding due notice.
6. ID.; ID.; COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP THEREIN NOT VIOLATIVE On January 21, 1976, the IBP, through its then President Liliano B. Neri,
OF A LAWYER'S CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE. submitted the said resolution to the Court for consideration and approval,
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the By-Laws of the IBP,
of his constitutional freedom to associate. Integration does not make a which reads:
lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He ". . . . Should the delinquency further continue until the following June 29,
becomes a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. the Board shall promptly inquire into the cause or causes of the
All that integration actually does is to provide an official national continued delinquency and take whatever action it shall deem
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group appropriate, including a recommendation to the Supreme Court for the
of which every lawyer is already a member. Bar integration does not removal of the delinquent member's name from the Roll of Attorneys.
compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not Notice of the action taken shall be sent by registered mail to the member
attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to and to the Secretary of the Chapter concerned."
vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is On January 27, 1976, the Court required the respondent to comment on
subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order the resolution and letter adverted to above; he submitted his comment
to further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of on February 23, 1976, reiterating his refusal to pay the membership fees
professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the due from him.
profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of On March 2, 1976, the Court required the IBP President and the IBP
the regulatory program the lawyers. Board of Governors to reply to Edillon's comment: on March 24, 1976,
7. ID.; ID.; PAYMENT OF MEMBERSHIP FEE; A REGULATORY they submitted a joint reply.
Page 36

MEASURE NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW. There is nothing in the Thereafter, the case was set for hearing on June 3, 1976. After the
Constitution that prohibits the Supreme Court, under its constitutional hearing, the parties were required to submit memoranda in amplification

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
of their oral arguments. The matter was thenceforth submitted for lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary. Integration of the
resolution. Bar is essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded
At the threshold, a painstaking scrutiny of the respondent's pleadings an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as
would show that the propriety and necessity of the integration of the Bar well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by or
of the Philippines are in essence conceded. The respondent, however, under the direction of the State, an integrated Bar is an official national
objects to particular features of Rule of Court 139-A (hereinafter referred body of which all lawyers are required to be members. They are,
to as the Court Rule) 1 in accordance with which the Bar of the therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the
Philippines was integrated and to the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Bar, including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for
Article III of the IBP By-Laws (hereinabove cited). the effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a
The authority of the IBP Board of Governors to recommend to the code of professional ethics or professional responsibility breach of which
Supreme Court the removal of a delinquent member's name from the constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper
Roll of Attorneys is found in par. 2 Section 24, Article III of the IBP By- cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the
Laws (supra), whereas the authority of the Court to issue the order offending member. 2
applied for is found in Section 10 of the Court Rule, which reads: The integration of the Philippine Bar was obviously dictated by overriding
"SEC. 10. Effect of considerations of public interest and public welfare to such an extent as
non-payment of dues. Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this more than constitutionally and legally justifies the restrictions that
Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant integration imposes upon the personal interests and personal
suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such convenience of individual lawyers. 3
payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of Apropos to the above, it must be stressed that all legislation directing the
the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys." integration of the Bar have been uniformly and universally sustained as
The all-encompassing, all-inclusive scope of membership in the IBP is a valid exercise of the police power over an important profession. The
stated in these words of the Court Rule: LLphil practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover
"SECTION 1. Organization. There is hereby organized an official clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not
national body to be known as the 'Integrated Bar of the Philippines,' only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts,
composed of all persons whose names now appear or may hereafter be and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions
included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court." of the State the administration of justice as an officer of the Court.
The obligation to pay membership dues is couched in the following words 4 The practice of law being clothed with public interest, the holder of this
of the Court Rule: privilege must submit to a degree of control for the common good, to the
"SEC. 9. Membership dues. Every member of the Integrated Bar shall extent of the interest he has created. As the U. S. Supreme Court through
pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with Mr. Justice Roberts explained, the expression "affected with a public
the approval of the Supreme Court. . . . ." interest" is the equivalent of "subject to the exercise of the police power"
The core of the respondent's arguments is that the above provisions (Nebbia vs. New York, 291 U.S. 502).
constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is When, therefore, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6397 5 authorizing
being compelled, as a pre-condition to maintaining his status as a lawyer the Supreme Court to "adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the
in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit," it did so in the
corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled exercise of the paramount police power of the State. The Act's avowal is
financial support of the said organization to which he is admittedly to "raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration
personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more
property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent effectivity." Hence, the Congress in enacting such Act, the Court in
concludes, the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By- ordaining the integration of the Bar through its Resolution promulgated
Laws are void and of no legal force and effect. on January 9, 1973, and the President of the Philippines in decreeing the
The respondent similarly questions the jurisdiction of the Court to strike constitution of the IBP into a body corporate through Presidential Decree
his name from the Roll of Attorneys, contending that the said matter is No. 181 dated May 4, 1973, were prompted by fundamental
not among the justiciable cases triable by the Court but is rather of an considerations of public welfare and motivated by a desire to meet the
"administrative nature pertaining to an administrative body." demands of pressing public necessity.
The case at bar is not the first one that has reached the Court relating to The State, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with
constitutional issues that inevitably and inextricably come up to the and regulate personal liberty, property and occupations. Persons and
surface whenever attempts are made to regulate the practice of law, property may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure
define the conditions of such practice, or revoke the license granted for the general prosperity and welfare of the State (U.S. vs. Gomez Jesus,
the exercise of the legal profession. 31 Phil. 218), for, as the Latin maxim goes, "Salus populi est supreme
The matters here complained of are the very same issues raised in a lex." The public welfare is the supreme law. To this fundamental principle
previous case before the Court, entitled "Administrative Case No. 526, of government the rights of individuals are subordinated. Liberty is a
In the Matter of the Petition for the Integration of the Bar of the blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to
Philippines, Roman Ozaeta, et al., Petitioners." The Court exhaustively prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy
considered all these matters in that case in its Resolution ordaining the (Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726). It is an undoubted power of the
integration of the Bar of the Philippines, promulgated on January 9, 1973. State to restrain some individuals from all freedom, and all individuals
The Court there made the unanimous pronouncement that it was. from some freedom.
". . . . fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the But the most compelling argument sustaining the constitutionality and
arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative validity of Bar integration in the Philippines is the explicit unequivocal
materials and the mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive grant of precise power to the Supreme Court by Section 5 (5) of Article
Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration of the X of the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, which reads:
Philippine Bar is 'perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable' . . "Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx
." xxx "(5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure
Be that as it may, we now restate briefly the posture of the Court. in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law and the integration
Page 37

An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must of the Bar . . .",
belong, as distinguished from bar associations organized by individual and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 6397, which reads:

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
"SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme State, and under the necessary powers granted to the Court to
Court may adopt rules of Court to effect the integration of the Philippine perpetuate its existence, the respondent's right to practice law before the
Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and
of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is
the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively." recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty
Quite apart from the above, let it be stated that even without the enabling may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or
Act (Republic Act No. 6397), and looking solely to the language of the arbitrary.
provision of the Constitution granting the Supreme Court the power "to But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent
courts, and the admission to the practice of law, " it at once becomes regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer s
indubitable that this constitutional declaration vests the Supreme Court public responsibilities.
with plenary power in all cases regarding the admission to and 4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of the Supreme
supervision of the practice of law. Court to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys, it is
Thus, when the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal profession, sufficient to state that the matters of admission, suspension, disbarment
his practice of law and his exercise of the said profession, which affect and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and supervision have
the society at large, were (and are) subject to the power of the body been and are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions and
politic to require him to conform to such regulations as might be responsibilities, and the authorities holding such are legion.
established by the proper authorities for the common good, even to the In In Re Sparks (267 Ky. 93, 101 S.W. (2d) 194), in which the report of
extent of interfering with some of his liberties. If he did not wish to submit the Board of Bar Commissioners in a disbarment proceeding was
himself to such reasonable interference and regulation, he should not confirmed and disbarment ordered, the court, sustaining the Bar
have clothed the public with an interest in his concerns. Integration Act of Kentucky, said: The power to regulate the conduct and
On this score alone, the case for the respondent must already fall. qualifications of its officers does not depend upon constitutional or
The issues being of constitutional dimension, however, we now concisely statutory grounds. It is a power which is inherent in this court as a court
deal with them seriatim. prLL appropriate, indeed necessary, to the proper administration of justice
1. The first objection posed by the respondent is that the Court is without . . . the argument that this is an arbitrary power which the court is
power to compel him to become a member of the Integrated Bar of the arrogating to itself or accepting from the legislative likewise
Philippines, hence, Section 1 of the Court Rule is unconstitutional for it misconceives the nature of the duty. It has limitations no less real
impinges on his constitutional right of freedom to associate (and not to because they are inherent. It is an unpleasant task to sit in judgment
associate). Our answer is: To compel a lawyer to be a member of the upon a brother member of the Bar, particularly where, as here, the facts
Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. are disputed. It is a grave responsibility, to be assumed only with a
6 determination to uphold the ideals and traditions of an honorable
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he profession and to protect the public from overreaching and fraud. The
is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he very burden of the duty is itself a guaranty that the power will not be
passed the Bar examinations. All that integration actually does is to misused or prostituted. . ."
provide an official national organization for the well-defined but The Court's jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973 Constitution
unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a when it explicitly granted to the Court the power to "promulgate rules
member. concerning pleading, practice . . . and the admission to the practice of
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He law and the integration of the Bar . . ." (Article X, Sec. 5(5) the power to
is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter pass upon the fitness of the respondent to remain a member of the legal
or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only profession is indeed undoubtedly vested in the Court.
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The We thus reach the conclusion that the provisions of Rule of Court 139-A
Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in and of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines complained
elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the of are neither unconstitutional nor illegal. cdll
cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the unanimous sense of the
and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers. Court that the respondent Marcial A. Edillon should be as he is hereby
Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of
to be a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an Attorneys of the Court.
exercise of the police power of the state.
2. The second issue posed by the respondent is that the provision of the IV. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Court Rule requiring payment of a membership fee is void. We see THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its CANON 1: PROMOTE AND RESPECT, LAW AND LEGAL PROCESS
constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE
admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND
(Article X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) which power the LEGAL PROCESSES.
respondent acknowledges from requiring members of a privileged
[G.R. Nos. 79690-707. October 7, 1988.]
class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the
expenses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite
apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALES, claiming
integration. to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987
3. The respondent further argues that the enforcement of the penalty Constitution, respondents.
provisions would amount to a deprivation of property without due process
and hence infringes on one of his constitutional rights. Whether the [G.R. Nos. 80578. October 7, 1988.]
practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its being one that
Page 38

entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not here

pause to consider at length, as it clear that under the police power of the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner, vs. HON. RAUL M. GONZALES, corruption be filed against petitioner Zaldivar and five (5) other
claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 individuals. Once again, petitioner raised the argument of the
Constitution, respondent. Tanodbayan's lack of authority under the 1987 Constitution to file such
criminal cases and to investigate the same. Petitioner also moved for the
DECISION consolidation of that petition with G.R. No. 79690-707.
In a Resolution dated 24 November 1987, 4 this Court, without giving
PER CURIAM p: due course to the second petition: (1) required respondent Gonzales to
The following are the subjects of this Resolution: submit Gonzalez to submit a comment thereon: and (2) issued a
1) a Motion, dated 9 February 1988, to Cite in Contempt filed by temporary restraining order "ordering respondent Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez
a petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar against public respondent Special to CEASE and DESIST from further acting in TBP Case No. 87-01394 .
Prosecutor (formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzales, in connection with . . and particularly, from filing the criminal information consequent thereof
G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and G.R. No. 80578, and 2) a Resolution of this and from conducting preliminary investigation therein." In a separate
Court dated 2 May 1988 requiring respondent Hon. Raul Gonzalez to resolution of the same date, 5 G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and G.R. No. 80578
show cause why he should not be punished for contempt and/or were ordered consolidated by the Court.
subjected to administrative sanctions for making certain public In the meantime, however, on 20 November 1987 or four (4) days prior
statements. to issuance by this Court of a temporary restraining order in G.R. No.
I 80578, the Office of the Tanodbayan instituted Criminal Case No. 12570
The pertinent facts are as follows: 6 with the Sandiganbayan, which issued on 23 November 1987 an Order
Petitioner Zaldivar is one of several defendants in Criminal Cases Nos. of Arrest 7 for petitioner Zaldivar and his co-accused in Criminal Case
12159-12161 and 12163-12177 (for violation of the Anti-Graft and No. 12570. Upon Motion 8 of petitioner Zaldivar, this Court issued the
Corrupt Practices Act) pending before the Sandiganbayan. The Office of following Resolution on 8 December 1987.
the Tanodbayan conducted the preliminary investigation and filed the "G.R. No. 80578 (Enrique A. Zaldivar vs. Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez and
criminal informations in those cases (originally TBP Case No. 86-00778). Sandiganbayan). The motion filed by the Solicitor General for
On 10 September 1987, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for respondents for extensions of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (G.R. Nos. 79690-707) naming as original period within which to file comment on the petition for certiorari
respondents both the Sandiganbayan and Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez. and prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or
Among other things, petitioner assailed: (1) the 5 February 1987 restraining order is GRANTED.
Resolution 1 of the Tanodbayan" recommending the filing of criminal Acting on the manifestation with motion to treat the Sandiganbayan as
informations against petitioner Zaldivar and his co-accused in TBP Case party-respondent, the Court Resolved to (a) Consider IMPLEADED the
No. 86-00778; and (2) the 1 September 1987 Resolution 2 of the Sandiganbayan as party respondent; and (b) In pursuance of and
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 12159-12161 and 12163-12177 supplementing the Temporary Restraining Order of November 24, 1987
denying his Motion to Quash the criminal informations filed in those ordering respondent Hon Raul M. Gonzalez to CEASE and DESIST from
cases by the "Tanodbayan." In this respect, petitioner alleged that further acting TBP No. 87-01304 entitled, "Commission on Audit vs. Gov.
respondent Gonzales, as Tanodbayan and under the provisions of the Enrique Zaldivar, et al., and particularly, from filing the criminal
1987 Constitution, was no longer vested with power and authority information consequent thereof and from conducting preliminary
independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for graft and investigation therein" ISSUE a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
corruption against public officials and employees, and hence that the effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court,
informations filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 12159-12161 and 12163- ordering respondents Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez and Sandiganbayan to
12177 were all null and void. CEASE and DESIST from further acting in Criminal case No. 12570,
On 11 September 1987, this Court issued a Resolution, which read: entitled, "People of the Philippines vs. Enrique M. Zaldivar, et al.' and
"G.R. Nos. 79690-707 (Enrique A. Zaldivar vs. The Honorable from enforcing the order of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan in said
Sandiganbayan and Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez, Claiming To Be and case."
Acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution). The Solicitor general filed a Comment 9 on the petition in G.R. No.
Acting on the special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus 80578, and we required the petitioner to submit a Reply 10 thereto.
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with urgent motion for preliminary On 9 February 1988, petitioner Zaldivar filed with the Court a Motion to
injunction, the Court Resolved, without giving due course to the petition, Cite in Contempt 11 directed at respondent Gonzalez. The Motion cited
to require the respondents to COMMENT thereon, within ten (10) days as bases the acts of respondent Gonzalez in: (1) having caused the filing
from notice. of the information against petitioner in Criminal case No. 12570 before
The Court further Resolved to ISSUE a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING the Sandiganbayan; and (2) issuing certain allegedly contemptuous
ORDER, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from statements to the media in relation to the proceedings in G.R. No. 80578.
this Court, ordering respondent Sandiganbayan to CEASE and DESIST In respect of the latter, petitioner annexed to his Motion a photocopy of
from hearing and trying Criminal cases Nos. 12159 to 12161 and 12163 a news article, reproduced here in toto, which appeared in the 30
to 12177 insofar as petitioner Enrique Zaldivar is concerned and from November 1987 issue of the "Philippine daily Globe."
hearing and resolving the Special Prosecutor's motion to suspend dated Tanod Scores SC for Quashing Graft Case
September 3, 1987." TANODBAYAN Justice Raul M. Gonzalez said yesterday the Supreme
The parties later filed their respective pleadings. Court order stopping him from investigating graft cases involving Antique
Petitioner Zaldivar filed with the Court a second Petition for Certiorari and Gov. Enrique Zaldivar "can aggravate the thought that affluent persons
Prohibition (G.R. No. 80578) on 19 November 1987, initially naming only can prevent the progress of a trial.'
Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez as respondent. The Petition assailed the 24 'What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the order) is that it appears that
Page 39

September 1987 Resolution 3 of the "Tanodbayan" in TBP Case No. 87- while rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme
01304 recommending that additional criminal charges for graft and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Court, it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given 2. That he "was approached and asked to 'refrain' from
due course.' Gonzales told the Daily Globe in an exclusive interview. investigating the COA report on illegal disbursements in the Supreme
Gonzalez said the high tribunal's order 'heightens the people's Court because 'it will embarrass the Court; '" and
apprehension over the justice system in this country, especially because 3. That "(i)n several instances, the undersigned respondent was
the people have been thinking that only the small fry can get it while big called over the phone be a leading member of the Court and was asked
fishes go scot-free.' to dismiss the cases against (two Members of the Court)."
Gonzalez was reacting to an order issued by the tribunal last week after Respondent Gonzalez also attached three (3) handwritten notes 15
Zaldivar petitioned the court to stop the Tanodbayan from investigating which he claimed were sent by "some members of this Honorable Court,
graft cases filed against him. interceding for cases pending before this office (i. e., the Tanodbayan)."
Zaldivar had charged that Gonzalez was biased in his investigations He either released his Motion for Reconsideration with facsimiles of said
because the latter wanted to help promote the political fortunes of a notes to the press or repeated to the press the above extraneous
friend from Antique, lawyer Bonifacio Alentajan. statements: the metropolitan papers for the next several days carried
Acting on Zaldivar's petition, the high court stopped Gonzalez from long reports on those statements and variations and embellishments
investigating a graft charge against the governor, and from instituting any thereof.
complaint the Sandiganbayan. On 2 May 1988, the Court issued the following Resolution in the
'While President Aquino had been prodding me to prosecute graft cases Consolidated Petitions:
even if they involve the high and mighty, the Supreme Court had been "G.R. No. 79690-707 (Enrique Zaldivar vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, et
restraining me.' Gonzalez said. al.); G.R. No. 80578 (Enrique A. Zaldivar vs. Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez,
In accordance with the President's order, Gonzalez said he had filed graft etc.).
cases against two 'very powerful' officials of the Aquino government 1. Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent
Commissioner Quintin Doromal of the Presidential Commission on Good Gonzalez under date of April 28, 1988, the Court Resolved to REQUIRE
Government and Secretary Jiamil I.M. Dialan of the Office of Muslim the petitioner to COMMENT thereon within ten (10) days from notice
Affairs and Cultural Communities. hereof.
'While I don't with to discuss the merits of the Zaldivar petition before the 2. It appearing that respondent Raul M. Gonzalez has made
Supreme Court, I am a little bit disturbed that (the order) can aggravate public statements to the media which not only deal with matters sub-
the thinking of some people that affluent persons can prevent the judice but also appear offensive to and disrespectful of the Court and its
progress of a trial,' he said. individual members and calculated, directly or indirectly, to bring the
He disclosed that he had a talk with the Chief Executive over the Court into disrepute, discredit and ridicule and to denigrate and degrade
weekend and that while she symphatizes with local officials who are the administration of justice, the Court Resolved to require respondent
charged in court during election time, 'she said that it might be a Gonzalez to explain in writing within ten (10) days from notice hereof,
disservice to the people and the voters who are entitled to know their why he should not be punished for contempt of court and/or subjected to
candidates.' administrative sanctions for making such public statements reported in
Gonzalez said that while some cases against local against local officials the media, among others, in the issues of the 'Daily Inquirer,' the
during election time could be mere harassment's suits, the Constitution 'Journal,' the 'Manila Time,' the 'Philippine Star,' the 'Manila Chronicle,'
makes it a right of every citizen to be informed of the character of the the 'Daily Globe' and the 'Manila Standard' of April 29 and 30, and May
candidate, who should be subject to scrutiny."(Italics supplied) 1, 1988, to wit:
Acting on petitioner's Motion to Cite in Contempt, the Court on 16 (a) That the Court resolution in question is merely 'an offshoot of
February 1988 required respondent Gonzalez "to COMMENT on the position he had taken that SC Justices cannot claim immunity from
aforesaid Motion within ten (10) days from notice." 12 suit or investigation by government prosecutors,' or motivated by a desire
On 27 April 1988 , the Court rendered its Decision 13 (per curiam) in the to stop him 'from investigating cases against some of their portages or
Consolidated Petitions. The dispositive portion thereof read: friends;'
"WHEREFORE, We hereby: (2) That no less than six of the members of the Court 'interceded
(1) GRANT the consolidated petitions filed by petitioner Zaldivar for and on behalf of persons with pending cases before the Tanodbayan,'
and hereby NULLIFY the criminal informations filed against him in the or sought 'to pressure him to render decisions favorable to their
Sandiganbayan; and colleagues and friends;'
(2) ORDER respondent Raul Gonzalez ro cease and desists (c) That attempts were made to influence him 'to go slow' on
from conducting investigations and filing criminal cases with the Zaldivar and 'not to be too hard on him,' and 'to refrain' from investigating
Sandiganbayan or otherwise exercising the powers and functions of the the Commission on Audit report on illegal disbursements in the Supreme
Ombudsman. Court because 'it will embarrass the Court;'
(d) That there were also attempts to cause the dismissal of cases
SO ORDERED." against two Associate Justices; and
A Motion for Reconsideration 14 was filed by respondent Gonzalez the (e) That the Court had dismissed judges 'without rhyme or
next day, 28 April 1988. In his Motion, respondent Gonzalez, after having reason' and disbarred lawyers 'without due process.'
argued the legal merits of his position, made the following statements 3. It further appearing that three (3) affidavits relative to the
totally unrelated to any legal issue raised either in the Court's Decision purpose of and circumstances attendant upon the notes written to said
or in his own Motion: public respondent by three (3) members of the Court have since been
1. That he "ha(d) been approached twice by a leading member submitted to the Court and now form part of its official records, the Court
of the court . . . and he was asked to 'go slow' on Zaldivar and 'not to be further Resolved to require the Clerk of Court to ATTACH to this
too hard on him;'" Resolution copies of said sworn statements and the annexes thereto
Page 40

appended, and to DIRECT respondent Gonzalez also to comment

thereon within the same period of ten(10) days.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
4. It finally appearing that notice of the Resolution of February the Court including lawyers and all other persons connected in any
16, 1988 addressed to respondent Gonzalez was misdelivered and manner with a case before the Court. 33 The power to punish for
therefore not served on him, the Court Resolved to require the Clerk of contempt is "necessary for its own protection against an improper
Court to CAUSE SERVICE of said Resolution on the respondent and to interference with the due administration of justice, " "(it) is not dependent
REQUIRE the latter to comply therewith." upon the complaint of any of the parries litigant." 34
Respondent Gonzalez subsequently filed with this Court on 9 May 1988 There are, in other words, two (2) related powers which come into play
an Omnibus Motion for Extension and Inhibition 16 alleging, among other in cases like that before us here; the Court's inherent power to discipline
things: that the above quoted 2 May 1988 Resolution of the Court attorneys and the contempt power. The disciplinary authority of the Court
"appears to have overturned that presumption [of innocence] against over members of the Bar is broader that the power to punish for
him;" and that "he gravely doubts whether that 'cold neutrality [of an contempt. Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers and
impartial judge]' is still available to him" there being allegedly "at least 4 non-lawyers, both in and out of court. Frequently, where the contemnor
members of this Tribunal who will not be able to sit in judgment with is a lawyer, the contumacious conduct also constitutes professional
substantial sobriety and neutrality." Respondent Gonzalez closed out his misconduct which calls into play the disciplinary authority of the Supreme
pleading with a prayer that the four (4) Members of the Court identified Court. 35 Where the respondent is a lawyer, however, the Supreme
and referred to there by him inhibit themselves in the deliberation and Court's disciplinary authority over lawyers may come into play whether
resolution of the Motion to Cite in Contempt. or not the misconduct with which the respondent is charged also
On 19 may 1988, 17 after receipt of respondent's Supplemental Motion constitutes contempt of court. The powers to punish for contempt of court
for Reconsideration, 18 this Court in an extended per curiam Resolution does not exhaust the scope of disciplinary authority of the Court over
19 denied the Motion and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration. lawyers. 36 The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the
That denial was made "final and immediately executory." Bar is but corollary to the Court's exclusive power of admission to the
Respondent Gonzalez has since then filed the following pleadings of Bar. A lawyers is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court
record: and as such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of
1. Manifestation with Supplemental Motion to Inhibit, 20 dated dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part
23 May 1988; which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, or impede and degrade the
2. Motion to Transfer Administrative Proceedings to the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct calling
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 21 dated 20 May 1988; for the exercise of disciplinary action against him and contumacious
3. Urgent Motion for Additional Extension of Time to File conduct warranting application of the contempt power.
Explanation Ex Abundante Cautelam, 22 dated 26 May 1988; It is sometimes asserted that in the exercise of the power to punish for
4. Urgent Ex-Parte Omnibus Motion contempt or to the disciplinary authority of the Court over members of
(a) For Extension of Time the Bar, the Court is acting as offended party, prosecutor and arbiter at
(b) For Inhibition, and one and the same time. Thus, in the present case, respondent Gonzalez
(c) For Transfer of Administrative Proceedings to the IBP, Under first sought to get some members of the Court to inhibit themselves in
Rule 139-B, 23 dated 4 June 1988 (with Annex "A;' 24 an anonymous the resolution of this case for alleged bias and prejudice against him. A
letter dated 27 May 1988 from the alleged Concerned Employees of the little later, he in effect asked the whole Court to inhibit itself from passing
Supreme Court" and addressed to respondent); upon the issues involved in this proceeding and to pass on responsibility
5. Ex-Parte Manifestation, 25 dated 7 June 1988; for this matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, upon the ground
6. Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Reconsideration, 26 dated 6 June that respondent cannot expect due process from this Court, that the
1988; and Court has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly.
7. Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation with Motion 27 dated 23 Respondent Gonzalez misconceives the nature of the proceeding at bar
September 1988. as well as the function of the members of the Court in such proceeding.
In compliance with the 2 may 1988 Resolution of this Court quoted Respondent's contention is scarcely an original one. In In Re Almacen,
earlier, respondent Gonzalez submitted on 17 June 1988 an Answer with 37 then Associate (later Chief) Justice Fred Fruiz Castro had occasion
Explanation and Comment 28 offering respondent's legal arguments and to deal with this contention in the following lucid manner:
defenses against the contempt and disciplinary charges presently "xxx xxx xxx
pending before this Court. Attached to that pleading as Annex "A" thereof It is not accurate to say, nor is it an obstacle to the exercise of our
was respondent's own personal Explanation/Compliance. 29 A second authority in the premises, that, as Atty. Almacen would have it appear,
explanation called "Compliance," 30 with annexes, was also submitted the members of the Court are the 'complaints, prosecutors and judges'
by respondent on 22 July 1988. all rolled up into one in this instance. This is an utter misapprehension, if
II not a total distortion, not only of the nature of the proceeding at hand but
We begin be referring to the authority of the Supreme Court to discipline also of our role therein.
officers of the court and members of the court and members of the Bar. Accent should be laid on the fact that disciplinary proceedings like the
The Supreme Court, as regular and guardian of the legal profession, has present are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this
plenary disciplinary authority over attorneys. The authority to discipline proceeding is not and does not involve a trial of an action or a suit,
lawyers stems from the Court's constitutional mandate to regulate but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers.
admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
regulate the practice itself of law. 31 Quite apart from this constitutional prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor
mandate, the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over members there. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its
of the Bar is an inherent power incidental to the proper administration of primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or
justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. 32 not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileged as such.
Page 41

Moreover, the Supreme Court has inherent to punish for contempt, to Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls
control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal rendered its per curiam Decision dated 27 April 1988 in G.R. Nos. 79690-
profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging 707 and 80578. That decision according to respondent Gonzales, was
the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved issued as an act of retaliation by the Court against him for the position
themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and he had taken "that the (Supreme Court) Justices cannot claim immunity
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, from suit or investigation by government prosecutors," and in order to
there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor. stop respondent from investigating cases against "some of (the)
Undeniably, the members of the Court are, to a certain degree, aggrieved proteges or friends (of some Supreme Court Justices)." The Court
parties. Any tirade against the individual members thereof. But in the cannot, of course, and will not debate the correctness of its Decision of
exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity separate 27 April 1988 and of its Resolution dated 19 May 1988 (denying
and distinct from the individual personalities of its members. Consistently respondent Gonzalez' Motion for Reconsideration) in the consolidated
with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate court, the individual members act Zaldivar case. Respondent Gonzalez, and anyone else for that matter,
not as such individuals as a duly constituted court. The distinct is free intellectually to accept or not accept the reasoning of the Court
individualities are lost in the majesty of their office. So that, in a very real set out in its per curiam Decision and Resolution in the consolidated
sense, if there be any complainant in the case at bar, it can only by the Zaldivar cases. This should not, however, obscure the seriousness of the
Court itself, not the individual members thereof as well as the people assault thus undertaken by respondent against the Court and the
themselves whose rights, fortunes and properties, may, even lives, appalling implications of a such assault for the integrity of the system of
would be placed at grave hazard should the administration of justice be administration of justice in country. Respondent has said that the Court
threatened by the retention in the Bar of men unfit to discharge the rendered it Decision and Resolution without regard to the legal merits of
solemn responsibilities of membership in the legal fraternity. the Zaldivar cases and had used the judicial process to impose private
Finally, the power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a punishment upon respondent for positions he had taken (unrelated to the
necessary incident of the power to admit persons to said practice. By Zaldivar cases) in carrying out his duties. It is very difficult to imagine a
constitutional precept, this power is vested exclusively in this Court. This more serious affront to, or greater outrage upon, the honor and dignity of
duty it cannot abdicate just as much as it cannot unilaterally renounce this Court that this. Respondent's statements is also totally baseless.
jurisdiction legally invested upon it. So that even if it be concede that the Respondent's statements were made in complete disregard of the fact
members collectively are in a sense the aggrieved parties, that fact alone that his continuing authority to act as Tanodbayan or Ombudsman after
does not and cannot disqualify them from the exercise of the power the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, had been questioned before this
because public policy demands that they, acting as a Court, exercise the Court as early as 10 September 1987 in the Petition for Certiorari,
power in all cases which call for disciplinary action. The present is such Prohibition and Mandamus filed against him in these consolidated
a case. In the end, the imagined anomaly of the merger in one entity of Petitions, 40 that is more than seven (7) months before the Court
the personalities of complaint, prosecutor and judge is absolutely rendered its Decision. Respondent also ignores the fact that one day
inexistent. later, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order effective
xxx xxx xxx." 38 immediately Sandiganbayan to cease and desist from hearing the
It should not be necessary for the members of this Court expressly to criminal cases filed against petitioner Zaldivar by respondent Gonzalez
disclaim any bias or prejudice against the respondent that would prevent Respondent also disregards the fact that on 24 November 1987, upon
them from the acting in accordance with the exacting requirements of the filing of a second Petition for Certiorari for Prohibition by Mr. Zaldivar,
their oaths of office. It also appears to the Court that for all the members the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order this time requirement
to inhibit themselves from sitting on this case is to abdicate the the respondent to cease and desist from further acting in TBP Case No.
responsibility with which the Constitution has burdened the. Reference 87-0934. Thus, the decision finally reached by this Court in April 1988 on
of complaints against attorneys either to the Integrated Bar of the the constitutional law issue pending before the Court for the preceding
Philippines or to the Solicitor General is not mandatory upon the eight (8) months, could scarcely have been invented as a reprisal simply
Supreme Court; such reference to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines against respondent.
or to the Solicitor General is certainly not an exclusive procedure under A second charge that respondent Gonzalez hurled against members of
the terms of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, especially where the Supreme Court is that they have improperly "pressured" him render
the charge consists of acts done before the Supreme Court. There is no decisions favorable to their "colleagues and friends," including dismissal
need for further investigation of facts in the present case for it is not of "cases" against two (2) members of the Court. This particularly
substantially disputed by respondent Gonzalez that he uttered or wrote deplorable charge too is entirely baseless, as even a cursory
certain statements attributed to him. In any case, respondents had the examination of the contents of the handwritten notes of three (3)
amplest opportunity to present his defense; his defense is not that he did members of this Court addressed to respondent (which respondent
not make the statements ascribed to him but that those statements give attached to his Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of this Court
rise to no liability on his party, having been made in the exercise of his of 27 April 1988 in the consolidated Petitions) will show. It is clear, and
freedom of speech. The issues which thus need to be resolved here are respondent Gonzalez does not pretend otherwise, that the subject
issues of law and of basic and the Court, not any other agency, is matters of the said notes had no relation at all to the issues in G.R. Nos.
compelled to resolve such issues. 79690-707 and 80578. This charge appears to have made in order to try
III to impart some substance (at least in the mind of respondent) to the first
It is necessary to become very explicit as to what respondent Gonzalez accusation made by respondent that the Court had deliberately rendered
was saying in his statements set out above. Respondent has not denied a wrong decision to get even with respondent who had, with great
making the above statements; indeed, he acknowledges that the fortitude, resisted "pressure" from some members of the Court. Once
newspaper reports of the statements attributed to him are substantially again, in total effect, the statements made by respondent appear
correct. 39 designed to cast the Court into gross disrepute, and to cause among the
Page 42

Respondent Gonzalez was in effect saying, firstly, that the Supreme general public scorn for and distrust in the Supreme Court and, more
Court deliberately rendered an erroneous or wrong decision when it generally, the judicial institutions of the Republic.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Respondent Gonzalez has also asserted that the Court was preventing (f) That "the Tribunal is determined to disbar [respondent]
him from prosecuting "rich and powerful persons," that the Court was in without due process" and that a specified Member of the court "has been
effect discriminating between the rich and powerful on the one hand and tasked to be the ponente, or at least prepare the decision."
the poor and defenseless upon the other, and allowing "rich and (Underscoring in the original)
powerful" accused persons to go "scot-free" while presumably allowing Thus, instead of explaining or seeking to mitigate his statements earlier
or affirming the conviction of poor and small offenders. This accusation made, respondent sought to heap still more opprobrium upon the Court,
can only be regarded as calculated to present the Court in an extremely accusing it of being incapable of judging his acts and statements justly
bad light. It may be seen as intended to foment hatred against the and according to law. Once again, he paints this Court as a body not only
Supreme Court; it is also suggestive of the divisive tactics of capable of acting without regard to due process but indeed determined
revolutionary class war. so to act. A grand design to hold up this Court to public scorn and
Respondents, finally, assailed the Court for having allegedly "dismissed disrespect as an unworthy tribunal, one obfuscated by passion and
judges 'without rhyme or reason' and disbarred lawyers 'without due anger at respondent, emerges once more. It is very difficult for members
process.'" The Court notes that this last attacks is not without relation to of this Court to understand how respondent Gonzalez could suppose that
the other statements made by respondent against the Court. The total judges on the highest tribunal of the land would be ready and willing to
picture that respondent clearly was trying to paint of the Court is that of violate their most solemn oath of office merely to gratify any imagined
an "unjudicial" institution able and willing to render "clearly erroneous" private feelings aroused by respondent. The universe of the Court
decisions by way of reprisal against its critics, as a body that acts revolves around the daily demands of law and justice and duty, not
arbitrarily and capriciously denying judges and lawyers due process of around respondent nor any other person or group of persons.
law. Once again, the purport of respondent's attack against the Court as Whether or not the statements made by respondent Gonzalez may
an institution unworthy of the people's faith and trusty, is unmistakable. reasonably be regarded by this Court as contumacious or as warranting
Had respondent undertaken to examine the records of the two(2) judges exercise of the disciplinary authority of this Court over members of the
and the attorney he later identified in one of his Explanations he would Bar, may best be assayed by examining samples of the kinds of
have discovered that the respondents in those administrative cases had statements which have been held in our jurisdiction as constituting
ample opportunity to explain their side and submit evidence in support contempt or otherwise warranting the exercise of the court's authority.
thereof. 41 He would have also found that there were both strong 1. In Montecillo v. Gica, 45 Atty. Quirino del Mar as counsel for
reasons for and an insistent rhyme in the disciplinary measures there Montecillo, who was accused in a slander case, moved to reconsider a
administered by the Court in the continuing effort to strengthen the decision of the Court of Appeals in favor of the complainant with a veiled
judiciary and upgrade the membership of the Bar. It is appropriate to threat that he should interpose his next appeal to the President of the
recall in this connection that due process as a constitutional precept does Philippines. In his Motion for Reconsideration, he referred to the
not, always and in all situations, require the trial-type proceeding, 42 that provisions of the Revised Penal Code on "knowingly rendering an unjust
the essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity judgment," and "judgment rendered through negligence" and implied that
to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support' of the Court of Appeals had allowed itself to be deceived. Atty. del Mar was
one's defense. 43 "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments held guilty of contempt of court by the Court of Appeals. He then sued
in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to the three (3) justices of the Court of Appeals for damages before the
be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking to hold them liable for their
is no denial of procedural due process. 44 decision in the appealed slender case. This suit was terminated,
As noted earlier, respondent Gonzalez was required by the Court to however, by compromise agreement after Atty. del mar apologized to the
explain why he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to Court of Appeals and the justices concerned and agreed to pay moral
administrative discipline for making the statements adverted to above. In damages to the justice. Atty. del Mar some time later filed with this Court
his subsequent pleadings where asked the full Court to inhibit itself and a Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals
to transfer the administrative proceedings to the Integrated Bar of the in a slander case. This Court denied the Petition for review. Atty. del Mar
Philippines, respondent made, among others, the following allegations: then filed a Motion for reconsideration and addressed a letter to the Clerk
(a) That the Members of the Court "should inhibit [themselves] in of the Supreme Court asking for the names of the justices of this Court
the contempt and administrative charges against the respondent, in the who had voted in favor of and those who had voted against his Motion
light of the manifest prejudice and anger they hold against respondents for Reconsideration. After his Motion for Reconsideration was denied
as shown in the language of the resolution on the Motion for fore lack of merit, Atty. del Mar filed a Manifestation in this Court saying:
Reconsideration;' (b) That "the entire membership of the court has "I can at this time reveal to you that, had your Clerk of Court furnished
already lost that 'cold neutrality of an impartial judge' [to] be able to allow me with certified of the last two Resolutions of the supreme court
fairness and due process in the contempt citation as well as in the confirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case entitled
possible administrative charge;" Francisco M. Gica vs. Jorge Montecillo, I would have filed against the
(c) That "respondent honestly feels that this court as angry and Justices supporting the same, civil and criminal suits as i did to the
prejudiced as it is, respondent has no china man's chance to get fair justices of the Court of Appeals who, rewarding the abhorrent falsification
hearing in the contempt and possible administrative charges;" committed by Mr. Gica, reversed for him the decisions of the City Court
(d) That one must consider "the milieu before this Tribunal with, of First Instance of Cebu, not with a view to obtaining a favorable
perhaps passion and obfuscation running riot;" judgment therein but for the purpose of exposing to the people the
(e) That respondent, "after having been castigated with such corroding evils extant in our Government, so that they may well know
venom by the entire Court in its decision denying the Motion for them and work for their extermination." (60 SCRA at 240' italics supplied)
Reconsideration, does not have confidence in the impartiality of the Counsel was asked to explain why he should not be administratively
entire Court" and that he "finds it extremely difficult to believe that the dealt with for making the above statements. In his additional explanation,
Page 43

members of this Tribunal can still act with unbiased demeanor towards Atty. del mar made the following statements:
him; and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
". . . Graft, corruption and justice are rampant in and outside of the e. '. . . Never has any civilized democratic tribunal ruled that
Government. It is this state of things that convinced me that all human such a gimmick (referring to the "right to reject any and all bids") can be
efforts to correct and/or reform the said evils will be fruitless and as used by vulturous executives to cover and excuse losses to the public, a
stated in my manifestation to you. I have already decided to retire from government agency or just plain fraud . . . and it is thus difficult, in the
a life of militancy to a life of seclusion, leaving to God the filling-up light of our upbringing and schooling, even under may of the incumbent
deficiencies." (60 SCRA at 242) justices, that the Honorable supreme Court intends to create a decision
The Court suspended Atty. del mar, "until further orders," from the that in effect does precisely that in a most absolute manner.' (Second
practice of law saying: sentence, par. 7, Third Motion for Reconsideration dated Sept. 10,
". . . Respondent is utilizing what exists in his mind as state of graft, 1968)." (31 SCRA at 6)
corruption and injustice allegedly rampant in and outside of the They were also asked to explain the statements made in their Motion to
government as justification for his contemptuous statements. In other inhibit filed on 21 September 1968 asking
words, he already assumed by his own contemptuous utterances that "Mr. Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and Mr. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro
because there is an alleged existence of rampant corruption, graft and to inhibit themselves from considering, judging and resolving the case or
injustice in and out of the government, We, by Our act in G.R. No. L- any issue or aspect thereof retroactive to January 11, 1967. The motion
36800, are among the corrupt , the grafters and those allegedly charges '[t]hat the brother of the Honorable Associate Justice Castro is
committing injustice. We are at a complete loss to follow respondent del a vice-president of the favored party who is the chief beneficiary of the
Mar's logic. . . false, erroneous and illegal decision dated January 31, 1968' and the ex-
xxx xxx xxx parte preliminary injunction rendered in the above entitled case, the latter
"To aged brethren of the bar it may appear belated to remind them that in effect prejudging and predetermining this case even before the joining
second only to the duty of maintaining allegiance to the Republic of the of an issue. As to the Chief Justice, the motion states '[t]hat the son of
Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the the Honorable Chief Justice Roberto to Conception was given a
Philippines, is the duty of all attorneys to observe and maintain the significant appointment in the Philippine Government by the President a
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers (Sec. 20 (b) Rule short time before the decision of July 31, 1968 was rendered in this case.'
138, Rules of court). But We do remind them of said duty to emphasize The appointment referred to was as secretary of the newly-created
to their younger brethren its paramount importance. A lawyer must Board of Investments. The motion presents a lengthy discourse on
always remember that he is an officer of the court exercising a high judicial ethics, makes a number of side comments projecting what is
privilege and serving in the noble mission of administering justice." claimed to be the patent wrongfulness of the July 31, 1968 decision. It
xxx xxx xxx enumerates 'incidents' which, according to the motion, brought about
As already stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. respondent MacArthur's belief that 'unjudicial prejudice' had been
45604-R was based on its evaluation of the evidence on only one specific caused it and that there was 'unjudicial favoritism' in favor of 'petitioners,
issue. We in turn denied in G.R. No. L-368000 the petition for review on their appointing authority and a favored party directly benefited by the
certiorari of the decision because We found no reason for disturbing the said decision.'" (31 SCRA at 6-7)
appellate court's finding and conclusion. In both instances, both the Another attorney entered his appearance as new counsel for MacArthur
Court of Appeals and this Court exercised judicial discretion in a case and filed a fourth Motion for Reconsideration without leave of court,
under respective jurisdiction. The intemperate and imprudent act of which Motion contained the following paragraphs:]
respondent del Mar in resorting to veiled threats to make both Courts "4. The said decision is illegal because it was penned by the
reconsider their respective stand in the decision and the resolution that Honorable Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion when in fact he was
spelled disaster for his client cannot be anything but pure contumely for outside the borders of the Republic of the Philippines at the time of the
said tribunals. Oral Argument of the above-entitled case which condition is prohibited
It is manifest that respondent del mar has scant respect for the two by the new Rules of Court _ Section 1, Rule 51, and we quote" '
highest court of the hand when on the flimsy ground of alleged error in Justices; who may take part. . . . Only those members present when
deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts any matter is submitted for oral argument will take part in its
by claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his consideration and adjudication . . .' This requirement is especially
allegation is that they acted with intent and malice, if not with gross significant in the present instance because the member who penned the
ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his client. decision was the very member who was absent for approximately four
xxx xxx xxx months or more. This provision also applies to the Honorable Justices
. . . To those who are in the practice of law and those who in the future Claudio Teehankee and Antonio Barredo.
will choose to enter this profession. We with to point to this case as a xxx xxx xxx
reminder for them to imprint in their hearts and minds that an attorney 6. That if the respondent MacArthur International Minerals
owes it to himself to respect the courts of justice and its officers as a Company abandons its quest for justice in the judiciary of the Philippine
fealty for the stability of our democratic institutions.: (60 SCRA at 242- Government, it will inevitably either raise the graft and corruption of
247; italic supplied) Philippine Government Officials in the bidding of May 12, 1965, required
2. In Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, 46 four (4) by the Nickel law to determine the operator of the Surigao nickel
members of the bar, acting as counsels for MacArthur International deposits, the World Court on grounds of deprivation of justice and
Minerals Company were required by this Court to explain certain confiscation or property and/or to the United States Government either
statements made in MacArthur's third Motion for Reconsideration: its executive or judicial branches or both, on the grounds of confiscation
"d. ' . . .; and the Supreme Court has overlooked the applicable of respondent's proprietary vested rights by the Philippine Government
law due to the misrepresentation and obfuscation of the petitioners' without either compensation or due process of law and invoking the
counsel.' (Last sentence, par. 1, Third Motion for Reconsideration dated Hickenlooper Amendment requiring the cutting off of all aid and benefits
Page 44

Sept. 10, 1968). to the Philippine Government, including the sugar price premium,

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
amounting to more than fifty million dollars annually, until restitution or Santiago a style that undermines and degrades the administration of
compensation is made." (31 SCRA at 10-11) justice. The stricture in Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Rules against
Finding their explanations unsatisfactory, the Court, speaking through improper conduct tending to degrade the administration of justice is
Mr. Justice Sanchez, held three (3) attorneys guilty of contempt: thus transgressed. Atty. Santiago is guilty of contempt of court.
"1. We start with the case of Atty. Vicente L. Santiago. In his third xxx xxx xxx
motion for reconsideration, we indeed, find language that is not to be Third. The Motion contained an express threat to take the case to the
expected of an officer of the courts. He pictures petitioners as 'vulturous world Court and/or the United States government. It be member that
executives.' He speaks of this Court as a 'civilized, democratic tribunal,' respondent MacArthur at that time was still trying to overturn the decision
but by innuendo would suggest that it is not. of this Court of July 31, 1968. In doing so, unnecessary statements were
In his motion tom inhibit, his first paragraph categorizes our decision of injected. More specifically, the motion announced that MacArthur 'will
July 31, 1968 as 'false, erroneous and illegal' in a presumptuous manner. inevitably . . . raise the graft and corruption of [the] Philippine government
He then charges that the ex parte preliminary injunction we issued in this officials in the bidding of May 12, 1965 . . . to the world Court' and would
case prejudiced and predetermined the case even before the joining of invoke 'the Hickenlooper Amendment requiring the cutting off of all aid
an issue. He accuses in a reckless manner two justices of this Court for and benefits to the Philippine Government, including the sugar price
being interested in the decision of this case: Associate Justice Fred Ruiz premium, amount to more than fifty million dollars annually . . .'
Castro, because his brother is the vice president of the favored party who This is a clear attempt to influence or bend the mind of this Court to
is the chief beneficiary of the decision, and Chief Justice Roberto decide the case' in its favor. A notice of appeal to the World Court has
Concepcion, whose son was appointed secretary of the newly-created even been embodied in Meads' return. There is a gross inconsistency
Board of Investments, 'a significant appointment in the Philippine between the appeal and the move to reconsider the decision. An appeal
Government by the President, a shortime before the decision of July 31 from a decision presupposes that a party has already abandoned any
1968 was rendered.' In this backdrop, he proceeds to state that 'it would move to reconsider that decision. And yet, it would appear that the
seem that the principles thus established [the moral and ethical appeal to the World Court is being dangled as threat to effect a change
guidelines for inhibition of any judicial authority] by the Honorable of there decision of this Court. Such act has no aboveboard explanation.
Supreme Court should removed conditions have been known to create xxx xxx xxx
favoritism, only to conclude that there is no reason for a belief that the The dignity of the court, experience teaches, can never be protected
conditions obtaining in the case of the Chief Justice and justice Castro where infraction of ethics meets with complacency rather than
'would be less likely to engender favoritism and prejudice for or against punishment. The people should not be given cause to break faith with
a particular cause or party.' Implicit in this at least is that the Chief Justice the belief that a judge is the epitome of honor amongst men. To preserve
and Justice Castro are insensible to delicadeza, which could make their its dignity, a court of justice should not yield to the assaults of disrespect.
actuation suspect. He makes it plain in the motion that the Chief Justice Punctilio of honor, we prefer to think, is standard of behavior so desirable
and Justice Castro not only were not free from the appearance of in a lawyer pleading as cause before a court of justice." (31 SCRA at 13-
impropriety but did arouse suspicion that their relationship did affect their 23; italics supplied)
judgment. He appoints out that courts must be above suspicion at all 3. In In re Almacen, supra, Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen, in
times like Ceasar's wife, warns that loss of confidence for the Tribunal; protest against what he asserted was "a great injustice committed his
or a member thereof should not be allowed to happen in our country, client by the Supreme Court," filed a Petition to Surrender Lawyer's
'although the process has already begun.' Certificate of Title. He alleged that his client was deeply aggrieved by
xxx xxx xxx this Court's "unjust judgment," and had become "one of the sacrificial
What is disconcerting is that Atty. Santiago's accusations have no basis victims before the altar of hypocrisy," saying that "justice as administered
in fact and in law. The slur made is not limited to the Chief Justice and by the presents members of the Supreme Court [was] not only blind, but
Justice Castro. It sweepingly casts aspersion on the whole court. For, also deaf and dumb." Atty. Almacen vowed to argue the cause of his
inhibition is also asked if, we repeated, 'any other justices who have client "in the people's forum" so that "the people may know of this silent
received favors or benefits directly or indirectly from any of the petitioners injustice committed by this Court" and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs
or any members of any board-petitioner or their agents or principals, and injustices that were committed [may] never be repeated." Atty.
including the president.' The absurdity of this posture is at once apparent. Almacen released to the press the contents of his Petition and on 26
For one thing, the justices of this Court are appointed by the President September 1967, the "Manila Times" published statements attributed to
and in that sense may be considered to have each received a favor from him as follows:
the President. Should these justices inhibit themselves every time a case "Vicente Raul Almacen, in an unprecedented petition, said he did not
involving the Administration crops up? Such a thought may not certainly expose the tribunal's unconstitutional and obnoxious' practice of
be entertained. The consequence thereof would be to paralyze the arbitrarily denying petitions or appeals without any reason.
machinery of this Court. we would in fact, be wreaking havoc on the Because of the tribunal's 'short-cut justice.' Almacen deplored, his client
tripartite system of government operating in this country. Counsel is was condemned to pay P120, 000, without knowing why he least the
presumed to know this But why the unfounded charge? There is the not- case.
too-well concealed effort on the part of a losing litigant's attorney to xxx xxx xxx
downgrade this Court. There is no use continuing his law practice, Almacen said in this petition,
The mischief that system from all of the foregoing gross disrespect is 'where our Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our
easy to discern. Such disrespect detracts much from the dignity of a court pleas of justice, who ignore without reason their own applicable
of justice. Decidedly not an expression of faith, councel's words are decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with
intended to create an atmosphere of distrust, of disbelief. impunity.'
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Page 45

The precepts, the teachings, the injunctions just recited are not He expressed the hope that by divesting himself of his title by which he
unfamiliar to lawyers. And yet, this Court finds in the language of Atty. earns his living, the present members of the Supreme Court 'will become

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
responsible to all cases brought to, its attention without discrimination, Court. . . That such treats and disrespectful language contained in a
and will purge itself of those unconstitutional and obnoxious "lack of pleading filed in courts are constitutive of direct contempt has been
merit" or denied resolutions.'" (31 SCRA 1t 565-566; italics supplied) repeatedly decided(Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 61 Phil,. 724; People vs.
Atty. Almacen was required by this Court to show cause why disciplinary Venturanza, 52 Off. Gaz. 769; Medina vs. Rivera, 66 Phil. 151; De Joya
action should not be taken against hi. His explanation which in part read: vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal , L-9785, September 19, 1956; Sison
"xxx xxx xxx vs. Sandejas, L-9270, April 29, 1959; Lualhati vs. Albert, 57 Phil. 86).
The phrase, Justice is blind is symbolized in paintings that can be found What makes the present case more deplorable is that the guilty party is
in all courts and government offices. We have added only two more a member of the bar; for, as remarked in People vs. Carillo, 77 Phil. 580
symbols, that it is also deaf and dumb. Deaf in the sense that no
members of this Court has ever heard our cries for charity, generosity, 'Counsel should conduct himself towards the judges who try his cases
fairness, understanding, sympathy and for justice; dumb in the sense, with that courtesy all have a right to expect. As an officer of the court, it
that inspire of or beggings, supplications, and pleadings to give us is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily
reasons why our appeals has been DENIED, not one word was spoken that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper
or given . . . We refer to no human defect or ailment in the above administration of justice.'
statement. WE only described the impersonal state of things and nothing It is right and plausible that an attorney in defending the cause and rights
more. of his client, should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is
xxx xxx xxx capable, but it is not, and ever will be so, for him to exercise said by
As we have sated, we have lost our faith and confidence in the members resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and respect
of this Court and for which reason we offered to surrender our lawyer's which the dignity of the courts require. (Salcedo vs. Hernandez, [In re
certificate, IN TRUST ONLY. Because what has been lost today may be Francisco], 61 Phil. 729)" (14 SCRA at 811-812; italics supplied)
regained tomorrow. As the offer was intended as our self-imposed 5. In In re Sotto, 48 a newspaper reporter, Mr. Angel Parazo,
sacrifice, then we alone may decide as to when we must end our self- invoking the Press Freedom Law, refused to divulge the source of the
sacrifice. If we have to choose between forcing ourselves to have faith news item which carried his by-line and was sent to jail for so refusing.
an confidence in the members of then Court but disregard our Atty. Vicente Sotto, a senator and author of said law, caused the
Constitution and to uphold the Constitution and be condemned by the publication of the following item in a number of daily newspapers in
members of this Court, there is no choice we must uphold the latter." (31 Manila:
SCRA at 572; italics supplied) "As author of the Press Freedom Law (Republic Act No. 53), interpreted
was found by the Court to be "undignified and cynical" and rejected. The by the Supreme Court in the case of Angel Parazo, reported of a local
Court indefinitely suspended Almacen from the practice of law holding daily, who now has suffer 30 days imprisonment, for his refusal to divulge
through Mr. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, that Almacen had exceeded the the source of a news published in his paper, I regret to say that our high
boundaries of "fair criticism." Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but that it is once
4. In Paragas v. Cruz, 47 counsel, whose Petition for Certiorari more putting in evidence the incompetency or narrow mindedness of the
was dismissed by this Court, made the following statements in his Motion majority of its members. In the wake of so many blunders and injustices
for Reconsideration: deliberately committed during these last years, I believe that the only
"The petitioner respectfully prays for a reconsideration of the resolution remedy to put an end to so much evil, is to change the members of the
of this Honorable Court dated April 20, 1965 on the ground that it supreme Court. To this effect, I announce that one of the first measures,
constitutes a violation of Section 14 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which I will introduce in the coming congressional sessions, will have as
promulgated by this very Hon. Supreme Court, and on the further ground its object the complete reorganization of the supreme Court. As it is now
that is likewise a violation of the most important right in the bill of Rights constituted, the Supreme Court of today constitutes a constant peril to
of the Constitution of the Philippines, a culpable violation which is a liberty and democracy. It need be said loudly,, very loudly, so that even
ground for impeachment. the deaf may hear: The supreme Court of today is a far cry from the
. . . The rule of law in a democracy should always be upheld and impregnable bulwark of justice of those memorable times of Cayetano
protected by all means, because the rule of law creates and preserves Arellano, Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who
peace and order and gives satisfaction and contentment to all were the honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary." (82 Phil. at 597-
concerned. But when the laws and the rules are violated, the victims 598; italics supplied)
resort, sometimes, to armed force and to the ways of the cave-men! We In finding Atty. Sotto in contempt, despite his avowals of good faith his
do not want Verzosa and Reyes repeated again and again, killed in the invocation of the constitutional guarantee of free speech and in requiring
premises of the Supreme Court and in those of the City Hall of Manila. to show why he should not be disbarred, the Court, through Mr. Justice
Educated people should keep their temper under control at all times! But Feria, said
justice should be done to all concerned to perpetuate the very life of "To hurl the false charged that this Court been for the last years
Democracy on the face of the earth.'" (14 SCRA 1t 810; italics supplied) committing deliberately 'so many blunders and injustices,' that is to say,
The Court considered the above statements as derogatory to the dignity that it has been deciding in favor of one party knowing that the law and
of the Court and required counsel to show cause why administrative justice is on the part of the adverse party and not on the one in whose
action should not be taken against him. Counsel later explained that he favor the decision was rendered, in may cases decided during the last
had merely related factual events (i.e., the killing of Verzosa and Reyes) years, would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people
and to express his desire to avoid repetition of such acts. The Court, in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court, and
through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, found these explanations consequently to lower and degrade the administration of justice by this
unsatisfactory and the above statements contumacious: Court. The Supreme Court of the Philippine is, under the Constitution,
". . . The expressions contained in the motion fore reconsideration . . . the last bulwark to which the filipino people may repair to obtain relied
Page 46

are plainly contemptuous and disrespectful, and reference to the recent for their grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled
killing of two employees is but a covert threat upon the members of the upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
of the members of this court and believe that they cannot expect justice Tiaong should follow in case he fails in his attempt, that they will resort
therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their hands, and to the press for the purpose of denouncing, what he claim to be judicial
disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. As a member of the bar outrage of which his client has been victim; and because he states in a
and an officer of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty threatening manner with the intention of predisposing the mind of the
bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes reader against the court, thus creating an atmosphere of prejudices
fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to against it in order to make it odious in the public eye, that decisions of
promote distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to the courts the nature of that referred to in his motion to promote distrust in the
guarantees the stability of other institutions, without such guaranty would administration of justice an increase the proselytes of sakdalism, a
be resting on a very shaky foundation." (82 Phil. at 601-602; italics movement with seditious and revolutionary tendencies the activities of
supplied) which, as is of public knowledge, occurred in this country a few days ago.
6. In Salcedo v. Hernandez, 49 Atty. Vicente Francisco filed a This cannot mean otherwise than contempt of the dignity of the court and
Motion before the supreme Court which contained the following disrespect of the authority thereof on the part of Attorney Vicente J.
paragraph (in translation: Francisco, because he presumes that the court is so devoid of the sense
"We should like frankly and respectfully to make it of record that the of justice that, if he did not resort to intimidation, it would maintain its
resolution of this court, denying our motion for reconsideration is error notwithstanding the fact that it may be proven,, with good reasons,
absolutely erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the that it has acted erroneously.
petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will expressed at As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, Attorney Vicente J.
the polls in the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas. We wish to exhaust all Francisco], as any attorney, is in duty bound to uphold its dignity and
the means within our power in order that this error may be corrected by authority and to defend its integrity, not only because it has conferred
the very court which has committed it, because we should now want upon him the high privilege, not a right (Malcolm, Legal ethics, 158 and
some citizen. particularly some voter of the municipality of Tiaong, 160), of being what he now is: a priest of justice (In re Thatcher, 80 Ohio
Tayabas, resort to the press publicly to denounce, as he has a right to St., Rep., 492, 669), but also because in so doing, he neither creates nor
do, the judicial outrage of which the herein petitioner has been the victim, promotes distrust in the administration of justice, and prevents anybody
and because it is pour utmost desire to safeguard the prestige of this from harboring and encouraging discontent which, in many cases, is the
honorable court and of each and very member thereof in the eyes of the source of disorder, thus undermining the foundation upon which rests
public. But, at the same time we wish to state sincerely that erroneous that bulwark called judicial power to which those who are aggrieved turn
decisions like these, which the affected party and his thousands of voters for protection and relief." (61 Phil. at 727-728; italics supplied)
will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of sakdalism' It should not be supposed that the six (6) cases above discussed exhaust
and make the public lose confidence in the administration of justice." (61 our case law on this matter. In the following cases, among others, the
Phil. at 726; italics supplied) supreme Court punished for contempt or administratively disciplined
When required by the Court to show cause why he should not be lawyers who had made statements not very different from those made in
declared in contempt, Atty. Francisco respondent by saying that it was the cases discussed above:
not contempt to tell the truth. examining the statement made above, the 1) In re Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987);
Court held: 2) Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 87 SCRA 67 (1978);
'. . . [they] disclose, in the opinion of this court, an inexcusable disrespect 3) Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferre, 20 SCRA 441 (1967);
of the authority of the court and an intentional contempt of its dignity, 4) Malolos v. Reyes, 1 SCRA 559 (1961);
because the court is thereby charged with no less than having proceeded 5) De Joya, et al. v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City
in utter disregard of the laws, the rights of the parties, and of the Branch, 99 Phil. 907 (1956);
untoward consequences, or with having abused its power and mocked 6) People v. Venturanza, et al., 98 Phil. 211 (1956);
and flouted the rights of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's client, because 7) In re Suzano A. Velasquez, per curiam Resolution
the acts of outraging and mocking from which the words 'outrage' and (unreported), Promulgated 29 April 1955;
mockery' used therein are derived, means exactly the same as all these, 8) Cornejo v. Tan, 85 Phil. 772 (1950);
according to the Dictionary of the Spanish Language published by the 9) People v. Carillo, 77 Phil. 572 (1946);
Spanish Academy (Dictionary of the Spanish Language, 15th ed., pages 10) Intestate Estate of Rosario Olba; Contempt Proceedings
132-513). against Antonio Franco, 67 Phil. 312 (1939); and
The insertion of the phrases in question in said motion of Attorney 11) Lualhati v. Albert, 57 Phil. 86 (1932).
Vicente J. Francisco, for may years a member of the Philippine bar, was Considering the kinds of statements of lawyers discussed above which
either justified nor in the least necessary, because in order to call the the Court has in the past penalized as contemptuous or as warranting
attention of the court in a special way to the essential points relied upon application of disciplinary sanctions, this Country is compelled to hold
in his argument and to emphasize the force thereof, the many reasons that the statements here made by respondent Gonzalez clearly
stated in his said motion were sufficient and the phrases in question were constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority
superfluous. In order to appeal to reason and justice, it is highly improper of the Supreme Court. Respondent's statements, especially the charge
and amiss to make trouble and resort to, threats, as Attorney Vicente J. that the Court deliberately rendered an erroneous and unjust decisions
Francisco has done, because both means are annoying and good in the Consolidated Petitions, necessarily implying that the justices of this
practice can ever sanction them by reason of their natural tendency to Court betrayed their oath of office, merely to wreak vengeance upon the
disturb and hinder the free exercise of serene and impartial judgment, respondent here, constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Court.
particularly in judicial matters, in the consideration of question submitted Such statements ever clearly debase and degrade the supreme Court
for resolution. and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in
There is no question that said paragraph of Attorney Vicente Francisco's the country. That respondent's baseless charges have had some impact
Page 47

motion contains a more or less veiled threat to the court because it is outside the internal world of subjective intent, is clearly demonstrated by
insinuated therein, after the author shows the course which the voters of the filing of a complaint for impeachment of thirteen (13) out of the then

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
fourteen (14) incumbent members of this Court, a complaint the Respondent Gonzalez claims to be and he is, of course, entitled to
centerpiece of which is a repetition of the appalling claim of respondent criticize the rulings of this court, to point out where he feels the Court
that this Court deliberately rendered a wrong decision as an act of may have lapsed into error. Once more, however, the right of criticism is
reprisal against the respondent. not unlimited. Its limits were marked out by Mr. Justice Castro in In re
IV Almacen which are worth noting:
The principal defense of respondent defense of respondent Gonzalez is "But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona
that he was merely exercising his constitutional right of free speech. He fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide
also invokes the related doctrines of qualified privileged communications chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and
fair criticism in the public interest. slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and
Respondent Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is
speech. No one seeks to deny him that right, least of all this Court. What such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action."
respondent seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is
expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the assertion
freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and of their clients' right, lawyers even those gifted with superior intellect
accommodated with the requirements of equally important public are enjoined to rein up their tempers.
interest. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of . . . "54 (Italics supplied)
the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There The instant proceeding is not addressed to the fact that respondent has
is bo antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system criticized the Court; it is addressed rather to the nature of that criticism
of administering justice. For the protection and maintenance of freedom or comment and the manner in which it was carried out.
of expression itself can be secured only within the context of a Respondent Gonzalez disclaims an intent to attack and denigrate the
functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice, within the context, court. The subjectivities of the respondent are irrelevant so far as
in other words, of viable independent institutions for delivery of justice characterization of his conduct or misconduct is concerned. He will not,
which are accepted by the general community. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter however, be allowed to disclaim the natural and plain import of his words
put it: and acts. 55 It is, upon the other hand, not irrelevant to point out that
". . . A free press is not to be preferred to an independent judiciary, nor respondent offered no apology in his two (2) explanations and exhibited
an independent judiciary ro a free press. Neither has primacy over the no repentance. 56
other; both are indispensable to a free society. Respondent Gonzalez also defends himself contending that no injury to
The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary the judiciary has been shown, and points to the fact that this Court denied
through which that freedom may, if necessary, be vindicated. And one of his Motion for reconsideration of its per curiam Decision of 27 April 1988
the potent means for assuring judges their independence is a free press." and reiterated and amplified that Decision in its Resolution of 19 May
50 1988. In the first place, proof of actual damage sustained by a court or
Mr. Justice Malcolm of this Court expressed the same thought in the the judiciary in general is not essential for a finding of contempt or for the
following: application of the disciplinary authority of the Court. Insofar as the
"The Organic Act wisely guarantees freedom of speech and press. This Consolidated Petitions are concerned this Court after careful review of
constitutional right must be protected in its fullest extent. The Court has the bases of its 27 April 1988 Decision, denied respondent's Motion for
heretofore given evidence of its tolerant regard for charges under the reconsideration thereof and rejected the public pressures brought to bear
Libel Law which come dangerously close to its violation. We shall upon this Court by the respondent through his much publicized acts and
continue in this chosen path. The liberty of the citizens must be statements for which he is here being required to account. Obstructing
preserved in all of its completeness. But license or abuse of liberty of the the free and undisturbed resolution of a particular case is not the only
press and of the citizens should not be confused with liberty in its true species of injury that the Court has a right and a duty to prevent and
sense. As important as is the maintenance of unmuzzled press and the redress. What is at stake in cases of this kind is the integrity of the judicial
free exercise of the rights of the citizens is the maintenance of the institutions of the country in general and of the Supreme Court in
independence of the Judiciary. Respect for the Judiciary cannot be had particular. Damage to such institutions might not be quantifiable at a
if persons are privileged to scorn a resolution of the court adopted for given moment in time but damage there will surely by if acts like those of
good purposes, and if such persons are to be permitted by subterranean respondent Gonzalez are not effectively stopped and countered. The
means to diffuse inaccurate accounts of confidential proceedings to the level of trust and confidence of the general public in the courts, including
embarrassment of the parties and the courts." 51 (Italics supplied) the court of last resort, is not easily measured; but few will dispute that a
Only slightly (f at all ) less important is the public interest in the capacity high level of such trust and confidence is critical for the stability of
of the Court effectively to prevent and control professional misconduct democratic government.
on the part of lawyers who are, first and foremost, indispensable Respondent Gonzalez lastly suggest that punishment for contempt is not
participants in the task of rendering justice to every man. Some courts the proper remedy in this case and suggests that the members of this
have held, persuasively it appears to us, that a lawyer's right of free Court have recourse to libel suits against him. While the remedy of libel
expression may have to be more limited than that of a layman. 52 suits by individual members of this Court may well be available against
It is well to recall that respondent Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer respondent Gonzalez, such is by no means an exclusive remedy.
and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who owes duties Moreover, where as in the instant case, it is not only the individual
of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to this Court as the members of the Court but the Court itself as an institution that has been
embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the government falsely attacked, libel suits cannot be an adequate remedy. 57
of the republic. The responsibility of the respondent "to uphold the dignity The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt
and authority of this Court" and "not to promote distrust in the of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court
Page 48

administration of justice "53 is heavier that of a private practicing lawyer. and member of the Bar.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M. A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who
Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely and until further others from is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument
this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately. or document if:
Let copies of this Resolution be finished the Sandiganbayan, the 1. The notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or
Ombudsman, the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General and the make a mark to sign on his behalf;
Court of Appeals for their information and guidance. 2. The signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the
Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grio-Aquino,
instrument or document;
Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
3. Both witnesses sign their own names;
Raul M. Gonzalez suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.
4. The notary public writes below his signature: Signature
2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC: Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 affixed by notary in the presence of (names and addresses of
(August 1, 2004) person and two (2) witnesses), and
5. The notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment
Qualifications of a Notary Public or jurat (Rule IV, Section 1).
1. Must be citizen of the Philippines
2. Must be over twenty-one (21) years of age Prohibitions
3. Must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year General Rule: A notary public shall not perform a notarial act
and maintains a regular place of work or business in the city outside his regular place of work or business.
or province where the commission is to be issued Exceptions: A notarial act may be performed at the request of the
parties in the following sites located within his territorial
4. Must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with
jurisdiction:
clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the
a. Public offices, convention halls and similar places where
Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
oaths of office may be administered;
5. Must not have been convicted in the first instance of any
b. Public function areas in hotels and similar places for the
crime involving moral turpitude (Rule III, Section 1)
signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization;
c. Hospitals and medical institutions where a party to the
Jurisdiction and Term
instrument or document is confined for treatment; and
A notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years d. Any place where a party to the instrument or document
commencing on the 1st day of January of the year in which the requiring notarization is under detention.
commissioning is made UNLESS earlier revoked or the notary public has
resigned according to these Rules and the Rules of Court (Rule III, A person shall not perform a notarial act if:
Section 11). 1. the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document-
a. Is not in the notarys presence at the time of the notarization;
Powers and Limitations of Notaries Public and
Powers b. Is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise
A notary public is empowered to do the following acts: identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
(JAOSAC) identity as defined by these Rules (Rule IV, Section 2).
1. Acknowledgments; 2. the certificate containing an information known or believed to be
2. Oaths and affirmations; false; and
3. Jurats; 3. he shall not affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate
4. Signature witnessings; that is incomplete (Rule IV, Section 5).
5. Copy certifications; and
6. Any other act authorized by these Rules. Disqualifications
A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial if he:
signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument or 1) Is a party to the instrument or document;
document presented for notarization if: 2) Will receive, as a direct or indirect result any commission, fee,
1. The thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other
notary public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected consideration, except as provided that is to be notarized;
witnesses to the instrument or document; 3) Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or
2. Both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the
or other mark; fourth civil degree (Rule IV, Section 3).
3. The notary public writes below the thumb or other mark:
Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) When notary public may refuse to notarize even if appropriate fee
in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and is tendered:
undersigned notary public, and 1) When the notary knows or has good reason to believe
4. The notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or
immoral.
Page 49

mark through an acknowledgment, jurat or signature

witnessing.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
2) When the signatory shows a demeanor which The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who:
engenders in the mind of the notary public reasonable 1) Knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a
doubt as to the formers knowledge of the notary public;
consequences of the transaction requiring a notarial act. 2) Knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys
3) If in the notarys judgment, the signatory is not acting in the seal, notarial register, or official records of a
his/her own free will (Rule IV, Section 4). notary public; and
4) If the document or instrument to be notarized is Knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to
considered as an improper document by these Rules. commit official misconduct (Rule XII, Section 1).

A.C. No. 5838. January 17, 2005]

NOTE: A blank or incomplete instrument or document OR an
SPOUSES BENJAMIN SANTUYO AND EDITHA SANTUYO,
instrument or document without appropriate notarial certification is
complainants, vs. ATTY. EDWIN A. HIDALGO, respondent.
considered an Improper Instrument/Document (Rule IV, Section 6).
RESOLUTION
Notarial Certificates
CORONA, J.:
Contents of the Concluding part of the Notarial Certificate:
In a verified complaint-affidavit dated September 18, 2001,[1] spouses
1) The name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the
Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused respondent Atty. Edwin
commission;
A. Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty for breach of his
2) The serial number of the commission of the notary public; lawyers oath and the notarial law.
3) The words Notary Public and the province or city where the Complainants stated that sometime in December 1991, they purchased
notary public is commissioned, the expiration date of the a parcel of land covered by a deed of sale. The deed of sale was
commission and the office address of the notary public; and allegedly notarized by respondent lawyer and was entered in his notarial
4) The Roll of Attorneys number, the Professional Tax Receipt register as Doc. No. 94 on Page No. 19 in Book No. III, Series of 1991.
number and the place and date of issuance thereof and the Complainant spouses averred that about six years after the date of
IBP Membership number (Rule VIII, Section 2). notarization, they had a dispute with one Danilo German over the
ownership of the land. The case was estafa through falsification of a
Revocation of Commission public document.
The Executive Judge shall revoke a commission for any ground on which During the trial of the case, German presented in court an affidavit
an application for a commission may be denied. executed by respondent denying the authenticity of his signature on the
In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of or deed of sale. The spouses allegedly forged his notarial signature on said
impose sanctions upon any notary public who: deed.[2]
1) Fails to keep a notarial register; According to complainants, respondent overlooked the fact that the
2) Fails to make the appropriate entry or entries in his disputed deed of sale contained all the legal formalities of a duly
notarial register concerning his notarial acts; notarized document, including an impression of respondents notarial dry
3) Fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive seal. Not being persons who were learned in the technicalities
Judge within the first ten (10) days of the month surrounding a notarial act, spouses contended that they could not have
forged the signature of herein respondent. They added that they had no
following;
access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and could not have made
4) Fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration
any imprint of respondents seal or signature on the subject deed of sale
of his commission;
or elsewhere.[3]
5) Fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the In his answer[4] to the complaint, respondent denied the allegations
Executive Judge; against him. He denied having notarized any deed of sale covering the
6) Fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to disputed property. According to respondent, he once worked as a junior
the Executive Judge concerning the performance of his lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office where he was asked to
duties, as may be required by the Judge; apply for a notarial commission. While he admitted that he notarized
7) Fails to require the presence of the principal at the time several documents in that office, these, however, did not include the
of the notarial act; subject deed of sale. He explained that, as a matter of office procedure,
8) Fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal documents underwent scrutiny by the senior lawyers and it was only
knowledge or competent evidence; when they gave their approval that notarization was done. He claimed
9) Executes a false or incomplete certificate under that, in some occasions, the secretaries in the law firm, by themselves,
Section 5, Rule IV; would affix the dry seal of the junior associates on documents relating to
10) Knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act cases handled by the law firm. Respondent added that he normally
prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and required the parties to exhibit their community tax certificates and made
them personally acknowledge the documents before him as notary
11) Commits any other dereliction or act which in the
public. He would have remembered complainants had they actually
judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good
appeared before him. While he admitted knowing complainant Editha
cause for the revocation of the commission or
Santuyo, he said he met the latters husband and co-complainant only on
imposition of administrative sanction (Rule XI, Section November 5, 1997, or about six years from the time that he purportedly
1). notarized the deed of sale. Moreover, respondent stressed that an
Page 50

examination of his alleged signature on the deed of sale revealed that it

Punishable Acts

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
was forged; the strokes were smooth and mild. He suspected that a lady and is hereby SUSPENDED from his commission as a notary public for
was responsible for forging his signature. a period of two years, if he is commissioned, or if he is not, he is
To further refute the accusations against him, respondent stated that, at disqualified from an appointment as a notary public for a period of two
the time the subject deed of sale was supposedly notarized, on years from finality of this resolution, with a warning that a repetition of
December 27, 1991, he was on vacation. He surmised that complainants similar negligent acts would be dealt with more severely.
must have gone to the law office and enticed one of the secretaries, with SO ORDERED.
the concurrence of the senior lawyers, to notarize the document. He Panganiban, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales, and
claimed he was a victim of a criminal scheme motivated by greed. Garcia, JJ., concur.
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
for investigation, report and recommendation. In a report[5] it submitted A.C. No. 5864 April 15, 2005
to the Court, the IBP noted that the alleged forged signature of ARTURO L. SICAT, Complainant,
respondent on the deed of sale was different from his signatures in other vs.
documents he submitted during the investigation of the present case.[6] ATTY. GREGORIO E. ARIOLA, JR., respondent.
However, it ruled that respondent was also negligent because he allowed
the office secretaries to perform his notarial functions, including the RESOLUTION
safekeeping of his notarial dry seal and notarial register.[7]It thus PER CURIAM:
recommended: In an affidavit-complaint,1 complainant Arturo L. Sicat, a Board Member
WHEREFORE[,] in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended of the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty.
that respondents commission as notary public be revoked for two (2) Gregorio E. Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal, with
years if he is commissioned as such; or he should not be granted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud,
commission as notary public for two (2) years upon receipt hereof.[8] deceit and falsehood in his dealings, particularly the notarization of a
After going over the evidence submitted by the parties, complainants did Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by a one Juanito
not categorically state that they appeared before respondent to have the C. Benitez. According to complainant, respondent made it appear that
deed of sale notarized. Their appearance before him could have Benitez executed the said document on January 4, 2001 when in fact the
bolstered this allegation that respondent signed the document and that it latter had already died on October 25, 2000.
was not a forgery as he claimed. The records show that complainants He alleged that prior to the notarization, the Municipality of Cainta had
themselves were not sure if respondent, indeed, signed the document; entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical
what they were sure of was the fact that his signature appeared thereon. Management, represented by Benitez, for the construction of low-cost
They had no personal knowledge as well as to who actually affixed the houses. The cost of the architectural and engineering designs amounted
signature of respondent on the deed. to P11,000,000 and two consultants were engaged to supervise the
Furthermore, complainants did not refute respondents contention that he project. For the services of the consultants, the Municipality of Cainta
only met complainant Benjamin Santuyo six years after the alleged issued a check dated January 10, 2001 in the amount of P3,700,000,
notarization of the deed of sale. Respondents assertion was payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical Management and/or
corroborated by one Mrs. Lyn Santy in an affidavit executed on Cesar Goco. The check was received and encashed by the latter by
November 17, 2001[9] wherein she stated that complainant Editha virtue of the authority of the SPA notarized by respondent Ariola.
Santuyo had to invite respondent to her house on November 5, 1997 to Complainant further charged respondent with the crime of falsification
meet her husband since the two had to be introduced to each other. The penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code by making it
meeting between complainant Benjamin Santuyo and respondent was appear that certain persons participated in an act or proceeding when in
arranged after the latter insisted that Mr. Santuyo personally fact they did not.
acknowledge a deed of sale concerning another property that the In his Comment,2 respondent explained that, as early as May 12, 2000,
spouses bought. Benitez had already signed the SPA. He claimed that due to
In finding respondent negligent in performing his notarial functions, the inadvertence, it was only on January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize
IBP reasoned out: it. Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him on January 4, 2001 was not
xxx xxx xxx. at all necessary because Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of
Considering that the responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive Goco sometime before his death, on May 12, 2000. Because it was no
respondent should have been more discreet and cautious in the longer necessary, the SPA was cancelled the same day he notarized it,
execution of his duties as such and should not have wholly entrusted hence, legally, there was no public document that existed. Respondent
everything to the secretaries; otherwise he should not have been prayed that the complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum-shopping
commissioned as notary public. since similar charges had been filed with the Civil Service Commission
For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of the and the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. According to him,
document for notarization to the secretary there can be a possibility that the complaints were later dismissed based on findings that the assailed
even the respondents signature which is the only one left for him to do act referred to violations of the implementing rules and regulations of PD
can be done by the secretary or anybody for that matter as had been the 1594,3 PD 1445,4 RA 71605 and other pertinent rules of the Commission
case herein. on Audit (COA). He stressed that no criminal and administrative charges
As it is respondent had been negligent not only in the supposed were recommended for filing against him.
notarization but foremost in having allowed the office secretaries to make In a Resolution dated March 12, 2003,6 the Court referred the complaint
the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was supposed to be to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
done and kept by him alone; and should not have relied on somebody recommendation. On August 26, 2003, the IBP submitted its
else.[10] investigation report:
Page 51

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo is hereby found x x x it is evident that respondent notarized the Special Power of Attorney
GUILTY of negligence in the performance of his duties as notary public dated 4 January 2001 purportedly executed by Juanito C. Benitez long

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
after Mr. Benitez was dead. It is also evident that respondent cannot of the very Municipality of which he was the Administrator. According to
feign innocence and claim that he did not know Mr. Benitez was already the COA Special Task Force:
dead at the time because respondent, as member of the Prequalification Almost all acts of falsification of public documents as enumerated in
and Awards Committee of the Municipality of Cainta, personally knew Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code were
Mr. Benitez because the latter appeared before the Committee a number evident in the transactions of the Municipality of Cainta with J.C. Benitez
of times. It is evident that the Special Power of Attorney dated 4 January & Architects Technical Management for the consultancy services in the
2001 was part of a scheme of individuals to defraud the Municipality of conduct of Detailed Feasibility Study and Detailed Engineering Design
Cainta of money which was allegedly due them, and that respondent by of the Proposed Construction of Cainta Municipal Medium Rise Low Cost
notarizing said Special Power of Attorney helped said parties succeed in Housing, in the contract amount of P11,000,000. The agent resorted to
their plans.7 misrepresentation, manufacture or fabrication of fictitious document,
The IBP recommended to the Court that respondent's notarial untruthful narration of facts, misrepresentation, and counterfeiting or
commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the practice of imitating signature for the purpose of creating a fraudulent contract. All
law for a period of one year.8 these were tainted with deceit perpetrated against the government
After a careful review of the records, we find that respondent never resulting to undue injury. The first and partial payment, in the amount
disputed complainant's accusation that he notarized the SPA purportedly of P3,700,000.00 was made in the absence of the required outputs. x x
executed by Benitez on January 4, 2001. He likewise never took issue x15
with the fact that on said date, Benitez was already dead. His act was a We need not say more except that we are constrained to change the
serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed upon him by the Code penalty recommended by the IBP which we find too light.
of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., is found guilty of
prohibited him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
conduct. As a lawyer and as an officer of the court, it was his duty to Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant
serve the ends of justice,9 not to corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected and entered in the records of respondent, and brought to the immediate
to act at all times in accordance with law and ethics, and if he did not, he attention of the Ombudsman.
would not only injure himself and the public but also bring reproach upon SO ORDERED.
an honorable profession.10
In the recent case of Zaballero v. Atty. Mario J. Montalvan,11 where the RULE 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
respondent notarized certain documents and made it appear that the immoral or deceitful conduct.
deceased father of complainant executed them, the Court declared the
respondent there guilty of violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of [A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000]
Professional Responsibility.12 The Court was emphatic that lawyers LESLIE UI, complainant, vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, respondent.
commissioned as notaries public should not authenticate documents DECISION
unless the persons who signed them are the very same persons who DE LEON, JR., J.:
executed them and personally appeared before them to attest to the Before us is an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iris
contents and truth of what are stated therein. The Court added that Bonifacio for allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship with Carlos L.
notaries public must observe utmost fidelity, the basic requirement in the Ui, husband of complainant, Leslie Ui.
performance of their duties, otherwise the confidence of the public in the The relevant facts are:
integrity of notarized deeds and documents will be undermined. On January 24, 1971 complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos L. Ui at the
In the case at bar, the records show that Benitez died on October 25, Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City[1] and as a result of their
2000. However, respondent notarized the SPA, purportedly bearing the marital union, they had four (4) children, namely, Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay
signature of Benitez, on January 4, 2001 or more than two months after and Carl Cavin, all surnamed Ui. Sometime in December 1987, however,
the latter's death. The notarial acknowledgement of respondent declared complainant found out that her husband, Carlos Ui, was carrying on an
that Benitez "appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot
was his free and voluntary act." Clearly, respondent lied and intentionally a daughter sometime in 1986, and that they had been living together at
perpetuated an untruthful statement. Notarization is not an empty, No. 527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa City.
meaningless and routinary act.13 It converts a private document into a Respondent who is a graduate of the College of Law of the University of
public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity the Philippines was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982.
of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.14 Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with the respondent.
Neither will respondent's defense that the SPA in question was Complainant then visited respondent at her office in the later part of June
superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, exonerate him of 1988 and introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos Ui. Whereupon,
accountability. His assertion of falsehood in a public document respondent admitted to her that she has a child with Carlos Ui and
contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and alleged, however, that everything was over between her and Carlos Ui.
potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act. As the Complainant believed the representations of respondent and thought
Municipal Administrator of Cainta, he should have been aware of his things would turn out well from then on and that the illicit relationship
great responsibility not only as a notary public but as a public officer as between her husband and respondent would come to an end.
well. A public office is a public trust. Respondent should not have caused However, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship
disservice to his constituents by consciously performing an act that between her husband and respondent continued, and that sometime in
would deceive them and the Municipality of Cainta. Without the December 1988, respondent and her husband, Carlos Ui, had a second
fraudulent SPA, the erring parties in the construction project could not child. Complainant then met again with respondent sometime in March
have encashed the check amounting to P3,700,000 and could not have 1989 and pleaded with respondent to discontinue her illicit relationship
Page 52

foisted on the public a spurious contract all to the extreme prejudice with Carlos Ui but to no avail. The illicit relationship persisted and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
complainant even came to know later on that respondent had been 1987 when she and respondent Carlos were still living at No. 26 Potsdam
employed by her husband in his company. Street, Northeast Greenhills, San Juan, MetroManila and they,
A complaint for disbarment, docketed as Adm. Case No. 3319, was then admittedly, continued to live together at their conjugal home up to early
filed on August 11, 1989 by the complainant against respondent Atty. Iris (sic) part of 1989 or later 1988, when respondent Carlos left the same.
Bonifacio before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar From the above, it would not be amiss to conclude that altho (sic) the
of the Philippines (hereinafter, Commission) on the ground of immorality, relationship, illicit as complainant puts it, had been prima facie
more particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the established by complainants evidence, this same evidence had failed to
complainants husband, Carlos Ui. In her Answer,[2] respondent averred even prima facie establish the "fact of respondents cohabitation in the
that she met Carlos Ui sometime in 1983 and had known him all along concept of husband and wife at the 527 San Carlos St., Ayala Alabang
to be a bachelor, with the knowledge, however, that Carlos Ui had house, proof of which is necessary and indispensable to at least create
children by a Chinese woman in Amoy, China, from whom he had long probable cause for the offense charged. The statement alone of
been estranged. She stated that during one of their trips abroad, Carlos complainant, worse, a statement only of a conclusion respecting the fact
Ui formalized his intention to marry her and they in fact got married in of cohabitation does not make the complainants evidence thereto any
Hawaii, USA in 1985[3]. Upon their return to Manila, respondent did not better/stronger (U.S. vs. Casipong and Mongoy, 20 Phil. 178).
live with Carlos Ui. The latter continued to live with his children in their It is worth stating that the evidence submitted by respondents in support
Greenhills residence because respondent and Carlos Ui wanted to let of their respective positions on the matter support and bolster the
the children gradually to know and accept the fact of his second marriage foregoing conclusion/recommendation.
before they would live together.[4] WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that the instant
In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in Honolulu, Hawaii and complaint be dismissed for want of evidence to establish probable cause
she would only return occasionally to the Philippines to update her law for the offense charged.
practice and renew legal ties. During one of her trips to Manila sometime RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.[8]
in June 1988, respondent was surprised when she was confronted by a Complainant appealed the said Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of
woman who insisted that she was the lawful wife of Carlos Ui. Hurt and Rizal to the Secretary of Justice, but the same was dismissed [9] on the
desolate upon her discovery of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove her allegation that
respondent then left for Honolulu, Hawaii sometime in July 1988 and respondent and Carlos Ui lived together as husband and wife at 527 San
returned only in March 1989 with her two (2) children. On March 20, Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.
1989, a few days after she reported to work with the law firm [5] she was In the proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,
connected with, the woman who represented herself to be the wife of complainant filed a Motion to Cite Respondent in Contempt of the
Carlos Ui again came to her office, demanding to know if Carlos Ui has Commission [10] wherein she charged respondent with making false
been communicating with her. allegations in her Answer and for submitting a supporting document
It is respondents contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not which was altered and intercalated. She alleged that in the Answer of
illicit because they were married abroad and that after June 1988 when respondent filed before the Integrated Bar, respondent averred, among
respondent discovered Carlos Uis true civil status, she cut off all her ties others, that she was married to Carlos Ui on October 22, 1985 and
with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her in attached a Certificate of Marriage to substantiate her averment.
Alabang, and that he resided at 26 Potsdam Street, Greenhills, San However, the Certificate of Marriage [11] duly certified by the State
Juan, Metro Manila. It was respondent who lived in Alabang in a house Registrar as a true copy of the record on file in the Hawaii State
which belonged to her mother, Rosalinda L. Bonifacio; and that the said Department of Health, and duly authenticated by the Philippine
house was built exclusively from her parents funds.[6] By way of Consulate General in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA revealed that the date of
counterclaim, respondent sought moral damages in the amount of Ten marriage between Carlos Ui and respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio was
Million Pesos (Php10,000,000.00) against complainant for having filed October 22, 1987, and not October 22, 1985 as claimed by respondent
the present allegedly malicious and groundless disbarment case against in her Answer. According to complainant, the reason for that false
respondent. allegation was because respondent wanted to impress upon the said IBP
In her Reply[7] dated April 6, 1990, complainant states, among others, that the birth of her first child by Carlos Ui was within the wedlock.[12] It is
that respondent knew perfectly well that Carlos Ui was married to the contention of complainant that such act constitutes a violation of
complainant and had children with her even at the start of her relationship Articles 183[13] and 184[14] of the Revised Penal Code, and also contempt
with Carlos Ui, and that the reason respondent went abroad was to give of the Commission; and that the act of respondent in making false
birth to her two (2) children with Carlos Ui. allegations in her Answer and submitting an altered/intercalated
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Integrated Bar, document are indicative of her moral perversity and lack of integrity
complainant also charged her husband, Carlos Ui, and respondent with which make her unworthy to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
the crime of Concubinage before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of In her Opposition (To Motion To Cite Respondent in
Rizal, docketed as I.S. No. 89-5247, but the same was dismissed for Contempt),[15] respondent averred that she did not have the original copy
insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for the offense of the marriage certificate because the same was in the possession of
charged. The resolution dismissing the criminal complaint against Carlos Ui, and that she annexed such copy because she relied in good
respondent reads: faith on what appeared on the copy of the marriage certificate in her
Complainants evidence had prima facie established the existence of the possession.
"illicit relationship" between the respondents allegedly discovered by the Respondent filed her Memorandum [16] on February 22, 1995 and raised
complainant in December 1987. The same evidence however show that the lone issue of whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral
respondent Carlos Ui was still living with complainant up to the latter part manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law.
of 1988 and/or the early part of 1989. Respondent averred that the complaint should be dismissed on two (2)
Page 53

It would therefore be logical and safe to state that the "relationship" of grounds, namely:
respondents started and was discovered by complainant sometime in

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
(i) Respondent conducted herself in a manner consistent with the mother knew Carlos Ui to be a married man does not prove that such
requirement of good moral character for the practice of the legal information was made known to respondent.
profession; and Hearing on the case ensued, after which the Commission on Bar
(ii) Complainant failed to prove her allegation that respondent conducted Discipline submitted its Report and Recommendation, finding that:
herself in an immoral manner.[17] In the case at bar, it is alleged that at the time respondent was courted
In her defense, respondent contends, among others, that it was she who by Carlos Ui, the latter represented himself to be single. The Commission
was the victim in this case and not Leslie Ui because she did not know does not find said claim too difficult to believe in the light of contemporary
that Carlos Ui was already married, and that upon learning of this fact, human experience.
respondent immediately cut-off all her ties with Carlos Ui. She stated that Almost always, when a married man courts a single woman, he
there was no reason for her to doubt at that time that the civil status of represents himself to be single, separated, or without any firm
Carlos Ui was that of a bachelor because he spent so much time with commitment to another woman. The reason therefor is not hard to
her, and he was so open in his courtship.[18] fathom. By their very nature, single women prefer single men.
On the issue of the falsified marriage certificate, respondent alleged that The records will show that when respondent became aware the (sic) true
it was highly incredible for her to have knowingly attached such marriage civil status of Carlos Ui, she left for the United States (in July of 1988).
certificate to her Answer had she known that the same was altered. She broke off all contacts with him. When she returned to the Philippines
Respondent reiterated that there was no compelling reason for her to in March of 1989, she lived with her brother, Atty. Teodoro Bonifacio, Jr.
make it appear that her marriage to Carlos Ui took place either in 1985 Carlos Ui and respondent only talked to each other because of the
or 1987, because the fact remains that respondent and Carlos Ui got children whom he was allowed to visit. At no time did they live together.
married before complainant confronted respondent and informed the Under the foregoing circumstances, the Commission fails to find any act
latter of her earlier marriage to Carlos Ui in June 1988. Further, on the part of respondent that can be considered as unprincipled or
respondent stated that it was Carlos Ui who testified and admitted that disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. To be sure, she was
he was the person responsible for changing the date of the marriage more of a victim that (sic) anything else and should deserve compassion
certificate from 1987 to 1985, and complainant did not present evidence rather than condemnation. Without cavil, this sad episode destroyed her
to rebut the testimony of Carlos Ui on this matter. chance of having a normal and happy family life, a dream cherished by
Respondent posits that complainants evidence, consisting of the pictures every single girl.
of respondent with a child, pictures of respondent with Carlos Ui, a x..........................x..........................x"
picture of a garage with cars, a picture of a light colored car with Plate Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
No. PNS 313, a picture of the same car, and portion of the house and Philippines issued a Notice of Resolution dated December 13, 1997, the
ground, and another picture of the same car bearing Plate No. PNS 313 dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
and a picture of the house and the garage,[19] does not prove that she RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
acted in an immoral manner. They have no evidentiary value according APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
to her. The pictures were taken by a photographer from a private security Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
agency and who was not presented during the hearings. Further, the Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and, finding the recommendation fully
respondent presented the Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig in supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
I.S. Case No. 89-5427 dismissing the complaint filed by Leslie Ui against the complaint for Gross Immorality against Respondent is DISMISSED
respondent for lack of evidence to establish probable cause for the for lack of merit. Atty. Iris Bonifacio is REPRIMANDED for knowingly and
offense charged [20] and the dismissal of the appeal by the Department willfully attaching to her Answer a falsified Certificate of Marriage with a
of Justice [21]to bolster her argument that she was not guilty of any stern warning that a repetition of the same will merit a more severe
immoral or illegal act because of her relationship with Carlos Ui. In fine, penalty."
respondent claims that she entered the relationship with Carlos Ui in We agree with the findings aforequoted.
good faith and that her conduct cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right
or shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. She fell in love with to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar
Carlos Ui whom she believed to be single, and, that upon her discovery examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the
of his true civil status, she parted ways with him. mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates
In the Memorandum [22] filed on March 20, 1995 by complainant Leslie of legal ethics. The requisites for admission to the practice of law are:
Ui, she prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Iris Bonifacio and reiterated a. he must be a citizen of the Philippines;
that respondent committed immorality by having intimate relations with a b. a resident thereof;
married man which resulted in the birth of two (2) children. Complainant c. at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
testified that respondents mother, Mrs. Linda Bonifacio, personally knew d. a person of good moral character;
complainant and her husband since the late 1970s because they were e. he must show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude,
clients of the bank where Mrs. Bonifacio was the Branch Manager.[23] It are filed or pending in court;
was thus highly improbable that respondent, who was living with her f. possess the required educational qualifications; and
parents as of 1986, would not have been informed by her own mother g. pass the bar examinations.[25] (Italics supplied)
that Carlos Ui was a married man. Complainant likewise averred that Clear from the foregoing is that one of the conditions prior to admission
respondent committed disrespect towards the Commission for to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. More
submitting a photocopy of a document containing an intercalated date. importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as
In her Reply to Complainants Memorandum [24], respondent stated that a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise,
complainant miserably failed to show sufficient proof to warrant her the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. It has
disbarment. Respondent insists that contrary to the allegations of been held -
Page 54

complainant, there is no showing that respondent had knowledge of the If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then
fact of marriage of Carlos Ui to complainant. The allegation that her the continued possession of good moral character is also a requisite for

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
retaining membership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may the Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if she establishes her
be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.[30] This, herein
(Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865). complainant miserably failed to do.
A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of On the matter of the falsified Certificate of Marriage attached by
his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar respondent to her Answer, we find improbable to believe the averment
should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity. of respondent that she merely relied on the photocopy of the Marriage
It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to Certificate which was provided her by Carlos Ui. For an event as
what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency significant as a marriage ceremony, any normal bride would verily recall
and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member the date and year of her marriage. It is difficult to fathom how a bride,
of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional especially a lawyer as in the case at bar, can forget the year when she
behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that got married. Simply stated, it is contrary to human experience and highly
warrants disbarment. improbable.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, Furthermore, any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the in an attachment to her pleading, especially so when she has personal
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community." (7 knowledge of the facts and circumstances contained therein. In attaching
C.J.S. 959).[26] such Marriage Certificate with an intercalated date, the defense of good
In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that when faith of respondent on that point cannot stand.
she met Carlos Ui, she knew and believed him to be single. Respondent It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest
fell in love with him and they got married and as a result of such marriage, standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members
she gave birth to two (2) children. Upon her knowledge of the true civil nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the
status of Carlos Ui, she left him. Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their
Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest
of respondent are not only far from simple, they will have a rippling effect degree of morality.
on how the standard norms of our legal practitioners should be defined. WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty.
Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, is hereby DISMISSED.
to be before. This permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers However, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED for attaching to her
of public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility Answer a photocopy of her Marriage Certificate, with an altered or
and thus must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. The intercalated date thereof, with a STERN WARNING that a more severe
facts of this case lead us to believe that perhaps respondent would not sanction will be imposed on her for any repetition of the same or similar
have found herself in such a compromising situation had she exercised offense in the future.
prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Uis SO ORDERED.
personal background prior to her intimate involvement with him.
Surely, circumstances existed which should have at least aroused [SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997]
respondents suspicion that something was amiss in her relationship with PATRICIA FIGUEROA, complainant, vs. SIMEON BARRANCO,
Carlos Ui, and moved her to ask probing questions. For instance, JR., respondent.
respondent admitted that she knew that Carlos Ui had children with a RESOLUTION
woman from Amoy, China, yet it appeared that she never exerted the ROMERO, J.:
slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman were indeed In a complaint made way back in 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that
unmarried. Also, despite their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to the legal
with respondent and their first child, a circumstance that is simply profession. Respondent had passed the 1970 bar examinations on the
incomprehensible considering respondents allegation that Carlos Ui was fourth attempt, after unsuccessful attempts in 1966, 1967 and
very open in courting her. 1968. Before he could take his oath, however, complainant filed the
All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that instant petition averring that respondent and she had been sweethearts,
respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, that a child out of wedlock was born to them and that respondent did not
the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was fulfill his repeated promises to marry her.
with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be The facts were manifested in hearings held before Investigator Victor F.
considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows Sevilla in June and July 1971. Respondent and complainant were
indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and townmates in Janiuay, Iloilo. Since 1953, when they were both in their
respectable members of the community.[27] Moreover, for such conduct teens, they were steadies. Respondent even acted as escort to
to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral," that complainant when she reigned as Queen at the 1953 town
is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so fiesta. Complainant first acceded to sexual congress with respondent
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.[28] sometime in 1960. Their intimacy yielded a son, Rafael Barranco, born
We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not on December 11, 1964.[1] It was after the child was born, complainant
only required to refrain from adulterous relationships x x x but must also alleged, that respondent first promised he would marry her after he
so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the passes the bar examinations. Their relationship continued and
belief that he is flouting those moral standards."[29] Respondents act of respondent allegedly made more than twenty or thirty promises of
immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true marriage. He gave only P10.00 for the child on the latters birthdays. Her
civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she trust in him and their relationship ended in 1971, when she learned that
had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the respondent married another woman.Hence, this petition.
Page 55

legal profession. Complainants bare assertions to the contrary deserve Upon complainants motion, the Court authorized the taking of
no credit. After all, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and testimonies of witnesses by deposition in 1972. On February 18, 1974,

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss the case citing perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any
complainants failure to comment on the motion of Judge Cuello seeking other reason.
to be relieved from the duty to take aforesaid testimonies by We cannot help viewing the instant complaint as an act of revenge of a
deposition. Complainant filed her comment stating that she had woman scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the end. It is also intended to
justifiable reasons in failing to file the earlier comment required and that make respondent suffer severely and it seems, perpetually, sacrificing
she remains interested in the resolution of the present case. On June 18, the profession he worked very hard to be admitted into. Even assuming
1974, the Court denied respondents motion to dismiss. that his past indiscretions are ignoble, the twenty-six years that
On October 2, 1980, the Court once again denied a motion to dismiss on respondent has been prevented from being a lawyer constitute sufficient
the ground of abandonment filed by respondent on September 17, punishment therefor. During this time there appears to be no other
1979.[2] Respondents third motion to dismiss was noted in the Courts indiscretion attributed to him.[10] Respondent, who is now sixty-two years
Resolution dated September 15, 1982.[3] In 1988, respondent repeated of age, should thus be allowed, albeit belatedly, to take the lawyers oath.
his request, citing his election as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent
of Janiuay, Iloilo from 1980-1986, his active participation in civic Simeon Barranco, Jr. is ALLOWED to take his oath as a lawyer upon
organizations and good standing in the community as well as the length payment of the proper fees.
of time this case has been pending as reasons to allow him to take his SO ORDERED.
oath as a lawyer.[4]
On September 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for [A.C. No. 4585. November 12, 2004]
failure of complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period MICHAEL P. BARRIOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO P.
of time and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyers oath upon MARTINEZ, respondent
payment of the required fees.[5] DECISION
Respondents hopes were again dashed on November 17, 1988 when PER CURIAM:
the Court, in response to complainants opposition, resolved to cancel his This is a verified petition[1] for disbarment filed against Atty. Francisco
scheduled oath-taking. On June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to Martinez for having been convicted by final judgment in Criminal Case
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and No. 6608 of a crime involving moral turpitude by Branch 8 of the Regional
recommendation. Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City.[2]
The IBPs report dated May 17, 1997 recommended the dismissal of the The dispositive portion of the same states:
case and that respondent be allowed to take the lawyers oath. WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Francisco Martinez guilty
We agree. beyond reasonable doubt of the crime for (sic) violation of Batas
Respondent was prevented from taking the lawyers oath in 1971 Pambansa Blg. 22 charged in the Information. He is imposed a penalty
because of the charges of gross immorality made by complainant. To of ONE (1) YEAR imprisonment and fine double the amount of the check
recapitulate, respondent bore an illegitimate child with his sweetheart, which is EIGHT THOUSAND (8,000.00) PESOS, plus payment of the tax
Patricia Figueroa, who also claims that he did not fulfill his promise to pursuant to Section 205 of the Internal Revenue Code and costs against
marry her after he passes the bar examinations. the accused.[3]
We find that these facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the Complainant further submitted our Resolution dated 13 March 1996 and
permanent exclusion of respondent from the legal profession. His the Entry of Judgment from this Court dated 20 March 1996.
engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises On 03 July 1996, we required[4] respondent to comment on said petition
to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part but the same within ten (10) days from notice. On 17 February 1997, we issued a
does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court has held that to second resolution[5] requiring him to show cause why no disciplinary
justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be action should be imposed on him for failure to comply with our earlier
immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so Resolution, and to submit said Comment. On 07 July 1997, we imposed
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or a fine of P1,000 for respondents failure to file said Comment and required
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.[6] It is a willful, him to comply with our previous resolution within ten days.[6] On 27 April
flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the 1998, we fined respondent an additional P2,000 and required him to
opinion of respectable members of the community.[7] comply with the resolution requiring his comment within ten days under
We find the ruling in Arciga v. Maniwang[8] quite relevant because mere pain of imprisonment and arrest for a period of five (5) days or until his
intimacy between a man and a woman, both of whom possess no compliance.[7] Finally, on 03 February 1999, or almost three years later,
impediment to marry, voluntarily carried on and devoid of any deceit on we declared respondent Martinez guilty of Contempt under Rule 71, Sec.
the part of respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled as to 3[b] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered his imprisonment
warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a until he complied with the aforesaid resolutions.[8]
result of such relationship a child was born out of wedlock.[9] On 05 April 1999, the National Bureau of Investigation reported[9] that
Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose sexual relations respondent was arrested in Tacloban City on 26 March 1999, but was
were evidently consensual. We do not find complainants assertions that subsequently released after having shown proof of compliance with the
she had been forced into sexual intercourse, credible. She continued to resolutions of 17 February 1997 and 27 April 1998 by remitting the
see and be respondents girlfriend even after she had given birth to a son amount of P2,000 and submitting his long overdue Comment.
in 1964 and until 1971. All those years of amicable and intimate relations In the said Comment[10] dated 16 March 1999, respondent stated that:
refute her allegations that she was forced to have sexual congress with 1. He failed to respond to our Resolution dated 17 February 1997 as he
him. Complainant was then an adult who voluntarily and actively pursued was at that time undergoing medical treatment at Camp Ruperto
their relationship and was not an innocent young girl who could be easily Kangleon in Palo, Leyte;
led astray. Unfortunately, respondent chose to marry and settle 2. Complainant Michael Barrios passed away sometime in June 1997;
Page 56

permanently with another woman. We cannot castigate a man for and

seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a sacred and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which was WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended
decided in respondents favor (as plaintiff in the said case). Respondent that respondent Atty. Francisco P. Martinez be disbarred and his name
avers that as a result of his moving for the execution of judgment in his stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys immediately.
favor and the eviction of the family of herein complainant Michael Barrios, On 27 September 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed a
the latter filed the present administrative case. Resolution[16] adopting and approving the report and recommendation of
In the meantime, on 11 September 1997, a certain Robert Visbal of the its Investigating Commissioner.
Provincial Prosecution Office of Tacloban City submitted a letter[11] to the On 03 December 2003, respondent Martinez filed a Motion for
First Division Clerk of Court alleging that respondent Martinez also stood Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation,[17] in the instant case alleging
charged in another estafa case before the Regional Trial Court of that:
Tacloban City, Branch 9, as well as a civil case involving the victims of 1. The Report and Recommendation of the IBP Investigating
the Doa Paz tragedy in 1987, for which the Regional Trial Court of Basey, Commissioner is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due
Samar, Branch 30 rendered a decision against him, his appeal thereto process of law, although admittedly the practice of law is a privilege;
having been dismissed by the Court of Appeals. 2. If respondent is given another chance to have his day in court and
In the said Decision of Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of allowed to adduce evidence, the result/outcome would be entirely
Basey, Samar,[12] it appears that herein respondent Atty. Martinez different from that arrived at by the Investigating Commissioner; and
offered his legal services to the victims of the Doa Paz tragedy for 3. Respondent is now 71 years of age, and has served the judiciary in
free. However, when the plaintiff in the said civil case was issued a check various capacities (from acting city judge to Municipal Judges League
for P90,000 by Sulpicio Lines representing compensation for the deaths Leyte Chapter President) for almost 17 years prior to resuming his law
of his wife and two daughters,Atty. Martinez asked plaintiff to endorse practice.
said check, which was then deposited in the account of Dr. Martinez, On 14 January 2004, we required[18] complainant to file a comment within
Atty. Martinezs wife. When plaintiff asked for his money, he was only ten days. On 16 February 2004, we received a Manifestation and
able to recover a total of P30,000. Atty. Martinez claimed the remaining Motion[19] from complainants daughter, Diane Francis Barrios Latoja,
P60,000 as his attorneys fees. Holding that it was absurd and totally alleging that they had not been furnished with a copy of respondents
ridiculous that for a simple legal service he would collect 2/3 of the money Motion, notwithstanding the fact that respondent ostensibly lives next
claim, the trial court ordered Atty. Martinez to pay the plaintiff therein the door to complainants family. Required to Comment on 17 May 2004,
amount of P60,000 with interest, P5,000 for moral and exemplary respondent has until now failed to do so.
damages, and the costs of the suit. The records show that respondent, indeed, failed to furnish a copy of
Said trial court also made particular mention of Martinezs dilatory tactics said Motion to herein complainant. The records also show that
during the trial, citing fourteen (14) specific instances thereof. Martinezs respondent was given several opportunities to present evidence by this
appeal from the above judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeals Court[20] as well as by the IBP.[21] Indeed, he only has himself to blame,
for his failure to file his brief, despite having been granted three thirty for he has failed to present his case despite several occasions to do so. It
(30)-day extensions to do so.[13] is now too late in the day for respondent to ask this court to receive his
On 16 June 1999, we referred[14] the present case to the Integrated Bar evidence.
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. This court, moreover, is unwilling to exercise the same patience that it
The report[15] of IBP Investigating Commissioner Winston D. Abuyuan did when it waited for his comment on the original petition. At any rate,
stated in part that: after a careful consideration of the records of the instant case, we find
Several dates for the hearing of the case were scheduled but none of the the evidence on record sufficient to support the IBPs findings.
parties appeared before the Commission, until finally it was considered Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may
submitted for resolution last 27 June 2002. On the same date respondent be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
complainant died sometime in June 1997 and that dismissal is warranted office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
because the case filed by him does not survive due to his demise; as a involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death. required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
We disagree with respondents contention. of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
Honorable Supreme Court or the IBP may motu proprio initiate the In the present case, respondent has been found guilty and convicted by
proceedings when they perceive acts of lawyers which deserve final judgment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing a worthless check
sanctions or when their attention is called by any one and a probable in the amount of P8,000. The issue with which we are now concerned is
cause exists that an act has been perpetrated by a lawyer which requires whether or not the said crime is one involving moral turpitude. [22]
disciplinary sanctions. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
As earlier cited, respondent lawyers propensity to disregard or ignore honesty, modesty, or good morals.[23] It involves an act of baseness,
orders of the Honorable Supreme Court for which he was fined twice, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow
arrested and imprisoned reflects an utter lack of good moral character. men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary
Respondents conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (estafa rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to
and/or violation of BP Blg. 22) clearly shows his unfitness to protect the justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.[24]
administration of justice and therefore justifies the imposition of In People of the Philippines v. Atty. Fe Tuanda,[25] where the erring
sanctions against him (see In re: Abesamis, 102 Phil. 1182; In lawyer was indefinitely suspended for having been convicted of three
re: Jaramillo, 101 Phil. 323; In re: Vinzon, 19 SCRA 815; Medina vs. counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, we held that conviction by final
Bautista, 12 SCRA 1, People vs. Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 Jan. judgment of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 involves moral turpitude and stated:
Page 57

1990). We should add that the crimes of which respondent was convicted
also import deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and the Code of

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to "obey him, the court may be justified in suspending or removing him from the
the laws of the land." Conviction of a crime involving moral office of attorney.[30]
turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to a
not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however, deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable. As
itcertainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person respondent himself admits, the practice of law is a privilege. The purpose
convicted of such offense[26] (emphasis supplied) of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice
Over ten years later, we reiterated the above ruling in Villaber v. by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be
Commission on Elections[27] and disqualified a congressional candidate competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may
for having been sentenced by final judgment for three counts of violation repose confidence.[31] A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not
of B.P. Blg. 22 in accordance with Sec. 12 of the Omnibus Election Code, in any sense a civil action where the complainant is plaintiff and the
which states: respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
SEC. 12. Disqualifications. Any person who has been declared by private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are
competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, and for the
final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministrations of
for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen persons unfit to practice them.[32] Verily, lawyers must at all times
months, or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary their clients. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of
pardon or granted amnesty. (emphasis supplied) the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Enumerating the elements of that crime, we held that the act of a person Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or
in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing
does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good
check in full upon its presentment, is a manifestation of moral demeanor or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court.[33]
turpitude. Notwithstanding therein petitioners averment that he was not Nor are we inclined to look with favor upon respondents plea that if given
a lawyer, we nevertheless applied our ruling in People v. Tuanda, to the another chance to have his day in court and to adduce evidence, the
effect that result/outcome would be entirely different from that arrived at. We note
(A) conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, imports deceit and certainly with displeasure the inordinate length of time respondent took in
relates to and affects the good moral character of a person. [Indeed] the responding to our requirement to submit his Comment on the original
effects of the issuance of a worthless check, as we held in the landmark petition to disbar him.These acts constitute a willful disobedience of the
case of Lozano v. Martinez, through Justice Pedro L. Yap, transcends lawful orders of this Court, which under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and of Court is in itself a cause sufficient for suspension or disbarment.Thus,
touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates from the time we issued our first Resolution on 03 July 1996 requiring
is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public him to submit his Comment, until 16 March 1999, when he submitted
since the circulation of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute said Comment to secure his release from arrest, almost three years had
the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and elapsed.
eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus, It is revealing that despite the unwarranted length of time it took
paraphrasing Black's definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check respondent to comply, his Comment consists of all of two pages, a copy
deliberately reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or of which, it appears, he neglected to furnish complainant.[34] And while
society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and he claims to have been confined while undergoing medical treatment at
duty, justice, honesty or good morals.[28] (emphasis supplied) the time our Resolution of 17 February 1997 was issued, he merely
In the recent case of Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro,[29] we stated that: reserved the submission of a certification to that effect. Nor, indeed, was
(T)he issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been he able to offer any explanation for his failure to submit his Comment
drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust from the time we issued our first Resolution of 03 July 1996 until 16
and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and March 1999. In fact, said Comment alleged, merely, that the
good moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. complainant, Michael Barrios, passed away sometime in June 1997, and
[Cuizon v. Macalino, A.C. No. 4334, 07 July 2004] The issuance of a imputed upon the latter unsupported ill-motives for instituting the said
series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless attitude of Petition against him, which argument has already been resolved
respondent, unmindful to the deleterious effects of such act to the public squarely in the abovementioned IBP report.
interest and public order. [Lao v. Medel, 405 SCRA 227] It also manifests Moreover, the IBP report cited the failure of both parties to appear before
a lawyers low regard for her commitment to the oath she has taken when the Commission as the main reason for the long delay, until the same
she joined her peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of was finally submitted for Resolution on 27 June 2002. Respondent,
the profession she should hold in high esteem. [Sanchez v. Somoso, therefore, squandered away seven years to have his day in court and
A.C. No. 6061, 03 October 2003] adduce evidence in his behalf, which inaction also unduly delayed the
Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient courts prompt disposition of this petition.
funds to cover the same constitutes such willful dishonesty and immoral In Pajares v. Abad Santos,[35] we reminded attorneys that there must be
conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and lawyers. And more faithful adherence to Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court [now
while the general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or Rule 7, Section 3] which provides that the signature of an attorney
disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to
discipline him for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity, the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is good ground
where, however, the misconduct outside of the lawyer's professional to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay, and expressly
Page 58

dealings is so gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the office admonishes that for a willful violation of this rule an attorney may be
and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer on subjected to disciplinary action.[36] It is noteworthy that in the past, the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Court has disciplined lawyers and judges for willful disregard of its orders 4. In In Re: Disbarment Proceedings Against Atty. Diosdado Q.
to file comments or appellants briefs, as a penalty for disobedience Gutierrez,[48] Atty. Gutierrez was convicted for murder. After serving a
thereof. [37] portion of the sentence, he was granted a conditional pardon by the
For the same reasons, we are disinclined to take respondents old age President. Holding that the pardon was not absolute and thus did not
and the fact that he served in the judiciary in various capacities in his reach the offense itself but merely remitted the unexecuted portion of his
favor. If at all, we hold respondent to a higher standard for it, for a judge term, the court nevertheless disbarred him.
should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and 5. In In Re: Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon,[49] Atty. Vinzon was convicted of the
independence,[38] and his conduct should be above reproach.[39] The fact crime of estafa for misappropriating the amount of P7,000.00, and was
that respondent has chosen to engage in private practice does not mean subsequently disbarred. We held thus:
he is now free to conduct himself in less honorable or indeed in a less Upon the other hand, and dealing now with the merits of the case, there
than honorable manner. can be no question that the term moral turpitude includes everything
We stress that membership in the legal profession is a which is done contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. In essence
privilege,[40] demanding a high degree of good moral character, not only and in all respects, estafa, no doubt, is a crime involving moral turpitude
as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing because the act is unquestionably against justice, honesty and good
requirement for the practice of law.[41] Sadly, herein respondent falls morals (In re Gutierrez, Adm. Case No. 263, July 31, 1962; Bouvier's
short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the Law Dictionary; In re Basa, 41 Phil. 275-76). As respondent's guilt
legal profession. cannot now be questioned, his disbarment is inevitable. (emphasis
The IBP Board of Governors recommended that respondent be supplied)[50]
disbarred from the practice of law. We agree. 6. In In Re: Attorney Jose Avancea,[51] the conditional pardon extended
We come now to the matter of the penalty imposable in this case. In Co to the erring lawyer by the Chief Executive also failed to relieve him of
v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we upheld the imposition of one years the penalty of disbarment imposed by this court.
suspension for non-payment of debt and issuance of worthless checks, 7. In In Re Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo,[52] a lawyer was charged and
or a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the found guilty of the crime of falsification of public document for having
obligation.[42] However, in these cases, for various reasons, none of the prepared and notarized a deed of sale of a parcel of land knowing that
issuances resulted in a conviction by the erring lawyers for the supposed affiant was an impostor and that the vendor had been dead
either estafa or B.P. Blg. 22. Thus, we held therein that the issuance of for almost eight years. We ruled that disbarment follows as a
worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may consequence of a lawyer's conviction by final judgment of a crime
be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. involving moral turpitude, and since the crime of falsification of public
In the instant case, however, herein respondent has been found document involves moral turpitude, we ordered respondents name
guilty and stands convicted by final judgment of a crime involving moral stricken off the roll of attorneys.
turpitude. In People v. Tuanda, which is similar to this case in that both 8. In Adelina T. Villanueva v. Atty. Teresita Sta. Ana,[53] we upheld the
respondents were convicted for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 which we have recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to disbar a lawyer who
held to be such a crime, we affirmed the order of suspension from the had been convicted of estafa through falsification of public documents,
practice of law imposed by the Court of Appeals, until further orders. because she was totally unfit to be a member of the legal profession.[54]
However, in a long line of cases, some of which were decided 9. In Victoriano P. Resurreccion v. Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson,[55] a lawyer
after Tuanda, we have held disbarment to be the appropriate penalty for was disbarred for having been convicted of estafa by final judgment for
conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. Thus: misappropriating the funds of his client.
1. In In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. In this case as well, we find disbarment to be the appropriate penalty. Of
Jaramillo,[43] we disbarred a lawyer convicted of estafa without all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold
discussing the circumstances behind his conviction. We held that: the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world,
There is no question that the crime of estafa involves moral turpitude. to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to
The review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The ignore the very bands of society, argues recreancy to his position and
judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous
argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege elements of the body politic.[56]
bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Francisco P. Martinez is
conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the
administration of justice.[44] Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the
2. In In Re: Dalmacio De Los Angeles,[45] a lawyer was convicted of the respondents record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be
crime of attempted bribery in a final decision rendered by the Court of served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the
Appeals. And since bribery is admittedly a felony involving moral Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
turpitude (7 C.J.S., p. 736; 5 Am. Jur. p. 428), this Court, much as it SO ORDERED.
sympathizes with the plight of respondent, is constrained to decree his
disbarment as ordained by Section 25 of Rule 127.[46] A.C. No. 9115 September 17, 2014
3. In Ledesma De Jesus-Paras v. Quinciano Vailoces,[47] the erring REBECCA MARIE UY YUPANGCO-NAKPIL, Complainant,
lawyer acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be a last vs.
will and testament, which later turned out to be a forgery. He was found ATTY. ROBERTO L. UY, Respondent.
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public RESOLUTION
document, which the Court held to be a crime involving moral turpitude, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
said act being contrary to justice, honesty and good morals, and was This is an administrative case against respondent Atty. Roberto L. Uy
Page 59

subsequently disbarred. (respondent) for unprofessional and unethical conduct, stemming from a
complaint filed by private complainant Rebecca Marie Uy Yupangco-

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Nakpil (Rebecca), represented by her attorney-in-fact, Bella Asuncion respondent. As basis, he cites Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Pollo (Bella). Court which provides that "[n]o investigation shall be interrupted or
The Facts terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise,
Rebecca is the natural niece and adopted daughter of the late Dra. restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to
Pacita Uy y Lim (Pacita).1 She was adjudged as the sole and exclusive prosecute the same." Separately, the Investigating Commissioner
legal heir of Paci ta by virtue of an Order2 dated August 10, 1999 issued denied the claim of forum shopping, noting that disciplinary cases are sui
by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34 in SPEC. PROC. No. generis and may, therefore, proceed independently.22
95-7520 l (SP 95-75201). At the time of her death, Pacita was a On the merits of the charge, the Investigating Commissioner observed
stockholder in several corporations primarily engaged in acquiring, that respondent lacked the good moral character required from members
developing, and leasing real properties, namely, Uy Realty Company, of the Bar when the latter failed to comply with the demands of Rebecca
Inc. (URCI), Jespajo Realty Corporation, Roberto L. Uy Realty and under the subject trust agreement, not to mention his unworthy and
Development Corporation, Jesus Uy Realty Corporation, Distelleria La deceitful acts of mortgaging the subject property without the formers
Jarolina, Inc., and Pacita Lim Uy Realty, Inc.3 consent. In fine, respondent was found guilty of serious misconduct in
In her Complaint4 filed on May 9, 2005,5 Rebecca, through her attorney- violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code, for which the above-stated
in fact, Bella, averred that respondent, her alleged illegitimate penalty was recommended.23
halfcousin,6 continuously failed and refused to comply with the court In a Resolution24 dated November 10, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors
order in SP 95-75201 declaring her as the successor-in-interest to all of adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioners Report and
Pacitas properties, as well as her requests for the accounting and Recommendation.
delivery of the dividends and other proceeds or benefits coming from The Issue Before the Court
Pacitas stockholdings in the aforementioned corporations.7 She added The basic issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held
that respondent mortgaged a commercial property covered by Transfer administratively liable.
Certificate of Title No. T-133606 (subject property) in favor of Philippine The Courts Ruling
Savings Bank in the total amount of 54,000,000.00,8 despite an existing Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code, as itis applied to the members of the
Trust Agreement9 executed on October 15, 1993 (subject Trust legal profession, engraves an overriding prohibition against any form of
Agreement) wherein respondent, in his capacity as President of URCI, misconduct, viz.:
already recognized her to be the true and beneficial owner of the CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
same.10 Accordingly, she demanded that respondent return the said THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
property by executing the corresponding deed of conveyance in her favor LEGAL PROCESSES.
together with an inventory and accounting of all the proceeds therefrom, Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
but to no avail.11 In this relation, Rebecca claimed that it was only on deceitful conduct.
September 2, 2005 or after she had already instituted various legal The gravity of the misconduct determinative as it is of the errant
actions and remedies that respondent and URCIagreed to transfer the lawyers penalty depends on the factual circumstances of each case.
subject property to her pursuant to a compromise agreement.12 Here, the Court observes that the squabble which gave rise to the
In his Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim,13 respondent denied present administrative case largely constitutes an internal affair, which
Rebeccas allegations and raised the affirmative defenses of forum had already been laid to rest by the parties. This is clearly exhibited by
shopping and prescription. He pointed out that Rebecca had filed several Rebeccas motion to withdraw filed in this case as well as the
cases raising the single issue on the correct interpretation of the subject compromise agreement forged in Civil Case No. 04-108887 which
trust agreement. He also contended that the parties transactions in this involves the subject propertys alleged disposition in violation of the
case were made way back in 1993 and 1995 without a complaint having subject trust agreement. As the Court sees it, his failure to complywith
been filed until Bella came into the picture and instituted various suits the demands of Rebecca which she takes as an invocation of her rights
covering the same issue.14 As such, he sought the dismissal of the under the subject trust agreement as well as respondents acts of
complaint, and further prayed for the payment of moral damages and mortgaging the subject property without the formers consent, sprung
attorneys fees by way of counterclaim.15 from his own assertion of the rights he believed he had over the subject
On September 8, 2005, Rebecca filed a Motion to Withdraw property. The propriety of said courses of action eludes the Courts
Complaint16 in CBD Case No. 05-1484 for the reason that "the facts determination,for that matter had never been resolved on its merits in
surrounding the same arose out of a misunderstanding and view of the aforementioned settlement. Rebecca even states in her
misapprehension of the real facts surrounding their dispute."17 motion to withdraw that the allegations she had previously made arose
However, on October 6, 2005, Bella filed a Manifestation with Leave of out of a "misapprehension of the real facts surrounding their dispute" and
Court to File Motion for Intervention,18praying that the investigation of the even adds that respondent "had fully explained to [her] the real nature
charges against respondent continue in order to weed out erring and extent of her inheritance x x x toher entire satisfaction," leading her
members of the legal profession.19 to state that she is "now fully convinced that [her] complaint has no basis
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP in fact and in law."25 Accordingly, with the admitted misstatement of facts,
On October 8, 2007, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) the observations of the Investigating Commissioner, as adopted by the
Investigating Commissioner issuedhis Report and IBP, hardly hold water so as to support the finding of "serious
Recommendation,20 finding respondent guilty of serious misconduct in misconduct" which would warrant its recommended penalty.1wphi1
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Be that as it may, the Court, nonetheless, finds that respondent
(Code), and, thus, recommended the penalty of suspension for a period committed some form of misconduct by, as admitted, mortgaging the
of six (6) months.21 subject property, notwithstanding the apparent dispute over the same.
On matters of procedure, the Investigating Commissioner opined that Regardless of the merits of his own claim, respondent should have
Page 60

Rebeccas motion to withdraw did notserve as a bar for the further exhibited prudent restraint becoming of a legal exemplar. He should not
consideration and investigation ofthe administrative case against have exposed himself even to the slightest risk of committing a property

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
violation nor any action which would endanger the Bar's reputation. D. For this purpose, I prepared, among others, the OCCUPANCY
Verily, members of the Bar are expected at all times to uphold the AGREEMENT, recognizing Mr. Stiers free and undisturbed use of the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or property for his residence and business operations. The OCCUPANCY
omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the AGREEMENT was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier had extended to
public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.26 By Mr. Donton.6
no insignificant measure, respondent blemished not only his integrity as Complainant averred that respondents act of preparing the Occupancy
a member of the Bar, but also that of the legal profession. In other words, Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is
his conduct fell short of the exacting standards expected of him as a disqualified to own real property in his name, constitutes serious
guardian of law and justice. Although to a lesser extent as compared to misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant
what has been ascribed by the IBP, the Court still holds respondent guilty prayed that respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something
of violating Rule 1. 01, Canon 1 of the Code. Considering that this is his in violation of law and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme.
first offense as well as the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court In his Comment dated 19 August 2003, respondent claimed that
believes that a fine of P15,000.00 would suffice. complainant filed the disbarment case against him upon the instigation
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto L. Uy is found GUILTY of of complainants counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan,7 because
violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. respondent refused to act as complainants witness in the criminal case
Accordingly, he is ordered to pay a FINE of P15,000.00 within ten (10) against Stier and Maggay. Respondent admitted that he "prepared and
days from receipt of this Resolution. Further, he is STERNLY WARNED notarized" the Occupancy Agreement and asserted its genuineness and
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more due execution.
severely. In a Resolution dated 1 October 2003, the Court referred the matter to
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondent's record in this the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
Court as attorney. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the recommendation.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court The IBPs Report and Recommendation
Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the In her Report dated 26 February 2004 ("Report"), Commissioner
country for their information and guidance. Milagros V. San Juan ("Commissioner San Juan") of the IBP
SO ORDERED. Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent liable for taking part in
RULE 1.02: NOT TO COUNSEL OR DEFY LAW a "scheme to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against foreign
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of ownership of land in the Philippines." Commissioner San Juan
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. recommended respondents suspension from the practice of law for two
A.C. No. 6057 June 27, 2006 years and the cancellation of his commission as Notary Public.
PETER T. DONTON, Complainant, In Resolution No. XVI-2004-222 dated 16 April 2004, the IBP Board of
vs. Governors adopted, with modification, the Report and recommended
ATTY. EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO, Respondent. respondents suspension from the practice of law for six months.
DECISION On 28 June 2004, the IBP Board of Governors forwarded the Report to
CARPIO, J.: the Court as provided under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B8 of the Rules of
The Case Court.
This is a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. On 28 July 2004, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before
Tansingco ("respondent") for serious misconduct and deliberate violation the IBP. Respondent stated that he was already 76 years old and would
of Canon 1,1 Rules 1.012 and 1.023 of the Code of Professional already retire by 2005 after the termination of his pending cases. He also
Responsibility ("Code"). said that his practice of law is his only means of support for his family
The Facts and his six minor children.
In his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton ("complainant") In a Resolution dated 7 October 2004, the IBP denied the motion for
stated that he filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a reconsideration because the IBP had no more jurisdiction on the case as
public document4 against Duane O. Stier ("Stier"), Emelyn A. Maggay the matter had already been referred to the Court.
("Maggay") and respondent, as the notary public who notarized the The Ruling of the Court
Occupancy Agreement. The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02
The disbarment complaint arose when respondent filed a counter-charge of the Code.
for perjury5 against complainant. Respondent, in his affidavit-complaint, A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which
stated that: will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey.9 A
5. The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT dated September 11, 1995 was lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in
prepared and notarized by me under the following circumstances: violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against
A. Mr. Duane O. Stier is the owner and long-time resident of a real the lawyer.10
property located at No. 33 Don Jose Street, Bgy. San Roque, Murphy, By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was
Cubao, Quezon City. disqualified from owning real property.11Yet, in his motion for
B. Sometime in September 1995, Mr. Stier a U.S. citizen and thereby reconsideration,12 respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of
disqualified to own real property in his name agreed that the property ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of
be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino. the prohibition, quickly rectified his act and transferred the title in
C. Mr. Stier, in the presence of Mr. Donton, requested me to prepare complainants name. But respondent provided "some safeguards" by
several documents that would guarantee recognition of him being the preparing several documents,13including the Occupancy Agreement,
actual owner of the property despite the transfer of title in the name of that would guarantee Stiers recognition as the actual owner of the
Page 61

Mr. Donton. property despite its transfer in complainants name. In effect, respondent

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition with the organization of the "Centro Bellas Artes" Club were of such a
against foreign ownership of lands14 by preparing said documents. nature and character as to warrant his suspension from practice.
Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the
oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy purpose of violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes such
Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer of the court, as amounts
Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for which he may be
Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be removed or suspended. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 21.) The assisting
suspended.15 of a client in a scheme which the attorney knows to be dishonest, or the
In Balinon v. De Leon,16 respondent Atty. De Leon was suspended from conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify disbarment.
the practice of law for three years for preparing an affidavit that virtually In this case, however, inasmuch as the defendant in the case of the
permitted him to commit concubinage. In In re: Santiago,17 respondent United States, vs. Terrell was acquitted on the charge of estafa, and has
Atty. Santiago was suspended from the practice of law for one year for not, therefore, been convicted of crime, and as the acts with which he is
preparing a contract which declared the spouses to be single again after charged in this proceeding, while unprofessional and hence to be
nine years of separation and allowed them to contract separately condemned, are not criminal in their nature, we are of opinion that the
subsequent marriages. ends of justice will be served by the suspension of said Howard D. Terrell
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. from the practice of law in the Philippine Islands for the term of one year
Tansingco GUILTY of violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of from the 7th day of February, 1903.
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent It is therefore directed that the said Howard D. Terrell be suspended from
Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco from the practice of law for SIX the practice of law for a term of one year from February 7, 1903. It is so
MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision. ordered.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant [G.R. No. 159486-88. November 25, 2003]
to be appended to respondents personal record as an attorney, the PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. THE
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL DIVISION], HON.
courts in the country for their information and guidance. MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO, HON. EDILBERTO SANDOVAL, HON.
SO ORDERED. TERESITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE
G.R. No. 1203, In re Terrell, 2 Phil. 266 PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Republic of the Philippines RESOLUTION
SUPREME COURT PER CURIAM:
Manila On 23 September 2003, this Court issued its resolution in the above-
EN BANC numbered case; it read:
The case for consideration has been brought to this Court via a Petition
In the matter of the suspension of HOWARD D. TERRELL from the for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Joseph Ejercito
practice of law. Estrada, acting through his counsel Attorney Alan F. Paguia, against the
Solicitor-General Araneta for Government. Sandiganbayan, et al. The Petition prays
W. A. Kincaid for defendant. 1. That Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the
PER CURIAM: Honorable Court disqualify themselves from hearing and deciding this
Howard D. Terrell, an attorney-at-law, was ordered to show cause in the petition;
Court of First Instance, in the city of Manila, on the 5th day of February, 2. That the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and
1903, why he should not be suspended as a member of the bar of the set aside; and
city of Manila for the reasons: 3. That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending
First, that he had assisted in the organization of the "Centro Bellas Artes" before the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Club, after he had been notified that the said organization was made for Attorney Alan F. Paguia, speaking for petitioner, asserts that the
the purpose of evading the law then in force in said city; and, inhibition of the members of the Supreme Court from hearing the petition
Secondly, for acting as attorney for said "Centro Bellas Artes" during the is called for under Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting
time of and after its organization, which organization was known to him justices or judges from participating in any partisan political activity which
to be created for the purpose of evading the law. proscription, according to him, the justices have violated by attending the
The accused appeared on the return day, and by his counsel, W. A. EDSA 2 Rally and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President
Kincaid, made answer to these charges, denying the same, and filed Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of the 1987
affidavits in answer thereto. After reading testimony given by said Constitution. Petitioner contends that the justices have thereby
Howard D. Terrell, in the case of the United States vs. H. D. prejudged a case that would assail the legality of the act taken by
Terrell,1 wherein he was charged with estafa, and after reading the said President Arroyo. The subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v.
affidavits in his behalf, and hearing his counsel, the court below found, Arroyo (353 SCRA 452 and 356 SCRA 108) is, petitioner states, a patent
and decided as a fact, that the charges aforesaid made against Howard mockery of justice and due process.
D. Terrell were true, and thereupon made an order suspending him from Attorney Paguia first made his appearance for petitioner when he filed
his office as a lawyer in the Philippine Islands, and directed the clerk of an Omnibus Motion on 19 May 2003, before the Sandiganbayan, asking
the court to transmit to this court a certified copy of the order of that the appointment of counsels de officio (sic) be declaredfunctus
suspension, as well as a full statement of the facts upon which the same officio and that, being the now counsel de parte, he be notified of all
was based. subsequent proceedings in Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and
We have carefully considered these facts, and have reached the No. 26905 pending therein. Finally, Attorney Paguia asked that all the
Page 62

conclusion that they were such as to justify the court below in arriving at foregoing criminal cases against his client be dismissed.
the conclusion that the knowledge and acts of the accused in connection

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
During the hearing of the Omnibus Motion on 30 May 2003, petitioner and the resolution (Promulgated on 30 July 2003.) of 25 July 2003,
presented to the court several portions of the book, entitled Reforming denying petitioners motion for disqualification of 14 July 2003; viz:
the Judiciary, written by Justice Artemio Panganiban, to be part of the WHEREFORE, prescinding from all the foregoing, the Court, for want of
evidence for the defense. On 9 June 2003, petitioner filed a motion merit, hereby DENIES the Motion for Disqualification. (Rollo, p. 48.)
pleading, among other things, that The instant petition assailing the foregoing orders must be DISMISSED
a) x x x President Estrada be granted the opportunity to prove the truth for gross insufficiency in substance and for utter lack of merit. The
of the statements contained in Justice Artemio Panganibans book, Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion, an
REFORMING THE JUDICIARY, in relation to the prejudgment indispensable requirement to warrant a recourse to the extraordinary
committed by the Supreme Court justices against President Estrada in relief of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil
the subject case/s of Estrada v. Arroyo, 353 SCRA 452 and 356 SCRA Procedure. On the one hand, petitioner would disclaim the authority and
108; and, jurisdiction of the members of this tribunal and, on the other hand, he
b) A subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum be issued to Justice would elevate the petition now before it to challenge the two resolutions
Artemio Panganiban, Justice Antonio Carpio, Justice Renato Corona, of the Sandiganbayan. He denounces the decision as being a patent
Secretary Angelo Reyes of the Department of National Defense, Vice mockery of justice and due process. Attorney Pagula went on to state
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., and that-
Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. for them to testify and bring whatever The act of the public officer, if LAWFUL, is the act of the public office.
supporting documents they may have in relation to their direct and But the act of the public officer, if UNLAWFUL, is not the act of the public
indirect participation in the proclamation of Vice President Gloria office. Consequently, the act of the justices, if LAWFUL, is the act of the
Macapagal Arroyo on January 20, 2001, as cited in the book of Justice Supreme Court. But the act of the justices, if UNLAWFUL, is not the act
Panganiban, including the material events that led to that proclamation of the Supreme Court. It is submitted that the Decision in ESTRADA vs.
and the ruling/s in the Estrada vs. Arroyo, supra. (Rollo, pp. 6-7.) ARROYO being patently unlawful in view of Rule 5.10 of the CODE OF
The truth referred to in paragraph a) of the relief sought in the motion of JUDICIAL CONDUCT, is not the act of the Supreme Court but is merely
petitioner pertains to what he claims should have been included in the the wrong or trespass of those individual Justices who falsely spoke and
resolution of the Sandiganbayan; viz: acted in the name of the Supreme Court. (Urbano vs. Chavez, 183 SCRA
The request of the movant is simply for the Court to include in its Joint [347]). Furthermore, it would seem absurd to allow the Justices to use
Resolution the TRUTH of the acts of Chief Justice Davide, et al., last the name of the Supreme Court as a shield for their UNLAWFUL act.
January 20, 2001 in: (Petition, Rollo, p. 11.)
a) going to EDSA 2; Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or
b) authorizing the proclamation of Vice-President Arroyo as President on wrongness, soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would
the ground of permanent disability even without proof of compliance with be welcome for, if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court
the corresponding constitutional conditions, e.g., written declaration by and contribute to the correction of an error if committed. (In Re Sotto, 82
either the President or majority of his cabinet; and Phil 595.)
c) actually proclaiming Vice-President Arroyo on that same ground of The ruling in Estrada v. Arroyo, being a final judgment, has long put to
permanent disability. end any question pertaining to the legality of the ascension of Arroyo into
It is patently unreasonable for the Court to refuse to include these the presidency. By reviving the issue on the validity of the assumption of
material facts which are obviously undeniable. Besides, it is the only Mme. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the presidency, Attorney Paguia is
defense of President Estrada. (Petition, Rollo, pp. 13-14.) vainly seeking to breathe life into the carcass of a long dead issue.
On 2 July 2003, the Sandiganbayan issued an order denying the Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his clients
foregoing motion, as well as the motion to dismiss, filed by petitioner. case within the judicial forum; indeed, he has repeated his assault on the
Forthwith, petitioner filed a Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon of the Court in both broadcast and print media. Rule 13.02 of the Code of
foregoing order. According to Attorney Paguia, during the hearing of Professional Responsibility prohibits a member of the bar from making
his Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon on 11 June 2003, the three justices such public statements on any pending case tending to arouse public
of the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan made manifest their bias opinion for or against a party. By his acts, Attorney Paguia may have
and partiality against his client. Thus, he averred, Presiding Justice stoked the fires of public dissension and posed a potentially dangerous
Minita V. Chico-Nazario supposedly employed foul and disrespectful threat to the administration of justice.
language when she blurted out, Magmumukha naman kaming It is not the first time that Attorney Paguia has exhibited similar conduct
gago, (Rollo, p. 13.) and Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro towards the Supreme Court. In a letter, dated 30 June 2003, addressed
characterized the motion as insignificant even before the prosecution to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and Associate Justice Artemio V.
could file its comments or opposition thereto, (Rollo, p. 12.) remarking in Panganiban, he has demanded, in a clearly disguised form of forum
open court that to grant Estradas motion would result in chaos and shopping, for several advisory opinions on matters pending before the
disorder. (Ibid.) Prompted by the alleged bias and partial attitude of the Sandiganbayan. In a resolution, dated 08 July 2003, this Court has
Sandiganbayan justices, Attorney Paguia filed, on 14 July 2003, a strongly warned Attorney Alan Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction,
motion for their disqualification. On 31 July 2003, petitioner received the to desist from further making, directly or indirectly, similar submissions
two assailed resolutions, i.e., the resolution (Promulgated on 30 July to this Court or to its Members. But, unmindful of the well-meant
2003.) of 28 July 2003, denying petitioners motion for reconsideration admonition to him by the Court, Attorney Paguia appears to persist on
of 6 July 2003; viz: end.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused-movant Joseph Ejercito WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, and the
Estradas Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon (Na tumutukoy sa Joint Court hereby orders Attorney Alan Paguia, counsel for petitioner Joseph
Resolution ng Hulyo 2, 2003) dated July 6, 2003 is DENIED for lack of Ejercito Estrada, to SHOW CAUSE, within ten days from notice hereof,
Page 63

merit. (Rollo, p. 37.) why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and
an officer of the Court.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
On 10 October 2003, Atty. Paguia submitted his compliance with the unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not observed.
show-cause order. In a three-page pleading, Atty. Paguia, in an obstinate There was no fair play since it appears that when President Estrada filed
display of defiance, repeated his earlier claim of political partisanship his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices had already
against the members of the Court. committed to the other party - GMA - with a judgment already made and
Canon 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which Atty. Paguia has waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the
tirelessly quoted to give some semblance of validity for his groundless charade of a formal hearing. After the justices had authorized the
attack on the Court and its members, provides - proclamation of GMA as president, can they be expected to voluntarily
Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political admit the unconstitutionality of their own act?
questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall Unrelentingly, Atty. Paguia has continued to make public statements of
not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse like nature.
candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary
activities. sanction, to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and
Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code defines the term partisan as an officer of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take
political activities; the law states: heed.
The term election campaign or partisan political activity refers to an act WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended
designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for conduct
candidates to a public office which shall include: unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant,
groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts of the land through
any campaign for or against a candidate; the Office of the Court Administrator.
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, SO ORDERED.
or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or
undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate. RULE 1.03: NOT TO ENCOURAGE LAWSUIT OR PROCEEDINGS
(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage
interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office; any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed [A.C. No. 4497. September 26, 2001]
to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or MR. and MRS. VENUSTIANO G. SABURNIDO, complainants, vs.
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against ATTY. FLORANTE E. MADROO,[1] respondent.
a candidate. DECISION
It should be clear that the phrase partisan political activities, in its QUISUMBING, J.:
statutory context, relates to acts designed to cause the success or the For our resolution is the administrative complaint[2] for disbarment of
defeat of a particular candidate or candidates who have filed certificates respondent, Atty. Florante E. Madroo, filed by spouses Venustiano and
of candidacy to a public office in an election. The taking of an oath of Rosalia Saburnido. Complainants allege that respondent has been
office by any incoming President of the Republic before the Chief Justice harassing them by filing numerous complaints against them, in addition
of the Philippines is a traditional official function of the Highest to committing acts of dishonesty.
Magistrate. The assailed presence of other justices of the Court at such Complainant Venustiano Saburnido is a member of the Philippine
an event could be no different from their appearance in such other official National Police stationed at Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, while his wife
functions as attending the Annual State of the Nation Address by the Rosalia is a public school teacher. Respondent is a former judge of the
President of the Philippines before the Legislative Department. Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Balingasag-Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental.
The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce Previous to this administrative case, complainants also filed three
criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly separate administrative cases against respondent.
have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not In A. M. No. MTJ-90-383,[3] complainant Venustiano Saburnido filed
countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our peoples faith charges of grave threats and acts unbecoming a member of the judiciary
in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it against respondent. Respondent was therein found guilty of pointing a
to practice law in the Philippines. high-powered firearm at complainant, who was unarmed at the time,
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the during a heated altercation. Respondent was accordingly dismissed from
lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and the service with prejudice to reemployment in government but without
judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. forfeiture of retirement benefits.
In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the Respondent was again administratively charged in the consolidated
impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. cases of Sealana-Abbu v. Judge Madrono, A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC
Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert and Sps. Saburnido v. Judge Madrono, A.M. No. MTJ-90-486.[4]In the
the dispensation of justice. first case, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Florencia Sealana-Abbu
The attention of Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule charged that respondent granted and reduced bail in a criminal case
13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of without prior notice to the prosecution. In the second case, the spouses
the bar from making such public statements on a case that may tend to Saburnido charged that respondent, in whose court certain confiscated
arouse public opinion for or against a party. Regrettably, Atty. Paguia smuggled goods were deposited, allowed other persons to take the
has persisted in ignoring the Courts well-meant admonition. goods but did not issue the corresponding memorandum receipts. Some
On the 7th September 2003 issue of the Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia of the goods were lost while others were substituted with damaged
wrote to say - goods. Respondent was found guilty of both charges and his retirement
Page 64

What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estradas right to due benefits were forfeited.
process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
In the present case, the spouses Saburnido allege that respondent has in his behalf during said hearing. Neither did respondent submit his
been harassing them by filing numerous complaints against them, memorandum as directed by the IBP.
namely: After evaluating the evidence before it, the IBP concluded that
1. Adm. Case No. 90-0755,[5] for serious irregularity, filed by respondent complainants submitted convincing proof that respondent indeed
against Venustiano Saburnido. Respondent claimed that Venustiano committed acts constituting gross misconduct that warrant the imposition
lent his service firearm to an acquaintance who thereafter extorted of administrative sanction. The IBP recommends that respondent be
money from public jeepney drivers while posing as a member of the then suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Constabulary Highway Patrol Group. We have examined the records of this case and find no reason to
2. Adm. Case No. 90-0758,[6] for falsification, filed by respondent against disagree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
Venustiano Saburnido and two others. Respondent averred that A lawyer may be disciplined for any conduct, in his professional or private
Venustiano, with the help of his co-respondents in the case, inserted an capacity, that renders him unfit to continue to be an officer of the
entry in the police blotter regarding the loss of Venustianos firearm. court.[11] Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands
3. Crim. Case No. 93-67,[7] for evasion through negligence under Article all lawyers to at all times uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal
224 of the Revised Penal Code, filed by respondent against Venustiano profession. Specifically, in Rule 7.03, the Code provides:
Saburnido. Respondent alleged that Venustiano Saburnido, without Rule 7.03. -- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
permission from his superior, took into custody a prisoner by final on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life,
judgment who thereafter escaped. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
4. Adm. Case No. 95-33,[8] filed by respondent against Rosalia Clearly, respondents act of filing multiple complaints against herein
Saburnido for violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Respondent complainants reflects on his fitness to be a member of the legal
alleged that Rosalia Saburnido served as chairperson of the Board of profession. His act evinces vindictiveness, a decidedly undesirable trait
Election Inspectors during the 1995 elections despite being related to a whether in a lawyer or another individual, as complainants were
candidate for barangay councilor. instrumental in respondents dismissal from the judiciary. We see in
At the time the present complaint was filed, the three actions filed against respondents tenacity in pursuing several cases against complainants not
Venustiano Saburnido had been dismissed while the case against the persistence of one who has been grievously wronged but the
Rosalia Saburnido was still pending. obstinacy of one who is trying to exact revenge.
Complainants allege that respondent filed those cases against them in Respondents action erodes rather than enhances public perception of
retaliation, since they had earlier filed administrative cases against him the legal profession. It constitutes gross misconduct for which he may be
that resulted in his dismissal from the judiciary. Complainants assert that suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which
due to the complaints filed against them, they suffered much moral, provides:
mental, physical, and financial damage. They claim that their children SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
had to stop going to school since the family funds were used up in grounds therefor. -- A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
attending to their cases. from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
For his part, respondent contends that the grounds mentioned in the malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
administrative cases in which he was dismissed and his benefits forfeited conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
did not constitute moral turpitude. Hence, he could not be disbarred turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
therefor. He then argues that none of the complaints he filed against before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience appearing as
complainants was manufactured. He adds that he was so unlucky that an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. xxx
Saburnido was not convicted.[9] He claims that the complaint for serious Complainants ask that respondent be disbarred. However, we find that
irregularity against Venustiano Saburnido was dismissed only because suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline respondent.
the latter was able to antedate an entry in the police blotter stating that The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of
his service firearm was lost. He also points out that Venustiano was misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer
suspended when a prisoner escaped during his watch. As for his as an officer of the court.[12] While we will not hesitate to remove an erring
complaint against Rosalia Saburnido, respondent contends that by attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence
mentioning this case in the present complaint, Rosalia wants to deprive calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice
him of his right to call the attention of the proper authorities to a violation to accomplish the desired end.[13] In this case, we find suspension to be
of the Election Code. a sufficient sanction against respondent. Suspension, we may add, is not
In their reply, complainants reiterate their charge that the cases against primarily intended as a punishment, but as a means to protect the public
them were meant only to harass them. In addition, Rosalia Saburnido and the legal profession.[14]
stressed that she served in the BEI in 1995 only because the supposed WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Florante E. Madroo is found GUILTY of
chairperson was indisposed. She stated that she told the other BEI gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
members and the pollwatchers that she was related to one candidate year with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be
and that she would desist from serving if anyone objected.Since nobody dealt with more severely. Respondents suspension is effective upon his
objected, she proceeded to dispense her duties as BEI chairperson. She receipt of notice of this decision. Let notice of this decision be spread in
added that her relative lost in that election while respondents son won. respondents record as an attorney in this Court, and notice of the same
In a resolution dated May 22, 1996,[10] we referred this matter to the served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned.
recommendation. SO ORDERED.
In its report submitted to this Court on October 16, 2000, the IBP noted PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, A.C. No. 6672
that respondent and his counsel failed to appear and present evidence Complainant,
Page 65

in the hearing of the case set for January 26, 2000, despite notice. Thus, - v e r s u s -.
respondent was considered to have waived his right to present evidence ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO,

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Respondent. canons[11] of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover,
Promulgated: he contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or
September 4, 2009 through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138 [12] of
the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be
x-----------------------------------------x reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a
heavier penalty.
RESOLUTION We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent
but we modify the recommended penalty.
CORONA, J.: The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by respondent
into complainants professional practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the
CPR. And the means employed by respondent in furtherance of the said
This is a complaint for disbarment[1] filed by Pedro Linsangan of the misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.
Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to,
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional including the manner by which a lawyers services are to be made known.
services. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie
Labiano, convinced his clients[2] to transfer legal representation. CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES
Respondent promised them financial assistance[3] and expeditious SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND
collection on their claims.[4] To induce them to hire his services, he OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
persistently called them and sent them text messages. Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a
profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents
To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn as merchants advertise their wares.[13] To allow a lawyer to advertise his
affidavit[5] of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the
him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize profession in the publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently
respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000. render that high character of service to which every member of the bar
Complainant also attached respondents calling card:[6] is called.[14]

Front Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE

LAW OFFFICE ANY ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS.
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.[15] Such
Fe Marie L. Labiano actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.[16]
Paralegal
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820 provides:
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821
Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719 RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE
OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR
DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE.

Back
SERVICES OFFERED: This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN order to gain employment)[17] as a measure to protect the community
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT, from barratry and champerty.[18]
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH Complainant presented substantial evidence[19] (consisting of the sworn
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to
ABROAD. respondents office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal
(emphasis supplied) business as well as profited from referrals suits.
Hence, this complaint.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he
printing and circulation of the said calling card.[7] later admitted it during the mandatory hearing.
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited.
recommendation.[8] Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report of Labianos word that respondent could produce a more favorable result.
Page 66

and recommendation,[9] found that respondent had encroached on the

professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02[10] and other

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment (d) telephone number and
violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section (e) special branch of law practiced.[28]
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is
the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor induce Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance.
the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had
reduced fees for his services.[20] Again the Court notes that respondent representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance
never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their
benefits from Labianos referrals. Furthermore, he never denied Labianos original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and
connection to his office.[21] Respondent committed an unethical, emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity
predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot escape of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession. However, in the
liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR. absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible
borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04: for the printing and distribution of Labianos calling cards.

Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating
clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
in a legal matter he is handling for the client. year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary future shall be dealt with more severely.
expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of
stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the Office of
matter that he is handling for the client. the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and be furnished
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so Administrator to be circulated to all courts.
that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected.[22] It
seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well SO ORDERED.
as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer lends
money to the client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer in RULE 1.04: ENCOURAGE CLIENT TO AVOID CONTROVERSY
effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
additional stake in its outcome.[23] Either of these circumstances may controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client,
or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict G.R. No. 104599 March 11, 1994
to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to JON DE YSASI III, petitioner,
the clients cause.[24] vs.
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION),
malpractice[25] which calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary CEBU CITY, and JON DE YSASI,respondents.
powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious sanctions F.B. Santiago, Nalus & Associates for petitioner.
for initiating contact with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining Ismael A. Serfino for private respondent.
employment.[26] Thus, in this jurisdiction, we adhere to the rule to protect
the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers REGALADO, J.:
and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession. The adage that blood is thicker than water obviously stood for naught in
this case, notwithstanding the vinculum of paternity and filiation between
Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of the parties. It would indeed have been the better part of reason if herein
the prohibition on lending money to clients), the sanction recommended petitioner and private respondent had reconciled their differences in an
by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the wrist. The proposed extrajudicial atmosphere of familial amity and with the grace of reciprocal
penalty is grossly incommensurate to its findings. concessions. Father and son opted instead for judicial intervention
despite the inevitable acrimony and negative publicity. Albeit with
A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by distaste, the Court cannot proceed elsewise but to resolve their dispute
petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for with the same reasoned detachment accorded any judicial proceeding
professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and before it.
conduct.[27] For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their The records of this case reveal that petitioner was employed by his
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional father, herein private respondent, as farm administrator of Hacienda
cards. Manucao in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental sometime in April, 1980. Prior
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details: thereto, he was successively employed as sales manager of Triumph
International (Phil.), Inc. and later as operations manager of Top Form
(a) lawyers name; Manufacturing (Phil.), Inc. His employment as farm administrator was on
Page 67

(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected; a fixed salary, with other allowances covering housing, food, light, power,
(c) address; telephone, gasoline, medical and dental expenses.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
As farm administrator, petitioner was responsible for the supervision of Before proceeding with a discussion of the issues, the observation of the
daily activities and operations of the sugarcane farm such as land labor arbiter is worth noting:
preparation, planting, weeding, fertilizing, harvesting, dealing with third This case is truly unique. What makes this case unique is the fact that
persons in all matters relating to the hacienda and attending to such because of the special relationship of the parties and the nature of the
other tasks as may be assigned to him by private respondent. For this action involved, this case could very well go down (in) the annals of the
purpose, he lived on the farm, occupying the upper floor of the house Commission as perhaps the first of its kind. For this case is an action
there. filed by an only son, his father's namesake, the only child and therefore
Following his marriage on June 6, 1982, petitioner moved to Bacolod City the only heir against his own father. 9
with his wife and commuted to work daily. He suffered various ailments Additionally, the Solicitor General remarked:
and was hospitalized on two separate occasions in June and August, . . . After an exhaustive reading of the records, two (2) observations were
1982. In November, 1982, he underwent fistulectomy, or the surgical noted that may justify why this labor case deserves special
removal of the fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer. During his recuperation considerations. First, most of the complaints that petitioner and private
which lasted over four months, he was under the care of Dr. Patricio Tan. respondent had with each other, were personal matters affecting father
In June, 1983, he was confined for acute gastroenteritis and, thereafter, and son relationship. And secondly, if any of the complaints pertain to
for infectious hepatitis from December, 1983 to January, 1984. their work, they allow their personal relationship to come in the way. 10
During the entire periods of petitioner's illnesses, private respondent took I. Petitioner maintains that his dismissal from employment was illegal
care of his medical expenses and petitioner continued to receive because of want of just cause therefor and non-observance of the
compensation. However, in April, 1984, without due notice, private requirements of due process. He also charges the NLRC with grave
respondent ceased to pay the latter's salary. Petitioner made oral and abuse of discretion in relying upon the findings of the executive labor
written demands for an explanation for the sudden withholding of his arbiter who decided the case but did not conduct the hearings thereof.
salary from Atty. Apolonio Sumbingco, private respondent's auditor and Private respondent, in refutation, avers that there was abandonment by
legal adviser, as well as for the remittance of his salary. Both demands, petitioner of his functions as farm administrator, thereby arming private
however, were not acted upon. respondent with a ground to terminate his employment at Hacienda
Petitioner then filed an action with the National Labor Relations Manucao. It is also contended that it is wrong for petitioner to question
Commission (NLRC, for brevity), Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, the factual findings of the executive labor arbiter and the NLRC as only
Bacolod City, on October 17, 1984, docketed therein as RAB Case No. questions of law may be appealed for resolution by this Court.
0452-84, against private respondent for illegal dismissal with prayer for Furthermore, in seeking the dismissal of the instant petition, private
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full back respondent faults herein petitioner for failure to refer to the
wages, thirteenth month pay for 1983, consequential, moral and corresponding pages of the transcripts of stenographic notes,
exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. erroneously citing Sections 15(d) and 16(d), Rule 44 (should be Section
On July 31, 1991, said complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed by 16[c] and [d],
the NLRC, 1 holding that petitioner abandoned his work and that the Rule 46 and Section 1[g], Rule 50) of the Rules of Court, which provide
termination of his employment was for a valid cause, but ordering private that want of page references to the records is a ground for dismissal of
respondent to pay petitioner the amount of P5,000.00 as penalty for his an appeal.
failure to serve notice of said termination of employment to the Prefatorily, we take advertence of the provisions of Article 221 of the
Department of Labor and Employment as required by Batas Pambansa Labor Code that technical rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law
Blg. 130 and consonant with this Court's ruling in Wenphil Corporation and equity shall not be controlling, and that every and all reasonable
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. 2 On appeal to the means to speedily and objectively ascertain the facts in each case shall
Fourth Division of the NLRC, Cebu City, said decision was affirmed in be availed of, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure in the
toto. 3 interest of due process.
His motion for reconsideration 4 of said decision having been denied for It is settled that it is not procedurally objectionable for the decision in a
lack of merit, 5 petitioner filed this petition presenting the following issues case to be rendered by a judge, or a labor arbiter for that matter, other
for resolution: (1) whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed; than the one who conducted the hearing. The fact that the judge who
(2) whether or not he is entitled to reinstatement, payment of back heard the case was not the judge who penned the decision does not
wages, thirteenth month pay and other benefits; and (3) whether or not impair the validity of the judgment, 11 provided that he draws up his
he is entitled to payment of moral and exemplary damages and decision and resolution with due care and makes certain that they truly
attorney's fees because of illegal dismissal. The discussion of these and accurately reflect conclusions and final dispositions on the bases of
issues will necessarily subsume the corollary questions presented by the facts of and evidence submitted in the case. 12
private respondent, such as the exact date when petitioner ceased to Thus, the mere fact that the case was initially assigned to Labor Arbiter
function as farm administrator, the character of the pecuniary amounts Ricardo T. Octavio, who conducted the hearings therein from December
received by petitioner from private respondent, that is, whether the same 5, 1984 to July 11, 1985, and was later transferred to Executive Labor
are in the nature of salaries or pensions, and whether or not there was Arbiter Oscar S. Uy, who eventually decided the case, presents no
abandonment by petitioner of his functions as farm administrator. procedural infirmity, especially considering that there is a presumption of
In his manifestation dated September 14, 1992, the Solicitor General regularity in the performance of a public officer's functions, 13 which
recommended a modification of the decision of herein public respondent petitioner has not successfully rebutted.
sustaining the findings and conclusions of the Executive Labor Arbiter in We are constrained to heed the underlying policy in the Labor Code
RAB Case No. 0452-84, 6 for which reason the NLRC was required to relaxing the application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases in
submit its own comment on the petition. In compliance with the Court's the interest of due process, ever mindful of the long-standing legal
resolution of November 16, 1992, 7 NLRC filed its comment on February precept that rules of procedure must be interpreted to help secure, not
Page 68

12, 1992 largely reiterating its earlier position in support of the findings defeat, justice. For this reason, we cannot indulge private respondent in
of the Executive Labor Arbiter. 8 his tendency to nitpick on trivial technicalities to boost his arguments.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
The strength of one's position cannot be hinged on mere procedural from work during the period of October 1982 to December 1982. In any
niceties but on solid bases in law and jurisprudence. event, such absence does not warrant outright dismissal without notice
The fundamental guarantees of security of tenure and due process and hearing.
dictate that no worker shall be dismissed except for just and authorized xxx xxx xxx
cause provided by law and after due process. 14 Article 282 of the Labor The elements of abandonment as a ground for dismissal of an employee
Code enumerates the causes for which an employer may validly are as follows:
terminate an employment, to wit: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason;
(a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the and (2) clear intention to sever the employer-employee tie (Samson
lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his Alcantara, Reviewer in Labor and Social Legislation, 1989 edition, p.
work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) 133).
fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his This Honorable Court, in several cases, illustrates what constitute
employer or duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime abandonment. In Dagupan Bus Company v. NLRC (191 SCRA 328), the
or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any Court rules that for abandonment to arise, there must be a concurrence
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; of the intention to abandon and some overt act from which it may be
and (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing. inferred that the employee has no more interest to work. Similarly,
The employer may also terminate the services of any employee due to in Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC(184 SCRA 25), for
the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination of employment,
prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the there must be a deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume
establishment or undertaking, unless the closing is for the purpose of his employment. . . Mere absence is not sufficient; it must be
circumventing the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code, by serving a accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the
written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor and employee simply does not want to work anymore.
Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof, with There are significant indications in this case, that there is no
due entitlement to the corresponding separation pay rates provided by abandonment. First, petitioner's absence and his decision to leave his
law.15 Suffering from a disease by reason whereof the continued residence inside Hacienda Manucao, is justified by his illness and
employment of the employee is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his strained family relations. Second he has some medical certificates to
and his co-employee's health, is also a ground for termination of his show his frail health. Third, once able to work, petitioner wrote a letter
services provided he receives the prescribed separation pay. 16 On the (Annex "J") informing private respondent of his intention to assume again
other hand, it is well-settled that abandonment by an employee of his his employment. Last, but not the least, he at once instituted a complaint
work authorizes the employer to effect the former's dismissal from for illegal dismissal when he realized he was unjustly dismissed. All these
employment. 17 are indications that petitioner had no intention to abandon his
After a careful review of the records of this case, we find that public employment. 20
respondent gravely erred in affirming the decision of the executive labor The records show that the parties herein do not dispute the fact of
arbiter holding that petitioner abandoned his employment and was not petitioner's confinement in the hospital for his various afflictions which
illegally dismissed from such employment. For want of substantial bases, required medical treatment. Neither can it be denied that private
in fact or respondent was well aware of petitioner's state of health as the former
in law, we cannot give the stamp of finality and conclusiveness normally admittedly shouldered part of the medical and hospital bills and even
accorded to the factual findings of an administrative agency, such as advised the latter to stay in Bacolod City until he was fit to work again.
herein public respondent NLRC, 18 as even decisions of administrative The disagreement as to whether or not petitioner's ailments were so
agencies which are declared "final" by law are not exempt from judicial serious as to necessitate hospitalization and corresponding periods for
review when so warranted. 19 recuperation is beside the point. The fact remains that on account of said
The following perceptive disquisitions of the Solicitor General on this illnesses, the details of which were amply substantiated by the attending
point deserve acceptance: physician, 21 and as the records are bereft of any suggestion of
It is submitted that the absences of petitioner in his work from October malingering on the part of petitioner, there was justifiable cause for
1982 to December 1982, cannot be construed as abandonment of work petitioner's absence from work. We repeat, it is clear, deliberate and
because he has a justifiable excuse. Petitioner was suffering from unjustified refusal to resume employment and not mere absence that is
perennial abscess in the peri-anal around the anus and fistula under the required to constitute abandonment as a valid ground for termination of
medical attention of Dr. Patricio Tan of Riverside Medical Center, Inc., employment. 22
Bacolod City (Tsn, Vol. III, Dr. Tan, February 19, 1986 at 20-44). With his position as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao, petitioner
This fact (was) duly communicated to private respondent by medical bills unmistakably may be classified as a managerial employee 23 to whom
sent to Hacienda Manucao (Tsn, Vol. III, Dr. Tan, January 22, 1987 at the law grants an amount of discretion in the discharge of his duties. This
49-50). is why when petitioner stated that "I assigned myself where I want to
During the period of his illness and recovery, petitioner stayed in Bacolod go," 24 he was simply being candid about what he could do within the
City upon the instruction(s) of private respondent to recuperate thereat sphere of his authority. His duties as farm administrator did not strictly
and to handle only administrative matters of the hacienda in that city. As require him to keep regular hours or to be at the office premises at all
a manager, petitioner is not really obliged to live and stay 24 hours a day times, or to be subjected to specific control from his employer in every
inside Hacienda Manucao. aspect of his work. What is essential only is that he runs the farm as
xxx xxx xxx efficiently and effectively as possible and, while petitioner may definitely
After evaluating the evidence within the context of the special not qualify as a model employee, in this regard he proved to be quite
circumstances involved and basic human experience, petitioner's illness successful, as there was at least a showing of increased production
Page 69

and strained family relation with respondent Jon de Ysasi II may be during the time that petitioner was in charge of farm operations.
considered as justifiable reason for petitioner Jon de Ysasi III's absence

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
If, as private respondent contends, he had no control over petitioner or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-
during the years 1983 to 1984, this is because that was the period when employee relationship, with the second element as the more
petitioner was recuperating from illness and on account of which his determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Such
attendance and direct involvement in farm operations were irregular and intent we find dismally wanting in this case.
minimal, hence the supervision and control exercisable by private It will be recalled that private respondent himself admitted being unsure
respondent as employer was necessarily limited. It goes without saying of his son's plans of returning to work. The absence of petitioner from
that the control contemplated refers only to matters relating to his work since mid-1982, prolonged though it may have been, was not
functions as farm administrator and could not extend to petitioner's without valid causes of which private respondent had full knowledge. As
personal affairs and activities. to what convinced or led him to believe that petitioner was no longer
While it was taken for granted that for purposes of discharging his duties returning to work, private respondent neither explains nor substantiates
as farm administrator, petitioner would be staying at the house in the by any reasonable basis how he arrived at such a conclusion.
farm, there really was no explicit contractual stipulation (as there was no Moreover, private respondent's claim of abandonment cannot be given
formal employment contract to begin with) requiring him to stay therein credence as even after January, 1983, when private respondent
for the duration of his employment or that any transfer of residence would supposedly "became convinced" that petitioner would no longer work at
justify the termination of his employment. That petitioner changed his the farm, the latter continued to perform services directly required by his
residence should not be taken against him, as this is undeniably among position as farm administrator. These are duly and correspondingly
his basic rights, nor can such fact of transfer of residence per se be a evidenced by such acts as picking up some farm machinery/equipment
valid ground to terminate an employer-employee relationship. from G.A. Machineries, Inc., 28 claiming and paying for additional farm
Private respondent, in his pleadings, asserted that as he was yet equipment and machinery shipped by said firm from Manila to Bacolod
uncertain of his son's intention of returning to work after his confinement through Zip Forwarders, 29 getting the payment of the additional cash
in the hospital, he kept petitioner on the payroll, reported him as an advances for molasses for crop year 1983-1984 from Agrotex
employee of thehacienda for social security purposes, and paid his Commodities, Inc., 30 and remitting to private respondent through
salaries and benefits with the mandated deductions therefrom until the Atty. Sumbingco the sums collected along with receipts for medicine and
end of December, 1982. It was only in January, 1983 when he became oil. 31
convinced that petitioner would no longer return to work that he It will be observed that all of these chores, which petitioner took care of,
considered the latter to have abandoned his work and, for this reason, relate to the normal activities and operations of the farm. True, it is a
no longer listed him as an employee. According to private respondent, father's prerogative to request or even command his child to run errands
whatever amount of money was given to petitioner from that time until for him. In the present case, however, considering the nature of these
April, 1984 was in the nature of a pension or an allowance or mere transactions, as well as the property values and monetary sums
gratuitous doles from a father to a son, and not salaries as, in fact, none involved, it is unlikely that private respondent would leave the matter to
of the usual deductions were made therefrom. It was only in April, 1984 just anyone. Prudence dictates that these matters be handled by
that private respondent completely stopped giving said pension or someone who can be trusted or at least be held accountable therefor,
allowance when he was angered by what he heard petitioner had been and who is familiar with the terms, specifications and other details
saying about sending him to jail. relative thereto, such as an employee. If indeed petitioner had
Private respondent capitalizes on the testimony of one Manolo Gomez abandoned his job or was considered to have done so by private
taken on oral deposition regarding petitioner's alleged statement to him, respondent, it would be awkward, or even out of place, to expect or to
"(h)e quemado los (p)ue(n)tes de Manucao" ("I have burned my bridges oblige petitioner to concern himself with matters relating to or expected
with Manucao") as expressive of petitioner's intention to abandon his job. of him with respect to what would then be his past and terminated
In addition to insinuations of sinister motives on the part of petitioner in employment. It is hard to imagine what further authority an employer can
working at the farm and thereafter abandoning the job upon have over a dismissed employee so as to compel him to continue to
accomplishment of his objectives, private respondent takes the novel perform work-related tasks:
position that the agreement to support his son after the latter abandoned It is also significant that the special power of attorney 32 executed
the administration of the farm legally converts the initial abandonment to by private respondent on June 26, 1980 in favor of petitioner, specifically
implied voluntary resignation. 25 stating
As earlier mentioned, petitioner ripostes that private respondent xxx xxx xxx
undoubtedly knew about petitioner's illness and even paid for his hospital That I, JON de YSASI, Filipino, of legal age, married, and a resident of
and other medical bills. The assertion regarding abandonment of work, Hda. Manucao, hereinafter called and referred to as PRINCIPAL, am a
petitioner argues, is further belied by his continued performance of sugarcane planter, BISCOM Mill District, and a duly accredited planter-
various services related to the operations of the farm from May to the member of the BINALBAGAN-ISABELA PLANTERS' ASSOCIATION,
last quarter of 1983, his persistent inquiries from his father's accountant INC.;
and legal adviser about the reason why his pension or allowance was That as such planter-member of BIPA, I have check/checks with BIPA
discontinued since April, 1984, and his indication of having recovered representing payment for all checks and papers to which I am entitled to
and his willingness and capability to resume his work at the farm as (sic) as such planter-member;
expressed in a letter dated September 14, 1984. 26 With these, petitioner That I have named, appointed and constituted as by these presents
contends that it is immaterial how the monthly pecuniary amounts are I HEREBY NAME, APPOINT AND CONSTITUTE as my true and lawful
designated, whether as salary, pension or allowance, with or without ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
deductions, as he was entitled thereto in view of his continued service JON de YSASI III
as farm administrator. 27 whose specimen signature is hereunder affixed, TO GET FOR ME and
To stress what was earlier mentioned, in order that a finding of in my name, place and stead, my check/checks aforementioned, said
Page 70

abandonment may justly be made there must be a concurrence of two ATTORNEY-IN-FACT being herein given the power and authority to sign
elements, viz.: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid for me and in my name, place and stead, the receipt or receipts or payroll

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
for the said check/checks. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that my said enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code, but not to the situation
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT cannot cash the said check/checks, but to turn the obtaining in this case where private respondent did not dismiss petitioner
same over to me for my proper disposition. on any ground since it was petitioner who allegedly abandoned his
That I HEREBY RATIFY AND CONFIRM the acts of my employment. 40
Attorney-in-Fact in getting the said check/checks and signing the The due process requirements of notice and hearing applicable to labor
receipts therefor. cases are set out in Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
That I further request that my said check/checks be made a "CROSSED Implementing the Labor Code in this wise:
CHECK". Sec. 2. Notice of Dismissal. Any employer who seeks to dismiss a
xxx xxx xxx worker shall furnish him a written notice stating the particular acts or
remained in force even after petitioner's employment was supposed to omission(s) constituting the grounds for his dismissal. In cases of
have been terminated by reason of abandonment. Furthermore, abandonment of work, notice shall be served at the worker's last known
petitioner's numerous requests for an explanation regarding the address.
stoppage of his salaries and benefits, 33 the issuance of withholding tax xxx xxx xxx
reports, 34 as well as correspondence reporting his full recovery and Sec. 5. Answer and hearing. The worker may answer the allegations
readiness to go back to work, 35 and, specifically, his filing of the as stated against him in the notice of dismissal within a reasonable
complaint for illegal dismissal are hardly the acts of one who has period from receipt of such notice. The employer shall afford the worker
abandoned his work. ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance
We are likewise not impressed by the deposition of Manolo Gomez, as of his representative, if he so desires.
witness for private respondent, ascribing statements to petitioner Sec. 6. Decision to dismiss. The employer shall immediately notify a
supposedly indicative of the latter's intention to abandon his work. We worker in writing of a decision to dismiss him stating clearly the reasons
perceive the irregularity in the taking of such deposition without the therefor.
presence of petitioner's counsel, and the failure of private respondent to Sec. 7. Right to contest dismissal. Any decision taken by the employer
serve reasonably advance notice of its taking to said counsel, thereby shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity
foreclosing his opportunity to or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the Regional Branch
cross-examine the deponent. Private respondent also failed to serve of the Commission.
notice thereof on the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI of the NLRC, as xxx xxx xxx
certified to by Administrative Assistant Celestina G. Ovejera of said Sec. 11. Report of dismissal. The employer shall submit a monthly
office. 36 Fair play dictates that at such an important stage of the report to the Regional Office having jurisdiction over the place of work at
proceedings, which involves the taking of testimony, both parties must all dismissals effected by him during the month, specifying therein the
be afforded equal opportunity to examine and cross-examine a witness. names of the dismissed workers, the reasons for their dismissal, the
As to the monthly monetary amounts given to petitioner, whether dates of commencement and termination of employment, the positions
denominated as salary, pension, allowance orex gratia handout, there is last held by them and such other information as may be required by the
no question as to petitioner's entitlement thereto inasmuch as he Ministry for policy guidance and statistical purposes.
continued to perform services in his capacity as farm administrator. The Private respondent's argument is without merit as there can be no
change in description of said amounts contained in the pay slips or in the question that petitioner was denied his right to due process since he was
receipts prepared by private respondent cannot be deemed to be never given any notice about his impending dismissal and the grounds
determinative of petitioner's employment status in view of the peculiar therefor, much less a chance to be heard. Even as private respondent
circumstances above set out. Besides, if such amounts were truly in the controverts the applicability of the mandatory twin requirements of
nature of allowances given by a parent out of concern for his child's procedural due process in this particular case, he in effect admits that no
welfare, it is rather unusual that receipts therefor 37 should be necessary notice was served by him on petitioner. This fact is corroborated by the
and required as if they were ordinary business expenditures. certification issued on September 5, 1984 by the Regional Director for
Neither can we subscribe to private respondent's theory that petitioner's Region VI of the Department of Labor that no notice of termination of the
alleged abandonment was converted into an implied voluntary employment of petitioner was submitted thereto. 41
resignation on account of the father's agreement to support his son after Granting arguendo that there was abandonment in this case, it
the latter abandoned his work. As we have determined that no nonetheless cannot be denied that notice still had to be served upon the
abandonment took place in this case, the monthly sums received by employee sought to be dismissed, as the second sentence of Section 2
petitioner, regardless of designation, were in consideration for services of the pertinent implementing rules explicitly requires service thereof at
rendered emanating from an employer-employee relationship and were the employee's last known address, by way of substantial compliance.
not of a character that can qualify them as mere civil support given out While it is conceded that it is the employer's prerogative to terminate an
of parental duty and solicitude. We are also hard put to imagine how employee, especially when there is just cause therefor, the requirements
abandonment can be impliedly converted into a voluntary resignation of due process cannot be lightly taken. The law does not countenance
without any positive act on the part of the employee conveying a desire the arbitrary exercise of such a power or prerogative when it has the
to terminate his employment. The very concept of resignation as a effect of undermining the fundamental guarantee of security of tenure in
ground for termination by the employee of his employment38 does not favor of the employee. 42
square with the elements constitutive of abandonment. On the executive labor arbiter's misplaced reliance on the Wenphil case,
On procedural considerations, petitioner posits that there was a violation the Solicitor General rejoins as follows:
by private respondent of the due process requirements under the Labor The Labor Arbiter held thus:
Code for want of notice and hearing. 39 Private respondent, in opposition, While we are in full agreement with the respondent as to his defense of
argues that Section 2, Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implied resignation and/or abandonment, records somehow showed that
Page 71

Implementing the Labor Code applies only to cases where the employer he failed to notify the Department of
seeks to terminate the services of an employee on any of the grounds Labor and Employment for his sons' (sic)/complainants' (sic)

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
aba(n)donment as required by BP 130. And for this failure, the other Honorable Court held that when it comes to reinstatement, differences
requisite for a valid termination by an employer was not complied with. should be made between managers and the ordinary workingmen. The
This however, would not work to invalidate the otherwise (sic) existence Court concluded that a company which no longer trusts its managers
of a valid cause for dismissal. The validity of the cause of dismissal must cannot operate freely in a competitive and profitable manner. The NLRC
be upheld at all times provided however that sanctions must be imposed should know the difference between managers and ordinary
on the respondent for his failure to observe the notice on due process workingmen. It cannot imprudently order the reinstatement of managers
requirement. (Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80587). (Decision Labor with the same ease and liberality as that of rank and file workers who
Arbiter, at 11-12, Annex "C" Petition), . . . had been terminated. Similarly, a reinstatement may not be appropriate
This is thus a very different case from Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC, 170 or feasible in case of antipathy or antagonism between the parties
SCRA 69. In Wenphil, the rule applied to the facts is: once an employee (Morales, vs. NLRC, 188 SCRA 295).
is dismissed for just cause, he must not be rewarded In the present case, it is submitted that petitioner should not be reinstated
re-employment and backwages for failure of his employer to observe as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao. The present relationship of
procedural due process. The public policy behind this is that, it may petitioner and private respondent (is) so strained that a harmonious and
encourage the employee to do even worse and render a mockery of the peaceful employee-employer relationship is hardly possible. 49
rules of discipline required to be observed. However, the employer must III. Finally, petitioner insists on an award of moral damages, arguing that
be penalized for his infraction of due process. In the present case, his dismissal from employment was attended by bad faith or fraud, or
however, not only was petitioner dismissed without due process, but his constituted oppression, or was contrary to morals, good customs or
dismissal is without just cause. Petitioner did not abandon his public policy. He further prays for exemplary damages to serve as a
employment because he has a justifiable excuse. 43 deterrent against similar acts of unjust dismissal by other employers.
II. Petitioner avers that the executive labor arbiter erred in disregarding Moral damages, under Article 2217 of the Civil Code, may be awarded
the mandatory provisions of Article 279 of the Labor Code which entitles to compensate one for diverse injuries such as mental anguish,
an illegally dismissed employee to reinstatement and back wages and, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social humiliation,
instead, affirmed the imposition of the penalty of P5,000.00 on private provided that such injuries spring from a wrongful act or omission of the
respondent for violation of the due process requirements. Private defendant which was the proximate cause thereof. 50Exemplary
respondent, for his part, maintains that there was error in imposing the damages, under Article 2229, are imposed by way of example or
fine because that penalty contemplates the failure to submit the correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated
employer's report on dismissed employees to the DOLE regional office, or compensatory damages. They are not recoverable as a matter of right,
as required under Section 5 (now, Section 11), Rule XIV of the it being left to the court to decide whether or not they should be
implementing rules, and not the failure to serve notice upon the adjudicated. 51
employee sought to be dismissed by the employer. We are well aware of the Court's rulings in a number of cases in the past
Both the Constitution and the Labor Code enunciate in no uncertain allowing recovery of moral damages where the dismissal of the
terms the right of every worker to security of tenure. 44 To give teeth to employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act
this constitutional and statutory mandates, the Labor Code spells out the oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good
relief available to an employee in case of its denial: customs or public policy, 52 and of exemplary damages if the dismissal
Art. 279. Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employment, the was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. 53 We do
employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a not feel, however, that an award of the damages prayed for in this petition
just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly would be proper even if, seemingly, the facts of the case justify their
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of allowance. In the aforestated cases of illegal dismissal where moral and
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive exemplary damages were awarded, the dismissed employees were
of allowances, and to his other benefits of their monetary equivalent genuinely without fault and were undoubtedly victims of the erring
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to employers' capricious exercise of power.
the time of actual reinstatement. In the present case, we find that both petitioner and private respondent
Clearly, therefore, an employee is entitled to reinstatement with full back can equally be faulted for fanning the flames which gave rise to and
wages in the absence of just cause for dismissal. 45 The Court, however, ultimately aggravated this controversy, instead of sincerely negotiating a
on numerous occasions has tempered the rigid application of said peaceful settlement of their disparate claims. The records reveal how
provision of the Labor Code, recognizing that in some cases certain their actuations seethed with mutual antagonism and the undeniable
events may have transpired as would militate against the practicability of enmity between them negates the likelihood that either of them acted in
granting the relief thereunder provided, and declares that where there good faith. It is apparent that each one has a cause for damages against
are strained relations between the employer and the employee, payment the other. For this reason, we hold that no moral or exemplary damages
of back wages and severance pay may be awarded instead of can rightfully be awarded to petitioner.
reinstatement, 46 and more particularly when managerial employees are On this score, we are once again persuaded by the validity of the
concerned. 47 Thus, where reinstatement is no longer possible, it is following recommendation of the Solicitor General:
therefore appropriate that the dismissed employee be given his fair and The Labor Arbiter's decision in RAB Case No. 0452-84 should be
just share of what the law accords him. 48 modified. There was no voluntary abandonment in this case because
We note with favor and give our imprimatur to the Solicitor General's petitioner has a justifiable excuse for his absence, or such absence does
ratiocination, to wit: not warrant outright dismissal without notice and hearing. Private
As a general rule, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall respondent, therefore, is guilty of illegal dismissal. He should be ordered
be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to his to pay backwages for a period not exceeding three years from date of
backwages computed from the time his compensation was withheld up dismissal. And in lieu of reinstatement, petitioner may be paid separation
Page 72

to the time of his reinstatement. (Morales vs. NLRC, 188 SCRA 295). But pay equivalent to one (1) month('s) salary for every year of service, a
in Pacific Cement Company, Inc. vs. NLRC, 173 SCRA 192, this fraction of six months being considered as one (1) year in accordance

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
with recent jurisprudence (Tan, Jr. vs. NLRC, 183 SCRA 651). But all PASTOR D. AGO, LOURDES YU AGO and THE COURT OF
claims for damages should be dismissed, for both parties are equally at APPEALS, respondents.
fault. 54 Quijano and Arroyo for petitioners.
The conduct of the respective counsel of the parties, as revealed by the Jose M. Luison for respondents.
records, sorely disappoints the Court and invites reproof. Both counsel
may well be reminded that their ethical duty as lawyers to represent their CASTRO, J.:
clients with The parties in this case, except Lourdes Yu Ago, have been commuting
zeal 55 goes beyond merely presenting their clients' respective causes in to this Court for more than a decade.
court. It is just as much their responsibility, if not more importantly, to In 1955 the petitioners Venancio Castaeda and Nicetas Henson filed a
exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out replevin suit against Pastor Ago in the Court of First Instance of Manila
of court and especially in consideration of the direct and immediate to recover certain machineries (civil case 27251). In 1957 judgment was
consanguineous ties between their clients. Once again, we reiterate that rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Ago to return the machineries
the useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid or pay definite sums of money. Ago appealed, and on June 30, 1961 this
it whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He is Court, in Ago vs. Castaeda, L-14066, affirmed the judgment. After
often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise counsel remand, the trial court issued on August 25, 1961 a writ of execution for
in every phase of life. He should be a mediator for concord and a the sum of P172,923.87. Ago moved for a stay of execution but his
conciliator for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the motion was denied, and levy was made on Ago's house and lots located
conduct of litigation. 56 in Quezon City. The sheriff then advertised them for auction sale on
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides October 25, 1961. Ago moved to stop the auction sale, failing in which
that "(a) lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the he filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement." On this point, we find that court dismissed the petition and Ago appealed. On January 31,1966 this
both counsel herein fell short of what was expected of them, despite their Court, in Ago vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-19718, affirmed the
avowed duties as officers of the court. The records do not show that they dismissal. Ago thrice attempted to obtain a writ of preliminary injunction
took pains to initiate steps geared toward effecting a rapprochement to restrain the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution "to save his
between their clients. On the contrary, their acerbic and protracted family house and lot;" his motions were denied, and the sheriff sold the
exchanges could not but have exacerbated the situation even as they house and lots on March 9, 1963 to the highest bidders, the petitioners
may have found favor in the equally hostile eyes of their respective Castaeda and Henson. Ago failed to redeem, and on April 17, 1964 the
clients. sheriff executed the final deed of sale in favor of the vendees Castaeda
In the same manner, we find that the labor arbiter who handled this and Henson. Upon their petition, the Court of First Instance
regrettable case has been less than faithful to the letter and spirit of the of Manila issued a writ of possession to the properties.
Labor Code mandating that a labor arbiter "shall exert all efforts towards However, on May 2, 1964 Pastor Ago, now joined by his wife, Lourdes
the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction." 57 If he Yu Ago, as his co-plaintiff, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance
ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of of Quezon City (civil case Q-7986) to annul the sheriff's sale on the
the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any reflection of the ground that the obligation of Pastor Ago upon which judgment was
same. rendered against him in the replevin suit was his personal obligation, and
One final word. This is one decision we do not particularly relish having that Lourdes Yu Ago's one-half share in their conjugal residential house
been obliged to make. The task of resolving cases involving disputes and lots which were levied upon and sold by the sheriff could not legally
among members of a family leaves a bad taste in the mouth and an be reached for the satisfaction of the judgment. They alleged in their
aversion in the mind, for no truly meaningful and enduring resolution is complaint that wife Lourdes was not a party in the replevin suit, that the
really achieved in such situations. While we are convinced that we have judgment was rendered and the writ of execution was issued only against
adjudicated the legal issues herein squarely on the bases of law and husband Pastor, and that wife Lourdes was not a party to her husband's
jurisprudence, sanssentimentality, we are saddened by the thought that venture in the logging business which failed and resulted in the replevin
we may have failed to bring about the reconciliation of the father and son suit and which did not benefit the conjugal partnership.
who figured as parties to this dispute, and that our adherence here to law The Court of First Instance of Quezon City issued an ex parte writ of
and duty may unwittingly contribute to the breaking, instead of the preliminary injunction restraining the petitioners, the Register of Deeds
strengthening, of familial bonds. In fine, neither of the parties herein and the sheriff of Quezon City, from registering the latter's final deed of
actually emerges victorious. It is the Court's earnest hope, therefore, that sale, from cancelling the respondents' certificates of title and issuing new
with the impartial exposition and extended explanation of their respective ones to the petitioners and from carrying out any writ of possession. A
rights in this decision, the parties may eventually see their way clear to situation thus arose where what the Manila court had ordered to be
an ultimate resolution of their differences on more convivial terms. done, the Quezon City court countermanded. On November 1, 1965,
WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent National Labor Relations however, the latter court lifted the preliminary injunction it had previously
Commission is hereby SET ASIDE. Private respondent is ORDERED to issued, and the Register of deeds of Quezon City cancelled the
pay petitioner back wages for a period not exceeding three (3) years, respondents' certificates of title and issued new ones in favor of the
without qualification or deduction, 58 and, in lieu of reinstatement, petitioners. But enforcement of the writ of possession was again
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month for every year of service, a thwarted as the Quezon City court again issued a temporary restraining
fraction of six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year. order which it later lifted but then re-restored. On May 3, 1967 the court
SO ORDERED. finally, and for the third time, lifted the restraining order.
While the battle on the matter of the lifting and restoring of the restraining
G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975 order was being fought in the Quezon City court, the Agos filed a petition
Page 73

VENANCIO CASTANEDA and NICETAS HENSON, petitioners, for certiorari and prohibition with this Court under date of May 26, 1966,
vs. docketed as L-26116, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
the sheriff from enforcing the writ of possession. This Court found no belongs to Lourdes Yu Ago, considering that (1) a wife is normally privy
merit in the petition and dismissed it in a minute resolution on June 3, to her husband's activities; (2) the levy was made and the properties
1966; reconsideration was denied on July 18, 1966. The respondents advertised for auction sale in 1961; (3) she lives in the very properties in
then filed on August 2, 1966 a similar petition for certiorari and prohibition question; (4) her husband had moved to stop the auction sale; (5) the
with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. 37830-R), praying for the same properties were sold at auction in 1963; (6) her husband had thrice
preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition. attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction to restrain the sheriff from
The respondents then appealed to this Court (L-27140).1wph1.t We enforcing the writ of execution; (7) the sheriff executed the deed of final
dismissed the petition in a minute resolution on February 8, 1967. sale on April 17, 1964 when Pastor failed to redeem; (8) Pastor had
The Ago spouses repaired once more to the Court of Appeals where they impliedly admitted that the conjugal properties could be levied upon by
filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary his pleas "to save his family house and lot" in his efforts to prevent
injunction (CA-G.R. 39438-R). The said court gave due course to the execution; and (9) it was only on May 2, 1964 when he and his wife filed
petition and granted preliminary injunction. After hearing, it rendered the complaint for annulment of the sheriff's sale upon the issue that the
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: wife's share in the properties cannot be levied upon on the ground that
WHEREFORE, writ of preliminary injunction from enforcement of the writ she was not a party to the logging business and not a party to the replevin
of possession on and ejectment from the one-half share in the properties suit. The spouses Ago had every opportunity to raise the issue in the
involved belonging to Lourdes Yu Ago dated June 15, 1967 is made various proceedings hereinbefore discussed but did not; laches now
permanent pending decision on the merits in Civil Case No. Q-7986 and effectively bars them from raising it.
ordering respondent Court to proceed with the trial of Civil Case No. Q- Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
7986 on the merits without unnecessary delay. No pronouncement as to unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence,
costs. could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to
Failing to obtain reconsideration, the petitioners Castaeda and Henson assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the
filed the present petition for review of the aforesaid decision. party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. 2
1. We do not see how the doctrine that a court may not interfere with the 5. The decision of the appellate court under review suffers from two fatal
orders of a co-equal court can apply in the case at bar. The Court of First infirmities.
Instance of Manila, which issued the writ of possession, ultimately was (a) It enjoined the enforcement of the writ of possession to and ejectment
not interfered with by its co-equal court, the Court of First Instance of from the one-half share in the properties involved belonging to Lourdes
Quezon City as the latter lifted the restraining order it had previously Yu Ago. This half-share is not in esse, but is merely an inchoate interest,
issued against the enforcement of the Manila court's writ of possession; a mere expectancy, constituting neither legal nor equitable estate, and
it is the Court of Appeals that enjoined, in part, the enforcement of the will ripen into title when only upon liquidation and settlement there
writ. appears to be assets of the community. 3 The decision sets at naught the
2. Invoking Comilang vs. Buendia, et al., 1 where the wife was a party in well-settled rule that injunction does not issue to protect a right not in
one case and the husband was a party in another case and a levy on esse and which may never arise. 4
their conjugal properties was upheld, the petitioners would have Lourdes (b) The decision did not foresee the absurdity, or even the impossibility,
Yu Ago similarly bound by the replevin judgment against her husband for of its enforcement. The Ago spouses admittedly live together in the same
which their conjugal properties would be answerable. The case invoked house 5 which is conjugal property. By the Manila court's writ of
is not at par with the present case. In Comilang the actions were possession Pastor could be ousted from the house, but the decision
admittedly instituted for the protection of the common interest of the under review would prevent the ejectment of Lourdes. Now, which part
spouses; in the present case, the Agos deny that their conjugal of the house would be vacated by Pastor and which part would Lourdes
partnership benefited from the husband's business venture. continue to stay in? The absurdity does not stop here; the decision would
3. Relying upon Omnas vs. Rivera, 67 Phil. 419, the Court of Appeals actually separate husband and wife, prevent them from living together,
held that a writ of possession may not issue until the claim of a third and in effect divide their conjugal properties during coverture and before
person to half-interest in the property is adversely determined, the said the dissolution of the conjugal union.
appellate court assuming that Lourdes Yu Ago was a "stranger" or a 6. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the
"third-party" to her husband. The assumption is of course obviously annulment of the sheriff's sale (civil case Q-7986), elementary justice
wrong, for, besides living with her husband Pastor, she does not claim demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the
ignorance of his business that failed, of the relevant cases in which he replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos, abetted
got embroiled, and of the auction sale made by the sheriff of their by their lawyer Jose M. Luison, have misused legal remedies and
conjugal properties. Even then, the ruling in Omnas is not that a writ of prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment,
possession may not issue until the claim of a third person is adversely to the extended prejudice of the petitioners. The respondents, with the
determined, but that the writ of possession being a complement of the assistance of counsel, maneuvered for fourteen (14) years to doggedly
writ of execution, a judge with jurisdiction to issue the latter also has resist execution of the judgment thru manifold tactics in and from one
jurisdiction to issue the former, unless in the interval between the judicial court to another (5 times in the Supreme Court).
sale and the issuance of the writ of possession, the rights of third parties We condemn the attitude of the respondents and their counsel who,
to the property sold have supervened. The ruling in Omnas is clearly far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice, have
inapplicable in the present case, for, here, there has been no change in tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice. 6
the ownership of the properties or of any interest therein from the time Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted
the writ of execution was issued up to the time writ of possession was position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to
issued, and even up to the present. become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of
4. We agree with the trial court (then presided by Judge Lourdes P. San a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of
Page 74

Diego) that it is much too late in the day for the respondents Agos to technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the
raise the question that part of the property is unleviable because it primacy of truth and moral justice.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
A counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and honesty his case 27251; and because of said acts, the Agos suffered P174,877.08
client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what we in damages.
do not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the Anent this third cause of action, the sheriff was under no obligation to
patent futility of his client's position, as in the case at bar. require payment of the purchase price in the auction sale because "when
It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the the purchaser is the judgment creditor, and no third-party claim has been
intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his filed, he need not pay the amount of the bid if it does not exceed the
case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his amount of his judgment." (Sec. 23, Rule 39, Rules of Court)
bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than The annotated mortgage in favor of the PNB is the concern of the
traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and vendees Castaedas but did not affect the sheriff's sale; the cancellation
caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate. A of the annotation is of no moment to the Agoo.
lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his Case L-19718 where Pastor Ago contested the sum of P99,877.08 out
client; its primacy is indisputable. 7 of the amount of the judgment was dismissed by this Court on January
7. In view of the private respondents' propensity to use the courts for 31, 1966.
purposes other than to seek justice, and in order to obviate further delay This third cause of action, therefore, actually states no valid cause of
in the disposition of the case below which might again come up to the action and is moreover barred by prior judgment.
appellate courts but only to fail in the end, we have motu The fourth cause of action pertains to moral damages allegedly suffered
proprio examined the record of civil case Q-7986 (the mother case of the by the Agos on account of the acts complained of in the preceding
present case). We find that causes of action. As the fourth cause of action derives its life from the
(a) the complaint was filed on May 2, 1964 (more than 11 years ago) but preceding causes of action, which, as shown, are baseless, the said
trial on the merits has not even started; fourth cause of action must necessarily fail.
(b) after the defendants Castaedas had filed their answer with a The Counterclaim
counterclaim, the plaintiffs Agos filed a supplemental complaint where As a counterclaim against the Agos, the Castaedas aver that the action
they impleaded new parties-defendants; was unfounded and as a consequence of its filing they were compelled
(c) after the admission of the supplemental complaint, the Agos filed a to retain the services of counsel for not less than P7,500; that because
motion to admit an amended supplemental complaint, which impleads the Agos obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining the transfer of titles
an additional new party-defendant (no action has yet been taken on this and possession of the properties to the Castaedas, they were
motion); unlawfully deprived of the use of the properties from April 17, 1964, the
(d) the defendants have not filed an answer to the admitted supplemental value of such deprived use being 20% annually of their actual value; and
complaint; and that the filing of the unfounded action besmirched their feelings, the
(e) the last order of the Court of First Instance, dated April 20, 1974, pecuniary worth of which is for the court to assess.
grants an extension to the suspension of time to file answer. (Expediente, The Supplemental Complaint
p. 815) Upon the first cause of action, it is alleged that after the filing of the
We also find that the alleged causes of action in the complaint, complaint, the defendants, taking advantage of the dissolution of the
supplemental complaint and amended supplemental complaint are all preliminary injunction, in conspiracy and with gross bad faith and evident
untenable, for the reasons hereunder stated. The Complaint intent to cause damage to the plaintiffs, caused the registration of the
Upon the first cause of action, it is alleged that the sheriff levied upon sheriff's final deed of sale; that, to cause more damage, the defendants
conjugal properties of the spouses Ago despite the fact that the judgment sold to their lawyer and his wife two of the parcels of land in question;
to be satisfied was personal only to Pastor Ago, and the business venture that the purchasers acquired the properties in bad faith; that the
that he entered into, which resulted in the replevin suit, did not redound defendants mortgaged the two other parcels to the Rizal Commercial
to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. The issue here, which is Banking Corporation while the defendants' lawyer and his wife also
whether or not the wife's inchoate share in the conjugal property is mortgaged the parcels bought by them to the Rizal Commercial Bank;
leviable, is the same issue that we have already resolved, as barred by and that the bank also acted in bad faith.
laches, in striking down the decision of the Court of Appeals granting The second cause of action consists of an allegation of additional
preliminary injunction, the dispositive portion of which was herein-before damages caused by the defendants' bad faith in entering into the
quoted. This ruling applies as well to the first cause of action of the aforesaid agreements and transactions.
complaint. The Amended Supplemental Complaint
Upon the second cause of action, the Agos allege that on January 5, The amendment made pertains to the first cause of action of the
1959 the Castaedas and the sheriff, pursuant to an alias writ of seizure, supplemental complaint, which is, the inclusion of a paragraph averring
seized and took possession of certain machineries, depriving the Agos that, still to cause damage and prejudice to the plaintiffs, Atty. & Mrs.
of the use thereof, to their damage in the sum of P256,000 up to May 5, Juan Quijano, in bad faith sold the two parcels of land they had
1964. This second cause of action fails to state a valid cause of action previously bought to Eloy Ocampo who acquired them also in bad faith,
for it fails to allege that the order of seizure is invalid or illegal. while Venancio Castaeda and Nicetas Henson in bad faith sold the two
It is averred as a third cause of action that the sheriff's sale of the other parcels to Juan Quijano (60%) and Eloy Ocampo (40%) who
conjugal properties was irregular, illegal and unlawful because the sheriff acquired them in bad faith and with knowledge that the properties are
did not require the Castaeda spouses to pay or liquidate the sum of the subject of a pending litigation.
P141,750 (the amount for which they bought the properties at the auction Discussion on The Causes of Action
sale) despite the fact that there was annotated at the back of the of The Supplemental Complaint And
certificates of title a mortgage of P75,000 in favor of the Philippine The Amended Supplemental Complaint
National Bank; moreover, the sheriff sold the properties for P141,750 Assuming hypothetically as true the allegations in the first cause of action
Page 75

despite the pendency of L-19718 where Pastor Ago contested the of the supplemental complaint and the amended supplemental
amount of P99,877.08 out of the judgment value of P172,923.37 in civil complaint, the validity of the cause of action would depend upon the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
validity of the first cause of action of the original complaint, for, the Agos Before us is a verified Complaint[1] filed by Jonar Santiago, an employee
would suffer no transgression upon their rights of ownership and of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), for the
possession of the properties by reason of the agreements subsequently disbarment of Atty. Edison V. Rafanan. The Complaint was filed with the
entered into by the Castaedas and their lawyer if the sheriff's levy and Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
sale are valid. The reverse is also true: if the sheriff's levy and sale are Philippines (IBP) on January 16, 2001. It charged Atty. Rafanan with
invalid on the ground that the conjugal properties could not be levied deceit; malpractice or other gross misconduct in office under Section 27
of Rule 138[2] of the Rules of Court; and violation of Canons 1.01, 1.02
upon, then the transactions would perhaps prejudice the Agos, but, we
and 1.03[3], Canon 5[4], and Canons 12.07[5] and 12.08 of the Code of
have already indicated that the issue in the first cause of action of the
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
original complaint is barred by laches, and it must therefore follow that
the first cause of action of the supplemental complaint and the amended In his Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid Jr.
supplemental complaint is also barred. summarized the allegations of the complainant in this wise:
For the same reason, the same holding applies to the remaining cause
of action in the supplemental complaint and the amended supplemental x x x. In his Letter-Complaint, Complainant alleged, among others, that
complaint. Respondent in notarizing several documents on different dates failed
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of Appeals under review is and/or refused to: a)make the proper notation regarding the cedula or
set aside. Civil case Q-7986 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal is community tax certificate of the affiants; b) enter the details of the
ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the re-filing of the petitioners' notarized documents in the notarial register; and c) make and execute
counterclaim in a new and independent action. Treble costs are the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents
assessed against the spouses Pastor Ago and Lourdes Yu Ago, which he had notarized, all in violation of the notarial provisions of the Revised
Administrative Code.
shall be paid by their lawyer, Atty. Jose M. Luison. Let a copy of this
decision be made a part of the personal file of Atty. Luison in the custody Complainant likewise alleged that Respondent executed an Affidavit in
of the Clerk of Court. favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein
CANON 2: PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND CONVINIENT LEGAL he was actively representing his client. Finally, Complainant alleges that
SERVICES on a certain date, Respondent accompanied by several persons waited
A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN for Complainant after the hearing and after confronting the latter
EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words and
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE veiled threats.[6]
PROFESSION.
RULE 2.01: A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the
cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
IBP Guidelines, Art.1, Sec. 1. Public Service: On March 23, 2001, pursuant to the January 19, 2001 Order of the
CBD,[7] Atty. Rafanan filed his verified Answer.[8] He admitted having
1. Legal aid is not a matter of charity but a public responsibility.
administered the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits were attached to
2. It is a means for correction of social imbalance. the verified Complaint. He believed, however, that the non-notation of
3. Legal aid offices must be so organized as to give maximum their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and the Counter-affidavits
possible assistance to indigent and deserving members of the was allowed.
community and to forestall injustice.
He opined that the notation of residence certificates applied only to
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, documents acknowledged by a notary public and was not mandatory for
he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other government
if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights offices. He pointed out that in the latter, the affidavits, which were sworn
to before government prosecutors, did not have to indicate the residence
JONAR SANTIAGO, A.C. No. 6252 certificates of the affiants. Neither did other notaries public in Nueva Ecija
Complainant, -- some of whom were older practitioners -- indicate the affiants
- versus - residence certificates on the documents they notarized, or have entries
Atty. EDISON V. RAFANAN, in their notarial register for these documents.
Respondent.
October 5, 2004 As to his alleged failure to comply with the certification required by
Section 3 of Rule 112[9] of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, respondent
x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- x explained that as counsel of the affiants, he had the option to comply or
not with the certification. To nullify the Affidavits, it was complainant who
DECISION was duty-bound to bring the said noncompliance to the attention of the
prosecutor conducting the preliminary investigation.
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Notaries public are expected to exert utmost care in the performance of As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR, respondent argued
their duties, which are impressed with public interest. They are enjoined that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients on substantial matters,
to comply faithfully with the solemnities and requirements of the Notarial in cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice.
Law. This Court will not hesitate to mete out appropriate sanctions to Complainant charged respondents clients with attempted murder.
those who violate it or neglect observance thereof. Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the alleged
__________________ crime occurred, his testimony is very essential to the ends of justice.
The Case and the Facts
Page 76

Respondent alleged that it was complainant who had threatened and

harassed his clients after the hearing of their case by the provincial

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
prosecutor on January 4, 2001. Respondent requested the assistance of place of issue and date as part of such certification.[21] They are also
the Cabanatuan City Police the following day, January 5, 2001, which required to maintain and keep a notarial register; to enter therein all
was the next scheduled hearing, to avoid a repetition of the incident and instruments notarized by them; and to give to each instrument executed,
to allay the fears of his clients. In support of his allegations, he submitted sworn to, or acknowledged before [them] a number corresponding to the
Certifications[10] from the Cabanatuan City Police and the Joint one in [their] register [and to state therein] the page or pages of [their]
Affidavit[11] of the two police officers who had assisted them. register, on which the same is recorded.[22] Failure to perform these
duties would result in the revocation of their commission as notaries
Lastly, he contended that the case had been initiated for no other public.[23]
purpose than to harass him, because he was the counsel of Barangay
Captain Ernesto Ramos in the cases filed by the latter before the These formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected,
ombudsman and the BJMP against complainant. considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to
notarized documents. Notaries public entering into their commissions are
After receipt of respondents Answer, the CBD, through Commissioner presumed to be aware of these elementary requirements.
Tyrone R. Cimafranca, set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001, at two
oclock in the afternoon. Notices[12] of the hearing were sent to the In Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos,[24] the Court explained the value and
parties by registered mail. On the scheduled date and time of the meaning of notarization as follows:
hearing, only complainant appeared.Respondent was unable to do so,
apparently because he had received the Notice only on June 8, 2001.[13] The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be
The hearing was reset to July 3, 2001 at two oclock in the afternoon. overemphasized. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary
act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those
On the same day, June 5, 2001, complainant filed his Reply[14] to the who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization
verified Answer of respondent. The latters Rejoinder was received by the converts a private document into a public document thus making that
CBD on July 13, 2001.[15] It also received complainants Letter- document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.
Request[16] to dispense with the hearings. Accordingly, it granted that A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
request in its Order[17] dated July 24, 2001, issued through Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to
Commissioner Cimafranca. It thereby directed the parties to submit their rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
respective memoranda within fifteen days from receipt of the Order, after appended to a private instrument.
which the case was to be deemed submitted for resolution.

The CBD received complainants Memorandum[18] on September 26, For this reason, notaries public should not take for granted the solemn
2001. Respondent did not file any. duties pertaining to their office. Slipshod methods in their performance
of the notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are expected to
The IBPs Recommendation exert utmost care in the performance of their duties,[25] which are
dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest.
On September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution
No. XVI-2003-172[19] approving and adopting the Investigating It is clear from the pleadings before us -- and respondent has readily
Commissioners Report that respondent had violated specific admitted -- that he violated the Notarial Law by failing to enter in the
requirements of the Notarial Law on the execution of a certification, the documents notations of the residence certificate, as well as the entry
entry of such certification in the notarial register, and the indication of the number and the pages of the notarial registry.
affiants residence certificate. The IBP Board of Governors found his
excuse for the violations unacceptable. It modified, however, the Respondent believes, however, that noncompliance with those
recommendation[20] of the investigating commissioner by increasing the requirements is not mandatory for affidavits relative to cases pending
fine to P3,000 with a warning that any repetition of the violation will be before the courts and government agencies. He points to similar
dealt with a heavier penalty. practices of older notaries in Nueva Ecija.

The other charges -- violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of We cannot give credence to, much less honor, his claim. His belief that
Court; and Canons 1.01 to 1.03, 12.07 and 12.08 of the CPR -- were the requirements do not apply to affidavits is patently irrelevant. No law
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. dispenses with these formalities. Au contraire, the Notarial Law makes
no qualification or exception. It is appalling and inexcusable that he did
The Courts Ruling away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly because others
were doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an
acceptable justification for breaking the law.
We note further that the documents attached to the verified Complaint
We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. are the Joint Counter-Affidavit of respondents clients Ernesto Ramos
and Rey Geronimo, as well as their witnesses Affidavits relative to
Criminal Case No. 69-2000 for attempted murder, filed by complainants
Respondents Administrative Liability brother against the aforementioned clients. These documents became
the basis of the present Complaint.

Violation of the Notarial Law As correctly pointed out by the investigating commissioner, Section 3 of
Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly requires
respondent as notary -- in the absence of any fiscal, state prosecutor or
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries government official authorized to administer the oath -- to certify that he
public. They are required to certify that the party to every document has personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
Page 77

acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. Respondent failed
certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, to do so with respect to the subject Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits in

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
the belief that -- as counsel for the affiants -- he was not required to thinking, and if their sympathies are against the lawyers client, they will
comply with the certification requirement. have an opportunity, not likely to be neglected, for charging, that as a
witness he fortified it with his own testimony. The testimony of the lawyer
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the becomes doubted and is looked upon as partial and untruthful.[33]
laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.[26]
They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and
maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to at the same time counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to
be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal refrain from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and
developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence.[27] It is imperative should they do so, to withdraw from active management of the case.[34]
that they be conversant with basic legal principles.Unless they faithfully
comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the Affidavit executed
and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may by Atty. Rafanan in favor of his clients, we cannot hastily make him
become susceptible to committing mistakes. administratively liable for the following reasons:
First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and
Where notaries public are lawyers, a graver responsibility is placed upon defense that is authorized by law for the benefit of the client, especially
them by reason of their solemn oath to obey the laws.[28] No custom or in a criminal action in which the latters life and liberty are at stake.[35] It
age-old practice provides sufficient excuse or justification for their failure is the fundamental right of the accused to be afforded full opportunity to
to adhere to the provisions of the law. In this case, the excuse given by rebut the charges against them. They are entitled to suggest all those
respondent exhibited his clear ignorance of the Notarial Law, the Rules reasonable doubts that may arise from the evidence as to their guilt; and
of Criminal Procedure, and the importance of his office as a notary public. to ensure that if they are convicted, such conviction is according to law.
Nonetheless, we do not agree with complainants plea to disbar
respondent from the practice of law. The power to disbar must be Having undertaken the defense of the accused, respondent, as defense
exercised with great caution.[29] Disbarment will be imposed as a counsel, was thus expected to spare no effort to save his clients from a
penalty only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the wrong conviction. He had the duty to present -- by all fair and honorable
standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a means -- every defense and mitigating circumstance that the law
member of the bar. Where any lesser penalty can accomplish the end permitted, to the end that his clients would not be deprived of life, liberty
desired, disbarment should not be decreed.[30] Considering the nature or property, except by due process of law.[36]
of the infraction and the absence of deceit on the part of respondent, we
believe that the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors is The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was clearly necessary for the
a sufficient disciplinary measure in this case. defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged
date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and could
Lawyer as Witness for Client not have possibly committed the crime charged against them. Notably,
in his Affidavit, complainant does not dispute the statements of
Complainant further faults respondent for executing before Prosecutor respondent or suggest the falsity of its contents.
Leonardo Padolina an affidavit corroborating the defense of alibi
proffered by respondents clients, allegedly in violation of Rule 12.08 of Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates a situation in which
the CPR: A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client. lawyers give their testimonies during the trial. In this instance, the
Affidavit was submitted during the preliminary investigation which, as
Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the CPR states: such, was merely inquisitorial.[37] Not being a trial of the case on the
Rule 12.08 A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except: merits, a preliminary investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of
securing innocent persons against hasty, malicious and oppressive
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or prosecutions; protecting them from open and public accusations of crime
custody of an instrument and the like; and from the trouble as well as expense and anxiety of a public trial; and
protecting the State from useless and expensive prosecutions.[38]The
b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is investigation is advisedly called preliminary, as it is yet to be followed by
essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his the trial proper.
testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.
Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and remind respondent to
refrain from accepting employment in any matter in which he knows or
has reason to believe that he may be an essential witness for the
Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from being a prospective client. Furthermore, in future cases in which his testimony
witness,[31] except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged may become essential to serve the ends of justice, the canons of the
communication arising from an attorney-client relationship.[32] profession require him to withdraw from the active prosecution of these
cases.
The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by the
task of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that No Proof of Harassment
as advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall
them. In contradistinction, advocates are partisans -- those who actively The charge that respondent harassed complainant and uttered insulting
plead and defend the cause of others. It is difficult to distinguish the words and veiled threats is not supported by evidence. Allegation is
fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with
advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of liability.[39] It is not the self-serving claim of complainant but the version
the lawyers who testify for their clients. of respondent that is more credible, considering that the latters
Acting or appearing to act in the double capacity of lawyer and witness allegations are corroborated by the Affidavits of the police officers and
for the client will provoke unkind criticism and leave many people to the Certifications of the Cabanatuan City Police.
Page 78

suspect the truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot believe the
lawyer as disinterested. The people will have a plausible reason for

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn
Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and affidavit[5] of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon
is herebyFINED P3,000 with a warning that similar infractions in the him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize
future will be dealt with more severely. respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.
SO ORDERED. Complainant also attached respondents calling card:[6]
Exceptions: Canon 14, Rule 14.01 and 14.02
Front
Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely
on account of the latter's race, sex. creed or status of life, or
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
LAW OFFFICE
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or
any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Exception to the Exception: Canon 14, rule 14.03
Paralegal
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an
indigent client if:
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820
(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821
competently;
Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719
(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the
prospective client or between a present client and the prospective
client.
Back
Rule 2.03: A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
SERVICES OFFERED:
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
Rule 138 sec 27 ROC: Attorneys removed or suspended by
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may be
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
ABROAD.
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
(emphasis supplied)
of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to
Hence, this complaint.
practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the
superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney
printing and circulation of the said calling card.[7]
for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
recommendation.[8]
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report
PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, A.C. No. 6672
and recommendation,[9] found that respondent had encroached on the
Complainant,
professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02[10] and other
-versus-
canons[11] of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover,
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO,
he contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or
Respondent. Promulgated:
through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138 [12] of
September 4, 2009
the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be
reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a
x-----------------------------------------x
heavier penalty.
We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent
RESOLUTION
but we modify the recommended penalty.
The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by respondent
CORONA, J.:
into complainants professional practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the
CPR. And the means employed by respondent in furtherance of the said
misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.
This is a complaint for disbarment[1] filed by Pedro Linsangan of the
Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to,
Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
including the manner by which a lawyers services are to be made known.
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional
Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:
services.
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES
Labiano, convinced his clients[2] to transfer legal representation.
SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND
Respondent promised them financial assistance[3] and expeditious
OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
collection on their claims.[4] To induce them to hire his services, he
Page 79

Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a
persistently called them and sent them text messages.
profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
as merchants advertise their wares.[13] To allow a lawyer to advertise his stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a
talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the matter that he is handling for the client.
profession in the publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently
render that high character of service to which every member of the bar The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so
is called.[14] that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected.[22] It
seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well
Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides: as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer lends
money to the client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer in
RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an
ANY ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS. additional stake in its outcome.[23] Either of these circumstances may
lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client,
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.[15] Such to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to
actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.[16] the clients cause.[24]
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which malpractice[25] which calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary
provides: powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious sanctions
for initiating contact with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining
RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE employment.[26] Thus, in this jurisdiction, we adhere to the rule to protect
OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers
DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE. and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession.

Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of

This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any the prohibition on lending money to clients), the sanction recommended
kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the wrist. The proposed
order to gain employment)[17] as a measure to protect the community penalty is grossly incommensurate to its findings.
from barratry and champerty.[18]
Complainant presented substantial evidence[19] (consisting of the sworn A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by
statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for
respondents office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and
business as well as profited from referrals suits. conduct.[27] For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional
Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he cards.
later admitted it during the mandatory hearing. Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited. (a) lawyers name;
Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
of Labianos word that respondent could produce a more favorable result. (c) address;
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment (d) telephone number and
violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section (e) special branch of law practiced.[28]
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is
the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor induce Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance.
the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had
reduced fees for his services.[20] Again the Court notes that respondent representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance
never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their
benefits from Labianos referrals. Furthermore, he never denied Labianos original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and
connection to his office.[21] Respondent committed an unethical, emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity
predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot escape of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession. However, in the
liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR. absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible
borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04: for the printing and distribution of Labianos calling cards.

Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating
clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
in a legal matter he is handling for the client. year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
Page 80

exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary future shall be dealt with more severely.
expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the Office of promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legal services offered by a
the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and be furnished lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as it
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court is dignified.
Administrator to be circulated to all courts. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report and recommendation. On June 29, 2002, the IBP
SO ORDERED. Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306,
finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
RULE 15.08 A Lawyer Shall Make Clear Whether He Is Acting In
Court, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year with
Another Capacity. the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more
RULE 2.04: A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those severely. The IBP Resolution was noted by this Court on November 11,
customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant. 2002.
In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration,
CANON 3 Information on Legal Services that is True, Honest, Fair, which was denied by the IBP in Resolution No. XV-2002-606 dated
Dignified and Objective October 19, 2002
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which was docketed as G.R. No.
Rule 3.01 A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, 157053 entitled, Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-auditory or Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Asst. Court
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents. This
services. petition was consolidated with A.C. No. 5299 per the Courts Resolution
Violation of Rule 3.01 is unethical, whether done by him dated March 4, 2003.
personally or through another with his permission. In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties were required to
manifest whether or not they were willing to submit the case for resolution
on the basis of the pleadings. Complainant filed his Manifestation on April
[A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003] 25, 2003, stating that he is not submitting any additional pleading or
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and evidence and is submitting the case for its early resolution on the basis
Chief, Public Information Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZALINO of pleadings and records thereof. Respondent, on the other hand, filed a
T. SIMBILLO, respondent. Supplemental Memorandum on June 20, 2003.
[G.R. No. 157053. August 19, 2003] We agree with the IBPs Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, petitioner, vs. IBP COMMISSION ON 606.
BAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his capacity Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
Office, respondents. primarily to solicit legal business.
RESOLUTION Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:
Inquirer, which reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532- SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
4333/521-2667. grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
and pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing
to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of property as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.
a fee of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
case and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered. consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.
Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were published The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The
in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the
2000 issue of The Philippine Star. primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as interests or what they owe to themselves. The following elements
Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, distinguish the legal profession from a business:
filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for 1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product,
improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of and in which one may attain the highest eminence without making much
Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and money;
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. 2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice
In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
time has come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
and solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of
absolute prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with
on lawyer advertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-old their clients.
Page 81

prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of.
exonerated from all the charges against him and that the Court He himself admits that he caused the publication of the advertisements.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
While he professes repentance and begs for the Courts indulgence, his Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as attorney and be
contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he advertised his legal furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the
services again after he pleaded for compassion and after claiming that country for their information and guidance.
he had no intention to violate the rules. Eight months after filing his SO ORDERED.
answer, he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 Vitug, (Acting Chairman),Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
issue of the Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper. Ten months later, he Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman ), abroad, on official business.
caused the same advertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001
issue of Buy & Sell. Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and
contemptuous affront on the Courts authority. EN BANC
What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising [B.M. No. 553. June 17, 1993.]
himself as a self-styled Annulment of Marriage Specialist, he wittingly MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.,
or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the respondent.
sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the SYLLABUS
contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in 1. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; PRACTICE OF LAW, MEANING
assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four AND EXTENT OF. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
to six months from the time of the filing of the case, he in fact encourages court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures,
people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is
refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service
proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible that involves legal knowledge or skill. The practice of law is not limited to
with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel, and
decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar. the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights
Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, are secured, although such matter may or may not be pending in a court.
the office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally
advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are engages in three principal types of professional activity: legal advice and
permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable. Publication instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations,
in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal
conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data principles not possessed by ordinary layman, and appearance for clients
is likewise allowable. As explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.: before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine
Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of rights of life, liberty, and property according to law, in order to assist in
the lawyers name and the names of his professional associates; proper interpretation and enforcement of law. When a person
addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the
practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools practice of law. One who confers with clients, advises them as to their
attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks the latter
distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. Giving advice for
authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the
associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. One who
legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and
and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law.
of clients regularly represented. 2. ID.; ID.; LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES IN CASE AT BAR
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that CONSTITUTE PRACTICE OF LAW. The practice of law, therefore,
purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying the
trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the perceptive
purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief findings and observations of the aforestated bar associations that the
biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of law." The
journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can
published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of which neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied
are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering, to
lower dignity or standing of the profession. wit: . . . While some of the services being offered by respondent
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The corporation merely involve mechanical and technical know-how, such as
card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient
which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids and
branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule.
the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal
firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such function is
is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing
directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. (emphasis information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and
and italics supplied) adoptation, it strains the credulity of this Court that all that respondent
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the
SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client
Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of
YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt advertisements represent and for which services it will consequently
Page 82

with more severely. charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential
definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of
law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely to the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation.
court appearances but extends to legal research, giving legal advice, 8. ID.; ID.; ID.; CHARACTER AND CONDUCT AS BEST
contract drafting, and so forth. The aforesaid conclusion is further ADVERTISEMENT. We repeat, the canons of the profession tell us
strengthened by an article published in the January 13, 1991 issue of the that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation
Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of the Philippine Star, entitled "Rx for for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as
Legal Problems," where an insight into the structure, main purpose and the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a
operations of respondent corporation was given by its own "proprietor," client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales: . . . catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PARALEGAL OR LEGAL ASSISTANT; CONCEPT IN effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer
THE UNITED STATES. Paralegals in the United States are trained needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He
professionals. As admitted by respondent, there are schools and easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service
universities there which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education, and the unwholesome result of propaganda.
while there are none in the Philippines. As the concept of the "paralegal" 9. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISEMENT OF TALENT OR
or "legal assistant" evolved in the United States, standards and SKILL. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's
guidelines also evolved to protect the general public. One of the major advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics
standards or guidelines was developed by the American Bar Association of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to
which set up Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Education a merchant advertising his goods. The proscription against advertising
Programs (1973). Legislation has even been proposed to certify legal of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental
assistants. There are also associations of paralegals in the United States postulate that the practice of law is a profession. . . .
with their own code of professional ethics, such as the National 10. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCEPTIONS. The first of such exceptions is the
Association of Legal Assistants, Inc. and the American Paralegal publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
Association. standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CONCEPT IN THE PHILIPPINES. In the informative data. "Such data must not be misleading and may include
Philippines, we still have a restricted concept and limited acceptance of only a statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his professional
what may be considered as paralegal service. As pointed out by FIDA, associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches
some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been allowed of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools
limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules distinction; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal
or regulations granting permission therefor. (Illustrations: . . .) authorships; legal teaching positions; memberships and offices in bar
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL POLICY ON PARALEGAL. associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and
We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names
the concept in the United States of paralegals as an occupation separate and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names
from the law profession be adopted in this jurisdiction. Whatever may be of clients regularly represented." . . . The use of an ordinary simple
its merits, respondent cannot but be aware that this should first be a professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a
matter for judicial rules or legislative action, and not of unilateral adoption statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected
as it has done. . . . Accordingly, we have adopted the American judicial with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced.
policy that, in the absence of constitutional or statutory authority, a The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm
person who has not been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address,
for the proper administration of justice cannot be hindered by the being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may
unwarranted intrusion of an unauthorized and unskilled person into the likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a
practice of law. That policy should continue to be one of encouraging designation of special branch of law.
persons who are unsure of their legal rights and remedies to seek legal 11. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENT FOR LAW LIST. The law
assistance only from persons licensed to practice law in the state. list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRACTICE OF LAW IN CASE AT BAR CANNOT cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade
BE PERFORMED BY PARALEGALS; REASON. It should be noted journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For
that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private respondent that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and
which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society
a person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list
such in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is the conduct, management or contents of which are calculated or likely to
in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. . . . deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower the dignity or standing
7. ID.; ADVERTISEMENT BY LAWYER; RULE. Anent the issue on of the profession.
the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional 12. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. Verily, taking into
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which
shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the
statement of facts. He is not supposed to use or permit the use of any fees charged by said respondent corporation for services rendered, we
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or find and so hold that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. fall under any of the above-mentioned exceptions.
Nor shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of the 13. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCEPTION IN BATES, ET AL. vs. STATE
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal BAR OF ARIZONA (433 U.S. 350, 53 L Ed 2d 810, 97 S Ct. 2691) AS
business. Prior to the adoption of the Code of Professional TO PUBLICATION OF LEGAL FEES, NOT APPLICABLE; REASONS.
Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, which
lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional is repeatedly invoked and constitutes the justification relied upon by
employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case at bar. Foremost is
Page 83

procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in the fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows a
which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner of lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal
the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements,
of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such exception is hence the reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted. cdphil
provided for, expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons of In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of
Professional Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibility. said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in
Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through
that the exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any state unless paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
and until it is implemented by such authority in that state." This goes to Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised
show that an exception to the general rule, such as that being invoked are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be
by herein respondent, can be made only if and when the canons allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van
expressly provide for such an exception. Otherwise, the prohibition O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, 2 reportedly decided by the United
stands, as in the case at bar. It bears mention that in a survey conducted States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
by the American Bar Association after the decision in Bates, on the Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues
attitude of the public about lawyers after viewing television commercials, raised herein, we required the (1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
it was found that public opinion dropped significantly with respect to (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3) Philippine Lawyers' Association
these characteristics of lawyers: . . . Secondly, it is our firm belief that (PLA), (4) U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers
with the present situation of our legal and judicial systems, to allow the Association of the Philippines (WLAP), and (6) Federation International
publication of advertisements of the kind used by respondent would only de Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective position papers on the
serve to aggravate what is already a deteriorating public opinion of the controversy and, thereafter, their memoranda. 3 The said bar
legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under attack lately associations readily responded and extended their valuable services and
by media and the community in general. At this point in time, it is of cooperation of which this Court takes note with appreciation and
utmost importance in the face of such negative, even if unfair, criticisms gratitude.
at times, to adopt and maintain that level of professional conduct which The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not
is beyond reproach, and to exert all efforts to regain the high esteem the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised
formerly accorded to the legal profession. by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same
RESOLUTION can properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.
REGALADO, J p: cdphil
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case,
from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of we deem it proper and enlightening to present hereunder excerpts from
Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons the respective position papers adopted by the aforementioned bar
or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the associations and the memoranda submitted by them on the issues
law profession other than those allowed by law." cdrep involved in this bar matter.
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows: 1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:
Annex A xxx xxx xxx
SECRET MARRIAGE? Notwithstanding the subtle manner by which respondent endeavored to
P560.00 for a valid marriage. distinguish the two terms, i.e., "legal support services" vis-a-vis "legal
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. services", common sense would readily dictate that the same are
ANNULMENT. VISA. essentially without substantial distinction. For who could deny that
THE Please call: document search, evidence gathering, assistance to layman in need of
521-0767, basic institutional services from government or non-government
LEGAL 5217232, agencies like birth, marriage, property, or business registration, obtaining
5222041 documents like clearance, passports, local or foreign visas, constitute
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am- practice of law?
6:00 pm xxx xxx xxx
7-Flr. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not wish to make issue
Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla. with respondent's foreign citations. Suffice it to state that the IBP has
Annex B made its position manifest, to wit, that it strongly opposes the view
GUAM DIVORCE espoused by respondent (to the effect that today it is alright to advertise
DON PARKINSON one's legal services).
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to
The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. respondent's act of establishing a "legal clinic" and of concomitantly
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. advertising the same through newspaper publications.
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence. The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision of this
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. Honorable Court to perpetually restrain respondent from undertaking
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic. highly unethical activities in the field of law practice as aforedescribed 4
THE 7 F Victoria .
Bldg. 429 UN Ave. xxx xxx xxx
LEGAL Ermita, A. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the impression that
Manila nr. US Embassy respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it renders
CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521- legal services.
7232521-7251 While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the
522-2041; public, the advertisements in question give the impression that
521-0767 respondent is offering legal services. The Petition in fact simply assumes
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above this to be so, as earlier mentioned, apparently because this (is) the effect
Page 84

reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law that the advertisements have on the reading public.
profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced, Concepcion example alone confirms what the advertisements suggest.
first of all, to the very name being used by respondent "The Legal Here it can be seen that criminal acts are being encouraged or committed
Clinic, Inc." Such a name, it is respectfully submitted connotes the (a bigamous marriage in Hong Kong or Las Vegas) with impunity simply
rendering of legal services for legal problems, just like a medical clinic because the jurisdiction of Philippine courts does not extend to the place
connotes medical services for medical problems. More importantly, the where the crime is committed.
term "Legal Clinic" connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes Even if it be assumed, arguendo, that the "legal support services"
doctors. respondent offers do not constitute legal services as commonly
Furthermore, the respondent's name, as published in the advertisements understood, the advertisements in question give the impression that
subject of the present case, appears with (the) scale(s) of justice, which respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it offers
all the more reinforces the impression that it is being operated by legal services, as earlier discussed. Thus, the only logical consequence
members of the bar and that it offers legal services. In addition, the is that, in the eyes of an ordinary newspaper reader, members of the bar
advertisements in question appear with a picture and name of a person themselves are encouraging or inducing the performance of acts which
being represented as a lawyer from Guam, and this practically removes are contrary to law, morals, good customs and the public good, thereby
whatever doubt may still remain as to the nature of the service or destroying and demeaning the integrity of the Bar.
services being offered. xxx xxx xxx
It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering "legal It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined from
support services" as claimed by it, or whether it offers legal services as causing the publication of the advertisements in question, or any other
any lawyer actively engaged in law practice does. And it becomes advertisements similar thereto. It is also submitted that respondent
unnecessary to make a distinction between "legal services" and "legal should be prohibited from further performing or offering some of the
support services," as the respondent would have it. The advertisements services it presently offers, or, at the very least, from offering such
in question leave no room for doubt in the minds of the reading public services to the public in general.
that legal services are being offered by lawyers, whether true or not. The IBP is aware of the fact that providing computerized legal research,
B. The advertisements in question are meant to induce the performance electronic data gathering, storage and retrieval, standardized legal
of acts contrary to law, morals, public order and public policy. forms, investigators for gathering of evidence, and like services will
It may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, the advertisements greatly benefit the legal profession and should not be stifled but instead
in question are only meant to inform the general public of the services encouraged. However, when the conduct of such business by non-
being offered by it. Said advertisements, however, emphasize a Guam members of the Bar encroaches upon the practice of law, there can be
divorce, and any law student ought to know that under the Family Code, no choice but to prohibit such business.
there is only one instance when a foreign divorce, is recognized, and that Admittedly, many of the services involved in the case at bar can be better
is: performed by specialists in other fields, such as computer experts, who
Article 26. . .Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner by reason of their having devoted time and effort exclusively to such field
is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad cannot fulfill the exacting requirements for admission to the Bar. To
by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino prohibit them from "encroaching" upon the legal profession will deny the
spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine Law. profession of the great benefits and advantages of modern technology.
It must not be forgotten, too, that the Family Code (defines) a marriage Indeed, a lawyer using a computer will be doing better than a lawyer
as follows: using a typewriter, even if both are (equal) in skill.
Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a Both the Bench and the Bar, however, should be careful not to allow or
man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the tolerate the illegal practice of law in any form, not only for the protection
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family of members of the Bar but also, and more importantly, for the protection
and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and of the public. Technological development in the profession may be
incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that encouraged without tolerating, but instead ensuring prevention of, illegal
marriage settlements may fix the property relation during the marriage practice.
within the limits provided by this Code. There might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to perform
By simply reading the questioned advertisements, it is obvious that the all of its services, but only if such services are made available exclusively
message being conveyed is that Filipinos can avoid the legal to members of the Bench and Bar. Respondent would then be offering
consequences of a marriage celebrated in accordance with our law, by technical assistance, not legal services. Alternatively, the more difficult
simply going to Guam for a divorce. This is not only misleading, but task of carefully distinguishing between which service may be offered to
encourages, or serves to induce, violation of Philippine law. At the very the public in general and which should be made available exclusively to
least, this can be considered "the dark side" of legal practice, where members of the Bar may be undertaken. This, however, may require
certain defects in Philippine laws are exploited for the sake of profit. At further proceedings because of the factual considerations involved.
worst, this is outright malpractice. LibLex It must be emphasized, however, that some of respondent's services
Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at ought to be prohibited outright, such as acts which tend to suggest or
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. induce celebration abroad of marriages which are bigamous or otherwise
In addition, it may also be relevant to point out that advertisements such illegal and void under Philippine law. While respondent may not be
as that shown in Annex "A" of the Petition, which contains a cartoon of a prohibited from simply disseminating information regarding such matters,
motor vehicle with the words "Just Married" on its bumper and seems to it must be required to include, in the information given, a disclaimer that
address those planning a "secret marriage," if not suggesting a "secret it is not authorized to practice law, that certain course of action may be
marriage," makes light of the "special contract of permanent union," the illegal under Philippine law, that it is not authorized or capable of
inviolable social institution," which is how the Family Code describes rendering a legal opinion, that a lawyer should be consulted before
marriage, obviously to emphasize its sanctity and inviolability. Worse, deciding on which course of action to take, and that it cannot recommend
this particular advertisement appears to encourage marriages celebrated any particular lawyer without subjecting itself to possible sanctions for
in secrecy, which is suggestive of immoral publication of applications for illegal practice of law.
a marriage license. LLpr If respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be directed
If the article "Rx for Legal Problems" is to be reviewed, it can readily be exclusively at members of the Bar, with a clear and unmistakable
Page 85

concluded that the above impressions one may gather from the disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law or perform legal
advertisements in question are accurate. The Sharon Cuneta-Gabby services. cdrep

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored. But divorces, annulment of marriages, secret marriages, absence and
nobody should be allowed to represent himself as a "paralegal" for profit, adoption; Immigration Laws, particularly on visa related problems,
without such term being clearly defined by rule or regulation, and without immigration problems; the Investment Law of the Philippines and such
any adequate and effective means of regulating his activities. Also, law other related laws.
practice in a corporate form may prove to be advantageous to the legal Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the
profession, but before allowance of such practice may be considered, aforesaid laws, the legal principles and procedures related thereto, the
the corporation's Articles of Incorporation and By-laws must conform to legal advises based thereon and which activities call for legal training,
each and every provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and knowledge and experience.
the Rules of Court 5 Applying the test laid down by the Court in the aforecited Agrava Case,
2. Philippine Bar Association: the activities of respondent fall squarely and are embraced in what
xxx xxx xxx lawyers and laymen equally term as "the practice of law." 7
Respondent asserts that it "is not engaged in the practice of law but 4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:
engaged in giving legal support services to lawyers and laymen, through In resolving the issues before this Honorable Court, paramount
experienced paralegals, with the use of modern computers and consideration should be given to the protection of the general public from
electronic machines" (pars. 2 and 3, Comment). This is absurd. the danger of being exploited by unqualified persons or entities who may
Unquestionably, respondent's acts of holding out itself to the public under be engaged in the practice of law.
the trade name "The Legal Clinic, Inc.," and soliciting employment for its At present, becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous four-year
enumerated services fall within the realm of a practice which thus yields course of study on top of a four-year bachelor of arts or sciences course
itself to the regulatory powers of the Supreme Court. For respondent to and then to take and pass the bar examinations. Only then, is a lawyer
say that it is merely engaged in paralegal work is to stretch credulity. qualified to practice law.
Respondent's own commercial advertisement which announces a While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdictions as an aid
certain Atty. Don Perkinson to be handling the fields of law belies its to the administration of justice, there are in those jurisdictions, courses
pretense. From all indications, respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." is of study and/or standards which would qualify these paralegals to deal
offering and rendering legal services through its reserve of lawyers. It with the general public as such. While it may now be the opportune time
has been held that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of to establish these courses of study and/or standards, the fact remains
cases in court, but includes drawing of deeds, incorporation, rendering that at present, these do not exist in the Philippines. In the meantime,
opinions, and advising clients as to their legal rights and then take them this Honorable Court may decide to take measures to protect the general
to an attorney and ask the latter to look after their case in court (See public from being exploited by those who may be dealing with the general
Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1948 ed., p. 39). public in the guise of being "paralegals" without being qualified to do so.
It is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the practice of In the same manner, the general public should also be protected from
law, and such limitation cannot be evaded by a corporation employing the dangers which may be brought about by advertising of legal services.
competent lawyers to practice for it. Obviously, this is the scheme or While it appears that lawyers are prohibited under the present Code of
device by which respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." holds out itself to the Professional Responsibility from advertising, it appears in the instant
public and solicits employment of its legal services. It is an odious vehicle case that legal services are being advertised not by lawyers but by an
for deception, especially so when the public cannot ventilate any entity staffed by "paralegals." Clearly, measures should be taken to
grievance for malpractice against the business conduit. Precisely, the protect the general public from falling prey to those who advertise legal
limitation of practice of law to persons who have been duly admitted as services without being qualified to offer such services." 8
members of the Bar (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court) is to A perusal of the questioned advertisements of Respondent, however,
subject the members to the discipline of the Supreme Court. Although seems to give the impression that information regarding validity of
respondent uses its business name, the persons and the lawyers who marriages, divorce, annulment of marriage, immigration, visa extensions,
act for it are subject to court discipline. The practice of law is not a declaration of absence, adoption and foreign investment, which are in
profession open to all who wish to engage in it nor can it be assigned to essence, legal matters, will be given to them if they avail of its services.
another (See 5 Am. Jur. 270). It is a personal right limited to persons who The Respondent's name The Legal Clinic, Inc. does not help
have qualified themselves under the law. It follows that not only matters. It gives the impression again that Respondent will or can cure
respondent but also all the persons who are acting for respondent are the legal problems brought to them. Assuming that Respondent is, as
the persons engaged in unethical law practice. 6 claimed, staffed purely by paralegals, it also gives the misleading
3. Philippine Lawyers' Association: impression that there are lawyers involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc., as
The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer to the issues there are doctors in any medical clinic, when only "paralegals" are
stated herein, are, to wit: involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc.
1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; Respondent's allegations are further belied by the very admissions of its
2. Such practice is unauthorized; President and majority stockholder, Atty. Nogales, who gave an insight
3. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical, but also on the structure and main purpose of Respondent corporation in the
misleading and patently immoral; and aforementioned "Starweek" article." 9
4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to suppress and punish 5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:
the Legal Clinic and its corporate officers for its unauthorized practice of Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements to solicit
law and for its unethical, misleading and immoral advertising. cases for the purpose of gain which, as provided for under the above
xxx xxx xxx cited law, (are) illegal and against the Code of Professional
Respondent posits that it is not engaged in the practice of law. It claims Responsibility of lawyers in this country.
that it merely renders "legal support services" to lawyers, litigants and Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an advertisement
the general public as enunciated in the Primary Purpose Clause of its to solicit cases, but it is illegal in that in bold letters it announces that the
Article(s) of Incorporation. (See pages 2 to 5 of Respondent's Comment). Legal Clinic, Inc., could work out/cause the celebration of a secret
But its advertised services, as enumerated above, clearly and marriage which is not only illegal but immoral in this country. While it is
convincingly show that it is indeed engaged in law practice, albeit outside advertised that one has to go to said agency and pay P560 for a valid
the court. marriage it is certainly fooling the public for valid marriages in the
Page 86

As advertised, it offers the general public its advisory services on Philippines are solemnized only by officers authorized to do so under the
Persons and Family Relations Law, particularly regarding foreign

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
law. And to employ an agency for said purpose of contracting marriage of industrial relations experts are the officers and business agents of the
is not necessary. labor unions and few of them are lawyers. Among the larger corporate
No amount of reasoning that in the USA, Canada and other countries the employers, it has been the practice for some years to delegate special
trend is towards allowing lawyers to advertise their special skills to responsibility in employee matters to a management group chosen for
enable people to obtain from qualified practitioners legal services for their practical knowledge and skill in such matters, and without regard to
their particular needs can justify the use of advertisements such as are legal training or lack of it. More recently, consultants like the defendant
the subject matter of this petition, for one (cannot) justify an illegal act have tendered to the smaller employers the same service that the larger
even by whatever merit the illegal act may serve. The law has yet to be employers get from their own specialized staff.
amended so that such as act could become justifiable. LLphil "The handling of industrial relations is growing into a recognized
We submit further that these advertisements that seem to project that profession for which appropriate courses are offered by our leading
secret marriages and divorce are possible in this country for a fee, when universities. The court should be very cautious about declaring [that] a
in fact it is not so, are highly reprehensible. widespread, well-established method of conducting business is unlawful,
It would encourage people to consult this clinic about how they could go or that the considerable class of men who customarily perform a certain
about having a secret marriage here, when it cannot nor should ever be function have no right to do so, or that the technical education given by
attempted, and seek advice on divorce, where in this country there is our schools cannot be used by the graduates in their business.
none, except under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws in the Philippines. "In determining whether a man is practicing law, we should consider his
It is also against good morals and is deceitful because it falsely work for any particular client or customer, as a whole. I can imagine
represents to the public to be able to do that which by our laws cannot defendant being engaged primarily to advise as to the law defining his
be done (and) by our Code of Morals should not be done. LLjur client's obligations to his employees, to guide his client along the path
In the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. 37, the Supreme Court held that charted by law. This, of course, would be the practice of the law. But
solicitation for clients by an attorney by circulars of advertisements, is such is not the fact in the case before me. Defendant's primary efforts
unprofessional and offenses of this character justify permanent are along economic and psychological lines. The law only provides the
elimination from the Bar. 10 frame within which he must work, just as the zoning code limits the kind
6. Federacion of building the architect may plan. The incidental legal advice or
International de Abogadas: information defendant may give, does not transform his activities into the
xxx xxx xxx practice of law. Let me add that if, even as a minor feature of his work,
1.7 That he performed services which are customarily reserved to members of the
entities admittedly not engaged in the practice of law, such as bar, he would be practicing law. For instance, if as part of a welfare
management consultancy firms or travel agencies, whether run by program, he drew employees' wills.
lawyers or not, perform the services rendered by Respondent does not "Another branch of defendant's work is the representation of the
necessarily lead to the conclusion that Respondent is not unlawfully employer in the adjustment of grievances and in collective bargaining,
practicing law. In the same vein, however, the fact that the business of with or without a mediator. This is not per se the practice of law. Anyone
respondent (assuming it can be engaged in independently of the practice may use an agent for negotiations and may select an agent particularly
of law) involves knowledge of the law does not necessarily make skilled in the subject under discussion, and the person appointed is free
respondent guilty of unlawful practice of law. to accept the employment whether or not he is a member of the bar.
". . . Of necessity, no one . . . acting as a consultant can render effective Here, however, there may be an exception where the business turns on
service unless he is familiar with such statutes and regulations. He must a question of law. Most real estate sales are negotiated by brokers who
be careful not to suggest a course of conduct which the law forbids. It are not lawyers. But if the value of the land depends on a disputed right-
seems . . . clear that (the consultant's) knowledge of the law, and his use of-way and the principal role of the negotiator is to assess the probable
of that knowledge as a factor in determining what measures he shall outcome of the dispute and persuade the opposite party to the same
recommend, do not constitute the practice of law . . .. It is not only opinion, then it may be that only a lawyer can accept the assignment. Or
presumed that all men know the law, but it is a fact that most men have if a controversy between an employer and his men grows from differing
considerable acquaintance with the broad features of the law . . .. Our interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is quite likely that defendant
knowledge of the law accurate or inaccurate moulds our conduct should not handle it. But I need not reach a definite conclusion here,
not only when we are acting for ourselves, but when we are serving since the situation is not presented by the proofs. cdphil
others. Bankers, liquor dealers and laymen generally possess rather "Defendant also appears to represent the employer before administrative
precise knowledge of the laws touching their particular business or agencies of the federal government, especially before trial examiners of
profession. A good example is the architect, who must be familiar with the National Labor Relations Board. An agency of the federal
zoning, building and fire prevention codes, factory and tenement house government, acting by virtue of an authority granted by the Congress,
statutes, and who draws plans and specifications in harmony with the may regulate the representation of parties before such agency. The
law. This is not practicing law. State of New Jersey is without power to interfere with such determination
"But suppose the architect, asked by his client to omit a fire tower, replies or to forbid representation before the agency by one whom the agency
that it is required by the statute. Or the industrial relations expert cites, admits. The rules of the National Labor Relations Board give to a party
in support of some measure that he recommends, a decision of the the right to appear `in person, or by counsel, or by other representative.'
National Labor Relations Board. Are they practicing law? In my opinion, Rules and Regulations, September 11th, 1946, S. 203.31. `Counsel'
they are not, provided no separate fee is charged for the legal advice or here means a licensed attorney, and `other representative' one not a
information, and the legal question is subordinate and incidental to a lawyer. In this phase of his work, defendant may lawfully do whatever
major non-legal problem. the Labor Board allows, even arguing questions purely legal."
"It is largely a matter of degree and of custom. (Auerbacher v. Wood, 53 A. 2d 800, cited in Statsky, Introduction to
"If it were usual for one intending to erect a building on his land to engage Paralegalism [1974], at pp. 154-156.).
a lawyer to advise him and the architect in respect to the building code 1.8 From the
and the like, then an architect who performed this function would foregoing, it can be said that a person engaged in a lawful calling (which
probably be considered to be trespassing on territory reserved for may involve knowledge of the law) is not engaged in the practice of law
licensed attorneys. Likewise, if the industrial relations field had been pre- provided that:
Page 87

empted by lawyers, or custom placed a lawyer always at the elbow of (a) The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal
the lay personnel man. But this is not the case. The most important body problem;

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
(b) The services performed are not customarily reserved to members of separation, annulment of separation agreement sought and should be
the bar; affirmed." (State v. Winder, 348, NYS 2d 270 [1973], cited in Statsky,
(c) No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information. supra at p. 101.)
All these must be considered in relation to the work for any particular 1.12. Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strictly non-
client as a whole. diagnostic, non-advisory." It is not controverted, however, that if the
1.9. If the person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer, the Code of services "involve giving legal advice or counselling," such would
Professional Responsibility succinctly states the rule of conduct: constitute practice of law (Comment, par. 6.2). It is in this light that FIDA
"Rule 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or submits that a factual inquiry may be necessary for the judicious
occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his disposition of this case.
client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity." 2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can give the
1.10. In the present case, the Legal Clinic appears to render wedding impression (or perpetuate the wrong notion) that there is a secret
services (See Annex "A", Petition). Services on routine, straightforward marriage. With all the solemnities, formalities and other requisites of
marriages, like securing a marriage license, and making arrangements marriages (See Articles 2, et seq., Family Code), no Philippine marriage
with a priest or a judge, may not constitute practice of law. However, if can be secret.
the problem is as complicated as that described in Rx for Legal 2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. The second
Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion-Richard Gomez paragraph thereof (which is not necessarily related to the first paragraph)
case, then what may be involved is actually the practice of law. If a non- fails to state the limitation that only "paralegal services" or "legal support
lawyer, such as the Legal Clinic, renders such services, then it is services", and not legal services, are available." 11
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law"
1.11 The Legal Clinic also appears to give information on divorce, becomes exigent for a proper determination of the issues raised by the
absence, annulment of marriage and visas (See Annexes "A" and "B", petition at bar. On this score, we note that the clause "practice of law"
Petition). Purely giving informational materials may not constitute has long been the subject of judicial construction and interpretation. The
practice of law. The business is similar to that of a bookstore where the courts have laid down general principles and doctrines explaining the
customer buys materials on the subject and determines by himself what meaning and scope of the term, some of which we now take into account.
courses of action to take. LLjur
It is not entirely improbable, however, that aside from purely giving Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
information, the Legal Clinic's paralegals may apply the law to the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience.
particular problem of the client, and give legal advice. Such would To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
constitute unauthorized practice of law. characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give
"It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text which purports advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.
to say what the law is amounts to legal practice. And the mere fact that 12 The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It
the principles or rules stated in the text may be accepted by a particular includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal
reader as a solution to his problem does not affect this. . . . Apparently it instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured, although
is urged that the conjoining of these two, that is, the text and the forms, such matter may or may not be pending in a court. 13
with advice as to how the forms should be filled out, constitutes the In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally
unlawful practice of law. But that is the situation with many approved and engages in three principal types of professional activity: legal advice and
accepted texts. Dacey's book is sold to the public at large. There is no instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations,
personal contact or relationship with a particular individual. Nor does preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal
there exist that relation of confidence and trust so necessary to the status principles not possessed by ordinary layman, and appearance for clients
of attorney and client. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL PRACTICE before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine
THE REPRESENTATION AND ADVISING OF A PARTICULAR rights of life, liberty, and property according to law, inorder to assist in
PERSON IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION. At most the book assumes proper interpretation and enforcement of law. 14
to offer general advice on common problems, and does not purport to When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer,
give personal advice on a specific problem peculiar to a designated or he is in the practice of law. 15 One who confers with clients, advises
readily identified person. Similarly the defendant's publication does not them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney
purport `to give personal advice on a specific problem peculiar to a and asks the later to look after the case in court, is also practicing law.
designated or readily identified person in a particular situation in the 16 Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights
publication and sale of the kits, such publication and sale did not of another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of
constitute the unlawful practice of law . . .. There being no legal law. 17 One who renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a
impediment under the statute to the sale of the kit, there was no proper statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law. 18
basis for the injunction against defendant maintaining an office for the In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19 after citing the doctrines
purpose of selling to persons seeking a divorce, separation, annulment in several cases, we laid down the test to determine whether certain acts
or separation agreement any printed material or writings relating to constitute "practice of law," thus:
matrimonial law or the prohibition in the memorandum of modification of Black defines "practice of law" as:
the judgment against defendant having an interest in any publishing "The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of
house publishing his manuscript on divorce and against his having any legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his
personal contact with any prospective purchaser. The record does fully consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting
support, however, the finding that for the charge of $75 or $100 for the in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings,
kit, the defendant gave legal advice in the course of personal contacts and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
concerning particular problems which might arise in the preparation and conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the
presentation of the purchaser's asserted matrimonial cause of action or giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and
pursuit of other legal remedies and assistance in the preparation of all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law."
necessary documents (The injunction therefore sought to) enjoin The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. (Land
conduct constituting the practice of law, particularly with reference to the Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650).
Page 88

giving of advice and counsel by the defendant relating to specific A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:
problems of particular individuals in connection with a divorce,

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
". . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising as computerized legal research; encoding and reproduction of
persons, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the documents and pleadings prepared by laymen or lawyers; document
law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in search; evidence gathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case; fact
proceedings, pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, finding investigations; and assistance to laymen in need of basic
referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or institutional services from government or non-government agencies, like
authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative birth, marriage, property, or business registrations; educational or
capacity, performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or employment records or certifications, obtaining documentation like
defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one clearances, passports, local or foreign visas; giving information about
who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising laws of other countries that they may find useful, like foreign divorce,
clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any marriage or adoption laws that they can avail of preparatory to emigration
act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged to that foreign country, and other matters that do not involve
in the practice of law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., representation of clients in court; designing and installing computer
102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852)." systems, programs, or software for the efficient management of law
This Court, in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 offices, corporate legal departments, courts, and other entities engaged
Phil. 173, 176-177), stated: in dispensing or administering legal services." 20
"The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident merely involve mechanical and technical know-how, such as the
to actions and special proceedings, the management of, such actions installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient
and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids and
addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule.
for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such function is
before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all that respondent
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client
facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263). the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of
"Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its
work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to advertisements represent and for which services it will consequently
proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential
advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and execution definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the
of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since
relations and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely to
direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to court appearances but extends to legal research, giving legal advice,
become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high contract drafting, and so forth.
degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published
capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These in the January 13, 1991 issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of
customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate the Philippine Star, entitled "Rx for Legal Problems," where an insight
relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, into the structure, main purpose and operations of respondent
so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn corporation was given by its own "proprietor," Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales:
between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance This is the kind of business that is transacted everyday at The Legal
in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments Clinic, with offices on the seventh floor of the Victoria Building along U.N.
in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these Avenue in Manila. No matter what the client's problem, and even if it is
manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic situation, Atty.
adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all Nogales and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are "specialists" in
times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in
attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and
pp. 665-666, citing In Re Opinion of the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals,
quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179 counsellors and attorneys.
A. 139, 144)." Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. Inspired by the trend in
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and the medical field toward specialization, it caters to clients who cannot
out of court. Applying the aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we afford the services of the big law firms.
agree with the perceptive findings and observations of the aforestated The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. "When they come, we
bar associations that the activities of respondent, as advertised, start by analyzing the problem. That's what doctors do also. They ask
constitute "practice of law." you how you contracted what's bothering you, they take your
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services temperature, they observe you for the symptoms, and so on. That's how
can neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is we operate, too. And once the problem has been categorized, then it's
belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been referred to one of our specialists."
offering, to wit: There are cases which do not, in medical terms, require surgery or
"Legal support services basically consist of giving ready information by follow-up treatment. These The Legal Clinic disposes of in a matter of
trained paralegals to laymen and lawyers, which are strictly non- minutes. "Things like preparing a simple deed of sale or an affidavit of
diagnostic, non-advisory, through the extensive use of computers and loss can be taken care of by our staff or, if this were a hospital, the
Page 89

modern information technology in the gathering, processing, storage, residents or the interns. We can take care of these matters on a while
transmission and reproduction of information and communication, such you wait basis. Again, kung baga sa ospital, out-patient, hindi kailangang

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
ma-confine. It's just like a common cold or diarrhea," explains Atty. and degrees in paralegal education, while there are none in the
Nogales. Philippines. 28 As the concept of the "paralegal" or "legal assistant"
Those cases which require more extensive "treatment" are dealt with evolved in the United States, standards and guidelines also evolved to
accordingly. "If you had a rich relative who died and named you her sole protect the general public. One of the major standards, or guidelines was
heir, and you stand to inherit millions of pesos of property, we would refer developed by the American Bar Association which set up Guidelines for
you to a specialist in taxation. There would be real estate taxes and the Approval of Legal Assistant Education Programs (1973). Legislation
arrears which would need to be put in order, and your relative is even has even been proposed to certify legal assistants. There are also
taxed by the state for the right to transfer her property, and only a associations of paralegals in the United States with their own code of
specialist in taxation would be properly trained to deal with that problem. professional ethics, such as the National Association of Legal Assistants,
Now, if there were other heirs contesting your rich relative's will, then you Inc. and the American Paralegal Association. 29
would need a litigator, who knows how to arrange the problem for In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept and limited
presentation in court, and gather evidence to support the case." 21 acceptance of what may be considered, as paralegal service. As pointed
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have
is not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of been allowed limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal
law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by
it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the advertisements the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefor. 30
which it has caused to be published and are now assailed in this Accordingly, we have adopted the American judicial policy that, in the
proceeding. prcd absence of constitutional or statutory authority, a person who has not
Further, as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U.P. WILOCI, been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law for the proper
said reported facts sufficiently establish that the main purpose of administration of justice cannot be hindered by the unwarranted intrusion
respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for various legal of an unauthorized and unskilled person into the practice of law. 31
problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple That policy should continue to be one of encouraging persons who are
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of unsure of their legal rights and remedies to seek legal assistance only
these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but from persons licensed to practice law in the state. 32
rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the
22 Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making
It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
private respondent which constitute practice of law cannot be performed objective information or statement of facts. 33 He is not supposed to
by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of the Rules undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
of Court, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice qualifications or legal services. 34 Nor shall he pay or give something of
law. 23 value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those for, publicity to attract legal business. 35 Prior to the adoption of the
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The Code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics
permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper
moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection
court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of with causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning
those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the
control of the court. 24 importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. 36
The same rule is observed in the American jurisdiction where from The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's
respondent would wish to draw support for his thesis. The doctrines there advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics
also stress that the practice of law is limited to those who meet the of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to
requirements for, and have been admitted to, the bar, and various a merchant advertising his goods. 37 The proscription against
statutes or rules specifically so provide. 25 The practice of law is not a advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the
lawful business except for members of the bar who have complied with fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. Thus, in
all the conditions required by statute and the rules of court. Only those the case of The Director of Religious Affairs vs. Estanislao R. Bavot 38
persons are allowed to practice law who, by reason of attainments an advertisement, similar to those of respondent which are involved in
previously acquired through education and study, have been recognized the present proceeding, 39 was held to constitute improper advertising
by the courts as possessing profound knowledge of legal science or solicitation.
entitling them to advise, counsel with, protect, or defend the rights, The pertinent part of the decision therein reads:
claims, or liabilities of their clients, with respect to the construction, It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation
interpretation, operation and effect of law. 26 The justification for by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen
excluding from the practice of law those not admitted to the bar is found, solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly
not in the protection of the bar from competition, but in the protection of provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law
the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers,
incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the judicial department constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise
can exercise little control. 27 his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a
We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his
the concept in the United States of paralegals as an occupation separate profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by
from the law profession be adopted in this jurisdiction. Whatever may be advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of
its merits, respondent cannot but be aware that this should first be a the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the
matter for judicial rules or legislative action, and not of unilateral adoption money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. The most worthy
as it has done. and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is the
Page 90

Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As admitted by establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
respondent, there are schools and universities there which offer studies

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of and until it is implemented by such authority in that state." 46 This goes
character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.) to show that an exception to the general rule, such as that being invoked
We repeat, the canons of the profession tell us that the best advertising by herein respondent, can be made only if and when the canons
possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional expressly provide for such an exception. Otherwise, the prohibition
capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of stands, as in the case at bar. LLpr
character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar
to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public Association after the decision in Bates, on the attitude of the public about
attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which lawyers after viewing television commercials, it was found that public
is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial opinion dropped significantly 47 with respect to these characteristics of
stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the lawyers:
difference between a normal by-product of able service and the Trustworthy from 71% to
unwholesome result of propaganda. 40 14%
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The Professional from 71% to
canons of the profession enumerate exceptions to the rule against 14%
advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be Honest from 65% to
undertaken. The exceptions are of two broad categories, namely, those 14%
which are expressly allowed and those which are necessarily implied Dignified from 45% to
from the restrictions. 41 14%
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal
manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, and judicial systems, to allow the publication of advertisements of the
of brief biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be kind used by respondent would only serve to aggravate what is already
misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and a deteriorating public opinion of the legal profession whose integrity has
the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone consistently been under attack lately by media and the community in
numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of general. At this point in time, it is of utmost importance in the face of such
birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, negative, even if unfair, criticisms at times, to adopt and maintain that
degrees and other educational distinction; public or quasi-public offices; level of professional conduct which is beyond reproach, and to exert all
posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the legal
and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and profession.
scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject
reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with to disciplinary action, to advertise his services except in allowable
their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented." 42 instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that 49 Considering that Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who is the prime
purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc. is
trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded, with a
purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved
biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely.
journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be While we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or
published in a law list the conduct, management or contents of which are illegality of the purpose/s for which the Legal Clinic, Inc. was created
calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower should be passed upon and determined, we are constrained to refrain
the dignity or standing of the profession. 43 from lapsing into an obiter on that aspect since it is clearly not within the
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The adjudicative parameters of the present proceeding which is merely
card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm administrative in nature. It is, of course, imperative that this matter be
which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special promptly determined, albeit in a different proceeding and forum, since,
branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of under the present state of our law and jurisprudence, a corporation
the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, cannot be organized for or engage in the practice of law in this country.
firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, This interdiction, just like the rule against unethical advertising, cannot
is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone be subverted by employing some so-called paralegals supposedly
directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. 44 rendering the alleged support services. llcd
Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the The remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by respondent is
advertisements for which respondent is being taken to task, which even the concern and province of the Solicitor General who can institute the
includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation corresponding quo warranto action, 50 after due ascertainment of the
for services rendered, we find and so hold that the time definitely do not factual background and basis for the grant of respondent's corporate
and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-mentioned charter, in light of the putative misuse thereof. That spin-off from the
exceptions. instant bar matter is referred to the Solicitor General for such action as
The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, 45 which may be necessary under the circumstances.
is repeatedly invoked and constitutes the justification relied upon by ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein
respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case at bar. Foremost is respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the
the fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows a publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of
lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this
lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation
the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as
of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such exception is indicated herein. Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated
provided for, expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons of Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Office of
Professional Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibility. the Solicitor General for appropriate action in accordance herewith.
Page 91

Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso Narvasa, C .J ., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Davide, Jr.,
that the exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any state unless Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ ., concur.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
amended by Act No. 2828 by adding at the end thereof the following:
March 23, 1929 "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA, personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
Duran & Lim for respondent. The statute as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of
Attorney-General Jaranilla and Provincial Fiscal Jose for the Professionals Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908
Government. and by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the
MALCOLM, J.: Code of Ethics provide:
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of 27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. The most worthy and
the provincial board of Isabela, admits that previous to the last general effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially
elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which, with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation
in translation, reads as follows: for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but
LUIS B. TAGORDA must be the outcome of character and conduct. The publication or
Attorney circulation of ordinary simple business cards, being a matter of personal
Notary Public taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements,
Province of Isabela or by personal communications or interview not warranted by personal
(NOTE. As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale for relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure
the purchase of land as required by the cadastral office; can renew lost business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real
documents of your animals; can make your application and final estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of
requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or
a lawyer, he can help you collect your loans although long overdue, as trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for
well as any complaint for or against you. Come or write to him in his town, business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the
Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the
serve the poor.) importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation, defy
The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality written in Ilocano, which 28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS.
letter, in translation, reads as follows: It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit,
ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928 except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his
MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: I would like to inform you of the approaching duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional,
date for our induction into office as member of the Provincial Board, that but it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in
is on the 16th of next month. Before my induction into office I should be titles or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to the
very glad to hear your suggestions or recommendations for the good of employed to bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with
the province in general and for your barrio in particular. You can come to claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action
my house at any time here in Echague, to submit to me any kind of in order to secure them as clients, or to employ agents or runners for like
suggestion or recommendation as you may desire. purposes, or to pay or reward directly or indirectly, those who bring or
I also inform you that despite my membership in the Board I will have my influence the bringing of such cases to his office, or to remunerate
residence here in Echague. I will attend the session of the Board of policemen, court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or
Ilagan, but will come back home on the following day here in Echague to others who may succeed, under the guise of giving disinterested friendly
live and serve with you as a lawyer and notary public. Despite my advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant
election as member of the Provincial Board, I will exercise my legal or others, to seek his professional services. A duty to the public and to
profession as a lawyer and notary public. In case you cannot see me at the profession devolves upon every member of the bar having
home on any week day, I assure you that you can always find me there knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner
on every Sunday. I also inform you that I will receive any work regarding immediately to inform thereof to the end that the offender may be
preparations of documents of contract of sales and affidavits to be sworn disbarred.
to before me as notary public even on Sundays. Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrels
I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that some between individuals was a crime at the common law, and one of the
people are in the belief that my residence as member of the Board will penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was
be in Ilagan and that I would then be disqualified to exercise my disbarment. Statutes intended to reach the same evil have been
profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not the case and I provided in a number of jurisdictions usually at the instance of the bar
would make it clear that I am free to exercise my profession as formerly itself, and have been upheld as constitutional. The reason behind
and that I will have my residence here in Echague. statutes of this type is not difficult to discover. The law is a profession
I would request you kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by
people in any of your meetings or social gatherings so that they may be himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional.
informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in my capacity as (State vs. Rossman [1909], 53 Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas., 625;
lawyer and notary public. If the people in your locality have not as yet Peoplevs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A., 231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)
contracted the services of other lawyers in connection with the It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice
registration of their land titles, I would be willing to handle the work in of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of the honor of a great
court and would charge only three pesos for every registration. profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against
Yours respectfully, the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the
(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDA bar. It results in needless litigation and in incenting to strife otherwise
Attorney peacefully inclined citizens.
Notary Public. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment
The facts being conceded, it is next in order to write down the applicable or suspension. That should be distinctly understood.
legal provisions. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as originally Giving application of the law and the Canons of Ethics to the admitted
Page 92

conceived related to disbarments of members of the bar. In 1919 at the facts, the respondent stands convicted of having solicited cases in
instigation of the Philippine Bar Association, said codal section was defiance of the law and those canons. Accordingly, the only remaining

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
duty of the court is to fix upon the action which should here be taken. associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest
The provincial fiscal of Isabela, with whom joined the representative of quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in
the Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the case, suggests that foreign trade and investment" (p. 3, respondents' memo). This is
the respondent be only reprimanded. We think that our action should go unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law
further than this if only to reflect our attitude toward cases of this here. (See Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed., p. 115.)
character of which unfortunately the respondent's is only one. The WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under
commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify permanent the firm name Baker & McKenzie.
elimination from the bar. But as mitigating, circumstances working in SO ORDERED.
favor of the respondent there are, first, his intimation that he was
unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and Rule 3.03 Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from
inexperience at the bar, and, third, his promise not to commit a similar the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the
mistake in the future. A modest period of suspension would seem to fit law allows him to practice law concurrently.
the case of the erring attorney. But it should be distinctly understood that
this result is reached in view of the considerations which have influenced Constitution Art 6 Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of
the court to the relatively lenient in this particular instance and should, Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of
therefore, not be taken as indicating that future convictions of practice of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
this kind will not be dealt with by disbarment. administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the court is interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special
that the respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby suspended from privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month from April instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
1, 1929, corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not
Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his
Johnson, J., reserves his vote. pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of
his office.
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 Constitution Art 7 SECTION 13. The President, Vice-President, the
deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not,
all its communication that said partner is deceased. unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure,
Adm. Case No. 2131 May 10, 1985 directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any
business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any
ADRIANO E. DACANAY, complainant franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any
vs. subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-
BAKER & MCKENZIE and JUAN G. COLLAS JR., LUIS MA. owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly
GUERRERO, VICENTE A. TORRES, RAFAEL E. EVANGELISTA, JR., avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
ROMEO L. SALONGA, JOSE R. SANDEJAS, LUCAS M. NUNAG, J. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth
CLARO TESORO, NATIVIDAD B. KWAN and JOSE A. civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as
CURAMMENG, JR., respondents. members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Adriano E. Dacanay for and his own behalf. Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
Madrid, Cacho, Angeles, Dominguez & Pecson Law Office for bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled
respondents. corporations and their subsidiaries.

AQUINO, J.: Constitution Art 9 SECTION 2. No Member of a Constitutional

Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980 Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession
lawyers from practising law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law or in the active management or control of any business which in any way
firm organized in Illinois. be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres, using interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise
the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. corporations or their subsidiaries.
Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any
liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether [A.M. No. P-99-1292. February 26, 1999]
the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and if not, what is your JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, complainant, vs. ATTY.
purpose in using the letterhead of another law office." Not having ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of Court, respondent.
received any reply, he filed the instant complaint. RESOLUTION
We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by The complaint filed by Julieta Borromeo Samonte charges Rolando R.
the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a Gatdula, RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City with grave misconduct
professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with consisting in the alleged engaging in the private practice of law which is
members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court.
aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the firm Complainant alleges that she is the authorized representative of her
name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & sister Flor Borromeo de Leon, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 37-14552 for
Mckenzie. ejectment filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
Page 93

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm 37. A typographical error was committed in the complaint which stated
name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being that the address of defendant is No. 63-C instead of 63-B, P. Tuazon

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. The mistake was rectified by the filing of an that complainant is still abroad. There being no definite time conveyed to
amended complaint which was admitted by the Court. A decision was the court for the return of the complainant, the investigating Judge
rendered in favor of the plaintiff who subsequently filed a motion for proceeded with the investigation by "conducting searching questions"
execution. Complainant however, was surprised to receive a temporary upon respondent based on the allegations in the complaint and asked
restraining order signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of Branch 220, for the record of Civil Case No. Q-96-28187 for evaluation. The case was
RTC, Quezon City, where Atty. Rolando Gatdula is the Branch Clerk of set for hearing for the last time on October 22, 1997, to give complainant
Court, enjoining the execution of the decision of the Metropolitan Trial a last chance to appear, but there was again no appearance despite
Court. Complainant alleges that the issuance of the temporary notice.
restraining order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the The respondent testified in his own behalf to affirm the statements in his
application for preliminary injunction. Comment and submitted documentary evidence consisting mainly of the
Complainant further alleges that when she went to Branch 220, RTC, pleadings in MTC Civil Case No. 37-14552, and in RTC Civil Case No.
Quezon City, to inquire about the reason for the issuance of the Q96-28187 to show that the questioned orders of the court were not
temporary restraining order, respondent Atty. Rolando Gatdula, blamed improperly issued.
her lawyer for writing the wrong address in the complaint for ejectment The investigating judge made the following findings:
and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she should "For failure of the complainant to appear at the several hearings despite
change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent at the same notice, she failed to substantiate her allegations in the complaint
time giving his calling card with the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, particularly that herein respondent gave her his calling card and tried to
Dimailig and Celera" with office at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora convince her to change her lawyer. This being the case, it cannot be
Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City; otherwise she will not be able to eject the established with certainty that respondent indeed gave her his calling
defendant Dave Knope. Complainant told respondent that she could not card and even convinced her to change her lawyer. Moreover, as borne
decide because she was only representing her sister. To her by the records of Civil Case No. Q-96-28187, complainant was duly
consternation, the RTC Branch 220 issued an order granting the notified of all the proceedings leading to the issuance of the TRO and
preliminary injunction as threatened by respondent despite the fact that the subsequent orders of Judge Prudencio Altre Castillo, Jr. of RTC,
the MTC, Branch 37 had issued an Order directing the execution of the Branch 220. Complainant's lack of interest in prosecuting this
Decision in Civil Case No. 37-14552. administrative case could be an indication that her filing of the charge
Asked to comment, respondent Atty. Gatdula recited the antecedents in against the respondent is only intended to harass the respondent for her
the ejectment case and the issuance of the restraining order by the failure to obtain a favorable decision from the Court.
Regional Trial Court, and claimed that contrary to complainant However, based on the record of this administrative case, the calling card
Samonte's allegation that she was not notified of the raffle and the attached as Annex "B" of complainant's affidavit dated September 25,
hearing, the Notice of Hearing on the motion for the issuance of a 1996 allegedly given by respondent to complainant would show that the
Temporary Restraining Order was duly served upon the parties, and that name of herein respondent was indeed included in the BALIGOD,
the application for injunctive relief was heard before the temporary GATDULA, TACARDON, DIMAILIG & CELERA LAW OFFICES. While
restraining order was issued. The preliminary injunction was also set for respondent denied having assumed any position in said office, the fact
hearing on August 7, 1996. remains that his name is included therein which may therefore tend to
The respondent's version of the incident is that sometime before the show that he has dealings with said office. Thus, while he may not be
hearing of the motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, actually and directly employed with the firm, the fact that his name
complainant Samonte went to court "very mad" because of the issuance appears on the calling card as a partner in the Baligod, Gatdula,
of the order stopping the execution of the decision in the ejectment Tacardon, Dimailig & Celera Law Offices give the impression that he is
case. Respondent tried to calm her down, and assured her that the connected therein and may constitute an act of solicitation and private
restraining order was only temporary and that the application for practice which is declared unlawful under Republic Act No. 6713. It is to
preliminary injunction would still be heard. Later the Regional Trial Court be noted, however, that complainant failed to establish by convincing
granted the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. The evidence that respondent actually offered to her the services of their law
complainant went back to court "fuming mad" because of the alleged office. Thus, the violation committed by respondent in having his name
unreasonableness of the court in issuing the injunction. included/retained in the calling card may only be considered as a minor
Respondent Gatdula claims that thereafter complainant returned to his infraction for which he must also be administratively sanctioned."
office, and informed him that she wanted to change counsel and that a and recommended that Atty. Gatdula be admonished and censured for
friend of hers recommended the Law Finn of "Baligod, Gatdula, the minor infraction he has committed.
Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera," at the same time showing a calling card, Finding: We agree with the investigating judge that the respondent is
and asking if he could handle her case. Respondent refused as he was guilty of an infraction. The complainant by her failure to appear at the
not connected with the law firm, although he was invited to join but he hearings, failed to substantiate her allegation that it was the respondent
chose to remain in the judiciary. Complainant returned to court a few who gave her the calling card of "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig
days later and told him that if he cannot convince the judge to recall the and Celera Law Offices" and that he tried to convince her to change
writ of preliminary injunction, she will file an administrative case against counsels. We find however, that while the respondent vehemently
respondent and the judge. The threat was repeated but the respondent denies the complainant's allegations, he does not deny that his name
refused to be pressured. Meanwhile, the Complainant's Motion to appears on the calling card attached to the complaint which admittedly
Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was denied. Respondent came into the hands of the complainant. The respondent testified before
Gatdula claims that the complainant must have filed this administrative the Investigating Judge as follows:
charge because of her frustration in procuring the ejectment of the "Q: How about your statement that you even gave her a calling card of
defendant lessee from the premises. Respondent prays for the dismissal the "Baligod, Gatdula, Pardo, Dimailig and Celera law Offices at Room
of the complaint against him. 220 Mariwasa building?
The case was referred to Executive Judge Estrella Estrada, RTC, A: I vehemently deny the allegation of the complainant that I gave her a
Quezon City, for investigation, report and recommendation. calling card. I was surprised when she presented (it) to me during one of
In her report Judge Estrada states that the case was set for hearing three her follow-ups of the case before the court. She told me that a friend of
times, on September 7, 1997, on September 17, and on September 24, hers recommended such firm and she found out that my name is
Page 94

1997, but neither complainant nor her counsel appeared, despite due included in that firm. I told her that I have not assumed any position in
notice. The return of service of the Order setting the last hearing stated that law firm. And I am with the Judiciary. since I passed the bar. It is

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
impossible for me to enter an appearance as her counsel in the very Third, he owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of
same court where I am the Branch Clerk of Court." their social consciousness.
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 B.M. 850. October 2, 2001]
advertising or solicitation of legal services.[1] Respondent does not claim MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
that the calling card was printed without his knowledge or consent and RESOLUTION
the calling card[2] carries his name primarily and the name of "Baligod, ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL
Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address at 220 Mariwasa EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in the left comer. The card PHILIPPINES
clearly gives the impression that he is connected with the said law Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
firm. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card (MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy,
of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and and reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee on
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" which declares it Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve, as it hereby
unlawful for a public official or employee to, among others: approves, the following Revised Rules for proper implementation:
"(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized Rule 1. PURPOSE
by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. Continuing legal education is
tend to conflict with official functions." required of members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to
Time and again this Court has said that the conduct and behavior of ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the
justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk. should be standards of the practice of law.
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
times must not only be characterized by proprietor and decorum but SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from
above all else must be above suspicion.[3] the approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE
WHEREFORE, respondent Rolando R. Gatdula. Branch Clerk of Court, Committee shall be constituted and shall commence the
RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City is hereby reprimanded for engaging in implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
the private practice of law with the warning that a repetition of the same program in accordance with these Rules.
offense will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to cause SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. Members of the IBP not
the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the exempt under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-
private practice of law. six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the
SO ORDERED. MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to
Rule 3.04 A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to six (6) credit units.
representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return (b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial
for, publicity to attract legal business. skills equivalent to four (4) credit units.
It is unethical to use the name of a foreign firm. (c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute
Death of a partner does not extinguish attorney-client resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.
relationship with the law firm. (d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive
Negligence of a member in the law firm is negligence of the and procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit
firm. units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral
CANON 4 A lawyer shall participate in the improvement of the advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.
legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in (f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and
the administration of justice. international conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may
Examples: Presenting position papers or resolutions for the introduction be prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit
of pertinent bills in congress; Petitions with the Supreme Court for the units.
Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD
amendment of the Rules of Court.
SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period
CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, shall begin not later than three (3) months from the adoption of these
participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for members admitted or
to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical readmitted after the establishment of the program, all compliance
training of students and assist in disseminating information periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after
regarding the law and jurisprudence. the end of the previous compliance period.
SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. -- Members of the IBP not exempt from the
Objectives of integration of the Bar MCLE requirement shall be divided into three (3) compliance groups,
namely:
To elevate the standards of the legal profession
(a) Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National Capital Region
To improve the administration of justice (NCR) or Metro Manila are assigned to Compliance Group 1.
To enable the Bar to discharge its responsibility more (b) Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned
effectively. to Compliance Group 2.
The three-fold obligation of a lawyer (c) Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and Mindanao are
First, he owes it to himself to continue improving his assigned to Compliance Group 3.
knowledge of the laws; Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education
Page 95

Second, he owes it to his profession to take an active interest activity wherever it may be available to earn credit unit toward
in the maintenance of high standards of legal education; compliance with the MCLE requirement.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS

establishment of the program. Members admitted or readmitted to the SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are either
Bar after the establishment of the program shall be assigned to the participatory or non-participatory.
appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership on SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. -- Participatory
the date of admission or readmission. credit units may be claimed for:
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin (a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences,
on the first day of the month of admission or readmission and shall end conventions, symposia, in-house education programs, workshops,
on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance dialogues or round table discussion.
Group. (b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor,
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period commentator, resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in
after admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply approved education activities.
with the program requirement for the initial compliance. (c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance SEC. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit units. Non-participatory
period after admission or readmission, the member shall be required to credit units may be claimed per compliance period for:
complete a number of hours of approved continuing legal education (a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or
activities equal to the number of months remaining in the compliance accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or
period in which the member is admitted or readmitted. Such member book review which contribute to the legal education of the author
shall be required to complete a number of hours of education in legal member, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of the members
ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in the compliance practice or employment.
period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU) Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)

SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. -- Credit hours are computed
CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the based on actual time spent in an education activity in hours to the nearest
MCLE requirement under the Rules, based on the category of the one-quarter hour reported in decimals.
lawyers participation in the MCLE activity. The following are the Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS

guidelines for computing credit units and the supporting SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following
documents required therefor: members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN- Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, (b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER (c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the
ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
NUMBER OF HOURS (d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR (e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
SPEAKER COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORS (f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant
CERTIFICATION Government Corporate Counsel;
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION (g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM (h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the
COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION Ombudsman;
FACILITATOR (i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW (j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK teaching experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER (k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of
COMPLIANCE PERIOD Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK Academy; and
AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS (l) Governors and Mayors.
EDITOR SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY of the Bar are likewise exempt:
INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/ (a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED (b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP
TECHNICAL Board of Governors.
REPORT/PAPER SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement A
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for
ARTICLE exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post graduate study
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or
COMPLIANCE PERIOD modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the
LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL MCLE Committee.
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF SEC. 4. Change of status. The compliance period shall begin on the first
BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER LAW DEAN OR day of the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections
Page 96

LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other
DIRECTOR members in the same Compliance Group.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. Applications for exemption from or (e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the
modification of the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported activity, the time devoted to each topic and identity of the instructors. The
by documents. provider shall make available to each participant a copy of THE MCLE
Rule 8. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES (f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity
SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE program. Subject to the implementing Evaluation Forms for a period of not less than one (1) year after the
regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing activity, copy furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
legal education program may be granted approval in either of two (2) (g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under
ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an accredited provider and this program or issues a spurious certificate in violation of these Rules
certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
(2) the provider is specifically mandated by law to provide continuing SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. The accreditation of a
legal education. provider may be renewed every two (2) years. It may be denied if the
SEC. 2. Standards for all education activities. All continuing legal provider fails to comply with any of the requirements of these Rules or
education activities must meet the following standards: fails to provide satisfactory education activities for the preceding period.
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical SEC. 5. Revocation of provider accreditation. -- the accreditation of
content. any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by a majority vote of
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing and for good cause.
to legal subjects and the legal profession, including cross profession Rule 10. FEE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY AND ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDER

activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills SECTION 1. Payment of fees. Application for approval of an education
or the ability to practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral activity or accreditation as a provider requires payment of the appropriate
advocacy. fee as provided in the Schedule of MCLE Fees.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

professional experience. SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance
written materials must be distributed to all participants. Such materials period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has
must be distributed at or before the time the activity is offered. complied with the education requirement or that he is exempt, specifying
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to
location so as to be free from interruption like telephone calls and other the Committee not later than the day after the end of the members
distractions. compliance period.
Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall
SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. -- Accreditation of providers maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished
shall be done by the MCLE Committee. the MCLE Committee. The record required to be provided to the
SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. Any person or members by the provider pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 9 should be a
group may be accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-
may be renewed, upon written application. All providers of continuing participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred
legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to be to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
accredited providers. Application for accreditation shall: Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Committee; SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall
(b) Contain all information requested in the form; constitute non-compliance:
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee. (a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All period;
approved accredited providers shall agree to the following: (b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be (c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including
maintained by the provider for at least four (4) years after the completion evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed period;
date. The provider shall include the member on the official record of (d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of
attendance only if the members signature was obtained at the time of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance
attendance at the activity. The official record of attendance shall contain notice;
the members name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify (e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
the time, date, location, subject matter, and length of the education (f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or
activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE
COMMITTEE. requirements.
(b) The provider shall certify that: SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the compliance. -Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance
amount of ________ hours of which ______ hours will apply in (legal Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days
ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity; from the date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education otherwise showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall
activities prescribed by these Rules and such regulations as may be contain the following language near the beginning of the notice in capital
prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE. letters:
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE
identifying the time, date, location, subject matter and length of the WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM
activity. DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW
continuing legal education activity by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS
members of the IBP Board of Governors, or designees of the Committee RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
Page 97

and IBP staff Board for purposes of monitoring compliance with these Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice
Rules. may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit units for

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
compliance. Credit units earned during this period may only be counted CANON 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in government
toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement service in the discharge of their official tasks.
unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the Public Officials include elective and appointive officials and
excess may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or
requirement. non-career service, including military and police personnel,
Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of
SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever amount. (Sec. 3 (b), RA 6713).
reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall The law requires the observance of the following norms of
pay a non-compliance fee. conduct by every public official in the discharge and execution
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- A member who fails to comply of their official duties:
with the requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has 1. commitment to public interest
expired, shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the 2. professionalism
recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The investigation of a 3. justness and sincerity
member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBPs Commission 4. political neutrality
on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee. 5. responsiveness to the public
SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership fees shall continue 6. nationalism and patriotism
to accrue at the active rate against a member during the period he/she 7. commitment to democracy
is listed as a delinquent member. 8. simple living (Sec. 4, RA 6713)
Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT

SECTION 1. Process. -- The involuntary listing as a delinquent member

shall be terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with A.C. No. 3056 August 16, 1991
the MCLE requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A
member may attain the necessary credit units to meet the requirement FERNANDO T. COLLANTES, complainant,
for the period of non-compliance during the period the member is on vs.
inactive status. These credit units may not be counted toward meeting ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON respondent.
the current compliance period requirement. Credit units earned during
the period of non-compliance in excess of the number needed to satisfy PER CURIAM:p
the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting
the current compliance period requirement. This complaint for disbarment is related to the administrative case which
SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an administrative complainant Attorney Fernando T. Collantes, house counsel for V & G
process. The termination of listing as a delinquent member is Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V & G for short), filed against Attorney
administrative in nature AND it shall be made by the MCLE Committee. Vicente C. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the
Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING
latter's irregular actuations with regard to the application of V & G for
LEGAL EDUCATION
registration of 163 pro forma Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of
SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of lots in its subdivision. The present complaint charges the respondent
five (5) members, namely, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as with the following offenses:
Chair, and four (4) members respectively nominated by the IBP, the
Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme 1. Neglecting or refusing inspite (sic) repeated requests and without
Court and associations of law schools and/or law professors. sufficient justification, to act within reasonable time (sic) the registration
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. of 163 Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment and the eventual
They shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) issuance and transfer of the corresponding 163 transfer certificates of
years and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by titles to the GSIS, for the purpose of obtaining some pecuniary or
the Court. material benefit from the person or persons interested therein.
SEC. 2. Duty of committee. The MCLE Committee shall administer and
adopt such implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the 2. Conduct unbecoming of public official.
approval of the Supreme Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP
Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees with the 3. Dishonesty.
approval of the Supreme Court.
SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. Subject to approval by the 4. Extortion.
Supreme Court, the MCLE Committee shall employ such staff as may
be necessary to perform the record-keeping, auditing, reporting, 5. Directly receiving pecuniary or material benefit for himself in
approval and other necessary functions. connection with pending official transaction before him.
SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. The MCLE Committee shall
submit to the Supreme Court for approval, an annual budget [for a 6. Causing undue injury to a party, the GSIS [or] Government through
subsidy] to establish, operate and maintain the MCLE Program. manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of September 2000,
following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in 7. Gross ignorance of the law and procedure. (p. 10, Rollo.)
the Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended on 02 October As early as January 15, 1987, V & G had requested the respondent
2001. Register of Deeds to register some 163 deeds of sale with assignment
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, (in favor of the GSIS) of lots of the V & G mortgaged to GSIS by the lot
Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, buyers. There was no action from the respondent.
Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., on official leave. Another request was made on February 16, 1987 for him to approve or
Page 98

deny registration of the uniform deeds of absolute sale with assignment.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Still no action except to require V & G to submit proof of real estate tax The investigator, Attorney Leonardo Da Jose, recommended dropping
payment and to clarify certain details about the transactions. the charges of: (1) dishonesty; (2) causing undue injury to a party through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence;
Although V & G complied with the desired requirements, respondent and (3) gross ignorance of the law and procedure. He opined that the
Renomeron suspended the registration of the documents pending charge of neglecting or refusing, in spite repeated requests and without
compliance by V & G with a certain "special arrangement" between them, sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on the registration
which was that V & G should provide him with a weekly round trip ticket of the documents involved, in order to extort some pecuniary or material
from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in benefit from the interested party, absorbed the charges of conduct
lieu thereof, the sale of respondent's Quezon City house and lot by V & unbecoming of a public official, extortion, and directly receiving some
G or GSIS representatives. pecuniary or material benefit for himself in connection with pending
official transactions before him.
On May 19, 1987, respondent confided to the complainant that he would
act favorably on the 163 registrable documents of V & G if the latter Brushing aside the investigator's recommendation, NLTDRA
would execute clarificatory affidavits and send money for a round trip Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio on February 22, 1988,
plane ticket for him. recommended to Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A. Ordoez that the
respondent: (1) be found guilty of simple neglect of duty: (2) be
The plane fare amounting to P800 (without the pocket money of P2,000) reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents presented to him for
was sent to respondent through his niece. registration; and (3) be warned that a repetition of similar infraction will
be dealt with more severely.
Because of V & G's failure to give him pocket money in addition to plane
fare, respondent imposed additional registration requirements. Fed up After due investigation of the charges, Secretary Ordoez found
with the respondent's extortionate tactics, the complainant wrote him a respondent guilty of grave misconduct.
letter on May 20, 1987 challenging him to act on all pending applications
for registration of V & G within twenty-four (24) hours. Our study and consideration of the records of the case indicate that
ample evidence supports the Investigating Officer's findings that the
On May 22, 1987, respondent formally denied registration of the transfer respondent committed grave misconduct.
of 163 certificates of title to the GSIS on the uniform ground that the
deeds of absolute sale with assignment were ambiguous as to parties The respondent unreasonably delayed action on the documents
and subject matter. On May 26, 1987, Attorney Collantes moved for a presented to him for registration and, notwithstanding representations by
reconsideration of said denial, stressing that: the parties interested for expeditious action on the said documents, he
continued with his inaction.
... since the year 1973 continuously up to December 1986 for a period of
nearly fifteen (15) years or for a sum total of more than 2,000 same set The records indicate that the respondent eventually formally denied the
of documents which have been repeatedly and uniformly registered in registration of the documents involved; that he himself elevated the
the Office of the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City under Attys. question on the registrability of the said documents to Administrator
Modesto Garcia and Pablo Amascual Jr., it is only during the incumbency Bonifacio after he formally denied the registration thereof, that the
of Atty. Vicente C. Renomeron, that the very same documents of the Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the said
same tenor have been refused or denied registration ... (p. 15, Rollo.) documents in question; and that, such resolution of the Administrator
notwithstanding, the respondent still refused the registration thereof but
On May 27, 1987, respondent elevated the matter en consulta to the demanded from the parties interested the submission of additional
Administrator, National Land Titles and Deeds Registration requirements not adverted to in his previous denial.
Administration (NLTDRA) (now the Land Registration Authority [LRA]).
In a Resolution dated July 27,1987 (Consulta No. 1579), the NLTDRA xxx xxx xxx
ruled that the questioned documents were registrable. Heedless of the
NLTDRA's opinion, respondent continued to sit on V & Gs 163 deeds of In relation to the alleged 'special arrangement,' although the respondent
sale with assignment. claims that he neither touched nor received the money sent to him, on
record remains uncontroverted the circumstance that his niece, Ms. de
Exasperated by respondent's conduct, the complainant filed with the la Cruz, retrieved from him the amount of P800.00 earlier sent to him as
NLTDRA on June 4, 1987 administrative charges (docketed as Adm. plane fare, not in the original denomination of P100.00 bills but in P50.00
Case No. 87-15), against respondent Register of Deeds. bills. The respondent had ample opportunity to clarify or to countervail
this related incident in his letter dated 5 September 1987 to Administrator
Upon receipt of the charges, NLTDRA Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio but he never did so.
Bonifacio directed respondent to explain in writing why no administrative
disciplinary action should be taken against him. Respondent was further ... We believe that, in this case, the respondent's being new in office
asked whether he would submit his case on the basis of his answer, or cannot serve to mitigate his liability. His being so should have motivated
be heard in a formal investigation. him to be more aware of applicable laws, rules and regulations and
should have prompted him to do his best in the discharge of his duties.
In his answer dated July 9, 1987, respondent denied the charges of (pp. 17-18, Rollo.)
extortion and of directly receiving pecuniary or material benefit for
himself in connection with the official transactions awaiting his action. Secretary Ordoez recommended to President Corazon C. Aquino that
Renomeron be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of leave credits
Although an investigator was appointed by NLTDRA Administrator and retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the
Bonifacio to hear Attorney Collantes' charges against him, Attorney government service, effective immediately.
Renomeron waived his right to a formal investigation. Both parties
Page 99

submitted the case for resolution based on the pleadings.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
As recommended by the Secretary of Justice, the President of the the practice of his calling" (Court Administrator vs. Hermoso, 150 SCRA
Philippines, by Adm. Order No. 165 dated May 3, 1990, dismissed the 269, 278).
respondent from the government service (pp. 1419, Rollo).
The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney Renomeron
Less than two weeks after filing his complaint against Renomeron in the committed as a public official have demonstrated his unfitness to practice
NLTDRA, Attorney Collantes also filed in this Court on June 16, 1987, a the high and noble calling of the law (Bautista vs. Judge Guevarra, 142
disbarment complaint against said respondent. SCRA 632; Court Administrator vs. Rodolfo G. Hermoso, 150 SCRA
269). He should therefore be disbarred.
The issue in this disbarment proceeding is whether the respondent
register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by this Court for WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron
his malfeasances as a public official. The answer is yes, for his be disbarred from the practice of law in the Philippines, and that his name
misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his oath as be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys
a lawyer.
SO ORDERED.
The lawyer's oath (Rule 138, Section 17, Rules of Court; People vs. De
Luna, 102 Phil. 968), imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no DIANA RAMOS, A. C. No. 6788
man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations Complainant, (Formerly, CBD 382)
and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action (Legal Ethics, Ruben E. Agpalo, 1983 Edition, pp. 66-
67). -versus-

As the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro said: ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG,
Respondent. Promulgated:
A person takes an oath when he is admitted to the Bar which is designed
to impress upon him his responsibilities. He thereby becomes an "officer August 23, 2007
of the court" on whose shoulders rests the grave responsibility of
assisting the courts in the proper, fair, speedy, and efficient
administration of justice. As an officer of the court he is subject to a rigid x---------------------------------------------------
discipline that demands that in his every exertion the only criterion he x
that truth and justice triumph. This discipline is what has given the law
profession its nobility, its prestige, its exalted place. From a lawyer, to RESOLUTION
paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are expected those qualities of
truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full candor, intellectual honesty,
PER CURIAM:
and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility all of which,
throughout the centuries, have been compendiously described as moral
character.
This is a complaint for disbarment or suspension[1] against Atty. Jose R.
Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Membership in the Bar is in the category of a mandate to public service
of the highest order. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose
THE COMPLAINT
conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics,
and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest of truth and
In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of
justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader. (Apostacy in
respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions
the Legal Profession, 64 SCRA 784, 789- 790; emphasis supplied.)
against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos.[2] She gave
respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in
for P5,000 only.[3]
government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). Just
as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases
requires public officials and employees to process documents and
against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter
papers expeditiously (Sec. 5, subpars. [c] and [d] and prohibits them from
the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then come
directly or indirectly having a financial or material interest in any
out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled
transaction requiring the approval of their office, and likewise bars them
and rescheduled.[4] This happened six times and for each appearance in
from soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in the course of any
court, respondent charged her P350.
transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office (See.
7, subpars. [a] and [d]), the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids
After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became
a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her cases in the
(Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay any man's
trial courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn
cause "for any corrupt motive or interest" (Rule 103).
that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that
he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).[5]
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. (Rule 7.03,
RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE
Code of Professional Responsibility.)
According to respondent, the complainant knew that he was in the
government service from the very start. In fact, he first met the
Page 100

This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent, honorable,
complainant when he was still a district attorney in the Citizen's Legal
and reliable" may practice the profession of law (Noriega vs. Sison, 125
SCRA 293) for every lawyer must pursue "only the highest standards in

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Assistance Office (predecessor of PAO) of Bian, Laguna and was of Professional Responsibility. It, however, modified the CBD's
assigned as counsel for the complainant's daughter.[6] recommendation with regard to the restitution of P5,000 by imposing
interest at the legal rate, reckoned from 1995 or, in case of respondent's
In 1992, the complainant requested him to help her file an action for failure to return the total amount, an additional suspension of six
damages against the Jovellanoses.[7] Because he was with the PAO and months.[22]
aware that the complainant was not an indigent, he
declined.[8] Nevertheless, he advised the complainant to consult Atty.
Tim Ungson, a relative who was a private practitioner.[9] Atty. Ungson, THE COURT'S RULING
however, did not accept the complainant's case as she was unable to
come up with the acceptance fee agreed upon.[10] Notwithstanding Atty.
Ungson's refusal, the complainant allegedly remained adamant. She We adopt the findings of the IBP with modifications.
insisted on suing the Jovellanoses. Afraid that she might spend the cash
on hand, the complainant asked respondent to keep the P5,000 while Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and
she raised the balance of Atty. Ungson's acceptance fee.[11] integrity.[23] More specifically, lawyers in government service are
expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject
A year later, the complainant requested respondent to issue an to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public
antedated receipt because one of her daughters asked her to account servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.[24]
for the P5,000 she had previously given the respondent for
safekeeping.[12] Because the complainant was a friend, he agreed and Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely
issued a receipt dated July 15, 1992.[13] to public service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is
prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public
On April 15, 1994, respondent resigned from the PAO.[14] A few months Officials and Employees provides:
later or in September 1994, the complainant again asked respondent to
assist her in suing the Jovellanoses. Inasmuch as he was now a private Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and
practitioner, respondent agreed to prepare the complaint. However, he omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
was unable to finalize it as he lost contact with the complainant.[15] Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts
and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared unlawful:
RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP
xxx xxx xxx
Acting on the complaint, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where the complaint was filed, (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public
received evidence from the parties. On November 22, 2004, the CBD officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:
submitted its report and recommendation to the IBP Board of
Governors.[16] xxx xxx xxx

The CBD noted that the receipt[17] was issued on July 15, 1992 when (1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the
respondent was still with the PAO.[18] It also noted that respondent Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with their
described the complainant as a shrewd businesswoman and that official function.[25]
respondent was a seasoned trial lawyer. For these reasons, the
complainant would not have accepted a spurious receipt nor would
respondent have issued one. The CBD rejected respondent's claim that Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for
he issued the receipt to accommodate a friend's request. [19] It found they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their
respondent guilty of violating the prohibitions on government lawyers respective offices.
from accepting private cases and receiving lawyer's fees other than their
salaries.[20] The CBD concluded that respondent violated the following In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the
PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or relationship.[26] Respondent's admission that he accepted money from
deceitful conduct. the complainant and the receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-
client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was
received for or from a client. still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on
private practice of profession.
Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he
knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees.
render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. to indigent litigants.[27] Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the
Revised Administrative Code provides:

Thus, it recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law Sec. 14. xxx
for three years and ordered him to immediately return to the complainant
the amount of P5,000 which was substantiated by the receipt.[21] The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending
free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor,
Page 101

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings of the administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.[28]
CBD that respondent violated Rules 1.01, 16.01 and 18.01 of the Code

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible
from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's and is cause of disciplinary action.
mission.[29] Respondent violated the prohibition against accepting legal
fees other than his salary. G.R. No. 109870 December 1, 1995
EDILBERTO M. CUENCA, petitioner,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY PHILIPPINES, respondents.
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW RESOLUTION
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
FRANCISCO, J.:
Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law.[30] This undertaking includes After his petition for review of the Court of Appeals' judgment 1 affirming
the observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by his conviction for violation of the "Trust Receipts Law" (Presidential
respondent when he accepted the complainant's cases and received Decree No. 115) was denied by this Court in a Resolution dated February
attorney's fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, 9, 1994, 2 petitioner filed on July 6, 1994 a pleading entitled
respondent's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 "SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL" 3 setting forth, in relation to the motion for
private practice of profession disqualified him from acting as the new trial:
complainant's counsel. 6. The Motion for New Trial shall be grounded on newly discovered
evidence and excusible (sic) negligence, and shall be supported by
Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private cases affidavits of:
and accepting attorney's fees, respondent also surreptitiously deceived (i) an officer of private complainant corporation who will exculpate
the complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint against the petitioner;
Jovellanoses (which in the first place he should not have done), (ii) an admission against interest by a former officer of the owner of Ultra
respondent also led the complainant to believe that he really filed an Corporation (the Corporation that employed petitioner), which actually
action against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the cases exercised control over the affairs of Ultra; and
were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his appearance fees (iii) the petitioner wherein he will assert innocence for the first time and
for hearings that never took place. These acts constituted dishonesty, a explain why he was unable to do so earlier.
violation of the lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood.[31] The Court in its July 27, 1994 Resolution, 4 among other things, granted
the substitution but denied the motion for leave to file motion for new trial,
Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral "the petition having been already denied on February 9, 1994."
character required of all lawyers, specially one occupying a public office. Notwithstanding, petitioner on August 8, 1994 filed a "MOTION TO
Lawyers in public office are expected not only to refrain from any act or ADMIT ATTACHED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL", 5 and a
omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in "MANIFESTATION AND SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT" on August 17,
government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times 1994. 6 The Court thereafter required the Solicitor General to comment
and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government on said motion and manifestation within ten (10) days from notice, in a
lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of Resolution dated September 7, 1994. 7
social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice.[32] In the Comment filed after three (3) extensions of time were given by the
Court, 8 the Solicitor General himself recommends that petitioner be
There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of violating entitled to a new trial, proceeding from the same impression that a certain
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent did Rodolfo Cuenca's (petitioner's brother) sworn statement is an admission
not hold the money for the benefit of the complainant but accepted it as against interest which may ultimately exonerate petitioner from criminal
his attorney's fees. He neither held the amount in trust for the liability. The full text of Mr. Rodolfo Cuenca's "Affidavit" 9 reads:
complainant (such as an amount delivered by the sheriff in satisfaction RODOLFO M. CUENCA, Filipino, of legal age, with the residence at
of a judgment obligation in favor of the client)[33] nor was it given to him Urdaneta Village, Makati, Metro Manila, after being duly sworn and (sic)
for a specific purpose (such as amounts given for filing fees and bail state that:
bond).[34] Nevertheless, respondent should return the P5,000 as he, a 1. During the years 1967 until February 1983, I was the President and
government lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees and not allowed Chief Executive Officer of Construction Development Corporation of the
to accept them.[35] Philippines (CDCP).
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found guilty of violating the 2. During that period, I controlled an effective majority of the voting
lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18, Rule 18.01 of the Code shares of stock of CDCP.
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is 3. Sometime in 1974, upon my initiative, CDCP together with its affiliated
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name companies, organized a number of wholly-owned service corporations.
is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is also ordered One of these was Ultra International Trading Corporation, whose
to return to complainant the amount of P5,000 with interest at the legal purpose was to serve and supply the needs of CDCP and its other
rate, reckoned from 1995, within 10 days from receipt of this resolution. subsidiaries with lower value goods and using Ultra's financial resources.
4. The directors in Ultra Corporation were nominees of CDCP, and
Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal records of received the instructions directly from me and or Mr. Pedro Valdez,
respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant and notice of the same be Chairman of CDCP.
served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the 5. From Ultra's inception, my brother, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca was
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. appointed President and Chief Executive Officer. On March, 1979, I
instructed Ultra through my brother, Mr. Edilberto Cuenca to purchase
for CDCP various steel materials. These materials were received by
Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public CDCP and are covered by the trust receipts which are the subject of this
Page 102

prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The case.
suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
6. In 1980, CDCP suffered cashflow problems, and consciously omitted entertain a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered
payment to Ultra for the delivery of the said steel materials. As a nominee evidence, for only questions of fact are involved therein.
of CDCP, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca merely acted as agent for CDCP. As the rule now appears to have been relaxed, if not abandoned, in
such, CDCP provided him with the guarantees needed to persuade subsequent cases like "Helmuth, Jr. v. People" 11 and "People v.
China Bank to issue the said trust receipts. On the basis of such Amparado". 12
guarantees, along with informal assurances issued by CDCP to China In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside technicalities and despite
Bank that the transactions of Ultra were undertaken for and on behalf of the opposition of the Solicitor General, granted new trial to the convicted
CDCP and CDCP Mining Corporation, Ultra was able to obtain credit accused concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or affidavits of
facilities, among which included the trust receipts subject of this case. persons which the Court considered as newly discovered and probably
7. However, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca had no power to cause the sufficient evidence to reverse the judgment of conviction. Being similarly
payment of said trust receipts because the common Treasurer and circumstanced, there is no nagging reason why herein petitioner should
controller of both CDCP and Ultra, Ms. Nora Vinluan, acted under my be denied the same benefit. It becomes all the more plausible under the
control and I did not allow her to make the appropriate payments. circumstances considering that the "People" does not raise any objection
8. To my knowledge, CDCP has not paid Ultra the amounts to a new trial, for which reason the Solicitor General ought to be specially
corresponding to the materials covered by the trust receipts subject of commended for displaying once again such statesmanlike gesture of
this case. impartiality. The Solicitor General's finest hour, indeed.
9. By the time final demand to pay on the trust receipts were (sic) served WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion For New Trial is hereby GRANTED.
in 1984, Mr. Edilberto Cuenca was no longer president of Ultra Let the case be RE-OPENED and REMANDED to the court of origin for
Corporation and could not have possibly cause (sic) Ultra Corporation to reception of petitioner's evidence.
pay. SO ORDERED.
10. I have executed this affidavit in order to accept personal responsibility
for the trust receipts subject of this case and to exculpate Mr. Edilberto Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
Cuenca of the criminal charges which he has asked this Honorable Court public position to promote or advance his private interest, nor allow
to review. the latter to interfere with his public duties.
11. Accordingly, I also undertake to pay the civil obligations arising from
the subject trust receipts. [A.C. No. 4018. March 8, 2005]
(Sgd.) OMAR P. ALI, complainant, vs. ATTY. MOSIB A.
RODOLFO M. CUENCA BUBONG, respondent.
Affiant DECISION
And the Solicitor General had this to say: PER CURIAM:
Ordinarily, it is too late at this stage to ask for a new trial. This is a verified petition for disbarment[1] filed against Atty. Mosib Ali
However, the sworn statement of Rodolfo Cuenca is a declaration Bubong for having been found guilty of grave misconduct while holding
against his own interests under Section 38, Rule 130, Revised Rules of the position of Register of Deeds of Marawi City.
Court and it casts doubt on the culpability of his brother Edilberto It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an off-shoot of the
Cuenca, the petitioner. Hence, the alleged confession of guilt should be administrative case earlier filed by complainant against respondent. In
given a hard look by the Court. said case, which was initially investigated by the Land Registration
The People is inclined to allow petitioner to establish the genuineness Authority (LRA), complainant charged respondent with illegal exaction;
and due execution of his brother's affidavit in the interest of justice and indiscriminate issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2821
fair play. in the names of Lawan Bauduli Datu, Mona Abdullah,[2] Ambobae
Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Bauduli Datu, Matabae Bauduli Datu, Mooamadali Bauduli Datu, and
prosecutors who represent the People of the Philippines in a criminal Amenola Bauduli Datu; and manipulating the criminal complaint filed
case are not duty bound to seek conviction of the accused but to see that against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others for violation of the Anti-
justice is done. Said Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 states: Squatting Law. It appears from the records that the Baudali Datus are
Canon 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service relatives of respondent.[3]
in the discharge of their official tasks. The initial inquiry by the LRA was resolved in favor of respondent. The
Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution investigating officer, Enrique Basa, absolved respondent of all the
is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts charges brought against him, thus:
or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence It is crystal clear from the foregoing that complainant not only failed to
of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary prove his case but that he has no case at all against respondent Mosib
action. (Emphasis supplied.) Ali Bubong. Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully
The above duty is well founded on the instruction of the U.S. Supreme recommended that the complaint against respondent be dismissed for
Court in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) that prosecutors lack of merit and evidence.[4]
represent a sovereign "whose obligation to govern impartially is The case was then forwarded to the Department of Justice for review
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore and in a report dated 08 September 1992, then Secretary of Justice
in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice Franklin Drilon exonerated respondent of the charges of illegal exaction
shall be done (Time to Rein in the Prosecution, by Atty. Bruce Fein, and infidelity in the custody of documents. He, however, found
published on p. 11, The Lawyers Review, July 31, 1994). (Emphasis respondent guilty of grave misconduct for his imprudent issuance of TCT
supplied.) 10 No. T-2821 and manipulating the criminal case for violation of the Anti-
Although in "Goduco v. CA" (14 SCRA 282 [1965]) decided some twenty Squatting Law instituted against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and the latters
(20) years ago, this Court ruled that it is not authorized to entertain a co-accused. As a result of this finding, Secretary Drilon recommended
motion for reconsideration and/or new trial predicated on allegedly newly respondents dismissal from service.
discovered evidence the rationale of which being: On 26 February 1993, former President Fidel V. Ramos issued
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is conclusive as to the facts, and Administrative Order No. 41 adopting in toto the conclusion reached by
cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, in an appeal Secretary Drilon and ordering respondents dismissal from government
Page 103

by certiorari to the Supreme Court, the latter has no jurisdiction to service. Respondent subsequently questioned said administrative order
before this Court through a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
prohibition[5] claiming that the Office of the President did not have the George C. Jabido, President of IBP Cotabato Chapter requesting the
authority and jurisdiction to remove him from office. He also insisted that latter to receive the evidence in this case and to submit his
respondents[6] in that petition violated the laws on security of tenure and recommendation and recommendation as directed by the IBP Board of
that respondent Reynaldo V. Maulit, then the administrator of the LRA Governors.[14]
committed a breach of Civil Service Rules when he abdicated his In an undated Report and Recommendation, the IBP Cotabato
authority to resolve the administrative complaint against him (herein Chapter[15] informed the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) that
respondent). the investigating panel[16] had sent notices to both complainant and
In a Resolution dated 15 September 1994, we dismissed the petition for respondent for a series of hearings but respondent consistently ignored
failure on the part of petitioner to sufficiently show that public respondent said notices. The IBP Cotabato Chapter concluded its report by
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
order.[7] Respondent thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration which for five years.
was denied with finality in our Resolution of 15 November 1994. On 01 July 1998, respondent filed a motion dated 30 June 1998 praying
On the basis of the outcome of the administrative case, complainant is for the transmittal of the records of this case to the Marawi City-Lanao
now before us, seeking the disbarment of respondent. Complainant del Sur Chapter of the IBP pursuant to Resolution No. XII-96-153 as well
claims that it has become obvious that respondent had proven himself as Commissioner Fernandezs Order dated 23 February 1996.
unfit to be further entrusted with the duties of an attorney[8] and that he Commissioner Fernandez thereafter ordered the investigating panel of
poses a serious threat to the integrity of the legal profession.[9] IBP Cotabato Chapter to comment on respondents motion.[17] Complying
In his Comment, respondent maintains that there was nothing irregular with this directive, the panel expressed no opposition to respondents
with his issuance of TCT No. T-2821 in the name of the Bauduli Datus. motion for the transmittal of the records of this case to IBP Marawi
According to him, both law[10] and jurisprudence support his stance that City.[18] On 25 September 1998, Commissioner Fernandez ordered the
it was his ministerial duty, as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City, to act referral of this case to IBP Marawi City for the reception of respondents
on applications for land registration on the basis only of the documents evidence.[19] This order of referral, however, was set aside by the IBP
presented by the applicants. In the case of the Bauduli Datus, nothing in Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XIII-98-268 issued on 4
the documents they presented to his office warranted suspicion, hence, December 1998. Said resolution provides:
he was duty-bound to issue TCT No. T-2821 in their favor. RESOLVED to DENY the ORDER of Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez
Respondent also insists that he had nothing to do with the dismissal of for the transmittal of the case records of the above-entitled case to
criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law allegedly Marawi City, rather he is directed to re-evaluate the recommendation
committed by Hadji Serad Abdullah and the latters co-defendants. submitted by Cotabato Chapter and report the same to the Board of
Respondent explains that his participation in said case was a result of Governors.[20]
the two subpoenas duces tecum issued by the investigating prosecutor Prior to the issuance of Resolution No. XIII-98-268, respondent filed on
who required him to produce the various land titles involved in said 08 October 1998 a motion praying that the recommendation of the IBP
dispute. He further claims that the dismissal of said criminal case by the Cotabato Chapter be stricken from the records.[21] Respondent insists
Secretary of Justice was based solely on the evidence presented by the that the investigating panel constituted by said IBP chapter did not have
parties. Complainants allegation, therefore, that he influenced the the authority to conduct the investigation of this case since IBP
outcome of the case is totally unjustified. Resolution XII-96-153 and Commissioner Fernandezs Order of 23
Through a resolution dated 26 June 1995,[11] this Court referred this February 1996 clearly vested IBP Marawi City with the power to
matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, investigate this case. Moreover, he claims that he was never notified of
report, and recommendation. Acting on this resolution, the IBP any hearing by the investigating panel of IBP Cotabato Chapter thereby
commenced the investigation of this disbarment suit. On 23 February depriving him of his right to due process.
1996, Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez issued the following order Complainant opposed[22] this motion arguing that respondent is guilty of
relative to the transfer of venue of this case. The pertinent portion of this laches. According to complainant, the report and recommendation
order provides: submitted by IBP Cotabato Chapter expressly states that respondent
ORDER was duly notified of the hearings conducted by the investigating panel
When this case was called for hearing, both complainant and respondent yet despite these, respondent did nothing to defend himself. He also
appeared. claims that respondent did not even bother to submit his position paper
The undersigned Commissioner asked them if they are willing to have when he was directed to do so. Further, as respondent is a member of
the reception of evidence vis--vis this case be done in Marawi City, IBP Marawi City Chapter, complainant maintains that the presence of
Lanao del Sur before the president of the local IBP Chapter. Both parties bias in favor of respondent is possible. Finally, complainant contends
agreed. Accordingly, transmit the records of this case to the Director for that to refer the matter to IBP Marawi City would only entail a duplication
Bar Discipline for appropriate action.[12] of the process which had already been completed by IBP Cotabato
On 30 March 1996, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution Chapter.
approving Commissioner Fernandezs recommendation for the transfer In an Order dated 15 October 1999,[23] Commissioner Fernandez
of venue of this administrative case and directed the Western Mindanao directed IBP Cotabato Chapter to submit proofs that notices for the
Region governor to designate the local IBP chapter concerned to hearings conducted by the investigating panel as well as for the
conduct the investigation, report, and recommendation.[13] The IBP submission of the position paper were duly received by respondent. On
Resolution states: 21 February 2000, Atty. Jabido, a member of the IBP Cotabato Chapter
Resolution No. XII-96-153 investigating panel, furnished Commissioner Fernandez with a copy of
Adm. Case No. 4018 the panels order dated 4 August 1997.[24] Attached to said order was
Omar P. Ali vs. Atty. Mosib A. Bubong Registry Receipt No. 3663 issued by the local post office. On the lower
RESOLVED TO APPROVE the recommendation of Commissioner portion of the registry receipt was a handwritten notation reading Atty.
Victor C. Fernandez for the Transfer of Venue of the above-entitled case Mosib A. Bubong.
and direct the Western Mindanao Region Governor George C. Jabido to On 20 April 2001, Commissioner Fernandez ordered Atty. Pedro S.
designate the local IBP Chapter concerned to conduct the investigation, Castillo, Chairman of the Commission on Bar Discipline for Mindanao, to
report and recommendation. reevaluate the report and recommendation submitted by IBP Cotabato
Page 104

Pursuant to this resolution, Atty. Benjamin B. Bernardino, Director for Bar Chapter. This directive had the approval of the IBP Board of Governors
Discipline, wrote a letter dated 23 October 1996 addressed to Governor through its Resolution No. XIV-2001-271 issued on 30 June 2001, to wit:

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
RESOLVED to APPROVE the recommendation of Director Victor C. conduct of lawyers shall apply to lawyers in government service in the
Fernandez for the Transfer of Venue of the above-entitled case and discharge of their official tasks. Thus, where a lawyers misconduct as a
direct the CBD Mindanao to conduct an investigation, re-evaluation, government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a
report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a
notice.[25] member of the bar on such grounds.[31] Although the general rule is that
Meanwhile, Bainar A. Ali, informed the CBD Mindanao of the death of a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a
her father, Omar P. Ali, complainant in this case. According to her, her member of the bar for infractions he committed as a government official,
father passed away on 12 June 2002 and that in interest of peace and he may, however, be disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct constitutes
Islamic brotherhood, she was requesting the withdrawal of this case.[26] a violation of his oath a member of the legal profession.[32]
Subsequently, respondent filed another motion, this time, asking the IBP Indeed, in the case of Collantes v. Atty. Vicente C. Renomeron,[33] we
CBD to direct the chairman of the Commission on Bar Discipline for ordered the disbarment of respondent on the ground of his dismissal
Mindanao to designate and authorize the IBP Marawi City-Lanao del Sur from government service because of grave misconduct. Quoting the late
Chapter to conduct an investigation of this case.[27] This motion was Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, we declared
effectively denied by Atty. Pedro S. Castillo in an Order dated 19 July [A] person takes an oath when he is admitted to the bar which is
2002.[28]According to Atty. Castillo designed to impress upon him his responsibilities. He thereby becomes
After going over the voluminous records of the case, with special an officer of the court on whose shoulders rests the grave responsibility
attention made on the report of the IBP Cotabato City Chapter, the of assisting the courts in the proper, fair, speedy and efficient
Complaint and the Counter-Affidavit of respondent, the undersigned administration of justice. As an officer of the court he is subject to a rigid
sees no need for any further investigation, to be able to make a re- discipline that demands that in his every exertion the only criterion be
evaluation and recommendation on the Report of the IBP Chapter of that truth and justice triumph. This discipline is what has given the law
Cotabato City. profession its nobility, its prestige, its exalted place. From a lawyer, to
WHEREFORE, the Motion to authorize the IBP-Chpater of Marawi City, paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are expected those qualities of
Zamboanga del Norte is hereby denied. The undersigned will submit his truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full candor, intellectual honesty,
Report to the Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP National Office within and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility all of which,
ten (10) days from date hereof. throughout the centuries, have been compendiously described as moral
In his Report and Recommendation, Atty. Castillo adopted in toto the character.[34]
findings and conclusion of IBP Cotabato Chapter ratiocinating as follows: Similarly, in Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, et al. v. Atty. Felina Dasig,[35] this Court
The Complaint for Disbarment is primarily based on the Decision by the found sufficient basis to disbar respondent therein for gross misconduct
Office of the President in Administrative Case No. 41 dated February 26, perpetrated while she was the Officer-in-Charge of Legal Services of the
1993, wherein herein respondent was found guilty of Grave Misconduct Commission on Higher Education. As we had explained in that case
in: [A] lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or
a) The imprudent issuance of T.C.T. No. T-2821; and, omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the
b) Manipulating the criminal complaint for violation of the anti-squatting citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity of the legal
law. profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
And penalized with dismissal from the service, as Register of Deeds of dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of
Marawi City. In the Comment filed by respondent in the instant the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility,
Adminsitrative Case, his defense is good faith in the issuance of T.C.T. perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice.[36] (Emphasis
No. T-2821 and a denial of the charge of manipulating the criminal supplied)
complaint for violation of the anti-squatting law, which by the way, was In the case at bar, respondents grave misconduct, as established by the
filed against respondents relatives. Going over the Decision of the Office Office of the President and subsequently affirmed by this Court, deals
of the President in Administrative Case No. 41, the undersigned finds with his qualification as a lawyer. By taking advantage of his office as the
substantial evidence were taken into account and fully explained, before Register of Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge of the
the Decision therein was rendered. In other words, the finding of Grave rules governing land registration for the benefit of his relatives,
Misconduct on the part of respondent by the Office of the President was respondent had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform
fully supported by evidence and as such carries a very strong weight in the functions of a civil servant but also to retain his membership in the
considering the professional misconduct of respondent in the present bar. Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on
case. this matter. It reads:
In the light of the foregoing, the undersigned sees no reason for Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
amending or disturbing the Report and Recommendation of the IBP position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter
Chapter of South Cotabato.[29] to interfere with his public duties.
In a resolution passed on 19 October 2002, the IBP Board of Governors Respondents conduct manifestly undermined the peoples confidence in
adopted and approved, with modification, the afore-quoted Report and the public office he used to occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the
Recommendation of Atty. Castillo. The modification pertained solely to legal profession. The ill-conceived use of his knowledge of the intricacies
the period of suspension from the practice of law which should be of the law calls for nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to
imposed on respondent whereas Atty. Castillo concurred in the earlier practice law.
recommendation of IBP Cotabato Chapter for a five-year suspension, the As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainants daughter,
IBP Board of Governors found a two-year suspension to be proper. requesting for the withdrawal of this case, we cannot possibly favorably
On 17 January 2003, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with act on the same as proceedings of this nature cannot be interrupted or
the IBP which the latter denied as by that time, the matter had already terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution,
been endorsed to this Court.[30] withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the
The issue thus posed for this Courts resolution is whether respondent same.[37] As we have previously explained in the case of Irene Rayos-
may be disbarred for grave misconduct committed while he was in the Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos:[38]
employ of the government. We resolve this question in the affirmative. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest
The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the
Page 105

lawyer simply because he has joined the government service. In fact, by basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and
the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or on Awards whose duty was to study, evaluate, and make a
disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a recommendation on the applications to purchase the lands declared
plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary open for disposition. The Committee on Awards was headed by the
proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private Director of Lands and the respondent was one of the Committee
grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public members, in his official capacity as the Congressman of Taguig and
welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of Pateros (from 1987 to 1998); the respondents district includes the areas
justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. covered by the proclamations.
The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer
of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of
the court to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02
has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may
have in the proper administrative of justice.[39] In the complaint,[6] the complainant claimed that the respondent abused
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong is hereby his position as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on
DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Awards when he unduly interfered with the complainants sales
Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the respondents application because of his personal interest over the subject land. The
record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on the complainant alleged that the respondent exerted undue pressure and
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court influence over the complainants father, Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter to
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. contest the complainants sales application and claim the subject land for
SO ORDERED. himself. The complainant also alleged that the respondent prevailed
upon Miguel Olazo to accept, on various dates, sums of money as
JOVITO S. OLAZO, A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC payment of the latters alleged rights over the subject land. The
Complainant, complainant further claimed that the respondent brokered the transfer of
Present: rights of the subject land between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez, who is the nephew of the respondents deceased wife.
CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO, As a result of the respondents abuse of his official functions, the
CARPIO MORALES, complainants sales application was denied. The conveyance of rights to
*VELASCO, JR., Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez and his sales application were subsequently
NACHURA, given due course by the Department of Environment and Natural
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, Resources (DENR).
BRION,
PERALTA, The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed
ABAD, areas belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainants brother. The
VILLARAMA, JR., complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to
PEREZ, direct Manuel to convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey
JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA (Ret.), MENDOZA, and Rodriguez. As a result of the respondents promptings, the rights to the
Respondent. SERENO, JJ. land were transferred to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.

Promulgated: In addition, the complainant alleged that in May 1999, the respondent
December 7, 2010 met with Manuel for the purpose of nullifying the conveyance of rights
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The complainant claimed that
-x the respondent wanted the rights over the land transferred to one
Rolando Olazo, the Barangay Chairman of Hagonoy, Taguig.The
DECISION respondent in this regard executed an Assurance where he stated that
he was the lawyer of Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.

BRION, J.: The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01

Before us is the disbarment case against retired Supreme Court The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful
Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga (respondent) filed by Mr. Jovito S. conduct considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was
Olazo (complainant). The respondent is charged of violating Rule not a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The
6.02,[1] Rule 6.03[2] and Rule 1.01[3] of the Code of Professional complainant averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award.
Factual Background Thus, the approval of his sales application by the Committee on Awards
amounted to a violation of the objectives of Proclamation No. 172 and
In March 1990, the complainant filed a sales application covering a Memorandum No. 119.
parcel of land situated in Barangay Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of
Taguig. The land (subject land) was previously part of Fort Andres The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated Section
Bonifacio that was segregated and declared open for disposition 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476,[4] issued on January 7, 1986, and and Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the
Proclamation No. 172,[5] issued on October 16, 1987. practice of law, within the one-year prohibition period, when he appeared
as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the
Page 106

To implement Proclamation No. 172, Memorandum No. 119 was issued Committee on Awards.
by then Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, creating a Committee

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
In his Comment,[7] the respondent claimed that the present complaint is The respondent additionally denied violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of
the third malicious charge filed against him by the complainant. The first Professional Responsibility. He alleged that during his third term as
one was submitted before the Judicial and Bar Council when he was Congressman from 1995 to 1997, the conflicting applications of the
nominated as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court; the second complainant, Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez were not
complaint is now pending with the Office of the Ombudsman, for alleged included in the agenda for deliberation of the Committee on
violation of Section 3(e) and (i) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. Awards.Rather, their conflicting claims and their respective supporting
With his own supporting documents, the respondent presented a documents were before the Office of the Regional Director, NCR of the
different version of the antecedent events. DENR. This office ruled over the conflicting claims only on August 2,
2000. This ruling became the basis of the decision of the Secretary of
The respondent asserted that Miguel Olazo owned the rights over the the DENR.
subject land and he later conveyed these rights to Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez. Miguel Olazos rights over the subject land and the transfer of Similarly, the respondent cannot be held liable under Rule 6.02 of the
his rights to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez were duly recognized by the Code of Professional Responsibility since the provision applies to
Secretary of the DENR before whom the conflict of rights over the subject lawyers in the government service who are allowed by law to engage in
land (between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, on one hand, private law practice and to those who, though prohibited from engaging
and the complainant on the other hand) was brought. In its decision, the in the practice of law, have friends, former associates and relatives who
DENR found Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez a qualified applicant, and his are in the active practice of law.[8] In this regard, the respondent had
application over the subject land was given due course. The respondent already completed his third term in Congress and his stint in the
emphasized that the DENR decision is now final and executory. It was Committee on Awards when he represented Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez
affirmed by the Office of the President, by the Court of Appeals and by on May 24, 1999.
the Supreme Court.
Lastly, the respondent claimed that he cannot be held liable under Rule
The respondent also advanced the following defenses: 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility since he did not intervene
in the disposition of the conflicting applications of the complainant and
(1) He denied the complainants allegation that Miguel Olazo told him Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez because the applications were not submitted
(complainant) that the respondent had been orchestrating to get the to the Committee on Awards when he was still a member.
subject land. The respondent argued that this allegation was without
corroboration and was debunked by the affidavits of Miguel Olazo and The Courts Ruling
Francisca Olazo, the complainants sister.
Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be
(2) He denied the complainants allegation that he offered the disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his
complainant P50,000.00 for the subject land and that he (the duties as a government official.[9]He may be disciplined by this Court as
respondent) had exerted undue pressure and influence on Miguel Olazo a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a
to claim the rights over the subject land. The respondent also denied that violation of his oath as a lawyer.[10]
he had an inordinate interest in the subject land.
The issue in this case calls for a determination of whether the
(3) He claimed that there was nothing wrong in signing as a witness in respondents actions constitute a breach of the standard ethical
Miguel Olazos affidavit where the latter asserted his rights over the conduct first, while the respondent was still an elective public official and
subject land. The affidavit merely attested to the truth. a member of the Committee on Awards; and second, when he was no
longer a public official, but a private lawyer who represented a client
(4) He asserted that he and Miguel Olazo were cousins and that the latter before the office he was previously connected with.
decided to sell his rights over the subject land for the medical treatment
of his heart condition and the illness of his daughter, Francisca After a careful evaluation of the pleadings filed by both parties and their
Olazo. The respondent insisted that the money he extended to them was respective pieces of evidence, we resolve to dismiss the administrative
a form of loan. complaint.

(5) The respondents participation in the transaction between Miguel Accountability of a government lawyer in public office
Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez involved the payment of the loan
that the respondent extended to Miguel Olazo. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility highlights the
continuing standard of ethical conduct to be observed by government
(6) Manuels belated and secondhand allegation in his Sinumpaang lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. In addition to the standard
Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, regarding what his father told him, of conduct laid down under R.A. No. 6713 for government employees, a
cannot prevail over his earlierSinumpaang Salaysay with Francisca lawyer in the government service is obliged to observe the standard of
Olazo, dated August 2, 1997. In the said Sinumpaang Salaysay, Manuel conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
categorically asserted that his father Miguel Olazo, not the complainant,
was the farmer-beneficiary. Manuel also expressed his agreement to the Since public office is a public trust, the ethical conduct demanded upon
transfer of rights (Pagpapatibay Sa Paglilipat Ng Karapatan) in favor of lawyers in the government service is more exacting than the standards
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, and the withdrawal of his fathers application for those in private practice. Lawyers in the government service are
to give way to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguezs application. subject to constant public scrutiny under norms of public
accountability. They also bear the heavy burden of having to put aside
(7) The complainants allegation that the respondent had pressured and their private interest in favor of the interest of the public; their private
influenced Miguel Olazo to sell the subject land was not sufficient as it activities should not interfere with the discharge of their official
was lacking in specificity and corroboration. The DENR decision was functions.[11]
clear that the complainant had no rights over the subject land.
Page 107

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
The first charge involves a violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Second, the complainants allegation that the respondent orchestrated
Professional Responsibility. It imposes the following restrictions in the the efforts to get the subject land does not specify how the orchestration
conduct of a government lawyer: was undertaken. What appears clear in the records is the
uncorroborated Sinumpaang Salaysay of Miguel Olazo, dated May 25,
A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to 2003,[20] categorically stating that the respondent had no interest in the
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere subject land, and neither was he a contracting party in the transfer of his
with his public duties. rights over the subject land. In the absence of any specific charge,
Olazos disclaimer is the nearest relevant statement on the respondents
alleged participation, and we find it to be in the respondents favor.
The above provision prohibits a lawyer from using his or her public
position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; Third, the other documents executed by Miguel Olazo, that the
or (3) allow private interest to interfere with his or her public duties. We complainant presented to support his claim that the respondent exerted
previously held that the restriction extends to all government undue pressure and influence over his father (namely: the letter, dated
lawyers who use their public offices to promote their private interests.[12] June 22, 1996, to the DENR Regional Director-NCR;[21] the Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated July 12, 1996;[22] and the Sinumpaang Salaysaydated
In Huyssen v. Gutierrez,[13] we defined promotion of private interest to July 17, 1996[23]), do not contain any reference to the alleged pressure
include soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction or force exerted by the respondent over Miguel Olazo. The documents
requiring the approval of his or her office, or may be affected by the merely showed that the respondent helped Miguel Olazo in having his
functions of his or her office. In Ali v. Bubong,[14] we recognized that farm lots (covered by the proclaimed areas) surveyed. They also showed
private interest is not limited to direct interest, but extends to advancing that the respondent merely acted as a witness in theSinumpaang
the interest of relatives. We also ruled that private interest interferes with Salaysay dated July 17, 1996. To our mind, there are neutral acts that
public duty when the respondent uses the office and his or her may be rendered by one relative to another, and do not show how the
knowledge of the intricacies of the law to benefit relatives.[15] respondent could have influenced the decision of Miguel Olazo to
contest the complainants sales application. At the same time, we cannot
In Vitriolo v. Dasig,[16] we found the act of the respondent (an official of give any credit to the Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, of
the Commission on Higher Education) of extorting money from persons Manuel. They are not only hearsay but are contrary to what Miguel Olazo
with applications or requests pending before her office to be a serious states on the record. We note that Manuel had no personal knowledge,
breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[17] We other than what Miguel Olazo told him, of the force allegedly exerted by
reached the same conclusion in Huyssen, where we found the the respondent against Miguel Olazo.
respondent (an employee of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation)
liable under Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, based In turn, the respondent was able to provide a satisfactory explanation -
on the evidence showing that he demanded money from the complainant backed by corroborating evidence - of the nature of the transaction in
who had a pending application for visas before his office.[18] which he gave the various sums of money to Miguel Olazo and Francisca
Similarly, in Igoy v. Soriano[19] we found the respondent (a Court Olazo in the year 1995. In her affidavits dated May 25, 2003[24] and July
Attorney of this Court) liable for violating Rule 6.02 of the Code of 21, 2010,[25] Francisca Olazo corroborated the respondents claim that
Professional Responsibility, after considering the evidence showing that the sums of money he extended to her and Miguel Olazo were loans
he demanded and received money from the complainant who had a used for their medical treatment. Miguel Olazo, in his Sinumpaang
pending case before this Court. Salaysay dated May 25, 2003, asserted that some of the money
borrowed from the respondent was used for his medical treatment and
Applying these legal precepts to the facts of the case, we find the hospitalization expenses.
absence of any concrete proof that the respondent abused his position
as a Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the The affidavit of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez further corroborated the
manner defined under Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional respondents claim that the latters involvement was limited to being paid
Responsibility. the loans he gave to Miguel Olazo and Francisca Olazo. According to
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, he and Miguel Olazo agreed that a portion of
First, the records do not clearly show if the complainants sales the loan would be directly paid by Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez to the
application was ever brought before the Committee on Awards. By the respondent and the amount paid would be considered as part of the
complaints own account, the complainant filed a sales application in purchase price of the subject land.[26]
March 1990 before the Land Management Bureau. By 1996, the
complainants sales application was pending before the Office of the It also bears stressing that a facial comparison of the documentary
Regional Director, NCR of the DENR due to the conflicting claims of evidence, specifically the dates when the sums of money were extended
Miguel Olazo, and, subsequently, of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The by the respondent on February 21, 1995, September 2, 1995 and
records show that it was only on August 2, 2000 that the Office of the October 17, 1995, and the date when the Deed of Conveyance[27] over
Regional Director, NCR of the DENR rendered its decision, or after the the subject land was executed or on October 25, 1995, showed that the
term of the respondents elective public office and membership to the sums of money were extended prior to the transfer of rights over the
Committee on Awards, which expired in 1997. subject land. These pieces of evidence are consistent with the
respondents allegation that Miguel Olazo decided to sell his rights over
These circumstances do not show that the respondent did in any way the subject land to pay the loans he obtained from the respondent and,
promote, advance or use his private interests in the discharge of his also, to finance his continuing medical treatment.
official duties. To repeat, since the sales application was not brought
before the Committee on Awards when the respondent was still a
member, no sufficient basis exists to conclude that he used his position
to obtain personal benefits. We note in this regard that the denial of the Private practice of law after separation from public office
complainants sales application over the subject land was made by the
Page 108

DENR, not by the Committee on Awards. As proof that the respondent was engaged in an unauthorized practice
of law after his separation from the government service, the complainant

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
presented the Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, of
Manuel and the document entitled Assurance where the respondent As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the respondent
legally represented Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. previously interfered with the sales application covering Manuels land
Nevertheless, the foregoing pieces of evidence fail to persuade us to when the former was still a member of the Committee on Awards. The
conclude that there was a violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of complainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish that the respondent was
Professional Responsibility. engaged in the practice of law. At face value, the legal service rendered
by the respondent was limited only in the preparation of a single
In Cayetano v. Monsod,[28] we defined the practice of law as any activity, document. In Borja, Sr. v. Sulyap, Inc.,[32] we specifically described
in and out of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure, private practice of law as one that contemplates a succession of acts of
knowledge, training and experience. Moreover, we ruled that to engage the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public
in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics as a lawyer.
of the profession; to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal In any event, even granting that respondents act fell within the definition
knowledge or skill. of practice of law, the available pieces of evidence are insufficient to
show that the legal representation was made before the Committee on
Under the circumstances, the foregoing definition should be correlated Awards, or that the Assurance was intended to be presented before
with R.A. No. 6713 and Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional it. These are matters for the complainant to prove and we cannot
Responsibility which impose certain restrictions on government lawyers consider any uncertainty in this regard against the respondents favor.
to engage in private practice after their separation from the service.
Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 reads: Violation of Rule 1.01

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. In addition to acts and Rule 1.01 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, immoral or
omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the deceitful conduct. From the above discussion, we already struck down
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited the complainants allegation that respondent engaged in an unauthorized
acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby practice of law when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and
declared to be unlawful: Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.

xxxx We find that a similar treatment should be given to the complainants

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Public claim that the respondent violated paragraph 4(1)[33] of Memorandum
officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: No. 119 when he encouraged the sales application of Joseph Jeffrey
xxxx Rodriguez despite his knowledge that his nephew was not a qualified
applicant. The matter of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguezs qualifications to
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized apply for a sales application over lots covered by the proclaimed areas
by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or has been resolved in the affirmative by the Secretary of the DENR in the
tend to conflict with their official functions; xx x decision dated April 3, 2004,[34]when the DENR gave due course to his
sales application over the subject land. We are, at this point, bound by
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year this finding.
after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in
the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned As pointed out by the respondent, the DENR decision was affirmed by
cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the the Office of the President, the Court of Appeals[35] and, finally, the Court,
office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall per our MinuteResolution, dated October 11, 2006, in G.R. No. 173453.
likewise apply. In our Resolution, we dismissed the petition for review on certiorari filed
by the complainant after finding, among others, that no reversible error
was committed by the Court of Appeals in its decision.[36]
As a rule, government lawyers are not allowed to engage in the private
practice of their profession during their incumbency.[29] By way of All told, considering the serious consequences of the penalty of
exception, a government lawyer can engage in the practice of his or her disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the burden rests on
profession under the following conditions: first, the private practice is the complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for
authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and second, the practice the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers.[37] The respondent generally
will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions.[30] The is under no obligation to prove his/her defense,[38] until the burden shifts
last paragraph of Section 7 provides an exception to the exception. In to him/her because of what the complainant has proven. Where no case
case of lawyers separated from the government service who are covered has in the first place been proven, nothing has to be rebutted in
under subparagraph (b) (2) of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a one-year defense.[39]
prohibition is imposed to practice law in connection with any matter With this in mind, we resolve to dismiss the administrative case against
before the office he used to be with. the respondent for the complainants failure to prove by clear and
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility echoes this convincing evidence that the former committed unethical infractions
restriction and prohibits lawyers, after leaving the government service, to warranting the exercise of the Courts disciplinary power.
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in the said service. The keyword in Rule WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the administrative
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is the term intervene case for violation of Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
which we previously interpreted to include an act of a person who has Professional Responsibility, filed against retired Supreme Court
the power to influence the proceedings.[31] Otherwise stated, to fall within Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.
the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
respondent must have accepted engagement or employment in a matter SO ORDERED.
Page 109

which, by virtue of his public office, he had previously exercised power

to influence the outcome of the proceedings.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, SHAREHOLDINGS, INC., SIPALAY TRADING CORP., VIRGO
accept engagements or employment in connection with any matter HOLDINGS & DEVELOPMENT CORP., and ATTY. ESTELITO P.
in which he had intervened while in said service. MENDOZA, respondents.
Various ways a government lawyer leaves government DECISION
service: PUNO, J.:
1. retirement This case is prima impressiones and it is weighted with significance for
2. resignation it concerns on one hand, the efforts of the Bar to upgrade the ethics of
3. expiration of the term of office lawyers in government service and on the other, its effect on the right of
4. dismissal government to recruit competent counsel to defend its interests.
5. abandonment In 1976, General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered
Q: What are the pertinent statutory provisions regarding financial difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial
this Rule? support to Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur daily
A: Sec. 3 (d) RA 3019 as amended and Sec. 7 (b), RA 6713 overdrawings on its current account with the Central Bank.[1] It was later
Sec 3. Corrupt practice of Public Officers. In addition to acts or found by the Central Bank that GENBANK had approved various loans
omission of public officers already penalized by existing law, the to directors, officers, stockholders and related interests totaling P172.3
following shall constitute corrupt practice of any public officer and are million, of which 59% was classified as doubtful and P0.505 million as
hereby declared to be unlawful: uncollectible.[2] As a bailout, the Central Bank extended emergency
(d) accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in loans to GENBANK which reached a total of P310 million.[3] Despite
a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the mega loans, GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. On
the pendency thereof or within one year after termination. March 25, 1977, the Central Bank issued a resolution declaring
Section 7 (b) of RA 6713 prohibits officials from doing any of the following GENBANK insolvent and unable to resume business with safety to its
acts: depositors, creditors and the general public, and ordering its
1. own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, liquidation.[4] A public bidding of GENBANKs assets was held from
employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or March 26 to 28, 1977, wherein the Lucio Tan group submitted the
nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or winning bid.[5] Subsequently, former Solicitor General Estelito P.
licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law. Mendoza filed a petition with the then Court of First Instance praying
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year for the assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANKs
after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in liquidation as mandated by Section 29 of Republic Act No. 265.
the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned In February 1986, the EDSA I revolution toppled the Marcos government.
cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the One of the first acts of President Corazon C. Aquino was to establish the
office he used to be with, in which case the one year prohibition shall Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to recover the
likewise apply. alleged ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family
and his cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG, on July 17, 1987,
Lawyers in the government service are prohibited to engage
filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion,
in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by
reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against
the constitution or law, provided that such practice will not
respondents Lucio Tan, Carmen Khao Tan, Florencio T. Santos,
conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.
Natividad P. Santos, Domingo Chua, Tan Hui Nee, Mariano Tan Eng
Misconduct in office as a public official may be a ground for Lian, Estate of Benito Tan Kee Hiong, Florencio N. Santos, Jr., Harry C.
disciplinary action (if of such character as to affect his Tan, Tan Eng Chan, Chung Poe Kee, Mariano Khoo, Manuel Khoo,
qualification as lawyer or to show moral delinquency). Miguel Khoo, Jaime Khoo, Elizabeth Khoo, Celso Ranola, William T.
Should recommend the acquittal of the accused whose Wong, Ernesto B. Lim, Benjamin T. Albacita, Willy Co, Allied Banking
conviction is on appeal, IF he finds no legal basis to sustain Corporation (Allied Bank), Allied Leasing and Finance Corporation, Asia
the conviction. Brewery, Inc., Basic Holdings Corp., Foremost Farms, Inc., Fortune
Includes restriction is representing conflicting interest (e.g. Tobacco Corporation, Grandspan Development Corp., Himmel
Accepting engagements vs. former employer, PNB) Industries, Iris Holdings and Development Corp., Jewel Holdings, Inc.,
The OSG is not authorized to represent a public official at any Manufacturing Services and Trade Corp., Maranaw Hotels and Resort
state of a criminal case. Corp., Northern Tobacco Redrying Plant, Progressive Farms, Inc.,
Shareholdings, Inc., Sipalay Trading Corp., Virgo Holdings &
[G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005] Development Corp., (collectively referred to herein as respondents
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT Tan, et al.), then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos,
(PCGG), petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division), LUCIO Panfilo O. Domingo, Cesar Zalamea, Don Ferry and Gregorio
C. TAN, CARMEN KHAO TAN, FLORENCIO T. SANTOS, NATIVIDAD Licaros. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 0005 of the Second
P. SANTOS, DOMINGO CHUA, TAN HUI NEE, MARIANO TAN ENG Division of theSandiganbayan.[6] In connection therewith, the PCGG
LIAN, ESTATE OF BENITO TAN KEE HIONG (represented by issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired
TARCIANA C. TAN), FLORENCIO N. SANTOS, JR., HARRY C. TAN, by the above-named persons by taking advantage of their close
TAN ENG CHAN, CHUNG POE KEE, MARIANO KHOO, MANUEL relationship and influence with former President Marcos.
KHOO, MIGUEL KHOO, JAIME KHOO, ELIZABETH KHOO, CELSO Respondents Tan, et al. repaired to this Court and filed petitions
RANOLA, WILLIAM T. WONG, ERNESTO B. LIM, BENJAMIN T. for certiorari, prohibition and injunction to nullify, among others, the writs
ALBACITA, WILLY CO, ALLIED BANKING CORP., ALLIED LEASING of sequestration issued by the PCGG.[7] After the filing of the parties
AND FINANCE CORPORATION, ASIA BREWERY, INC., BASIC comments, this Court referred the cases to the Sandiganbayan for
HOLDINGS CORP., FOREMOST FARMS, INC., FORTUNE TOBACCO proper disposition. These cases were docketed as Civil Case Nos.
CORP., GRANDSPAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., HIMMEL 0096-0099. In all these cases, respondents Tan, et al. were represented
INDUSTRIES, IRIS HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., JEWEL by their counsel, former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, who has
then resumed his private practice of law.
Page 110

HOLDINGS, INC., MANUFACTURING SERVICES AND TRADE

CORP., MARANAW HOTELS AND RESORT CORP., NORTHERN On February 5, 1991, the PCGG filed motions to
TOBACCO REDRYING PLANT, PROGRESSIVE FARMS, INC., disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
with the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case Nos. I.A. The history of Rule 6.03
0005[8] and 0096-0099.[9] The motions alleged that respondent A proper resolution of this case necessitates that we trace the historical
Mendoza, as then Solicitor General[10] and counsel to Central lineage of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Bank, actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, ethical standards for
subsequently acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied lawyers were pervasive in England and other parts of Europe. The early
Banking Corporation. Respondent Mendoza allegedly intervened in the statements of standards did not resemble modern codes of conduct.
acquisition of GENBANK by respondents Tan, et al. when, in his capacity They were not detailed or collected in one source but surprisingly were
as then Solicitor General, he advised the Central Banks officials on comprehensive for their time. The principal thrust of the standards was
the procedure to bring about GENBANKs liquidation and appeared as directed towards the litigation conduct of lawyers. It underscored the
counsel for the Central Bank in connection with its petition for assistance central duty of truth and fairness in litigation as superior to any obligation
in the liquidation of GENBANK which he filed with the Court of First to the client. The formulations of the litigation duties were at times
Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila and was docketed as intricate, including specific pleading standards, an obligation to inform
Special Proceeding No. 107812. The motions to disqualify invoked Rule the court of falsehoods and a duty to explore settlement alternatives.
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits Most of the lawyer's other basic duties -- competency, diligence, loyalty,
former government lawyers from accepting engagement or confidentiality, reasonable fees and service to the poor -- originated in
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened the litigation context, but ultimately had broader application to all aspects
while in said service. of a lawyer's practice.
On April 22, 1991 the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan issued a The forms of lawyer regulation in colonial and early post-
resolution denying PCGGs motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza in revolutionary America did not differ markedly from those in England.
Civil Case No. 0005.[11] It found that the PCGG failed to prove the The colonies and early states used oaths, statutes, judicial oversight,
existence of an inconsistency between respondent Mendozas former and procedural rules to govern attorney behavior. The difference from
function as Solicitor General and his present employment as counsel of England was in the pervasiveness and continuity of such regulation. The
the Lucio Tan group. It noted that respondent Mendoza did not take a standards set in England varied over time, but the variation in early
position adverse to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank during his America was far greater. The American regulation fluctuated within a
term as Solicitor General.[12] It further ruled that respondent Mendozas single colony and differed from colony to colony. Many regulations had
appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one- the effect of setting some standards of conduct, but the regulation was
year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since sporadic, leaving gaps in the substantive standards. Only three of the
he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986. The said section traditional core duties can be fairly characterized as pervasive in the
prohibits a former public official or employee from practicing his formal, positive law of the colonial and post-revolutionary period: the
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be duties of litigation fairness, competency and reasonable fees.[20]
with within one year from his resignation, retirement or separation from The nineteenth century has been termed the dark ages of legal
public office.[13] The PCGG did not seek any reconsideration of the ethics in the United States. By mid-century, American legal reformers
ruling.[14] were filling the void in two ways. First, David Dudley Field, the drafter of
It appears that Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 were transferred from the highly influential New York Field Code, introduced a new set of
the Sandiganbayans Second Division to the Fifth Division.[15] In its uniform standards of conduct for lawyers. This concise statement of eight
resolution dated July 11, 2001, the Fifth Division of statutory duties became law in several states in the second half of the
the Sandiganbayan denied the other PCGGs motion to disqualify nineteenth century. At the same time, legal educators, such as David
respondent Mendoza.[16] It adopted the resolution of its Second Hoffman and George Sharswood, and many other lawyers were working
Division dated April 22, 1991, and observed that the arguments were to flesh out the broad outline of a lawyer's duties. These reformers wrote
the same in substance as the motion to disqualify filed in Civil Case No. about legal ethics in unprecedented detail and thus brought a new level
0005. The PCGG sought reconsideration of the ruling but its motion was of understanding to a lawyer's duties. A number of mid-nineteenth
denied in its resolution dated December 5, 2001.[17] century laws and statutes, other than the Field Code, governed lawyer
Hence, the recourse to this Court by the PCGG assailing the resolutions behavior. A few forms of colonial regulations e.g., the do no falsehood
dated July 11, 2001 and December 5, 2001 of the Fifth Division of oath and the deceit prohibitions -- persisted in some states. Procedural
the Sandiganbayan via a petition forcertiorari and prohibition under law continued to directly, or indirectly, limit an attorney's litigation
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[18] The PCGG alleged that behavior. The developing law of agency recognized basic duties of
the Fifth Division acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to competence, loyalty and safeguarding of client property. Evidence law
lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolutions started to recognize with less equivocation the attorney-client privilege
contending that: 1) Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and its underlying theory of confidentiality. Thus, all of the core duties,
prohibits a former government lawyer from accepting employment in with the likely exception of service to the poor, had some basis in formal
connection with any matter in which he intervened; 2) the prohibition in law. Yet, as in the colonial and early post-revolutionary periods, these
the Rule is not time-bound; 3) that Central Bank could not waive the standards were isolated and did not provide a comprehensive statement
objection to respondent Mendozas appearance on behalf of the PCGG; of a lawyer's duties. The reformers, by contrast, were more
and 4) the resolution in Civil Case No. 0005 was interlocutory, thus res comprehensive in their discussion of a lawyer's duties, and they actually
judicata does not apply.[19] ushered a new era in American legal ethics.[21]
The petition at bar raises procedural and substantive issues of law. In Toward the end of the nineteenth century, a new form of ethical
view, however, of the import and impact of Rule 6.03 of the Code of standards began to guide lawyers in their practice the bar association
Professional Responsibility to the legal profession and the government, code of legal ethics. The bar codes were detailed ethical standards
we shall cut our way and forthwith resolve the substantive issue. formulated by lawyers for lawyers. They combined the two primary
I sources of ethical guidance from the nineteenth century. Like the
Substantive Issue academic discourses, the bar association codes gave detail to the
The key issue is whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional statutory statements of duty and the oaths of office. Unlike the academic
Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza. Again, the prohibition lectures, however, the bar association codes retained some of the official
states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept imprimatur of the statutes and oaths. Over time, the bar association
Page 111

engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he codes became extremely popular that states adopted them as binding
had intervened while in the said service. rules of law. Critical to the development of the new codes was the re-

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
emergence of bar associations themselves. Local bar associations by Disciplinary Rules that defined minimum rules of conduct to which the
formed sporadically during the colonial period, but they disbanded by the lawyer must adhere.[34] In the case of Canon 9, DR 9-101(b)[35]became
early nineteenth century. In the late nineteenth century, bar associations the applicable supplementary norm. The drafting committee
began to form again, picking up where their colonial predecessors had reformulated the canons into the Model Code of Professional
left off. Many of the new bar associations, most notably the Alabama Responsibility, and, in August of 1969, the ABA House of Delegates
State Bar Association and the American Bar Association, assumed on approved the Model Code.[36]
the task of drafting substantive standards of conduct for their Despite these amendments, legal practitioners remained unsatisfied with
members.[22] the results and indefinite standards set forth by DR 9-101(b) and the
In 1887, Alabama became the first state with a comprehensive bar Model Code of Professional Responsibility as a whole. Thus, in August
association code of ethics. The 1887 Alabama Code of Ethics was the 1983, the ABA adopted new Model Rules of Professional
model for several states codes, and it was the foundation for the Responsibility. The Model Rules used the restatement format, where
American Bar Association's (ABA) 1908 Canons of Ethics.[23] the conduct standards were set-out in rules, with comments following
In 1917, the Philippine Bar found that the oath and duties of a lawyer each rule. The new format was intended to give better guidance and
were insufficient to attain the full measure of public respect to which the clarity for enforcement because the only enforceable standards were the
legal profession was entitled. In that year, the Philippine Bar Association black letter Rules. The Model Rules eliminated the broad canons
adopted as its own, Canons 1 to 32 of the ABA Canons of Professional altogether and reduced the emphasis on narrative discussion, by placing
Ethics.[24] comments after the rules and limiting comment discussion to the content
As early as 1924, some ABA members have questioned the form and of the black letter rules. The Model Rules made a number of substantive
function of the canons. Among their concerns was the revolving door or improvements particularly with regard to conflicts of interests.[37] In
the process by which lawyers and others temporarily enter government particular, the ABA did away with Canon 9, citing the hopeless
service from private life and then leave it for large fees in private practice, dependence of the concept of impropriety on the subjective views
where they can exploit information, contacts, and influence garnered in of anxious clients as well as the norms indefinite nature.[38]
government service.[25] These concerns were classified as adverse- In cadence with these changes, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
interest conflicts and congruent-interest conflicts. Adverse- (IBP) adopted a proposed Code of Professional Responsibility in
interest conflicts exist where the matter in which the former 1980 which it submitted to this Court for approval. The Code was
government lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially drafted to reflect the local customs, traditions, and practices of the bar
related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed by the and to conform with new realities. On June 21, 1988, this Court
government and the interests of the current and former are promulgated the Code of Professional Responsibility.[39] Rule 6.03
adverse.[26] On the other hand, congruent-interest representation of the Code of Professional Responsibility deals particularly with former
conflicts are unique to government lawyers and apply primarily to government lawyers, and provides, viz.:
former government lawyers.[27] For several years, the ABA attempted to Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
correct and update the canons through new canons, individual engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
amendments and interpretative opinions. In 1928, the ABA amended one had intervened while in said service.
canon and added thirteen new canons.[28] To deal with problems peculiar Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility retained the general
to former government lawyers, Canon 36 was minted which disqualified structure of paragraph 2, Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
them both for adverse-interest conflicts and congruent-interest but replaced the expansive phraseinvestigated and passed upon with
representation conflicts.[29] The rationale for disqualification is rooted in a the word intervened. It is, therefore, properly applicable to
concern that the government lawyers largely discretionary actions would both adverse-interest conflicts and congruent-interest conflicts.
be influenced by the temptation to take action on behalf of the The case at bar does not involve the adverse interest aspect of Rule
government client that later could be to the advantage of parties who 6.03. Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest
might later become private practice clients.[30] Canon 36 provides, viz.: problem when he acted as Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 and
36. Retirement from judicial position or public employment later as counsel of respondents Tan, et al. in Civil Case No. 0005 and
A lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 before the Sandiganbayan.
upon the merits of which he has previously acted in a judicial capacity. Nonetheless, there remains the issue of whether there exists
A lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the a congruent-interest conflict sufficient to disqualify respondent
public employ should not, after his retirement, accept employment Mendoza from representing respondents Tan, et al.
in connection with any matter he has investigated or passed upon I.B. The congruent interest aspect of Rule 6.03
while in such office or employ. The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending first, the meaning
Over the next thirty years, the ABA continued to amend many of the of matter referred to in the rule and, second, the metes and bounds of
canons and added Canons 46 and 47 in 1933 and 1937, respectively.[31] the intervention made by the former government lawyer on the matter.
In 1946, the Philippine Bar Association again adopted as its own The American Bar Association in its Formal Opinion 342, defined matter
Canons 33 to 47 of the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics.[32] as any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or
By the middle of the twentieth century, there was growing consensus conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not
that the ABA Canons needed more meaningful revision. In 1964, the merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
ABA President-elect Lewis Powell asked for the creation of a committee procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law.
to study the adequacy and effectiveness of the ABA Canons. The Firstly, it is critical that we pinpoint the matter which was the subject of
committee recommended that the canons needed substantial revision, intervention by respondent Mendoza while he was the Solicitor General.
in part because the ABA Canons failed to distinguish between the The PCGG relates the following acts of respondent Mendoza as
inspirational and the proscriptive and were thus unsuccessful in constituting the matter where he intervened as a Solicitor
enforcement. The legal profession in the United States likewise observed General, viz:[40]
thatCanon 36 of the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics resulted in The PCGGs Case for Atty. Mendozas Disqualification
unnecessary disqualification of lawyers for negligible participation in The PCGG imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of
matters during their employment with the government. the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) in issuing the assailed Resolutions
The unfairness of Canon 36 compelled ABA to replace it in the 1969 dated July 11, 2001 and December 5, 2001 denying the motion to
Page 112

ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.[33] The basic ethical disqualify Atty. Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. The
principles in the Code of Professional Responsibility were supplemented PCGG insists that Atty. Mendoza, as then Solicitor General, actively

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
intervened in the closure of GENBANK by advising the Central Bank on intermediary performing quasi-banking functions, it shall be disclosed
how to proceed with the said banks liquidation and even filing the petition that the condition of the same is one of insolvency, or that its continuance
for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila. in business would involve probable loss to its depositors or creditors, it
As proof thereof, the PCGG cites the Memorandum dated March 29, shall be the duty of the department head concerned forthwith, in writing,
1977 prepared by certain key officials of the Central Bank, namely, then to inform the Monetary Board of the facts, and the Board may, upon
Senior Deputy Governor Amado R. Brinas, then Deputy Governor Jaime finding the statements of the department head to be true, forbid the
C. Laya, then Deputy Governor and General Counsel Gabriel C. institution to do business in the Philippines and shall designate an official
Singson, then Special Assistant to the Governor Carlota P. Valenzuela, of the Central Bank or a person of recognized competence in banking or
then Asistant to the Governor Arnulfo B. Aurellano and then Director of finance, as receiver to immediately take charge of its assets and
Department of Commercial and Savings Bank Antonio T. Castro, Jr., liabilities, as expeditiously as possible collect and gather all the assets
where they averred that on March 28, 1977, they had a conference with and administer the same for the benefit of its creditors, exercising all the
the Solicitor General (Atty. Mendoza), who advised them on how to powers necessary for these purposes including, but not limited to,
proceed with the liquidation of GENBANK. The pertinent portion of the bringing suits and foreclosing mortgages in the name of the bank or non-
said memorandum states: bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions.
Immediately after said meeting, we had a conference with the Solicitor ...
General and he advised that the following procedure should be taken: If the Monetary Board shall determine and confirm within the said period
1. Management should submit a memorandum to the Monetary Board that the bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-
reporting that studies and evaluation had been made since the last banking functions is insolvent or cannot resume business with safety to
examination of the bank as of August 31, 1976 and it is believed that the its depositors, creditors and the general public, it shall, if the public
bank can not be reorganized or placed in a condition so that it may be interest requires, order its liquidation, indicate the manner of its
permitted to resume business with safety to its depositors and creditors liquidation and approve a liquidation plan. The Central Bank shall, by the
and the general public. Solicitor General, file a petition in the Court of First Instance reciting the
2. If the said report is confirmed by the Monetary Board, it shall order the proceedings which have been taken and praying the assistance of the
liquidation of the bank and indicate the manner of its liquidation and court in the liquidation of such institution. The court shall have jurisdiction
approve a liquidation plan. in the same proceedings to adjudicate disputed claims against the bank
3. The Central Bank shall inform the principal stockholders of Genbank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions
of the foregoing decision to liquidate the bank and the liquidation plan and enforce individual liabilities of the stockholders and do all that is
approved by the Monetary Board. necessary to preserve the assets of such institution and to implement
4. The Solicitor General shall then file a petition in the Court of First the liquidation plan approved by the Monetary Board. The Monetary
Instance reciting the proceedings which had been taken and praying the Board shall designate an official of the Central Bank, or a person of
assistance of the Court in the liquidation of Genbank. recognized competence in banking or finance, as liquidator who shall
The PCGG further cites the Minutes No. 13 dated March 29, 1977 of the take over the functions of the receiver previously appointed by the
Monetary Board where it was shown that Atty. Mendoza was furnished Monetary Board under this Section. The liquidator shall, with all
copies of pertinent documents relating to GENBANK in order to aid him convenient speed, convert the assets of the banking institution or non-
in filing with the court the petition for assistance in the banks liquidation. bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions to money
The pertinent portion of the said minutes reads: or sell, assign or otherwise dispose of the same to creditors and other
The Board decided as follows: parties for the purpose of paying the debts of such institution and he may,
... in the name of the bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing
E. To authorize Management to furnish the Solicitor General with a copy quasi-banking functions, institute such actions as may be necessary in
of the subject memorandum of the Director, Department of Commercial the appropriate court to collect and recover accounts and assets of such
and Savings Bank dated March 29, 1977, together with copies of: institution.
1. Memorandum of the Deputy Governor, Supervision and Examination The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, the actions of
Sector, to the Monetary Board, dated March 25, 1977, containing a report the Monetary Board under this Section and the second paragraph of
on the current situation of Genbank; Section 34 of this Act shall be final and executory, and can be set aside
2. Aide Memoire on the Antecedent Facts Re: General Bank and Trust by the court only if there is convincing proof that the action is plainly
Co., dated March 23, 1977; arbitrary and made in bad faith. No restraining order or injunction shall
3. Memorandum of the Director, Department of Commercial and Savings be issued by the court enjoining the Central Bank from implementing its
Bank, to the Monetary Board, dated March 24, 1977, submitting, actions under this Section and the second paragraph of Section 34 of
pursuant to Section 29 of R.A. No. 265, as amended by P.D. No. 1007, this Act, unless there is convincing proof that the action of the Monetary
a repot on the state of insolvency of Genbank, together with its Board is plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith and the petitioner or
attachments; and plaintiff files with the clerk or judge of the court in which the action is
4. Such other documents as may be necessary or needed by the Solicitor pending a bond executed in favor of the Central Bank, in an amount to
General for his use in then CFI-praying the assistance of the Court in the be fixed by the court. The restraining order or injunction shall be refused
liquidation of Genbank. or, if granted, shall be dissolved upon filing by the Central Bank of a
Beyond doubt, therefore, the matter or the act of respondent Mendoza bond, which shall be in the form of cash or Central Bank cashier(s)
as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is advising the Central check, in an amount twice the amount of the bond of the petitioner or
Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks liquidation and even filing plaintiff conditioned that it will pay the damages which the petitioner or
the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila. In fine, the Court plaintiff may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction. The
should resolve whether his act of advising the Central Bank on the legal provisions of Rule 58 of the New Rules of Court insofar as they are
procedure to liquidate GENBANK is included within the concept applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Section shall
of matter under Rule 6.03. The procedure of liquidation is given in govern the issuance and dissolution of the restraining order or injunction
black and white in Republic Act No. 265, section 29, viz: contemplated in this Section.
The provision reads in part: Insolvency, under this Act, shall be understood to mean the inability of a
SEC. 29. Proceedings upon insolvency. Whenever, upon examination by bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking
Page 113

the head of the appropriate supervising or examining department or his functions to pay its liabilities as they fall due in the usual and ordinary
examiners or agents into the condition of any bank or non-bank financial course of business. Provided, however, That this shall not include the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
inability to pay of an otherwise non-insolvent bank or non-bank financial interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or
intermediary performing quasi-banking functions caused by briefing abstract principles of law.
extraordinary demands induced by financial panic commonly evidenced In fine, the intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant.
by a run on the bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing Originally, Canon 36 provided that a former government lawyer should
quasi-banking functions in the banking or financial community. not, after his retirement, accept employment in connection with any
The appointment of a conservator under Section 28-A of this Act or the matter which he has investigated or passed upon while in such office
appointment of a receiver under this Section shall be vested exclusively or employ. As aforediscussed, the broad sweep of the phrase which he
with the Monetary Board, the provision of any law, general or special, to has investigated or passed upon resulted in unjust disqualification of
the contrary notwithstanding. (As amended by PD Nos. 72, 1007, 1771 former government lawyers. The 1969 Code restricted its latitude, hence,
& 1827, Jan. 16, 1981) in DR 9-101(b), the prohibition extended only to a matter in which the
We hold that this advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure lawyer, while in the government service, had substantial
to liquidate GENBANK is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of responsibility. The 1983 Model Rules further constricted the reach of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 the rule. MR 1.11(a) provides that a lawyer shall not represent a private
is clear as daylight in stressing that the drafting, enforcing or client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or personally and substantially as a public officer or employee.
briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the It is, however, alleged that the intervention of respondent Mendoza in
scope of the term matter and cannot disqualify. Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is significant and substantial. We disagree. For
Secondly, it can even be conceded for the sake of argument that the one, the petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory pleading,
above act of respondent Mendoza falls within the definition of matter per hence, it has to be signed by respondent Mendoza as the then sitting
ABA Formal Opinion No. 342. Be that as it may, the said act of Solicitor General. For another, the record is arid as to
respondent Mendoza which is the matter involved in Sp. Proc. No. the actual participation of respondent Mendoza in the subsequent
107812 is entirely different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. proceedings. Indeed, the case was in slumberville for a long number of
0096. Again, the plain facts speak for themselves. It is given that years. None of the parties pushed for its early termination. Moreover, we
respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the Central note that the petition filed merely seeks the assistance of the court in
Bank to liquidate GENBANK. It is also given that he did not participate in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the court in this type
the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The matter where he got himself of proceedings is to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of
involved was in informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by creditors against the GENBANK. The role of the court is not strictly as
law to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the necessary a court of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in
petition in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 in the then Court of First Instance. The determining the claims of creditors. In such a proceeding, the
subject matter of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not the same participation of the Office of the Solicitor General is not that of the usual
nor is related to but is different from the subject matter in Civil Case court litigator protecting the interest of government.
No. 0096. Civil Case No. 0096 involves the sequestration of the II
stocks owned by respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank on the alleged Balancing Policy Considerations
ground that they are ill-gotten. The case does not involve the liquidation To be sure, Rule 6.03 of our Code of Professional Responsibility
of GENBANK. Nor does it involve the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. represents a commendable effort on the part of the IBP to upgrade the
Whether the shares of stock of the reorganized Allied Bank are ill-gotten ethics of lawyers in the government service. As aforestressed, it is a
is far removed from the issue of the dissolution and liquidation of take-off from similar efforts especially by the ABA which have not been
GENBANK. GENBANK was liquidated by the Central Bank due, among without difficulties. To date, the legal profession in the United States is
others, to the alleged banking malpractices of its owners and officers. In still fine tuning its DR 9-101(b) rule.
other words, the legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue In fathoming the depth and breadth of Rule 6.03 of our Code of
in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does Professional Responsibility, the Court took account of various policy
not include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. It goes without saying considerations to assure that its interpretation and application to the
that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply case at bar will achieve its end without necessarily prejudicing other
to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a values of equal importance. Thus, the rule was not interpreted to cause
Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a a chilling effect on government recruitment of able legal talent. At
matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096. present, it is already difficult for government to match compensation
Thirdly, we now slide to the metes and bounds of offered by the private sector and it is unlikely that government will be able
the intervention contemplated by Rule 6.03. Intervene means, viz.: to reverse that situation. The observation is not inaccurate that the only
1: to enter or appear as an irrelevant or extraneous feature or card that the government may play to recruit lawyers is have them defer
circumstance . . . 2: to occur, fall, or come in between points of time or present income in return for the experience and contacts that can later
events . . . 3: to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification: be exchanged for higher income in private practice.[45] Rightly, Judge
INTERPOSE . . . 4: to occur or lie between two things (Paris, where the Kaufman warned that the sacrifice of entering government service would
same city lay on both sides of an intervening river . . .)[41] be too great for most men to endure should ethical rules prevent them
On the other hand, intervention is defined as: from engaging in the practice of a technical specialty which they devoted
1: the act or fact of intervening: INTERPOSITION; 2: interference that years in acquiring and cause the firm with which they become associated
may affect the interests of others.[42] to be disqualified.[46] Indeed, to make government service more difficult
There are, therefore, two possible interpretations of the word intervene. to exit can only make it less appealing to enter.[47]
Under the first interpretation, intervene includes participation in a In interpreting Rule 6.03, the Court also cast a harsh eye on its use as
proceeding even if the intervention is irrelevant or has no effect or little a litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel as well as deprive his
influence.[43] Under the second interpretation, intervene only includes client of competent legal representation. The danger that the rule will be
an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject misused to bludgeon an opposing counsel is not a mere guesswork. The
proceedings.[44]We hold that this second meaning is more appropriate to Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has noted the tactical use
give to the word intervention under Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional of motions to disqualify counsel in order to delay proceedings, deprive
Responsibility in light of its history. The evils sought to be remedied by the opposing party of counsel of its choice, and harass and embarrass
Page 114

the Rule do not exist where the government lawyer does an act which the opponent, and observed that the tactic was so prevalent in large civil
can be considered as innocuous such as x x x drafting, enforcing or cases in recent years as to prompt frequent judicial and academic

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
commentary.[48] Even the United States Supreme Court found no quarrel employee may compromise confidential official information in the
with the Court of Appeals description of disqualification motions as a process. But this concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As
dangerous game.[49] In the case at bar, the new attempt to disqualify afore-discussed, the act of respondent Mendoza in informing the Central
respondent Mendoza is difficult to divine. The disqualification of Bank on the procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a different
respondent Mendoza has long been a dead issue. It was resuscitated matter from the subject matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the
after the lapse of many years and only after PCGG has lost many legal sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank.
incidents in the hands of respondent Mendoza. For a fact, the recycled Consequently, the danger that confidential official information might be
motion for disqualification in the case at bar was filed more than four divulged is nil, if not inexistent. To be sure, there are no inconsistent
years after the filing of the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and sides to be bothered about in the case at bar. For there is no question
injunction with the Supreme Court which were subsequently remanded that in lawyering for respondents Tan, et al., respondent Mendoza is not
to the Sandiganbayan and docketed as Civil Case Nos. 0096- working against the interest of Central Bank. On the contrary, he is
0099.[50] At the very least, the circumstances under which the motion to indirectly defending the validity of the action of Central Bank in liquidating
disqualify in the case at bar were refiled put petitioners motive as highly GENBANK and selling it later to Allied Bank. Their interests coincide
suspect. instead of colliding. It is for this reason that Central Bank offered no
Similarly, the Court in interpreting Rule 6.03 was not unconcerned objection to the lawyering of respondent Mendoza in Civil Case No. 0005
with the prejudice to the client which will be caused by its in defense of respondents Tan, et al. There is no switching of sides
misapplication. It cannot be doubted that granting a disqualification for no two sides are involved.
motion causes the client to lose not only the law firm of choice, but It is also urged that the Court should consider that Rule 6.03 is intended
probably an individual lawyer in whom the client has confidence.[51] The to avoid conflict of loyalties, i.e., that a government employee might be
client with a disqualified lawyer must start again often without the benefit subject to a conflict of loyalties while still in government service.[61] The
of the work done by the latter.[52] The effects of this prejudice to the right example given by the proponents of this argument is that a lawyer who
to choose an effective counsel cannot be overstated for it can result in plans to work for the company that he or she is currently charged with
denial of due process. prosecuting might be tempted to prosecute less vigorously.[62] In the
The Court has to consider also the possible adverse effect of a cautionary words of the Association of the Bar Committee in 1960: The
truncated reading of the rule on the official independence of greatest public risks arising from post employment conduct may well
lawyers in the government service. According to Prof. Morgan: An occur during the period of employment through the dampening of
individual who has the security of knowing he or she can find private aggressive administration of government policies.[63] Prof. Morgan,
employment upon leaving the government is free to work vigorously, however, considers this concern as probably excessive.[64] He opines x
challenge official positions when he or she believes them to be in error, x x it is hard to imagine that a private firm would feel secure hiding
and resist illegal demands by superiors. An employee who lacks this someone who had just been disloyal to his or her last client the
assurance of private employment does not enjoy such freedom.[53] He government. Interviews with lawyers consistently confirm that law firms
adds: Any system that affects the right to take a new job affects the ability want the best government lawyers the ones who were hardest to beat
to quit the old job and any limit on the ability to quit inhibits official not the least qualified or least vigorous advocates.[65] But again, this
independence.[54] The case at bar involves the position of Solicitor particular concern is a non factor in the case at bar. There is no
General, the office once occupied by respondent Mendoza. It cannot be charge against respondent Mendoza that he advised Central Bank on
overly stressed that the position of Solicitor General should be how to liquidate GENBANK with an eye in later defending respondents
endowed with a great degree of independence. It is this Tan, et al. of Allied Bank. Indeed, he continues defending both the
independence that allows the Solicitor General to recommend acquittal interests of Central Bank and respondents Tan, et al. in the above cases.
of the innocent; it is this independence that gives him the right to refuse Likewise, the Court is nudged to consider the need to curtail what is
to defend officials who violate the trust of their office. Any undue perceived as the excessive influence of former officials or their
dimunition of the independence of the Solicitor General will have a clout.[66] Prof. Morgan again warns against extending this concern too
corrosive effect on the rule of law. far. He explains the rationale for his warning, viz: Much of what appears
No less significant a consideration is the deprivation of the former to be an employees influence may actually be the power or authority of
government lawyer of the freedom to exercise his profession. Given his or her position, power that evaporates quickly upon departure from
the current state of our law, the disqualification of a former government government x x x.[67] More, he contends that the concern can
lawyer may extend to all members of his law firm.[55] Former government be demeaning to those sitting in government. To quote him further: x x
lawyers stand in danger of becoming the lepers of the legal x The idea that, present officials make significant decisions based on
profession. friendship rather than on the merit says more about the present officials
It is, however, proffered that the mischief sought to be remedied by Rule than about their former co-worker friends. It implies a lack of will or talent,
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is the possible or both, in federal officials that does not seem justified or intended, and
appearance of impropriety and loss of public confidence in it ignores the possibility that the officials will tend to disfavor their friends
government. But as well observed, the accuracy of gauging public in order to avoid even the appearance of favoritism.[68]
perceptions is a highly speculative exercise at best[56] which can lead to III
untoward results.[57] No less than Judge Kaufman doubts that the The question of fairness
lessening of restrictions as to former government attorneys will have any Mr. Justices Panganiban and Carpio are of the view, among others, that
detrimental effect on that free flow of information between the the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
government-client and its attorneys which the canons seek to Responsibility should be subject to a prescriptive period. Mr. Justice
protect.[58] Notably, the appearance of impropriety theory has been Tinga opines that the rule cannot apply retroactively to respondent
rejected in the 1983 ABA Model Rules of Professional Mendoza. Obviously, and rightly so, they are disquieted by the fact that
Conduct[59]and some courts have abandoned per se disqualification (1) when respondent Mendoza was the Solicitor General, Rule 6.03 has
based on Canons 4 and 9 when an actual conflict of interest exists, and not yet adopted by the IBP and approved by this Court, and (2) the bid
demand an evaluation of the interests of the defendant, government, the to disqualify respondent Mendoza was made after the lapse of time
witnesses in the case, and the public.[60] whose length cannot, by any standard, qualify as reasonable. At bottom,
It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its the point they make relates to the unfairness of the rule if applied without
Page 115

strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who switch sides. It is any prescriptive period and retroactively, at that. Their concern is
claimed that switching sides carries the danger that former government

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
legitimate and deserves to be initially addressed by the IBP and our a) Through a close-friend, Jovie Galaraga, a Pastor and likewise a friend
Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court. of the complainant, the latter was introduced to me at my office at the
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition assailing the resolutions dated July 11, Bureau of Immigration with a big problem concerning their stay in the
2001 and December 5, 2001 of the Fifth Division of Philippines, herself and three sons, one of which is already of major age
the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 is denied. while the two others were still minors then. Their problem was the fact
No cost. that since they have been staying in the Philippines for almost ten (10)
SO ORDERED. years as holders of missionary visas (9G) they could no longer extend
their said status as under the law and related polic[i]es of the
A.C. No. 6707 March 24, 2006 government, missionary visa holders could only remain as such for ten
GISELA HUYSSEN, Complainant, (10) years after which they could no longer extend their said status and
vs. have to leave the country.
ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ, Respondent. b) Studying their case and being U.S. Citizen (sic), I advised them that
they better secure a permanent visa under Section 3 of the Philippine
DECISION Immigration Law otherwise known as Quota Visa and thereafter,
PER CURIAM: provided them with list of the requirements in obtaining the said visa, one
This treats of a Complaint1 for Disbarment filed by Gisela Huyssen of which is that the applicant must have a $40,000 deposited in the bank.
against respondent Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez. I also inform that her son Marcus Huyssen, who was already of major
Complainant alleged that in 1995, while respondent was still connected age, has to have the same amount of show money separate of her
with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), she and her three money as he would be issued separate visa, while her two minor children
sons, who are all American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas under would be included as her dependents in her said visa application. I
Section 13[g] of the Immigration Law. Respondent told complainant that advised them to get a lawyer (sic), complainant further requested me to
in order that their visa applications will be favorably acted upon by the refer to her to a lawyer to work for their application, which I did and
BID they needed to deposit a certain sum of money for a period of one contacted the late Atty. Mendoza, an Immigration lawyer, to do the job
year which could be withdrawn after one year. Believing that the deposit for the complainant and her family.
was indeed required by law, complainant deposited with respondent on c) The application was filed, processed and followed-up by the said Atty.
six different occasions from April 1995 to April 1996 the total amount of Mendoza until the same was finished and the corresponding permanent
US$20,000. Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs that he visa were obtained by the complainant and her family. Her son Marcus
received the amounts deposited by the complainant but refused to give Huyssen was given an independent permanent visa while the other two
her copies of official receipts despite her demands. After one year, were made as dependents of the complainant. In between the
complainant demanded from respondent the return of US$20,000 who processing of the papers and becoming very close to the complainant, I
assured her that said amount would be returned. When respondent failed became the intermediary between complainant and their counsel so
to return the sum deposited, the World Mission for Jesus (of which much that every amount that the latter would request for whatever
complainant was a member) sent a demand letter to respondent for the purpose was coursed through me which request were then transmitted
immediate return of the money. In a letter dated 1 March 1999, to the complainant and every amount of money given by the complainant
respondent promised to release the amount not later than 9 March 1999. to their counsel were coursed thru me which is the very reason why my
Failing to comply with his promise, the World Mission for Jesus sent signature appears in the vouchers attached in the complaint-affidavit;
another demand letter. In response thereto, respondent sent d) That as time goes by, I noticed that the amount appeared to be huge
complainant a letter dated 19 March 1999 explaining the alleged reasons for services of a lawyer that I myself began to wonder why and, to satisfy
for the delay in the release of deposited amount. He enclosed two blank my curiosity, I met Atty. Mendoza and inquired from him regarding the
checks postdated to 6 April and 20 April 1999 and authorized matter and the following facts were revealed to me:
complainant to fill in the amounts. When complainant deposited the 1) That what was used by the complainant as her show money from the
postdated checks on their due dates, the same were dishonored bank is not really her money but money of World Mission for Jesus, which
because respondent had stopped payment on the same. Thereafter, therefore is a serious violation of the Immigration Law as there was a
respondent, in his letter to complainant dated 25 April 1999, explained misrepresentation. This fact was confirmed later when the said entity
the reasons for stopping payment on the checks, and gave complainant sent their demand letter to the undersigned affiant and which is attached
five postdated checks with the assurance that said checks would be to the complaint-affidavit;
honored. Complainant deposited the five postdated checks on their due 2) That worst, the same amount used by the complainant, was the very
dates but they were all dishonored for having been drawn against same amount used by her son Marcus Huyssen, in obtaining his
insufficient funds or payment thereon was ordered stopped by separate permanent visa. These acts of the complainant and her son
respondent. After respondent made several unfulfilled promises to return could have been a ground for deportation and likewise constitute criminal
the deposited amount, complainant referred the matter to a lawyer who offense under the Immigration Law and the Revised Penal Code. These
sent two demand letters to respondent. The demand letters remained could have been the possible reason why complainant was made to pay
unheeded. for quite huge amount.
Thus, a complaint2 for disbarment was filed by complainant in the e) That after they have secured their visas, complainant and her family
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines became very close to undersigned and my family that I was even invited
(IBP). to their residence several times;
On 15 November 2000, Victor C. Fernandez, Director for Bar Discipline, f) However after three years, complainant demanded the return of their
required3 respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt money given and surprisingly they want to recover the same from me.
thereof. By twist of fate, Atty. Mendoza is no longer around, he died sometime
In his Counter-Affidavit dated 2 July 2001,4 respondent denied the 1997;
allegations in the complaint claiming that having never physically g) That it is unfortunate that the real facts of the matter is now being
received the money mentioned in the complaint, he could not have hidden and that the amount of money is now being sought to be
appropriated or pocketed the same. He said the amount was used as recovered from me;
payment for services rendered for obtaining the permanent visas in the h) That the fact is I signed the vouchers and being a lawyer I know the
Page 116

Philippines. Respondent explained thus: consequences of having signed the same and therefore I had to answer
for it and pay. I tried to raised the fund needed but up to the present my

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
standby loan application has not been released and was informed that caused damage to the reputation and integrity of said office. It is
the same would only be forthcoming second week of August. The same submitted that respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code
should have been released last March but was aborted due to prevalent of Professional Responsibility which reads:
condition. The amount to be paid, according to the complainant has now "A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
become doubled plus attorneys fees of P200,000.00. promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere
Complainant submitted her evidence on 4 September 2002 and April with his public duties."
2003, and filed her Formal Offer of Evidence on 25 August 2003. On 4 November 2004, the IBP Board of Governors approved6 the
On several occasions, the complaint was set for reception of Investigating Commissioners report with modification, thus:
respondents evidence but the scheduled hearings (11 settings) were all RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it hereby ADOPTED and
reset at the instance of the respondent who was allegedly out of the APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
country to attend to his clients needs. Reception of respondents Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part
evidence was scheduled for the last time on 28 September 2004 and of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully
again respondent failed to appear, despite due notice and without just supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and rules, and
cause. considering respondents violation of Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code
On 5 November 2004, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is hereby
submitted her report5 recommending the disbarment of respondent. She DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount
justified her recommendation in this manner: with legal interest from receipt of the money until payment. This case
At the outset it should be noted that there is no question that respondent shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for prosecution for
received the amount of US$20,000 from complainant, as respondent violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts and to the Department
himself admitted that he signed the vouchers (Annexes A to F of of Justice for appropriate administrative action.
complainant) showing his receipt of said amount from complainant. We agree with the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be
Respondent however claims that he did not appropriate the same for severely sanctioned.
himself but that he delivered the said amount to a certain Atty. Mendoza. We begin with the veritable fact that lawyers in government service in
This defense raised by respondent is untenable considering the the discharge of their official task have more restrictions than lawyers in
documentary evidence submitted by complainant. On record is the 1 private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely
March 1999 letter of respondent addressed to the World Mission for condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.7
Jesus (Annex H of Complaint) where he stated thus: It is undisputed that respondent admitted8 having received the
"I really understand your feelings on the delay of the release of the US$20,000 from complainant as shown by his signatures in the petty
deposit but I repeat, nobody really intended that the thing would happen cash vouchers9 and receipts10 he prepared, on the false representation
that way. Many events were the causes of the said delay particularly the that that it was needed in complainants application for visa with the BID.
death of then Commissioner L. Verceles, whose sudden death prevented Respondent denied he misappropriated the said amount and interposed
us the needed papers for the immediate release. It was only from the defense that he delivered it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who assisted
compiling all on the first week of January this year, that all the said complainant and children in their application for visa in the BID.11 Such
papers were recovered, hence, the process of the release just started defense remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit evidence on the
though some important papers were already finished as early as the last matter. While he claims that Atty. Mendoza already died, he did not
quarter of last year. We are just going through the normal standard present the death certificate of said Atty. Mendoza. Worse, the action of
operating procedure and there is no day since January that I do not make respondent in shifting the blame to someone who has been naturally
any follow ups on the progress of the same." silenced by fate, is not only impudent but downright ignominious. When
and his letter dated 19 March 1999 (Annex L of Complaint) where he the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that
stated thus: he deny the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome
"I am sending you my personal checks to cover the refund of the amount the evidence against him.12 He must show proof that he still maintains
deposited by your good self in connection with the procurement of your that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him.
permanent visa and that of your family. It might take some more time In the case at bar, respondent clearly fell short of his duty. Records show
before the Bureau could release the refund as some other pertinent that even though he was given the opportunity to answer the charges
papers are being still compiled are being looked at the files of the late and controvert the evidence against him in a formal investigation, he
Commissioner Verceles, who approved your visa and who died of heart failed, without any plausible reason, to appear several times whenever
attack. Anyway, I am sure that everything would be fine later as all the the case was set for reception of his evidence despite due notice.
documents needed are already intact. This is just a bureaucratic delay." The defense of denial proferred by respondent is, thus, not convincing.
From the above letters, respondent makes it appear that the US$20,000 It is settled that denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it
was officially deposited with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. must be buttressed by a strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise,
However, if this is true, how come only Petty Cash Vouchers were issued such denial is purely self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value.
by respondent to complainant to prove his receipt of the said sum and When respondent issued the postdated checks as his moral obligation,
official receipts therefore were never issued by the said Bureau? Also, he indirectly admitted the charge. Such admissions were also apparent
why would respondent issue his personal checks to cover the return of in the following letters of respondent to complainant:
the money to complainant if said amount was really officially deposited 1) Letter13 dated 01 March 1992, pertinent portion of which reads:
with the Bureau of Immigration? All these actions of respondent point to Be that as it may, may I assure you for the last time that the said deposit
the inescapable conclusion that respondent received the money from is forthcoming, the latest of which is 09 March 1999. Should it not be
complainant and appropriated the same for his personal use. It should released on said date, I understand to pay the same to you out of my
also be noted that respondent has failed to establish that the "late Atty. personal money on said date. No more reasons and no more alibis. Send
Mendoza" referred to in his Counter-Affidavit really exists. There is not somebody here at the office on that day and the amount would be given
one correspondence from Atty. Mendoza regarding the visa application to you wether (sic) from the Bureau or from my own personal money.
of complainant and his family, and complainant has also testified that she 2) Letter14 dated 19 March 1999, reads in part:
never met this Atty. Mendoza referred to by respondent. I am sending you my personal checks to cover the refund of the amount
Considering that respondent was able to perpetrate the fraud by taking deposited by your goodself in connection with the procurement of your
Page 117

advantage of his position with the Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau permanent visa and that of your family.
of Immigration and Deportation, makes it more reprehensible as it has

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
It might take some more time before the Bureau could release the refund or which may be affected by the functions of his office.19 Respondents
as some other pertinent papers are still being compiled and are being conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral character required
looked at the files of the late Commissioner Verceles, who approved your from all lawyers, especially from one occupying a high public office. A
visa and who died of heart attack. Anyway, I am sure that everything lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or
would be fine later as all the documents needed are already intact. This omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the
is just a bureaucratic delay. citizenry in government; he must also uphold the dignity of the legal
xxxx profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
As you would see, I have to pay you in peso. I have issued you 2 checks, dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of
one dated April 6, 1999 and the other one dated April 20, 1999. I leave the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility,
the amount vacant because I would want you to fill them up on their due perhaps higher than his brethren in private practice.
dates the peso equivalent to $10,000 respectively. This is to be sure that In a desperate attempt to put up a smoke or to camouflage his misdeed,
the peso equivalent of your P20,000 would be well exchanged. I have he went on committing another by issuing several worthless checks,
postdated them to enable me to raise some more pesos to cover the thereby compounding his case.
whole amount but dont worry as the Lord had already provided me the In a recent case, we have held that the issuance of worthless checks
means. constitutes gross misconduct,20 as the effect "transcends the private
3) Letter15 dated 25 April 1999 provides: interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches
Anyway, let me apologize for all these troubles. You are aware that I the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only
have done my very best for the early return of your money but the return a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public since the
is becoming bleak as I was informed that there are still papers lacking. circulation of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute the
When I stopped the payment of the checks I issued, I was of the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
impression that everything is fine, but it is not. I guess it is time for me to eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus,
accept the fact that I really have to personally return the money out of paraphrasing Blacks definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check
my own. The issue should stop at my end. This is the truth that I must deliberately reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or
face. It may hurt me financially but it would set me free from worries and society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and
anxieties. duty, justice, honesty or good morals."21
I have arranged for a loan from money lenders and was able to secure Consequently, we have held that the act of a person in issuing a check
one last Saturday the releases of which are on the following: knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have
May 4, 1999- 200,000 sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the
May 11, 1999 -200,000 check in full upon its presentment, is also a manifestation of moral
May 20, 1999-200,000 turpitude.22
June 4, 1999-200,000 Respondents acts are more despicable. Not only did he misappropriate
I have given my property (lot situated in the province) as my collateral. the money of complainant; worse, he had the gall to prepare receipts
I am therefore putting an end to this trouble. I am issuing four checks with the letterhead of the BID and issued checks to cover up his
which I assure you will be sufficiently funded on their due dates by reason misdeeds. Clearly, he does not deserve to continue, being a member of
of my aforestated loans. Just bear with me for the last time, if any of the bar.
these checks, is returned, dont call me anymore. Just file the necessary Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble
action against me, I just had to put an end to this matter and look forward. profession. It is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are
xxx competent intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must at all
4) Letter16 dated 12 May 1999, which reads: times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the
The other day I deposited the amount of P289,000 to the bank to cover public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
the first check I issued. In fact I stopped all payments to all other checks He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts
that are becoming due to some of my creditors to give preference to the and to his clients. A violation of the high standards of the legal profession
check I issued to you. subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes
This morning when I went to the Bank, I learned that the bank instead of suspension and disbarment.23 More importantly, possession of good
returning the other checks I requested for stop payment - instead moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment
honored them and mistakenly returned your check. This was a very big of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for
surprise to me and discouragement for I know it would really upset you. the revocation of such privilege.24
In view of this I thought of sending you the amount of P200,000 in cash Indeed, the primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is
which I initially plan to withdraw from the Bank. However, I could not not only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers but also to
entrust the same amount to the bearer nor can I bring the same to your safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the
place considering that its quite a big amount. I am just sending a check public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal
for you to immediately deposit today and I was assured by the bank that profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyers oath have
it would be honored this time. proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as
Normally, this is not the actuation of one who is falsely accused of members of the bar.25These pronouncement gain practical significance
appropriating the money of another. As correctly observed by the in the case at bar considering that respondent was a former member of
Investigating Commissioner, respondent would not have issued his the Board of Special Inquiry of the BID. It bears stressing also that
personal checks if said amount were officially deposited with the BID. government lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity to the public
This is an admission of misconduct. service, a public trust. As such, government lawyers should be more
Respondents act of asking money from complainant in consideration of sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is
the latters pending application for visas is violative of Rule 1.0117 of the more likely to be magnified in the public eye.26
Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed
from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal
acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.0218 of the Code profession.
which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a
Page 118

interest. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the
of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office;

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
(4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil
turpitude ; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of action ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a
any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an result of this loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm
attorney for a party without authority to do so.27 "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" of which respondent is one of the
In Atty. Vitriolo v. Atty. Dasig,28 we ordered the disbarment of a lawyer Senior Partners.
who, during her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, Commission on Higher In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted that he appeared
Education, demanded sums of money as consideration for the approval as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution
of applications and requests awaiting action by her office. In Lim v. pending appeal of the RTC decision. He alleged that he did not
Barcelona,29 we also disbarred a senior lawyer of the National Labor participate in the litigation of the case before the trial court. With respect
Relations Commission, who was caught by the National Bureau of to the case of the Almeda spouses, respondent alleged that he never
Investigation in the act of receiving and counting money extorted from a appeared as counsel for them. He contended that while the law firm
certain person. "Cedo Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is designated as counsel of record,
Respondents acts constitute gross misconduct; and consistent with the the case is actually handled only by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. Respondent
need to maintain the high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the averred that he did not enter into a general partnership with Atty. Pedro
faith of the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named therein. They are only using the
ultimate penalty of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of aforesaid name to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers, who
lawyers.30 although not partners, maintain one office as well as one clerical and
WHEREFORE, Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED from the supporting staff. Each one of them handles their own cases
practice of law and ordered to return the amount he received from the independently and individually receives the revenues therefrom which
complainant with legal interest from his receipt of the money until are not shared among them.
payment. This case shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for In the resolution of this Court dated January 27, 1992, this case was
criminal prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for investigation,
and to the Department of Justice for appropriate administrative action. report and recommendation.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant to be spread During the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that
on the records of the respondent; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines respondent was previously fined by this Court in the amount of P1,000.00
for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator in connection with G.R. No. 94456 entitled "Milagros Ong Siy vs. Hon.
for dissemination to all courts throughout the country. Salvador Tensuan, et al." for forum shopping, where respondent
SO ORDERED. appeared as counsel for petitioner Milagros Ong Siy "through the law
firm of Cedo Ferrer Maynigo and Associates."
The IBP further found that the charges herein against respondent were
A.C. No. 3701 March 28, 1995 fully substantiated. Respondent's averment that the law firm handling the
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, complainant, case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant
vs. consideration in the light of the attestation of complainant's counsel, Atty.
ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO, respondent. Pedro Singson, that in one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses' case,
RESOLUTION respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and although
he did not enter his appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty.
BIDIN, J.: Ferrer what to say and argue before the court. Furthermore, during the
In a verified letter-complaint dated August 15, 1991, complainant hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the same case,
Philippine National Bank charged respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it
former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset Management Group of was made of record that respondent was working in the same office as
complainant bank with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Atty. Ferrer.
Professional Responsibility, thus: Moreover, the IBP noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm is
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened (Rule 15.02) since the clients secrets and confidential records and
while in said service. information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all
by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with times.
complainant bank in which respondent during his employment with From the foregoing, the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of
aforesaid bank, had intervened. respondent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former
Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its employ, he borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best position to see
participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets (denominated as Lots the legal weaknesses of his former employer, a convincing factor for the
54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. He even said clients to seek his professional service. In sum, the IBP saw a
"noted" the gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the
Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel money he expected to earn.
sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound. When a civil action arose The IBP thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the
out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant bank practice of law for 3 years.
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who The records show that after the Board of Governors of the IBP had, on
had since left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the October 4, 1994, submitted to this Court its Report and recommendation
counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy. in this case, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated October
Similarly, when the same transaction became the subject of an 25, 1994 of the recommendation contained in the said Report with the
administrative case filed by complainant bank against his former IBP Board of Governors. On December 12, 1994, respondent also filed
subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave misconduct and dishonesty, another "Motion to Set Hearing" before this Court, the aforesaid Motion
respondent appeared as counsel for Elefan only to be later disqualified for Reconsideration. In resolving this case, the Court took into
by the Civil Service Commission. consideration the aforesaid pleadings.
Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of In addition to the findings of the IBP, this Court finds this occasion
Page 119

complainants Asset Management Group, he intervened in the handling appropriate to emphasize the paramount importance of avoiding the
of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with representation of conflicting interests. In the similar case of Pasay Law

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
and Conscience Union, Inc. vs. Paz, (95 SCRA 24 [1980]) where a PER CURIAM:
former Legal Officer and Legal Prosecutor of PARGO who participated In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the
in the investigation of the Anti-Graft case against Mayor Pablo Cuneta Philippines (hereafter "IBP") held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine
later on acted as counsel for the said Mayor in the same anti-graft case, International Convention Center (or PICC), the following were elected by
this Court, citing Nombrado vs. Hernandez (26 SCRA 13 119681) ruled: the House of Delegates (composed of 120 chapter presidents or their
The Solicitor General is of the opinion, and we find no reason to disagree alternates) and proclaimed as officers:
with him, that even if respondent did not use against his client any
NAME POSITION
information or evidence acquired by him as counsel it cannot be denied
that he did become privy to information regarding the ownership of the
Atty. Violeta Drilon President
parcel of land which was later litigated in the forcible entry case, for it
was the dispute over the land that triggered the mauling incident which
Atty. Bella Tiro Executive Vice-President
gave rise to the criminal action for physical injuries. This Court's remarks
in Hilado vs. David, 84 Phil. 571, are apropos:
Atty. Salvador Lao Chairman, House of Delegates
"Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of
litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant and
irrelevant, secret and well-known facts. In the complexity of what is said Atty. Renato F. Secretary, House of Delegates
in the course of dealings between an attorney and client, inquiry of the Ronquillo
nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of
other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant's cause." Atty. Teodoro Quicoy Treasurer, House of Delegates
Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against
his former client information given to him in a professional capacity, the Atty. Oscar Badelles Sergeant at Arms, House of Delegates
mere fact of their previous relationship should have precluded him from
appearing as counsel for the other side in the forcible entry case. In the Atty. Justiniano Cortes Governor & Vice-President for Northern
case ofHilado vs. David, supra, this Tribunal further said: Luzon
Hence the necessity of setting the existence of the bare relationship of
attorney and client as the yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests. Atty. Ciriaco Atienza Governor & Vice-President for Central
This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner Luzon
from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from
unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. . . . It is founded on Atty. Mario Jalandoni Governor & Vice-President for Metro
principles of public policy, of good taste. As has been said in another Manila
case, the question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but
as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard. Atty. Jose Aguilar Governor & Vice-President for Southern
With these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorney, like Caesar's wife, not Grapilon Luzon
only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double dealing. Only thus can litigants. be Atty. Teodoro Almine Governor & Vice-President for Bicolandia
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of
paramount importance in the administration of justice. Atty. Porfirio Siyangco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern
The foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with equal force Visayas
and effect to respondent in the case at bar. Having been an executive of
complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the Atty. Ricardo Teruel Governor & Vice-President for Western
opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction Visayas
which he formerly handled while still an employee of complainant, in
violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse Atty. Gladys Tiongco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern
influence and conflicting interests, to wit: Mindanao
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express
conflicting consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the Atty. Simeon Governor & Vice-President for Western
facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting Datumanong Mindanao
interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his duty to contend for that The newly-elected officers were set to take the their oath of office on July
which duty to another client requires him to oppose. 4,1989, before the Supreme Court en banc. However,disturbed by the
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. widespread reports received by some members of the Court from
TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS, lawyers who had witnessed or participated in the proceedings and the
effective immediately. adverse comments published in the columns of some newspapers about
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates, led by
Philippines and all courts in Metro Manila. the main protagonists for the office of president of the association,
SO ORDERED. namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon,
the alleged use of government planes, and the officious intervention of
THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION 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
CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE Court en banc, exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND Bar, resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. inquire into the veracity of the reports.
It should be stated at the outset that the election process itself (i.e. the
A.M. No. 491 October 6, 1989 voting and the canvassing of votes on June 3, 1989) which was
IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF
Page 120

conducted by the "IBP Comelec," headed by Justice Reynato Puno of

THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. the Court of Appeals, was unanimously adjudged by the participants and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
observers to be above board. For Justice Puno took it upon himself to based on reports carried by media and transmitted as well by word of
device safeguards to prevent tampering with, and marking of, the ballots. mouth, that there was extensive and intensive campaigning by
What the Court viewed with considerable concern was the reported candidates for IBP positions as well as expenditure of considerable sums
electioneering and extravagance that characterized the campaign of money by candidates, including vote-buying, direct or indirect."
conducted by the three candidates for president of the IBP. The venerable retired Supreme Court Justice and IBP President
I. MEDIA ACCOUNT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. Emeritus, Jose B.L. Reyes, attended the dialogue, upon invitation of the
Emil Jurado, in his column "IBP Group Questions Drilon Election" (Manila Court, to give counsel and advice. The meeting between the Court en
Standard, Sunday, June 17, 1989), Luis Mauricio, in two successive banc on the one hand, and the outgoing and in coming IBP officers on
columns: "The Invertebrated Bar" (Malaya, June 10, 1989) and "The the other, was an informal one. Thereafter, the Court resolved to conduct
Disintegrating Bar" (Malaya, June 20, 1989), and Teodoro Locsin Jr. in a formal inquiry to determine whether the prohibited acts and activities
an article, entitled "Pam-Pam" (The Philippines Free Press, July 8,1989), enumerated in the IBP By-Laws were committed before and during the
and the editorial, entitled 'Wrong Forum" of the Daily Globe (June 8, 1989 elections of IBP's national officers.
1989), were unanimously critical of the "vote-buying and pressure The Court en banc formed a committee and designated Senior
tactics" allegedly employed in the campaign by the three principal Associate Justice Andres R. Narvasa, as Chairman, and Associate
candidates: Attys. Violeta C. Drilon, Nereo Paculdo and Ramon Nisce Justices Teodoro R. Padilla, Emilio A. Gancayco, Abraham F.
who reportedly "poured heart, soul, money and influence to win over the Sarmiento, and Carolina C. Grio-Aquino, as members, to conduct the
120 IBP delegates." inquiry. The Clerk of Court, Atty. Daniel Martinez, acted as the
Mr. Jurado mentioned the resentment of Atty. Drilon's rivals who felt at a committee's Recording Secretary.
disadvantage because Atty. Drilon allegedly used PNB helicopters to A total of forty-nine (49) witnesses appeared and testified in response to
visit far-flung IBP chapters on the pretext of distributing Bigay Puso subpoenas issued by the Court to shed light on the conduct of the
donations, and she had the added advantage of having regional directors elections. The managers of three five-star hotels the Philippine Plaza,
and labor arbiters of the Department of Labor and Employment (who had the Hyatt, and the Holiday Inn where the three protagonists (Drilon, Nisce
been granted leaves of absence by her husband, the Labor Secretary) and Paculdo) allegedly set up their respective headquarters and where
campaigning for her. Jurado's informants alleged that there was rampant they billeted their supporters were summoned. The officer of the
vote-buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity Philippine National Bank and the Air Transport Office were called to
(Secretary Drilon's fraternity), as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA enlighten the Court on the charge that an IBP presidential candidate and
(Angara, Concepcion, Cruz, Regala and Abello Law Office) where Mrs. the members of her slate used PNB planes to ferry them to distant places
Drilon is employed, and that government positions were promised to in their campaign to win the votes of delegates. The Philippine Airlines
others by the office of the Labor Secretary. officials were called to testify on the charge that some candidates gave
Mr. Mauricio in his column wrote about the same matters and, in addition, free air fares to delegates to the convention. Officials of the Labor
mentioned "talk of personnel of the Department of Labor, especially Department were also called to enable the Court to ascertain the truth of
conciliators and employers, notably Chinese Filipinos, giving aid and the reports that labor officials openly campaigned or worked for the
comfort to her (Atty. Drilon's) candidacy," the billeting of out-of-town election of Atty. Drilon.
delegates in plush hotels where they were reportedly "wined and dined The newspaper columnists, Messrs. Luis Mauricio, Jesus Bigornia and
continuously, womened and subjected to endless haggling over the price Emil Jurado were subpoenaed to determine the nature of their sources
of their votes x x x" which allegedly "ranged from Pl5,000 to P20,000, of information relative to the IBP elections. Their stories were based, they
and, on the day of the election, some twelve to twenty votes which were said, on letters, phone calls and personal interviews with persons who
believed crucial, appreciated to P50,000." claimed to have knowledge of the facts, but whom they, invoking the
In his second column, Mr. Mauricio mentioned "how a top official of the Press Freedom Law, refused to identify.
judiciary allegedly involved himself in IBP politics on election day by The Committee has since submitted its Report after receiving, and
closeting himself with campaigners as they plotted their election strategy analyzing and assessing evidence given by such persons as were
in a room of the PICC (the Philippine International Convention Center perceived to have direct and personal knowledge of the relevant facts;
where the convention/election were held) during a recess x x x." and the Court, after deliberating thereon, has Resolved to accept and
Mr. Locsin in his column and editorial substantially re-echoed Mauricio's adopt the same.
reports with some embellishments. III. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES UNDER IBP BY-LAWS.
II. THE COURT'S DECISION TO INVESTIGATE. Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-
Responding to the critical reports, the Court, in its en banc resolution political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thus:
dated June 15, 1989, directed the outgoing and incoming members of "SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. The Integrated Bar is strictly non-political,
the IBP Board of Governors, the principal officers and Chairman of the and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited
House of Delegates to appear before it on Tuesday, June 20, 1989, at and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective,
2:00 o'clock p.m., and there to inform the Court on the veracity of the judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any
aforementioned reports and to recommend, for the consideration of the political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election
Court, appropriate approaches to the problem of confirming and or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter
strengthening adherence to the fundamental principles of the IBP. thereof. A Delegate, Governor, officer or employee of the Integrated Bar,
In that resolution the Court "call[ed] to mind that a basic postulate of the or an officer or employee of any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), heavily stressed at the time of its facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate
organization and commencement of existence, is that the IBP shall be of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any
non-political in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any
campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. "'
the House of Delegates, and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or Section 14 of the same By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative
chapter. The fundamental assumption was that officers, delegates and to IBP elections:
governors would be chosen on the basis of professional merit and SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. The
willingness and ability to serve." following acts and practices relative to election are prohibited, whether
The resolution went on to say that the "Court is deeply disturbed to note committed by a candidate for any elective office in the Integrated Bar or
Page 121

that in connection with the election of members of the Board of by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, by
Governors and of the House of Delegates, there is a widespread belief, himself or through another person:

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
(a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign material; Amores, Romeo V. Pefianco, Augurio C. Pamintuan, Atlee T. Viray,
(b) Distribution, on election day, of election campaign material other than Ceferino C. Cabanas, Jose S. Buban, Diosdado Z. Reloj, Jr., Cesar C.
a statement of the biodata of a candidate on not more than one page of Viola, Oscar C. Fernandez, Ricardo B. Teruel Rodrigo R. Flores, Sixto
a legal-size sheet of paper; or causing distribution of such statement to Marella, Jr., Arsenio C. Villalon, Renato F. Ronquillo, Antonio G. Nalapo
be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding Romualdo A. Din Jr., Jose P. Icaonapo Jr., and Manuel S. Person.
at the elections; Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms at the Hyatt Hotel based on
(c) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, the commitments he had obtained (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, pp. 82-85).
judicial, quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the Government or any Unfortunately, despite those formal commitments, he obtained only 14
political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof; votes in the election (t.s.n., June 29, 1 989, p. 86). The reason, he said,
(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as is that. some of those who had committed their votes to him were
well as the advertisement thereof; "manipulated, intimidated, pressured, or remunerated" (t.s.n., June
(e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his 29,1989, pp. 8695; Exhibit "M-4-Nisce," t.s.n., July 4, 1989, pp. 100-1
vote, or to vote for or against a candidate, (1) payment of the dues or 04).
other indebtedness of any member; (2) giving of food, drink, (2) Use of PNB plane in the campaign.
entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any similar The records of the Philippine National Bank (Exhibit C-1-Crudo and
consideration to any person; or (3) making a promise or causing an Exhibit C-2-Crudo) show that Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. of the
expenditure to be made, offered or promised to any person." Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) borrowed a
Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations of the plane from the Philippine National Bank for his Bicol CORD (Cabinet
above rules: Officers for Regional Development) Assistant, Undersecretary Antonio
(d) Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission of any Tria. The plane manifest (Exh. C-2-Crudo) listed Atty. Violeta Drilon,
of the prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14 prohibited Acts Arturo Tusi (Tiu), Assistant Secretary for Environment and Natural
and Practices relative to elections) of the by-laws of the Integrated Bar Resources (DENR) Tony Tria, Atty. Gladys Tiongco, and Amy Wong.
shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his removal Except for Tony Tria, the rest of the passengers were IBP candidates.
from office if elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions Atty. Drilon admitted that she "hitched" a ride on a PNB plane. She said
upon any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated Bar. that she was informed by Atty. Tiu about the availability of a PNB plane
At the formal investigation which was conducted by the investigating (t.s.n., July 3,1989, pp. 116-118).
committee, the following violations were established: Atty. Tiu, who ran for the position of IBP executive vice-president in the
(1) Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the candidates for Drilon ticket, testified that sometime in May 1989 he failed to obtain
president, executive vice-president, the officers of candidate the House booking from the Philippine Airlines for the projected trip of his group to
of Delegates and Board of Governors. Bicol. He went to the DENR allegedly to follow up some papers for a
The three candidates for IBP President Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo began client. While at the DENR, he learned that Assistant Secretary Tria was
travelling around the country to solicit the votes of delegates as early as going on an official business in Bicol for Secretary Fulgencio Factoran
April 1989. Upon the invitation of IBP President, Leon Garcia, Jr. (t.s.n., and that he would be taking a PNB plane. As Assistant Secretary Tria is
July 13,1989, p. 4), they attended the Bench and Bar dialogues held in his fraternity brother, he asked if he, together with the Drilon group, could
Cotabato in April 1989 (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, p. 123), in Tagaytay City, hitch a ride on the plane to Bicol. His request was granted. Their purpose
Pampanga, and in Baguio City (during the conference of chapter in going to Bicol was to assess their chances in the IBP elections. The
presidents of Northern Luzon (t.s.n., July 3,1989, p. 113; t.s.n., July 10, Drilon company talked with the IBP chapter presidents in Daet, Naga,
p. 41; t.s.n., July 13, p. 47) where they announced their candidacies and and Legaspi, and asked for their support (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. 549).
met the chapter presidents. Assistant Secretary Antonio S. Tria confirmed the use of a PNB plane by
Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking the help of Atty. Drilon and her group. He recalled that on May 23,1989, DENR
IBP chapter officers, soliciting their votes, and securing their written Secretary Factoran instructed him to go to Bicol to monitor certain
endorsements. He personally hand-carried nomination forms and regional development projects there and to survey the effect of the
requested the chapter presidents and delegates to fill up and sign the typhoon that hit the region in the middle of May. On the same day, Atty.
forms to formalize their commitment to his nomination for IBP President. Tiu, a fraternity brother (meaning that Tiu belongs to the Sigma Rho
He started campaigning and distributing the nomination forms in March fraternity) went to the DENR office and requested the Secretary
1989 after the chapter elections which determined the membership of (Factoran) if he (Tiu) could be allowed to hitch a ride on the plane.
the House of Delegates composed of the 120 chapter presidents (t.s.n., Assistant Secretary Tria, together with the Drilon group which included
June 29, 1989, pp. 82-86). He obtained forty (40) commitments. He Attorneys Drilon, Grapilon, Amy Wong, Gladys Tiongco, and Tiu, took off
submitted photocopies of his nomination forms which read: at the Domestic Airport bound for Naga, Daet and Legaspi. In Legaspi
"Nomination Form the Drilon group had lunch with Atty. Vicente Real, Jr., an IBP chapter
president (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. 54-69).
I Join in Nominating (3) Formation of tickets and single slates.
RAMON M. NISCE The three candidates, Paculdo, Nisce and Drilon, admitted having
as formed their own slates for the election of IBP national officers on June
National President of the 3, 1989.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Atty. Paculdo's slate consisted of himself for President; Bella D. Tiro,
for Executive Vice-President; and for Governors: Justiniano P. Cortez
______________ _______________ (Northern Luzon), Oscar C. Fernandez (Central Luzon), Mario C.V.
Chapter Signature" Jalandoni (Greater Manila), Petronilo A. de la Cruz (Southern Luzon),
Among those who signed the nomination forms were: Onofre P. Tejada, Teodorico C. Almine, Jr. (Bicolandia), Ricardo B. Teruel (Western
Candido P. Balbin, Jr., Conizado V. Posadas, Quirico L. Quirico Ernesto Visayas), Porfirio P. Siyangco (Eastern Visayas), Jesus S. Anonat
S. Salun-at, Gloria C. Agunos, Oscar B. Bernardo, Feliciano F. Wycoco, (Western Mindanao), Guerrero A. Adaza, Jr. (Eastern Mindanao)
Amor L. Ibarra, Jose M. Atienza, Jose N. Contreras, Romeo T. Mendoza, (Exhibit M-Nisce).
Leo C. Medialdea, Jr., Paulino G. Clarin, Julius Z. Neil, Roem J. Arbolado The Drilon ticket consisted of. Violeta C. Drilon for President, Arturo Tiu
Page 122

Democrito M. Perez, Abelardo Fermin, Diosdado B. Villarin, Jr., Daniel for Executive Vice President, Salvador Lao for Chairman of the House of
C. Macaraeg, Confesor R. Sansano Dionisio E. Bala, Jr., Emesto A. Delegates, and, for Governors: Basil Rupisan (Northern 'Luzon), Acong

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Atienza (Central Luzon), Amy Wong (Metro Manila), Jose Grapilon The delegates and supporters of Atty. Drilon were billeted at the
(Southern Tagalog), Teodoro Almine (Bicolandia), Baldomero Estenzo Philippine Plaza Hotel where her campaign manager, Atty. Renato
(Eastern Visayas), Joelito Barrera (Western Visayas), Gladys Tiongco Callanta, booked 40 rooms, 5 of which were suites. According to Ms.
(Eastern Mindanao), Simeon Datumanong (Western Mindanao) (Exhibit Villanueva, Philippine Plaza banquet and conventions manager, the
M-1-Nisce). contract that Atty. Callanta signed with the Philippine Plaza was made in
Atty. Ramon N. Nisce's line-up listed himself and Confessor B. Sansano the name of the "IBP c/o Atty. Callanta."
Benjamin B. Bernardino, Antonio L. Nalapo Renato F. Ronquillo, Gloria Mrs. Lourdes Juco, a sales manager of the Philippine Plaza, recalled that
C. Agunos, Mario Valderrama, Candido P. Balbin Jr., Oscar C. it was Mr. Mariano Benedicto who first came to book rooms for the IBP
Fernandez, Cesar G. Viola, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr., Vicente P. Tordilla, delegates. She suggested that he obtain a group (or discounted) rate.
Jr., Jose S. Buban, Joel A. Llosa, Jesus T. Albacite and Oscar V. He gave her the name of Atty. Callanta who would make the
Badelles. arrangements with her. Mr. Benedicto turned out to be the Assistant
(4) Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and alternates. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Atty. Nisce admitted having bought plane tickets for some delegates to The total sum of P316,411.53 was paid by Atty. Callanta for the rooms,
the convention. He mentioned Oscar Badelles to whom he gave four food, and beverages consumed by the Drilon group, with an unpaid
round-trip tickets (worth about P10,000) from Iligan City to Manila and balance of P302,197.30. Per Attorney Daniel Martinez's last telephone
back. Badelles was a voting delegate. Nisce, however, failed to get a conversation with Ms. Villanueva, Atty. Callanta still has an outstanding
written commitment from him because Atty. Medialdea assured him account of P232,782.65 at Philippine Plaza.
(Nisce) "sigurado na 'yan, h'wag mo nang papirmahin." Badelles won as Atty. Callanta admitted that he signed the contract for 40 rooms at the
sergeant-at-arms, not in Nisce's ticket, but in that of Drilon. Philippine Plaza. He made a downpayment of P123,000. His "working
Badelles admitted that Nisce sent him three airplane tickets, but he sheet' showed that the following persons contributed for that down
Badelles said that he did not use them, because if he did, he would be payment:
committed to Nisce, and he Badelles did not want to be committed (t.s.n.,
(a) Nilo Pena (Quasha Law Office) P 25,000
July 4,1989, pp. 77-79, 95-96).
Nisce also sent a plane ticket to Atty. Atilano, who was his candidate,
(b) Antonio Carpio 20,000
and another ticket to Mrs. Linda Lim of Zamboanga. Records of the
Philippine Airlines showed that Atty. Nisce paid for the plane tickets of
(c) Toto Ferrer (Carpio Law Office) 10,000
Vicente Real, Jr. (Exh. D-1-Calica), Romeo Fortes (Exh. D-1-Calica),
Cesar Batica (Exh. D-2-Calica), Jose Buban of Leyte (Exh. D-2-Calica),
(d) Jay Castro 10,000
Delsanto Resuello (Exh. D-3- Calica), and Ceferino Cabanas (Exh. D-3-
Calica).
In spite of his efforts and expense, only one of Nisce's candidates won: (e) Danny Deen 20,000
Renato Ronquillo of Manila 4, as Secretary of the House of Delegates
(t.s.n. July 3, p. 161). (f) Angangco Tan (Angara Law Office) 10,000
(5) Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks, entertainment to
delegates. (g) Alfonso Reyno 20,000
(a) ATTY. NEREO PACULDO
Atty. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24 regular rooms and three suites (h) Cosme Rossel 15,300
at the Holiday Inn, which served as his headquarters. The 24 rooms were (t.s.n. July 4, 1 989, pp. 3-4)
to be occupied by his staff (mostly ladies) and the IBP delegates. The Atty. Callanta explained that the above listed persons have been
three suites were to be occupied by himself, the officers of the Capitol contributing money every time the IBP embarks on a project. This time,
Bar Association, and Atty. Mario Jalandoni. He paid P150,000 for the they contributed so that their partners or associates could attend the
hotel bills of his delegates at the Holiday Inn, where a room cost P990 legal aid seminar and the IBP convention too.
per day with breakfast. Atty. Drilon alleged that she did not know that Atty. Callanta had billeted
Those listed as guests of Atty. Paculdo at the Holiday Inn were: Emesto her delegates at the Philippine Plaza. She allegedly did not also know in
C. Perez, Tolomeo Ligutan Judge Alfonso Combong, Ricardo Caliwag, whose name the room she occupied was registered. But she did ask for
Antonio Bisnar, Benedicto Balajadia, Jesus Castro, Restituto Villanueva, a room where she could rest during the convention. She admitted,
Serapio Cribe Juanita Subia, Teodorico J. Almine, Rudy Gumban, Roem however, that she paid for her hotel room and meals to Atty. Callanta,
Arbolado, Ricardo Teruel, Shirley Moises, Ramon Roco, Alberto through Atty. Loanzon (t.s.n. July 3,1989).
Trinidad, Teodoro Quicoy Manito Lucero, Fred Cledera Vicente Tordilla, The following were listed as having occupied the rooms reserved by Atty.
Julian Ocampo, Francisco Felizmenio Marvel Clavecilla, Amador Callanta at the Philippine Plaza: Violeta Drilon, Victoria A. Verciles,
Capiral, Eufronio Maristela, Porfirio Siyangco, William Llanes, Jr., Victoria C. Loanzon, Leopoldo A. Consulto Ador Lao, Victoria Borra,
Marciano Neri, Guerrero Adaza, Diosdado Peralta, Luis C. Formilleza, Aimee Wong, Callanta, Pena, Tiu, Gallardo, Acong Atienza, D.
Jr., Democrito Perez, Bruno Flores, Dennis Rendon, Judge Ceferino Bernardo, Amores, Silao Caingat, Manuel Yuson, Simeon Datumanong,
Chan, Mario Jalandoni, Kenneth Siruelo Bella Tiro, Antonio Santos, Manuel Pecson, Sixto Marella, Joselito Barrera, Radon Macalalag,
Tiburcio Edano James Tan, Cesilo A. Adaza, Francisco Roxas, Angelita Oscar Badelles, Antonio Acyatan, Ildefonso C. Puerto, Nestor Atienza,
Gacutan, Jesse Pimentel, Judge Jaime Hamoy, Jesus Anonat, Carlos Gil Batula Array Corot, Dimakuta Corot Romeo Fortes Irving Petilla,
Egay, Judge Carlito Eisma, Judge Jesus Carbon, Joven Zach, and Teodoro Palma, Gil Palma, Danilo Deen, Delsanto, Resuello, Araneta,
Benjamin Padon. Vicente Real, Sylvio Casuncad Espina, Guerrero, Julius Neri, Linda Lim,
Noel de Guzman, Holiday Inn's credit manager, testified that Atty. Ben Lim, C. Batica, Luis Formilleza, Felix Macalag Mariano Benedicto,
Paculdo booked 52 (not 24) rooms, including the presidential suite, Atilano, Araneta, Renato Callanta.
which was used as the Secretariat. The group bookings were made by Atty. Nilo Pena admitted that the Quasha Law Office of which he is a
Atty. Gloria Paculdo, the wife of Nereo Paculdo (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. senior partner, gave P25,000 to Callanta for rooms at the Philippine
63-68). The total sum of P227,114.89 was paid to Holiday Inn for the use Plaza so that some members of his law firm could campaign for the
of the rooms.
Page 123

Drilon group (t.s.n. July 5,1989, pp. 7678) during the legal aid seminar
(b) ATTY. VIOLETA C. DRILON and the IBP convention. Most of the members of his law firm are fraternity
brothers of Secretary Drilon (meaning, members of the Sigma Rho

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Fraternity). He admitted being sympathetic to the candidacy of Atty. Atty. Teresita C. Sison, IBP Treasurer, testified that she has heard of
Drilon and the members of her slate, two of whom Jose Grapilon and candidates paying the IBP dues of lawyers who promised to vote for or
Simeon Datumanong are Sigma Rhoans. They consider Atty. Drilon support them, but she has no way of ascertaining whether it was a
as a "sigma rho sister," her husband being a sigma rhoan. candidate who paid the delinquent dues of another, because the receipts
Atty. Antonio Carpio, also a Sigma Rhoan, reserved a room for the are issued in the name of the member for whom payment is made (t.s.n.
members of his own firm who attended the legal aid seminar and the June 28, 1989, pp. 24-28).
convention. He made the reservation through Atty. Callanta to whom he She has noticed, though, that there is an upsurge of payments in March,
paid P20,000 (t.s.n. July 6,1989, pp. 30-34). April, May during any election year. This year, the collections increased
Atty. Carpio assisted Atty. Drilon in her campaign during the convention, by P100,000 over that of last year (a non-election year from Pl,413,425
by soliciting the votes of delegates he knew, like Atty. Albacite his former to Pl,524,875 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p. 25).
teacher (but the latter was already committed to Nisce), and Atty. Romy (8) Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more than one
Fortes, a classmate of his in the U.P. College of Law (t. t.s.n. July 6, page of legal size sheet of paper (Sec. 14[a], IBP By-Laws).
1989, pp. 22, 29, 39). On the convention floor on the day of the election, Atty. Paculdo caused
(c) ATTY. RAMON NISCE. to be distributed his bio-data and copies of a leaflet entitled "My Quest,"
Atty. Nisce, through his brother-in-law, Ricardo Paras, entered into a as wen as, the lists of his slate. Attys. Drilon and Nisce similarly
contract with the Hyatt Hotel for a total of 29 rooms plus one (1) seventh- distributed their tickets and bio-data.
floor room. He made a downpayment of P20,000 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, The campaign materials of Atty. Paculdo cost from P15,000 to P20,000.
p. 58) on April 20, 1989, and P37,632.45 on May 10, or a total of They were printed by his own printing shop.
P57,632.45. (9) Causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other
Ms. Cecile Flores, Ms. Milagros Ocampo, and Mr. Ramon Jacinto, the than those authorized by the officer presiding at the election (Sec. 14[b],
sales department manager, credit manager, and reservation manager, IBP By-Laws).
respectively of the Hyatt, testified that Atty. Nisce's bill amounted to Atty. Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute his campaign
P216,127.74 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 57-58; Exhibits E-Flores, F- materials on the convention floor. Atty. Carpio noted that there were
Jacinto G-Ocampo). more campaign materials distributed at the convention site this year than
As earlier mentioned, Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms for in previous years. The election was more heated and expensive (t.s.n.
those who committed themselves to his candidacy. July 6,1989, p. 39).
The hotel guests of Atty. Nisce were: Gloria Agunos Dennis Habanel B. Atty. Benjamin Bernardino, the incumbent President of the IBP Rizal
Batula, John E. Asuncion, Reynaldo Cortes, Lourdes Santos, Elmer Chapter, and a candidate for chairman of the House of Delegates on
Datuin, Romualdo Din, Antonio Nalapo, Israel Damasco, Candido Nisce's ticket, testified that campaign materials were distributed during
Balbin, Serrano Balot, Ibarra, Joel Llosa, Eltanal, Ruperto, Asuncion, Q. the convention by girls and by lawyers. He saw members of the ACCRA
Pilotin Reymundo P. Guzman, Zoilo Aguinaldo, Clarin, R. Ronquillo, law firm campaigning for Atty. Drilon (t.s.n. July 3,1989, pp. 142-145).
Dominador Carillo, Filomeno Balinas, Ernesto Sabulan, Yusop (10) Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for
Pangadapun, A. Viray, Icampo, Abelardo Fermin, C. Quiaoit, Augurio or against a candidate (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).
Pamintuan, Daniel Macaraeg, Onofre Tejada. Atty. Bernardino disclosed that his cousin, Atty. Romeo Capulong, urged
(6) Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta Drilon him to withdraw his candidacy for chairman of the House of Delegates
In violation of the prohibition against "campaigning for or against a and to run as vice-chairman in Violy Drilon's slate, but he declined (t.s.n.
candidate while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or July 3,1989, pp. 137, 149).
prosecutory office in the Government' (Sec. 14[c], Art. I, IBP By-Laws), Atty. Gloria Agunos personnel director of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel in
Mariano E. Benedicto II, Assistant Secretary, Department of Labor and Baguio and president of the Baguio-Benguet IBP Chapter, recalled that
Employment, testified that he took a leave of absence from his office to in the third week of May 1989, after the Tripartite meet of the Department
attend the IBP convention. He stayed at the Philippine Plaza with the of Labor & Employment at the Green Valley Country Club in Baguio City,
Drilon group admittedly to give "some moral assistance" to Atty. Violeta she met Atty. Drilon, together with two labor officers of Region 1, Attys.
Drilon. He did so because he is a member of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. Filomeno Balbin and Atty. Mansala Atty. Drilon solicited her (Atty.
When asked about the significance of Sigma Rho, Secretary Benedicto Agunos') vote and invited her to stay at the Philippine Plaza where a
explained: "More than the husband of Mrs. Drilon being my boss, the room would be available for her. Atty. Paculdo also tried to enlist her
significance there is that the husband is my brother in the Sigma Rho." support during the chapter presidents' meeting to choose their nominee
He cheered up Mrs., Drilon when her spirits were low. He talked to her for governor for the Northern Luzon region (t.s.n. July 13,1989, pp. 43-
immediate circle which included Art Tiu, Tony Carpio, Nilo Pena, Amy 54).
Wong, Atty. Grapilon, Victor Lazatin, and Boy Reyno. They assessed the Atty. Nisce testified that a Manila Chapter 4 delegate, Marcial Magsino,
progress of the campaign, and measured the strengths and weaknesses who had earlier committed his vote to Nisce changed his mind when he
of the other groups The group had sessions as early as the later part of was offered a judgeship (This statement, however, is admittedly
May. hearsay). When Nisce confronted Magsino about the alleged offer, the
Room 114, the suite listed in the name of Assistant Secretary Benedicto latter denied that there was such an offer. Nisce's informant was Antonio
toted up a bill of P23,110 during the 2-day IBP convention/election. A G. Nalapo an IBP candidate who also withdrew.
total of 113 phone calls (amounting to Pl,356) were recorded as Another Nisce candidate, Cesar Viola, withdrew from the race and
emanating from his room. refused to be nominated (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p. 104). Vicente P. Tordilla
Opposite Room 114, was Room 112, also a suite, listed in the names of who was Nisce's candidate for Governor became Paculdo's candidate
Mrs. Drilon, Gladys Tiongco (candidate for Governor, Eastern Mindanao) instead (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p. 104).
and Amy Wong (candidate for Governor, Metro Manila). These two Nisce recalled that during the Bench and Bar Dialogue in Cotabato City,
rooms served as the "action center' or "war room" where campaign Court Administrator Tiro went around saying, "I am not campaigning, but
strategies were discussed before and during the convention. It was in my wife is a candidate." Nisce said that the presidents of several IBP
these rooms where the supporters of the Drilon group, like Attys. Carpio, chapters informed him that labor officials were campaigning for Mrs.
Callanta, Benedicto, the Quasha and the ACCRA lawyers met to plot Drilon (t.s.n. June 29,1989, pp. 109-110). He mentioned Ciony de la
their moves. Cerna, who allegedly campaigned in La Union (t.s.n. June
Page 124

(7) Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number (Sec. 14[e], 29,1989,p.111)
IBP BY-Laws).

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Atty. Joel A. Llosa, Nisce's supporter and candidate for governor of the and bio-data of the candidates which in the case of Paculdo admittedly
Western Visayas, expressed his disappointment over the IBP elections cost him some P15,000 to P20,000; the employment of uniformed girls
because some delegates flip-flopped from one camp to another. He (by Paculdo) and lawyers (by Drilon) to distribute their campaign
testified that when he arrived at the Manila Domestic Airport he was met materials on the convention floor on the day of the election; the giving of
by an assistant regional director of the DOLE who offered to bring him to assistance by the Undersecretary of Labor to Mrs. Drilon and her group;
the Philippine Plaza, but he declined the offer. During the legal aid the use of labor arbiters to meet delegates at the airport and escort them
seminar, Atty. Drilon invited him to transfer to the Philippine Plaza where to the Philippine Plaza Hotel; the giving of pre-paid plane tickets and
a room had been reserved for him. He declined the invitation (t.s.n. July hotel accommodations to delegates (and some families who
4,1989, pp. 102-106). accompanied them) in exchange for their support; the pirating of some
Atty. Llosa said that while he was still in Dumaguete City, he already candidates by inducing them to "hop" or "flipflop" from one ticket to
knew that the three candidates had their headquarters in separate another for some rumored consideration; all these practices made a
hotels: Paculdo, at the Holiday Inn; Drilon, at the Philippine Plaza; and political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole election process.
Nisce, at the Hyatt. He knew about this because a week before the The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only
elections, representatives of Atty. Drilon went to Dumaguete City to violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession
campaign. He mentioned Atty. Rodil Montebon of the ACCRA Law which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey
Office, accompanied by Atty. Julve the Assistant Regional Director of the and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to "promote respect
Department of Labor in Dumaguete City. These two, he said, offered to for law and legal processes" and to abstain from 'activities aimed at
give him two PAL tickets and accommodations at the Philippine Plaza defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system" (Rule
(t.s.n. July 4,1989, pp. 101-104). But he declined the offer because he 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). Respect for law is
was already committed to Atty. Nisce. gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be
Atty. Llosa also revealed that before he left for Manila on May 31, 1989, millions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush
a businessman, Henry Dy, approached him to convince him to vote for aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their observance.
Atty. Paculdo. But Llosa told Dy that he was already committed to Nisce. The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency
He did not receive any plane tickets from Atty. Nisce because he and his of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The
two companions (Atty. Eltanal and Atty. Ruperto) had earlier bought their spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another,
own tickets for Manila (t.s.n. July 4, 1989, p. 101). certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the
SUMMARY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES INCURRED public's esteem.
BY THE CANDIDATES The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the evasions,
Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250,000 during his three denials and outright prevarications that tainted the statements of the
weeks of campaigning. Of this amount, the Capitol Bar Association (of witnesses, including tome of the candidates, during the initial hearing
which he was the chapter president) contributed about P150,000. The conducted by it before its fact-finding committee was created. The
Capitol Bar Association is a voluntary bar association composed of subsequent investigation conducted by this Committee has revealed that
Quezon City lawyers. those parties had been less than candid with the Court and seem to have
He spent about P100,000 to defray the expenses of his trips to the conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold vital
provinces (Bicol provinces, Pampanga, Abra, Mountain Province and information from it to conceal the irregularities committed during the
Bulacan) (t.s.n. June 29,1989, pp. 9-14). campaign.
Atty. Nisce's hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216,127.74. This does CONCLUSIONS.
not include the expenses for his campaign which began several months It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the provision in the
before the June 3rd election, and his purchases of airplane tickets for 1987 Constitution (See. 8, Art. VIII) providing for a Judicial and Bar
some delegates. Council composed of seven (7) members among whom is "a
The records of the Philippine Plaza Hotel, headquarters of Atty. Drilon's representative of the Integrated Bar," tasked to participate in the
camp, showed that her campaign rang up over P600,000 in hotel bills. selection of nominees for appointment to vacant positions in the
Atty. Callanta paid P316,411.53 for the rooms, food, and beverage judiciary, may be the reason why the position of IBP president has
consumed by Atty. Drilon's supporters, but still left an unpaid bill of attracted so much interest among the lawyers. The much coveted
P302,197.30 at convention's end. "power" erroneously perceived to be inherent in that office might have
FINDINGS. caused the corruption of the IBP elections. To impress upon the
From all the foregoing, it is evident that the manner in which the principal participants in that electoral exercise the seriousness of the misconduct
candidates for the national positions in the Integrated Bar conducted which attended it and the stern disapproval with which it is viewed by this
their campaign preparatory to the elections on June 3, 1989, violated Court, and to restore the non-political character of the IBP and reduce, if
Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a not entirely eliminate, expensive electioneering for the top positions in
"strictly non-political" Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the By- the organization which, as the recently concluded elections revealed,
Laws. spawned unethical practices which seriously diminished the stature of
The setting up of campaign headquarters by the three principal the IBP as an association of the practitioners of a noble and honored
candidates (Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) in five-star hotels: The Philippine profession, the Court hereby ORDERS:
Plaza, the Holiday Inn and The Hyatt the better for them to corral and 1. The IBP elections held on June3,1989 should be as they are hereby
entertain the delegates billeted therein; the island hopping to solicit the annulled.
votes of the chapter presidents who comprise the 120-member House of 2. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by the House
Delegates that elects the national officers and regional governors; the of Delegates (approved by this Court in its resolution of July 9, 1985 in
formation of tickets, slates, or line-ups of candidates for the other elective Bar Matter No. 287) of the following national officers:
positions aligned with, or supporting, either Drilon, Paculdo or Nisce; the (a) the officers of the House of Delegates;
procurement of written commitments and the distribution of nomination (b) the IBP president; and
forms to be filled up by the delegates; the reservation of rooms for (c) the executive vice-president,
delegates in three big hotels, at the expense of the presidential be repealed, this Court being empowered to amend, modify or repeal the
candidates; the use of a PNB plane by Drilon and some members of her By-Laws of the IBP under Section 77, Art. XI of said By-Laws.
Page 125

ticket to enable them to "assess their chances" among the chapter 3. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-
presidents in the Bicol provinces; the printing and distribution of tickets President elected by the Board of Governors (composed of the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
governors of the nine [91 IBP regions) from among themselves (as that the dispositions here made are without prejudice to its adoption in
provided in Sec. 47, Art. VII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be restored. due time of such further and other measures as are warranted in the
The right of automatic succession by the Executive Vice-President to the premises.
presidency upon the expiration of their two-year term (which was SO ORDERED.
abolished by this Court's resolution dated July 9,1985 in Bar Matter No.
287) should be as it is hereby restored. [A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000]
4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the Executive Vice- SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO R.
President shall automatically succeed to the office of president. The LLAMAS, respondent.
incoming board of governors shall then elect an Executive Vice- DECISION
President from among themselves. The position of Executive Vice- MENDOZA, J.:
President shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. One who has This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar
served as president may not run for election as Executive Vice-President membership dues filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas.
in a succeeding election until after the rotation of the presidency among In a letter-complaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997, complainant
the nine (9) regions shall have been completed; whereupon, the rotation Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a member of the bar, alleged that:
shall begin anew. On my oath as an attorney, I wish to bring to your attention and
5. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as follows: appropriate sanction the matter of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas who, for a
Section 47. National Officers. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R.
shall have a President and Executive Vice-President to be chosen by the Nos. and data (date & place of issuance) in his pleadings. If at all, he
Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much only indicates "IBP Rizal 259060" but he has been using this for at least
as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex oficio Vice- three years already, as shown by the following attached sample
President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary pleadings in various courts in 1995, 1996 and 1997: (originals available)
and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the
Annex A.......- "Ex-Parte Manifestation and Su
President with the consent of the Board.
25253, RTC, Br. 224, QC
6. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby amended as follows:
(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the
Annex B.......- "Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation
Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House of Delegates.
RTC Br. 259 (not 257), Paraaqu
The Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by
the President with the consent of the House of Delegates.'
Annex C.......- "An Urgent and Respectful P
7. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of Chairman, Vice-
Opposition" dated January 17, 1
Chairman, Secretary-Treasurer and Sergeant-at- Arms of the House of
Delegates is hereby repealed This matter is being brought in the context of Rule 138, Section 1 which
8. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows: qualifies that only a duly admitted member of the bar "who is in good and
Section 37. Composition of the Board. The Integrated Bar of the regular standing, is entitled to practice law". There is also Rule 139-A,
Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine Section 10 which provides that "default in the payment of annual dues
(9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated
Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the
each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
from that region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among Attorneys."
the different Chapters in the region. Among others, I seek clarification (e.g. a certification) and appropriate
9. Section 39, Article V is hereby amended as follows: action on the bar standing of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas both with the Bar
Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors at least one (1) Confidant and with the IBP, especially its Rizal Chapter of which Atty.
month before the national convention the delegates from each region Llamas purports to be a member. Jksm
shall elect the governor for their region, the choice of which shall as much Please note that while Atty. Llamas indicates "IBP Rizal 259060"
as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region. sometimes, he does not indicate any PTR for payment of professional
10. Section33(a), Article V hereby is amended by addingthe following tax.
provision as part of the first paragraph: Under the Rules, particularly Rule 138, Sections 27 and 28, suspension
No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general membership of an attorney may be done not only by the Supreme Court but also by
shall be held prior to any election in an election year. the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court (thus, we are also copy
11. Section 39, (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Article VI furnishing some of these courts).
should be as they are hereby deleted. Finally, it is relevant to note the track record of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas,
All other provisions of the By-Laws including its amendment by the as shown by:
Resolution en banc of this Court of July 9, 1985 (Bar Matter No. 287) that 1........his dismissal as Pasay City Judge per Supreme Court Admin.
are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified. Matter No. 1037-CJ En Banc Decision on October 28, 1981 ( in SCRA )
12. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in the nine 2........his conviction for estafa per Decision dated June 30, 1994 in Crim.
(9) IBP regions within three (3) months, after the promulgation of the Case No. 11787, RTC Br. 66, Makati, MM (see attached copy of the
Court's resolution in this case. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Order dated February 14, 1995 denying the motion for reconsideration
Board of Governors shall meet at the IBP Central Office in Manila to elect of the conviction which is purportedly on appeal in the Court of Appeals).
from among themselves the IBP national president and executive vice- Attached to the letter-complaint were the pleadings dated December 1,
president. In these special elections, the candidates in the election of the 1995, November 13, 1996, and January 17, 1997 referred to by
national officers held on June 3,1989, particularly identified in Sub-Head complainant, bearing, at the end thereof, what appears to be
3 of this Resolution entitled "Formation of Tickets and Single Slates," as respondents signature above his name, address and the receipt number
well as those identified in this Resolution as connected with any of the "IBP Rizal 259060."[1] Also attached was a copy of the order,[2] dated
irregularities attendant upon that election, are ineligible and may not February 14, 1995, issued by Judge Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. of the
present themselves as candidate for any position.
Page 126

Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati, denying respondents motion for
13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board shall be appointed reconsideration of his conviction, in Criminal Case No. 11787, for
by the Court to administer the affairs of the IBP. The Court makes clear violation of Art. 316, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
On April 18, 1997, complainant filed a certification[3] dated March 18, "B" and "C" of the letter complaint, more particularly his use of "IBP Rizal
1997, by the then president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Atty. 259060 for at least three years."
Ida R. Macalinao-Javier, that respondents "last payment of his IBP dues The records also show a "Certification dated March 24, 1997 from IBP
was in 1991. Since then he has not paid or remitted any amount to cover Rizal Chapter President Ida R. Makahinud Javier that respondents last
his membership fees up to the present." payment of his IBP dues was in 1991."
On July 7, 1997, respondent was required to comment on the complaint While these allegations are neither denied nor categorically admitted by
within ten days from receipt of notice, after which the case was referred respondent, he has invoked and cited that "being a Senior Citizen since
to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. In his comment- 1992, he is legally exempt under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7432
memorandum,[4] dated June 3, 1998, respondent alleged:[5] which took effect in 1992 in the payment of taxes, income taxes as an
3. That with respect to the complainants absurd claim that for using in example."
1995, 1996 and 1997 the same O.R. No. 259060 of the Rizal IBP, ....
respondent is automatically no longer a member in good standing. The above cited provision of law is not applicable in the present case. In
Precisely, as cited under the context of Rule 138, only an admitted fact, respondent admitted that he is still in the practice of law when he
member of the bar who is in good standing is entitled to practice law. alleged that the "undersigned since 1992 have publicly made it clear per
The complainants basis in claiming that the undersigned was no longer his Income tax Return up to the present time that he had only a limited
in good standing, were as above cited, the October 28, 1981 Supreme practice of law." (par. 4 of Respondents Memorandum).
Court decision of dismissal and the February 14, 1995 conviction for Therefore respondent is not exempt from paying his yearly dues to the
Violation of Article 316 RPC, concealment of encumbrances. Chief Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Esmmis
As above pointed out also, the Supreme Court dismissal decision was On the second issue, complainant claims that respondent has misled the
set aside and reversed and respondent was even promoted from City court about his standing in the IBP by using the same IBP O.R. number
Judge of Pasay City to Regional Trial Court Judge of Makati, Br. 150. in his pleadings of at least six years and therefore liable for his actions.
Also as pointed out, the February 14, 1995 decision in Crim. Case No. Respondent in his memorandum did not discuss this issue.
11787 was appealed to the Court of Appeals and is still pending. First. Indeed, respondent admits that since 1992, he has engaged in law
Complainant need not even file this complaint if indeed the decision of practice without having paid his IBP dues. He likewise admits that, as
dismissal as a Judge was never set aside and reversed, and also had appearing in the pleadings submitted by complainant to this Court, he
the decision of conviction for a light felony, been affirmed by the Court of indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060" in the pleadings he filed in court, at least
Appeals. Undersigned himself would surrender his right or privilege to for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus misrepresenting that such was
practice law. his IBP chapter membership and receipt number for the years in which
4. That complainant capitalizes on the fact that respondent had been those pleadings were filed. He claims, however, that he is only engaged
delinquent in his dues. in a "limited" practice and that he believes in good faith that he is exempt
Undersigned since 1992 have publicly made it clear per his Income Tax from the payment of taxes, such as income tax, under R.A. No. 7432, 4
Return, up to the present, that he had only a limited practice of law. In as a senior citizen since 1992.
fact, in his Income Tax Return, his principal occupation is a farmer of Rule 139-A provides:
which he is. His 30 hectares orchard and pineapple farm is located at Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every member of the Integrated Bar shall
Calauan, Laguna. pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with
Moreover, and more than anything else, respondent being a Senior the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent
Citizen since 1992, is legally exempt under Section 4 of Rep. Act 7432 (10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside as a
which took effect in 1992, in the payment of taxes, income taxes as an Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory
example. Being thus exempt, he honestly believe in view of his heirs of deceased members thereof.
detachment from a total practice of law, but only in a limited practice, the Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the provisions of
subsequent payment by him of dues with the Integrated Bar is covered Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six
by such exemption. In fact, he never exercised his rights as an IBP months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar,
member to vote and be voted upon. and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the
Nonetheless, if despite such honest belief of being covered by the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
exemption and if only to show that he never in any manner wilfully and Attorneys.
deliberately failed and refused compliance with such dues, he is willing In accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the
at any time to fulfill and pay all past dues even with interests, charges practice of law only by paying his dues, and it does not matter that his
and surcharges and penalties. He is ready to tender such fulfillment or practice is "limited." While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, 4 grants senior
payment, not for allegedly saving his skin as again irrelevantly and citizens "exemption from the payment of individual income taxes:
frustratingly insinuated for vindictive purposes by the complainant, but provided, that their annual taxable income does not exceed the poverty
as an honest act of accepting reality if indeed it is reality for him to pay level as determined by the National Economic and Development
such dues despite his candor and honest belief in all food faith, to the Authority (NEDA) for that year," the exemption does not include payment
contrary. Esmsc of membership or association dues.
On December 4, 1998, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Second. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby
resolution[6] adopting and approving the report and recommendation of misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP
the Investigating Commissioner which found respondent guilty, and dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three months Professional Responsibility which provides:
and until he pays his IBP dues. Respondent moved for a reconsideration Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
of the decision, but this was denied by the IBP in a resolution, [7] dated deceitful conduct.
April 22, 1999. Hence, pursuant to Rule 139-B, 12(b) of the Rules of CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
Court, this case is here for final action on the decision of the IBP ordering INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND
respondents suspension for three months. SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Esmso
The findings of IBP Commissioner Alfredo Sanz are as follows: CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
On the first issue, Complainant has shown "respondents non-indication FAITH TO THE COURT.
Page 127

of the proper IBP O.R. and PTR numbers in his pleadings (Annexes "A",

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
Labor and
doing of any court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled
Social 10% 11.765% 2 2.35%
by any artifice.
Legislation
Respondents failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the
pleadings he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty. Civil law 15% 17.647% 3 3.53%
However, in view of respondents advanced age, his express willingness
to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the Taxation 10% 11.765% 2 2.35%
law,[8] we believe the penalty of one year suspension from the practice
of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate. Criminal law 10% 11.765% 2 2.35%
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP Remedial
20% 23.529% 4 4.71%
dues, whichever is later. Let a copy of this decision be attached to Atty. Law
Llamas personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be
furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to Legal Ethics
all courts in the land. and
5% 5.882% 1 1.18%
SO ORDERED. Practical
Exercises
B.M. No. 1222 February 4, 2004
Re: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS
RESOLUTION 100% 20%
PER CURIAM: In another resolution, dated 14 October 2003, the Court designated the
On 22 September 2003, the day following the bar examination in following retired Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to compose
Mercantile Law, Justice Jose C. Vitug, Chairman of the 2003 Bar the Investigating Committee:
Examinations Committee, was apprised of a rumored leakage in the
examination on the subject. After making his own inquiries, Justice Vitug Chairman: Justice Carolina C. Grio-Aquino
reported the matter to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and to the
Members: Justice Jose A.R. Melo
other members of the Court, recommending that the bar examination on
Justice Vicente V. Mendoza
the subject be nullified and that an investigation be conducted forthwith.
On 23 September 2003, the Court adopted the recommendation of The Investigating Committee was tasked to determine and identify the
Justice Vitug, and resolved to nullify the examination in Mercantile Law source of leakage, the parties responsible therefor or who might have
and to hold another examination on 04 October 2003 at eight oclock in benefited therefrom, recommend sanctions against all those found to
the evening (being the earliest available time and date) at the De La Salle have been responsible for, or who would have benefited from, the
University, Taft Avenue, Manila. The resolution was issued without incident in question and to recommend measures to the Court to
prejudice to any action that the Court would further take on the matter. safeguard the integrity of the bar examinations.
Following the issuance of the resolution, the Court received numerous On 15 January 2004, the Investigating Committee submitted its report
petitions and motions from the Philippine Association of Law Schools and recommendation to the Court, herein reproduced in full; thus -
and various other groups and persons, expressing agreement to the "In the morning of September 21, 2003, the third Sunday of the 2003 bar
nullification of the bar examinations in Mercantile Law but voicing strong examinations, the examination in commercial law was held in De la Salle
reservations against the holding of another examination on the subject. University on Taft Avenue, Manila, the venue of the bar examinations
Several reasons were advanced by petitioners or movants, among these since 1995. The next day, the newspapers carried news of an alleged
reasons being the physical, emotional and financial difficulties that would leakage in the said examination.1
be encountered by the examinees, if another examination on the subject "Upon hearing the news and making preliminary inquiries of his own,
were to be held anew. Alternative proposals submitted to the Court Justice Jose C. Vitug, chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations
included the spreading out of the weight of Mercantile Law among the Committee, reported the matter to the Chief Justice and recommended
remaining seven bar subjects, i.e., to determine and gauge the results of that the examination in mercantile law be cancelled and that a formal
the examinations on the basis only of the performance of the examinees investigation of the leakage be undertaken.
in the seven bar subjects. In a resolution, dated 29 September 2003, the "Acting on the report and recommendation of Justice Vitug, the Court, in
Court, finding merit in the submissions, resolved to cancel the scheduled a resolution dated September 23, 2003, nullified the examination in
examination in Mercantile Law on 04 October 2003 and to allocate the mercantile law and resolved to hold another examination in that subject
fifteen percentage points among the seven bar examination subjects. In on Saturday, October 4, 2003 at eight oclock in the evening (being the
the same resolution, the Court further resolved to create a Committee earliest available time and date) at the same venue. However, because
composed of three retired members of the Court that would conduct a numerous petitions, protests, and motions for reconsideration were filed
thorough investigation of the incident subject of the 23 September 2003 against the retaking of the examination in mercantile law, the Court
resolution. cancelled the holding of such examination. On the recommendation of
In a resolution, dated 07 October 2003, the Court adopted the the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Court instead decided to allocate the
computation in the allocation of the fifteen percentage points for fifteen (15) percentage points for mercantile law among the seven (7)
Mercantile Law among the remaining seven bar examination subjects, to other bar examination subjects (Resolution dated October 7, 2003).
wit: "In a Resolution dated September 29, 2003, the Supreme Court created
an Investigating Committee composed of three (3) retired Members of
Original Adjusted Adjusted
Relative the Court to conduct an investigation of the leakage and to submit its
Subject Percentage Percentage Relative
Weight findings and recommendations on or before December 15, 2003.
Weight Weight Weight
"The Court designated the following retired Associate Justices of the
Political and Supreme Court to compose the Committee:
Page 128

International 15% 17.647% 3 3.53% Chairman: Justice CAROLINA GRIO-AQUINO

Law

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
examination. The questions prepared by Justice Vitug were not among
Members: Justice JOSE A. R. MELO
the leaked test questions.
Justice VICENTE V. MENDOZA
"Apart from the published news stories about the leakage, Chief Justice
"The Investigating Committee was directed to determine and identify the Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Justice Vitug received, by telephone and mail,
source of the leakage, the parties responsible therefor and those who reports of the leakage from Dean Mariano F. Magsalin, Jr. of the Arellano
benefited therefrom, and to recommend measures to safeguard the Law Foundation (Exh. H) and a certain Dale Philip R. De los Reyes (Exh.
integrity of the bar examinations. B -B-3), attaching copies of the leaked questions and the fax transmittal
"The investigation commenced on October 21, 2003 and continued up to sheet showing that the source of the questions was Danny De Guzman
November 7, 2003. The following witnesses appeared and testified at the who faxed them to Ronan Garvida on September 17, 2003, four days
investigation: before the examination in mercantile law on September 21, 2003 (Exh.
1. Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug, chairman of the 2003 Bar B-1).
Examinations Committee; "ATTORNEY MARLO MAGDOZA-MALAGAR was subpoenaed by the
2. Atty. Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, law clerk in the office of Justice Vitug Committee. She identified the copy of the leaked questions that came
3. Atty. Marcial O. T. Balgos, examiner in mercantile law; from Cecilia Carbajosa (Exh. A). She testified that, according to
4. Cheryl Palma, private secretary of Atty. Balgos; Carbajosa, the latter received the test questions from one of her co-bar
5. Atty. Danilo De Guzman, assistant lawyer in the firm of Balgos & reviewees staying, like her, at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Paco, and also
Perez; enrolled in the review classes at the Lex Review Center at the corner of
6. Atty. Enrico G. Velasco, managing partner of Balgos & Perez; P. Faura Street and Roxas Boulevard, Ermita. She did not pay for the
7. Eduardo J. F. Abella, reviewer in commercial law at the Lex Review hand-out because the Lex Review Center gives them away for free to its
Center; bar reviewees.
8. Silvestre T. Atienza, office manager of Balgos & Perez; "ATTORNEY MARCIAL O. T. BALGOS, 71 years of age, senior partner
9. Reynita Villasis, private secretary of Atty. De Guzman; in the law firm of BALGOS AND PEREZ with offices in Rm. 1009 West
10. Ronan Garvida, fraternity brother of Atty. De Guzman; Tektite Tower, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, testified that
11. Ronald F. Collado, most illustrious brother of the Beta Sigma Lambda in November 2002, Justice Jose C. Vitug, as chair of the Committee on
Fraternity; the 2003 Bar Examinations, invited him to be the examiner in commercial
12. Jovito M. Salonga, Asst. Division Chief of Systems Development for law. He accepted the assignment and almost immediately began the
Judicial Application, MlSO; preparation of test questions on the subject. Using his personal computer
The Committee held nine (9) meetings - six times to conduct the in the law office, he prepared for three consecutive days, three (3) sets
investigation and three times to deliberate on its report. of test questions which covered the entire subject of Mercantile Law (pp.
"ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JOSE C. VITUG, chairman of the Bar 3-5, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003). As he did not know how to prepare the
Examinations Committee, testified that on Monday morning, September questionnaire in final form, he asked his private secretary, Cheryl Palma,
22, 2003, the day after the Bar examination in mercantile or commercial to format the questions (p. 13, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003). And, as he did not
law, upon arriving in his office in the Supreme Court, his secretary,2 Rose know how to print the questionnaire, he likewise asked Cheryl Palma to
Kawada, informed him that one of the law clerks, Atty. Marlo Magdoza- make a print-out (Id., pp. 14-15). All of this was done inside his office with
Malagar, told her that a friend of hers named Ma. Cecilia Delgado- only him and his secretary there. His secretary printed only one copy (Id.,
Carbajosa, a bar examinee from Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro p. 15). He then placed the printed copy of the test questions, consisting
City, who was staying at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Paco, confided to her of three sets, in an envelope which he sealed, and called up Justice Vitug
that something was wrong with the examination in mercantile law, to inform him that he was bringing the questions to the latters office that
because previous to the examination, i.e., on Saturday afternoon, the afternoon. However, as Justice Vitug was leaving his office shortly, he
eve of the examination, she received a copy of the test questions in that advised Atty. Balgos to give the sealed envelope to his confidential
subject. She did not pay attention to the test questions because no assistant who had been instructed to keep it. When Atty. Balgos arrived
answers were provided, and she was hard-pressed to finish her review in the office of Justice Vitug, he was met by Justice Vitugs confidential
of that subject, using other available bar review materials, of which there assistant to whom he entrusted the sealed envelope containing the test
were plenty coming from various bar review centers. questions (pp. 19-26, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003).
"However, upon perusing the questions after the examinations, Cecilia "Atty. Balgos admitted that he does not know how to operate a computer
noticed that many of them were the same questions that were asked in except to type on it. He does not know how to open and close his own
the just-concluded-examination. computer which has a password for that purpose. In fact, he did not
"Justice Vitug requested Marlo to invite her friend to his office in the know, as he still does, the password. It is his secretary, Cheryl Palma,
Supreme Court, but Carbajosa declined the invitation. So, Justice Vitug who opened and closed his computer for him (p. 45, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003).
suggested that Marlo and Rose invite Carbajosa to meet them at "Atty. Balgos testified that he did not devise the password himself. It was
Robinsons Place, Ermita. She agreed to do that. Cheryl Palma who devised it (Id., p. 71).
"Cecilia Carbajosa arrived at Robinsons Place at the appointed time and "His computer is exclusively for his own use. It is located inside his room
showed the test questions to Rose and Marlo. Rose obtained a xerox which is locked when he is not in the office. He comes to the office every
copy of the leaked questions and compared them with the bar questions other day only.
in mercantile law. On the back of the pages, she wrote, in her own hand, "He thought that his computer was safely insulated from third parties,
the differences she noted between the leaked questions and the bar and that he alone had access to it. He was surprised to discover, when
examination questions. reports of the bar leakage broke out, that his computer was in fact
"Rose and Marlo delivered the copy of the leaked questions to Justice interconnected with the computers of his nine (9) assistant attorneys
Vitug who compared them with the bar examination questions in (tsn, pp. 30,45). As a matter of fact, the employees - Jovito M. Salonga
mercantile law. He found the leaked questions to be the exact same and Benjamin R. Katly - of the Courts Management Information Systems
questions which the examiner in mercantile law, Attorney Marcial O. T. Office (MISO) who, upon the request of Atty. Balgos, were directed by
Balgos, had prepared and submitted to him as chairman of the Bar the Investigating Committee to inspect the computer system in his office,
Examinations Committee. However, not all of those questions were reported that there were 16, not 9, computers connected to each
asked in the bar examination. According to Justice Vitug, only 75% of other via Local Area Network (LAN) and one (1) stand-alone computer
Page 129

the final bar questions were questions prepared by Atty. Balgos; 25% connected to the internet (Exh. M). Atty. Balgos law partner, former
prepared by Justice Vitug himself, were included in the final bar

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Justice Secretary Hernando Perez, also had a computer, but Perez took part of any deliberate scheme to malign the good reputation and integrity
it away when he became the Secretary of Justice. of the firm, its partners and members. (Exh. D)
"The nine (9) assistant attorneys with computers, connected to Attorney "DANILO DE GUZMAN testified that he joined Balgos & Perez in April
Balgos computer, are: 2000. He obtained his LLB degree from FEU in 1998. As a student, he
1. Zorayda Zosobrado (she resigned in July 2003) was an awardee for academic excellence. He passed the 1998 bar
2. Claravel Javier examinations with a grade of 86.4%. In FEU, he joined the Beta Sigma
3. Rolynne Torio Lambda law fraternity which has chapters in MLQU, UE and MSU
4. Mark Warner Rosal (Mindanao State University). As a member of the fraternity, he was active
5. Charlynne Subia during bar examinations and participated in the fraternitys bar ops.
6. Danilo De Guzman (resigned on October 22, 2003 [Exh. D]) "He testified that sometime in May 2003, when he was exploring Atty.
7. Enrico G. Velasco, managing partner Balgos computer, (which he often did without the owners knowledge or
8. Concepcion De los Santos permission), to download materials which he thought might be useful to
9. Pamela June Jalandoni save for future use, he found and downloaded the test questions in
"Upon learning from Justice Vitug of the leakage of the bar questions mercantile law consisting of 12 pages. He allegedly thought they were
prepared by him in mercantile law, Atty. Balgos immediately called quizzers for a book that Atty. Balgos might be preparing. He saved them
together and questioned his office staff. He interrogated all of them in his hard disk.
except Atty. Danilo De Guzman who was absent then. All of them "He thought of faxing the test questions to one of his fraternity brods, a
professed to know nothing about the bar leakage. certain Ronan Garvida who, De Guzman thought, was taking the 2003
"He questioned Silvestre Atienza, the office manager, Atienza is only a bar examinations. Garvida is also a law graduate from FEU. He had
second year law student at MLQU. But he is an expert in installing and taken the 2002 bar examinations, but did not pass.
operating computers. It was he and/or his brother Gregorio who "On September 17, 2003, four days before the mercantile law bar
interconnected the computers in the law office, including Attorney examination, De Guzman faxed a copy of the 12-page-test questions
Balgos computer, without the latters knowledge and permission. (Exhs. I, I-1, I-2, I-3) to Garvida because earlier he was informed by
"Atienza admitted to Attorney Balgos that he participated in the bar Garvida that he was retaking the bar examinations. He advised Garvida
operations or bar ops of the Beta Sigma Lambda law fraternity of which to share the questions with other Betan examinees. He allegedly did not
he is a member, but he clarified that his participation consisted only of charge anything for the test questions. Later, after the examination was
bringing food to the MLQU bar examinees (Tsn, pp. 46-47, Oct. 24, over, Garvida texted (sent a text message on his cell phone) him (De
2003). Guzman), that he did not take the bar examination.
"The next day, Attorney Balgos questioned Attorney Danilo De Guzman, "Besides Garvida, De Guzman faxed the mercantile law bar questions to
also a member of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity, FEU chapter. De another fraternity brother named Arlan (surname unknown), through
Guzman admitted to him that he downloaded the test questions from Reynita (Nanette) Villasis, his secretary (Tsn, pp. 20-28, Oct. 29, 2003).
Attorney Balgos computer and faxed a copy to a fraternity brother. But he himself faxed the questions to still another brod named Erwin
Attorney Balgos was convinced that De Guzman was the source of the Tan who had helped him during the bar ops in 1998 when he (De
leakage of his test questions in mercantile law (Tsn, p. 52, Oct. 24, 2003). Guzman) took the bar examinations (Id., p. 28). He obtained the cell
"Attorney Balgos prepared a COMPARISON (Exh. E) of the juxtaposed phone numbers of Arlan and Erwin Tan from Gabby Tanpiengco whom
final bar questions and his proposed test questions, with marginal he informed by text message, that they were guide questions, not tips,
markings made by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza (Ret.), indicating whether in the mercantile law examination.
the questions are similar: (S); or different: (D), together with the "When he was confronted by Attorney Velasco on Wednesday after the
percentage points corresponding to each question. On the basis of this examination, (news of the leakage was already in all the newspapers),
comparative table and Atty. Balgos indications as to which questions De Guzman admitted to Attorney Velasco that he faxed the questions to
were the same or different from those given in the final questionnaire, his fraternity brothers, but he did not reveal where he got the test
Justice Mendoza computed the credit points contained in the proposed questions.
leaked questions. The proposed questions constituted 82% of the final "De Guzman received a text message from Erwin Tan acknowledging
bar questions. Attached to this Report as Annex A is the comparative that he received the test questions. However, Erwin informed him that
table and the computation of credit points marked as Exh. E-1. the questions were kalat na kalat (all over the place) even if he did not
"CHERYL PALMA, 34 years old, private secretary of Attorney Balgos for share them with others (Tsn, pp. 54-55, Oct. 29, 2003).
the past six years, testified that she did not type the test questions. She "De Guzman also contacted Garvida who informed him that he gave
admitted, however, that it was she who formatted the questions and copies of the test questions to Betans Randy Iigo and James Bugain.
printed one copy as directed by her employer. She confirmed Atty. "Arlan also texted De Guzman that almost all the questions were asked
Balgos testimony regarding her participation in the operation of his in the examination. Erwin Tan commented that many of the leaked
personal computer. She disclosed that what appears in Atty. Balgos questions were asked in the examination, pero hindi exacto; mi binago
computer can be seen in the neighborhood network if the other (they were not exactly the same; there were some changes).
computers are open and not in use; that Silvestre Atienza of the "De Guzman tried to text Garvida, but he received no response.
accounting section, can access Atty. Balgos computer when the latter is "De Guzman disclosed that he learned how to operate a computer from
open and not in use. Silvestre Atienza, the office manager, and through self-study, by asking
"ATTORNEY ENRICO VELASCO, managing partner of the firm, testified those who are knowledgeable on computers. He has been using
that on October 16, 2003, he sent De Guzman a memo (Exh. C) giving computers since 1997, and he bought his own computer in 2001, a
him 72 hours to explain in writing why you should not be terminated for Pentium 3, which he uses at home.
causing the Firm an undeserved condemnation and dishonor because of "REYNITA VILLASIS, the 36-year-old legal secretary of Attorney De
the leakage aforesaid. Guzman, submitted her affidavit (Exh. F) and orally affirmed her
"On October 22, 2003, De Guzman handed in his resignation effective participation in the reproduction and transmittal by fax of the leaked test
immediately. He explained that: questions in mercantile law to Ronan Garvida and Arlan, as testified by
Causing the firm, its partners and members to suffer from undeserved De Guzman.
condemnation and humiliation is not only farthest from, but totally out of, "RONAN GARVIDA, appeared before the Investigating Committee in
Page 130

my mind. It is just unfortunate that the incident subject matter of your compliance with the subpoena that was issued to him. Garvida
memorandum occurred. Rest assured, though, that I have never been graduated from FEU College of Law in 2000. He is about 32 years of

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
age. While still a student in 1998, he was afflicted with multiple sclerosis "Collado caused 30 copies of the test questions to be printed with the
or MS, a disease of the nervous system that attacks the nerve sheaths logo and initials of the fraternity (BEA-MLQU) for distribution to the 30
of the brain and spinal cord. It is a chronic disabling disease although it MLQU examinees taking the bar exams. Because of time constraints,
may have periods of remission. It causes its victim to walk with erratic, frat members were unable to answer the test questions despite the
stiff and staggering gait; the hands and fingers may tremble in performing clamor for answers, so, they were given out as is - without answers.
simple actions; the eyesight can be impaired, and speech may be slow "DEAN EDUARDO J. F. ABELLA of the Jose Rizal University law school
and slurred (p. 737, Vol. 2, Readers Digest Medical Encyclopedia, 1971 in Mandaluyong City, was the reviewer in Mercantile Law and Practical
Ed., compiled by Benjamin F. Miller, M.D.). All these symptoms were Exercises at the Lex Review Center which is operated by the Lex Review
present when Garvida testified before the Committee on November 6, & Seminars Inc., of which Dean Abella is one of the incorporators. He
2003 to answer its questions regarding his involvement in the leakage of learned about the leakage of test questions in mercantile law when he
the examiners test questions in mercantile law. was delivering the pre-week lecture on Legal Forms at the Arellano
"Garvida testified that when he was a freshman at FEU, he became a University. The leaked questions were shown to him by his secretary,
member of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity where he met and was Jenylyn Domingo, after the mercantile law exam. He missed the
befriended by Attorney De Guzman who was his senior by one and a half Saturday lecture in mercantile law because he was suffering from a touch
years. Although they had been out of touch since he went home to the of flu. He gave his last lecture on the subject on Wednesday or Thursday
province on account of the recurrence of his illness, De Guzman was before the exam. He denied having bought or obtained and distributed
able [to] get this cell phone number from his compadre, Atty. Joseph the leaked test questions in Mercantile Law to the bar reviewees in the
Pajara. De Guzman told Garvida that he was faxing him possible Lex Review Center.
questions in the bar examination in mercantile law. Because the test "F I N D I N G S
questions had no answers, De Guzman stressed that they were not tips "The Committee finds that the leaked test questions in Mercantile Law
but only possible test questions. were the questions which the examiner, Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos,
"Garvida had intended to take the 2003 bar examinations. He enrolled in had prepared and submitted to Justice Jose C. Vitug, as chairman of the
the Consortium Review Center in FEU, paying P10,000.00 as enrollment 2003 Bar Examinations Committee. The questions constituted 82% of
fee. However, on his way to the Supreme Court to file his application to the questions asked in the examination in Mercantile Law in the morning
take the bar examination, he suffered pains in his wrist - symptoms that of September 21, 2003, Sunday, in some cases with slight changes
his MS had recurred. His physician advised him to go to the National which were not substantial and in other cases exactly as proposed by
Orthopedic Hospital in Quezon City for treatment. This he did. Atty. Balgos. Hence, any bar examinee who was able to get hold of the
"He gave up his plan to take the 2003 bar examinations. Nevertheless, leaked questions before the mercantile law examination and answered
he continued to attend the review classes at the Consortium Review them correctly, would have been assured of passing the examination
Center because he did not want to waste completely the P10,000- with at least a grade of 82%!
enrollment fee that he paid for the review course (Nahihinayang ako). "The circumstance that the leaked test questions consisted entirely of
That was presumably why De Guzman thought that Garvida was taking test questions prepared by Atty. Balgos, proves conclusively that the
the bar exams and sent him a copy of the test questions in mercantile leakage originated from his office, not from the Office of Justice Vitug,
law. the Bar Examinations Chairman.
"Upon receipt of the test questions, Garvida faxed a copy to his brod "Atty. Balgos claimed that the leaked test questions were prepared by
Randy Iigo who was reviewing at the Consortium Review Center. him on his computer. Without any doubt, the source of the leaked test
Randy photocopied them for distribution to other fraternity brods. Some questions was Atty. Balgos computer. The culprit who stole or
of the brods doubted the usefulness of the test questions, but Randy who downloaded them from Atty. Balgos computer without the latters
has a high regard for De Guzman, believed that the questions were tips. knowledge and consent, and who faxed them to other persons, was Atty.
Garvida did not fax the questions to any other person than Randy Iigo. Balgos legal assistant, Attorney Danilo De Guzman, who voluntarily
He allegedly did not sell the questions to Randy. I could not do that to a confessed the deed to the Investigating Committee. De Guzman
brod, he explained. revealed that he faxed the test questions, with the help of his secretary
"In view of the fact that one of the copies of the leaked test questions Reynita Villasis, to his fraternity brods, namely, Ronan Garvida, Arlan
(Exh. H) bore on the left margin a rubber stamp composed of the Greek (whose surname he could not recall), and Erwin Tan.
initials BEA-MLQU, indicating that the source of that copy was the Beta "In turn, Ronan Garvida faxed the test questions to Betans Randy Iigo
Sigma Lambda chapter at MLQU, the Committee subpoenaed Ronald and James Bugain.
Collado, the Most Illustrious Brother of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity "Randy Iigo passed a copy or copies of the same questions to another
of MLQU. Betan, Alan Guiapal, who gave a copy to the MLQU-Beta Sigma
"RONALD COLLADO is a senior law student at the MLQU. He admitted [Lambdas] Most Illustrious Brother, Ronald F. Collado, who ordered the
that his fraternity conducted Bar Ops for the 2003 bar exams. Bar Ops printing and distribution of 30 copies to the MLQUs 30 bar candidates.
are the biggest activity of the fraternity every year. They start as soon as "Attorney Danilo De Guzmans act of downloading Attorney Balgos test
new officers of the fraternity are elected in June, and they continue until questions in mercantile law from the latters computer, without his
the bar examinations are over. The bar operations consist of soliciting knowledge and permission, was a criminal act of larceny. It was theft of
funds from alumni brods and friends to be spent in reproducing bar intellectual property; the test questions were intellectual property of
review materials for the use of their barristers (bar candidates) in the Attorney Balgos, being the product of his intellect and legal knowledge.
various review centers, providing meals for their brod-barristers on "Besides theft, De Guzman also committed an unlawful infraction of
examination days; and to rent a bar site or place near De la Salle Attorney Balgos right to privacy of communication, and to security of his
University where the examinees and the frat members can convene and papers and effects against unauthorized search and seizure - rights
take their meals during the break time. The Betans bar site for the 2003 zealously protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution (Sections 2
bar examinations was located on Leon Guinto Street, Malate. On and 3, Article III, 1987 Constitution).
September 19 and 21, before [the] start of the examination, Collados "He transgressed the very first canon of the lawyers Code of
fraternity distributed bar review materials for the mercantile law Professional Responsibility which provides that [a] lawyer shall uphold
examination to the examinees who came to the bar site. The test the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law
questions (Exh. H) were received by Collado from a brod, Alan Guiapal, and legal processes.
Page 131

who had received them from Randy Iigo. "By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some
members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity, possibly for pecuniary

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
profit and to given them undue advantage over the other examiners in (instead of his law office), where they would have been safe from the
the mercantile law examination, De Guzman abetted cheating or prying eyes of secretaries and assistant attorneys. Atty. Balgos
dishonesty by his fraternity brothers in the examination, which is violative negligence in the preparation and safekeeping of his proposed test
of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of the Code of Professional questions for the bar examination in mercantile law, was not the
Responsibility for members of the Bar, which provide: proximate cause of the bar leakage; it was, in fact, the root cause. For,
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or if he had taken those simple precautions to protect the secrecy of his
deceitful conduct papers, nobody could have stolen them and copied and circulated them.
Canon 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE The integrity of the bar examinations would not have been sullied by the
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND scandal. He admitted that Mali siguro ako, but that was what happened
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. (43 tsn, Oct. 24, 2003).
"De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member of "R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
the Bar. He violated the law instead of promoting respect for it and "This Honorable court in the case of Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No. 5713,
degraded the noble profession of law instead of upholding its dignity and June 10, 2002, 383 SCRA 276, pronounced the following reminder for
integrity. His actuations impaired public respect for the Court, and lawyers: Members of the bar must do nothing that may tend to lessen in
damaged the integrity of the bar examinations as the final measure of a any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, the honesty and
law graduates academic preparedness to embark upon the practice of integrity of the profession. In another case, it likewise intoned: We
law. cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity
However, the Investigating Committee does not believe that De Guzman and dignity of the legal profession. He can do this by faithfully performing
was solely responsible for the leakage of Atty. Balgos proposed test his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to his clients. (Reyes
questions in the mercantile law examination. The Committee does not v. Javier, A.C. No. 5574, February 2, 2002, 375 SCRA 538). It goes
believe that he acted alone, or did not have the assistance and without saying that a lawyer who violates this precept of the profession
cooperation of other persons, such as: by committing a gross misconduct which dishonors and diminishes the
"Cheryl Palma, Atty. Balgos private secretary, who, according to Atty. publics respect for the legal profession, should be disciplined.
Balgos himself, was the only person who knew the password, who could "After careful deliberation, the Investigating Committee recommends
open and close his computer; and who had the key to his office where that:
his computer was kept. Since a computer may not be accessed or "1. Attorney Danilo De Guzman be DISBARRED for he had shown that
downloaded unless it is opened, someone must have opened Atty. he is morally unfit to continue as a member of the legal profession, for
Balgos computer in order for De Guzman to retrieve the test questions grave dishonesty, lack of integrity, and criminal behavior. In addition, he
stored therein. should make a written PUBLIC APOLOGY and pay DAMAGES to the
"Silvestre Atienza, also a fraternity brod of De Guzman, who was Supreme Court for involving it in another bar scandal, causing the
responsible for interconnecting Atty. Balgos computer with the other cancellation of the mercantile law examination, and wreaking havoc
computers outside Atty. Balgos room or office, and who was the only upon the image of this institution.
other person, besides Cheryl Palma, who knew the password of Atty. "2. Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos should be REPRIMANDED by the
Balgos computer. Court and likewise be required to make a written APOLOGY to the Court
"The following persons who received from De Guzman, and distributed for the public scandal he brought upon it as a result of his negligence
copies of the leaked test questions, appear to have conspired with him and lack of due care in preparing and safeguarding his proposed test
to steal and profit from the sale of the test questions. They could not have questions in mercantile law. As the Court had to cancel the Mercantile
been motivated solely by a desire to help the fraternity, for the leakage Law examination on account of the leakage of Attorney Balgos test
was widespread (kalat na kalat) according to Erwin Tan. The possible questions, which comprised 82% of the bar questions in that
co-conspirators were: examination, Atty. Balgos is not entitled to receive any honorarium as
Ronan Garvida, examiner for that subject.
Arlan, "3. FURTHER INVESTIGATION of Danilo De Guzman, Cheryl Palma,
Erwin Tan, Silvestre Atienza, Ronan Garvida, Arlan, Erwin Tan, Randy Iigo, James
Randy Iigo, Bugain, Ronald Collado and Allan Guiapal by the National Bureau of
Ronald Collado, and Investigation and the Philippine National Police, with a view to their
Allan Guiapal criminal prosecution as probable co-conspirators in the theft and leakage
"The Committee does not believe that De Guzman recklessly broke the of the test questions in mercantile law.
law and risked his job and future as a lawyer, out of love for the Beta "With regard to recommending measures to safeguard the integrity of the
Sigma Lambda fraternity. There must have been an ulterior material bar examinations and prevent a repetition of future leakage in the said
consideration for his breaking the law and tearing the shroud of secrecy examinations, inasmuch as this matter is at present under study by the
that, he very well knows, covers the bar examinations. Courts Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, as an aspect of
"On the other hand, the Committee finds that the theft of the test proposals for bar reforms, the Investigating Committee believes it would
questions from Atty. Balgos computer could have been avoided if Atty. be well-advised to refrain from including in this report what may turn out
Balgos had exercised due diligence in safeguarding the secrecy of the to be duplicative, if not contrary, recommendations on the matter."3
test questions which he prepared. As the computer is a powerful modern The Court adopts the report, including with some modifications the
machine which he admittedly is not fairly familiar with, he should not have recommendation, of the Investigating Committee. The Court, certainly
trusted it to deep secret the test questions that he stored in its hard disk. will not countenance any act or conduct that can impair not only the
He admittedly did not know the password of his computer. He relied on integrity of the Bar Examinations but the trust reposed on the Court.
his secretary to use the password to open and close his computer. He The Court also takes note that Mr. Jovito M. Salonga and Mr. Benjamin
kept his computer in a room to which other persons had access. R. Katly, two of its employees assigned to the Management Information
Unfamiliar with the use of the machine whose potential for mischief he Systems Office (MISO), who were tasked by the Investigating Committee
could not have been totally unaware of, he should have avoided its use to inspect the computer system in the office of Atty. Balgos, found that
for so sensitive an undertaking as typing the questions in the bar the Courts Computer-Assisted Legal Research (CALR) database4 was
examination. After all he knew how to use the typewriter in the use of installed in the computer used by Atty. Balgos. Mr. Salonga and Mr. Katly
Page 132

which he is quite proficient. Atty. Balgos should therefore have prepared reported that the system, which was developed by the MISO, was
the test questions in his trusty typewriter, in the privacy of his home, intended for the exclusive use of the Court. The installation thereof to

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
any external computer would be unauthorized without the permission of Court, will exempt inactive IBP members from payment of the annual
the Court. Atty. Velasco informed the two Court employees that the dues.
CALR database was installed by Atty. De Guzman on the computer In his reply[4] dated 22 February 2005, petitioner contends that what he
being used by Atty. Balgos. The matter would also need further is questioning is the IBP Board of Governors Policy of Non-Exemption in
investigation to determine how Atty. De Guzman was able to obtain a the payment of annual membership dues of lawyers regardless of
copy of the Courts CALR database. whether or not they are engaged in active or inactive practice. He
WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the recommendations of the asseverates that the Policy of Non-Exemption in the payment of annual
Investigating Committee, hereby resolves to - membership dues suffers from constitutional infirmities, such as equal
(1) DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the practice of law effective protection clause and the due process clause. He also posits that
upon his receipt of this RESOLUTION; compulsory payment of the IBP annual membership dues would
(2) REPRIMAND Atty. MARCIAL O.T. BALGOS and DISENTITLE him indubitably be oppressive to him considering that he has been in an
from receiving any honorarium as an Examiner in Mercantile Law; inactive status and is without income derived from his law practice. He
(3) Direct the National Bureau of Investigation (a) to undertake further adds that his removal from nonpayment of annual membership dues
investigation of Danilo De Guzman, Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, would constitute deprivation of property right without due process of law.
Ronan Garvida, Erwin Tan, Randy Iigo, James Bugain, Ronald Collado Lastly, he claims that non-practice of law by a lawyer-member in inactive
and Allan Guiapal with a view to determining their participation and status is neither injurious to active law practitioners, to fellow lawyers in
respective accountabilities in the bar examination leakage and to inactive status, nor to the community where the inactive lawyers-
conduct an investigation on how Danilo De Guzman was able to secure members reside.
a copy of the Supreme Courts CALR database. Plainly, the issue here is: whether or nor petitioner is entitled to
Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of the records of Danilo De exemption from payment of his dues during the time that he was inactive
Guzman in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil Service from 1962-
Philippines, and copies to be furnished the Integrated Bar of the 1986 and he was working abroad from 1986-2003?
Philippines and circulated by the Office of the Court Administrator to all We rule in the negative.
courts. An Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must
SO ORDERED. belong, as distinguished from bar association organized by individual
lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary. Integration of the
[B.M. No. 1370. May 9, 2005] Bar is essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded
LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR., REQUESTING an opportunity to do his shares in carrying out the objectives of the Bar
EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF IBP DUES. as well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by
DECISION or under the direction of the State, an Integrated Bar is an official national
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: body of which all lawyers are required to be members. They are,
This is a request for exemption from payment of the Integrated Bar of the therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the
Philippines (IBP) dues filed by petitioner Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. Bar, including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for
In his letter,[1] dated 22 September 2004, petitioner sought exemption the effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a
from payment of IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid code of professional ethics or professional responsibility, breach of which
accountability for the years 1977-2005. He alleged that after being constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper
admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the
Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in, offending member.[5]
the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the
maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he entire lawyer population. This requires membership and financial support
was working in the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law of every attorney as condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the
prohibits the practice of ones profession while in government service, retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.[6]
and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working in Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He
the USA. is free to attend or not to attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar
On 05 October 2004, the letter was referred to the IBP for comment.[2] Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only
On 16 November 2004, the IBP submitted its comment[3] stating inter compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of his annual dues.
alia: that membership in the IBP is not based on the actual practice of The Supreme Court, in order to foster the States legitimate interest in
law; that a lawyer continues to be included in the Roll of Attorneys as elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the
long as he continues to be a member of the IBP; that one of the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects
obligations of a member is the payment of annual dues as determined and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers.[7]
by the IBP Board of Governors and duly approved by the Supreme Court Moreover, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court,
as provided for in Sections 9 and 10, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court; under its constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning
that the validity of imposing dues on the IBP members has been upheld the admission to the practice of law and in the integration of the
as necessary to defray the cost of an Integrated Bar Program; and that Philippine Bar[8] - which power required members of a privileged class,
the policy of the IBP Board of Governors of no exemption from payment such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the
of dues is but an implementation of the Courts directives for all members expenses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite
of the IBP to help in defraying the cost of integration of the bar. It apparent that the fee is, indeed, imposed as a regulatory measure,
maintained that there is no rule allowing the exemption of payment of designed to raise funds for carrying out the noble objectives and
annual dues as requested by respondent, that what is allowed is purposes of integration.
voluntary termination and reinstatement of membership. It asserted that The rationale for prescribing dues has been explained in the Integration
what petitioner could have done was to inform the secretary of the IBP of the Philippine Bar,[9] thus:
of his intention to stay abroad, so that his membership in the IBP could For the court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean
have been terminated, thus, his obligation to pay dues could have been that the Court is attempting to levy a tax.
stopped. It also alleged that the IBP Board of Governors is in the process A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation,
Page 133

of discussing proposals for the creation of an inactive status for its while tax purpose of a tax is a revenue. If the judiciary has inherent power
members, which if approved by the Board of Governors and by this to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
put on an integrated Bar program without means to defray the expenses. discredit of the legal profession.
The doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries with it the power to Upright character; not mere absence of bad character.
impose such exaction. A lawyer must at all times conduct himself properly as not to
The only limitation upon the States power to regulate the privilege of law put into question his fitness to practice law.
is that the regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The
Avoid scandalous conduct; not only required to refrain from
public interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the
adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistress but must
slight inconvenience to a member resulting from his required payment of
also behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
the annual dues.
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
Thus, payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in
the IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory
[A.C. No. 4921. March 6, 2003]
nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as ones membership in
CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALFREDO
the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of
CASTILLO, respondent.
practice, the member is engaged in.
DECISION
There is nothing in the law or rules which allows exemption from payment
PER CURIAM:
of membership dues. At most, as correctly observed by the IBP, he could
Before this Court is a Petition for Disbarment filed by Carmelita I.
have informed the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his intention to stay
Zaguirre against Atty. Alfredo Castillo on the ground of Gross Immoral
abroad before he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP could
Conduct.
have been terminated and his obligation to pay dues could have been
The facts as borne by the records are as follows:
discontinued.
Complainant and respondent met sometime in 1996 when the two
As abovementioned, the IBP in its comment stated that the IBP Board of
became officemates at the National Bureau of Investigation
Governors is in the process of discussing the situation of members under
(NBI).[1] Respondent courted complainant and promised to marry her
inactive status and the nonpayment of their dues during such inactivity.
while representing himself to be single.[2] Soon they had an intimate
In the meantime, petitioner is duty bound to comply with his obligation to
relationship that started sometime in 1996 and lasted until 1997.[3] During
pay membership dues to the IBP.
their affair, respondent was preparing for the bar examinations which he
Petitioner also contends that the enforcement of the penalty of removal
passed. On May 10, 1997, he was admitted as a member of the
would amount to a deprivation of property without due process and
Philippine Bar.[4] It was only around the first week of May 1997 that
hence infringes on one of his constitutional rights.
complainant first learned that respondent was already married when his
This question has been settled in the case of In re Atty. Marcial
wife went to her office and confronted her about her relationship with
Edillon,[10] in this wise:
respondent.[5] On September 10, 1997, respondent, who by now is a
. . . Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its
lawyer, executed an affidavit, admitting his relationship with the
being one that entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession,
complainant and recognizing the unborn child she was carrying as
we do not here pause to consider at length, as it [is] clear that under the
his.[6] On December 09, 1997, complainant gave birth to a baby girl,
police power of the State, and under the necessary powers granted to
Aletha Jessa.[7] By this time however, respondent had started to refuse
the Court to perpetuate its existence, the respondents right to practice
recognizing the child and giving her any form of support.[8]
law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to
Respondent claims that: he never courted the complainant; what
regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory
transpired between them was nothing but mutual lust and desire; he
measure is recognize[d], then a penalty designed to enforce its payment,
never represented himself as single since it was known in the NBI that
which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as
he was already married and with children;[9] complainant is almost 10
unreasonable or arbitrary.
years older than him and knew beforehand that he is already
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property
married;[10] the child borne by complainant is not his, because the
right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent
complainant was seeing other men at the time they were having an
regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyers public
affair.[11] He admits that he signed the affidavit dated September 10,
responsibilities.
1997 but explains that he only did so to save complainant from
As a final note, it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a
embarrassment. Also, he did not know at the time that complainant was
privilege burdened with conditions,[11] one of which is the payment of
seeing other men.[12]
membership dues. Failure to abide by any of them entails the loss of
After due hearing, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty.
such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move.
Alfredo Castillo guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends that he
WHEREFORE, petitioners request for exemption from payment of IBP
be meted the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
dues is DENIED. He is ordered to pay P12,035.00, the amount assessed
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
by the IBP as membership fees for the years 1977-2005, within a non-
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of this decision, with a
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
warning that failure to do so will merit his suspension from the practice
deceitful conduct.
of law.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.01 A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making
xxx xxx xxx
false statements or suppressing a material fact, in connection with
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
his application for admission to the bar.
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
Rule 7.02 A lawyer shall not support application for admission to
profession.
the bar by any person known to him or be unqualified in respect to
Immoral conduct has been defined as:
character, education, or other relevant attribute.
xxx that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
Page 134

indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral,
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in
but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant,
shock the common sense of decency.[13] but one to purge the law profession of unworthy members, to protect the
In his affidavit dated September 10, 1997, duly acknowledged before a public and the courts.[22]
notary public, he declared explicitly: The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent was
1. That I had a relationship with one Carmelita Zaguirre, my officemate; preparing to take the bar examinations. Thus, it cannot be said that it is
2. That as a result of that relationship, she is presently pregnant with my unknown to him that an applicant for admission to membership in the bar
child; must show that he is possessed of good moral character, a requirement
3. That I hereby voluntarily recognize the child now under (sic) her womb which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the
to be my own; bar.[23] This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission
4. That I am willing to support the said child henceforth, including his/her to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to
personal and medical needs, education, housing, food, clothing and maintain ones good standing in the profession;[24] it is a continuing
other necessities for living, which I will give through his/her mother, requirement to the practice of law[25] and therefore admission to the bar
Carmelita Zaguirre, until he/she becomes of legal age and capable to does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint,
live on his/her own; into any question concerning his mental or moral fitness before he
5. That I undertake to sign the birth certificate as an additional proof that became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice merely
he/she is my child; however, my failure to sign does not negate the creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all the qualifications to
recognition and acknowledgement already done herein; become a lawyer.
6. That I am executing this affidavit without compulsion on my part and The Court held:
being a lawyer, I have full knowledge of the consequence of such The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on
acknowledgment and recognition.[14] those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
More incriminating is his handwritten letter dated March 12, 1998 which qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. We
states in part: must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
Ayoko ng umabot tayo sa kung saan-saan pa. All your officemates, e.g., conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good
Ate Ging, Glo, Guy and others (say) that I am the look like(sic) of your behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained
daughter. and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to
Heres my bargain. I will help you in supporting your daughter, but I be heard.[26]
cannot promise fix amount for monthly support of your daughter. and in Dumadag vs. Lumaya:
However it shall not be less than P500 but not more than P1,000.[15] The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to
In the recent case of Luguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., the Court in the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree
castigating a judge stated that: of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession
...even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent has to conform to the strict are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of
standard of conduct demanded of members of the profession. Certainly, the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.[27]
fathering children by a woman other than his lawful wife fails to meet Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not
these standards.[16] his wife and now refuses to recognize and support a child whom he
Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below previously recognized and promised to support. Clearly therefore,
the standards of morality required of every lawyer.[17] respondent violated the standards of morality required of the legal
Moreover, the attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized profession and should be disciplined accordingly.
statement recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita As consistently held by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out if a
demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is highly lesser punishment could be given.[28] Records show that from the time
censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession, tantamount to he took his oath in 1997, he has severed his ties with complainant and
self-stultification.[18] now lives with his wife and children in Mindoro. As of now, the Court does
This Court has repeatedly held: not perceive this fact as an indication of respondents effort to mend his
as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral ways or that he recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble
character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and profession of law. Nevertheless, the Court deems it more appropriate
leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the under the circumstances that indefinite suspension should be meted out
community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the than disbarment. The suspension shall last until such time that
court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the respondent is able to show, to the full satisfaction of the Court, that he
keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid had instilled in himself a firm conviction of maintaining moral integrity and
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those uprightness required of every member of the profession.
moral standards.[19] The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
While respondent does not deny having an extra-marital affair with misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows
complainant he seeks understanding from the Court, pointing out that him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
men by nature are polygamous,[20] and that what happened between demeanor.[29]
them was nothing but mutual lust and desire.[21] The Court is not ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent
convinced. In fact, it is appalled at the reprehensible, amoral attitude of GUILTY of Gross Immoral Conduct and ordered to suffer INDEFINITE
the respondent. SUSPENSION from the practice of law.
Respondent claims that he did not use any deception to win her affection. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Castillos personal record
Granting arguendo that complainant entered into a relationship with him in the Office of the Bar Confidant and a copy thereof be furnished the
knowing full well his marital status, still it does not absolve him of gross IBP and all courts throughout the country.
immorality for what is in question in a case like this is respondents fitness SO ORDERED.
to be a member of the legal profession. It is not dependent whether or
not the other party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness
him. and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
Page 135

We agree with the IBP that the defense of in pari delicto is not feasible. harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
The Court held in Mortel vs. Aspiras:

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
complainant alleged that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of
CONRADO QUE, A.C. No. 7054 preparation; the respondent also deceived his clients (who were all
Complainant, squatters) in supporting the above falsehood.[4]
PUNO, C J.,
CARPIO, (4) The respondents willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly
CORONA, maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty.
CARPIO MORALES, Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico), the previous counsel of the respondents
CHICO-NAZARIO, clients.
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, (5) The respondents deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, appearances in court in the petition for annulment of judgment for 15
BRION, litigants, three of whom are already deceased;
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN, (6) The respondents willful and fraudulent appearance in the second
DEL CASTILLO, petition for annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of
ABAD, and the Philippines without being authorized to do so.
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, Promulgated: Additionally, the complaint accused the respondent of representing fifty-
JR. two (52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority
Respondent. December 4, 2009 was ever given to him.

The CBD required the respondent to answer the complaint.

In his Answer,[5] the respondent declared that he is a member of the

Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC) that handles pro bono cases
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- for the underprivileged, the less fortunate, the homeless and those in the
--------------- x marginalized sector in Metro Manila. He agreed to take over the cases
formerly handled by other KDC members. One of these cases was the
DECISION unlawful detainer case handled by the late Atty. Catolico where the
complainant and his siblings were the plaintiffs and the respondents
PER CURIAM: present clients were the defendants.

In a complaint for disbarment,[1] Conrado Que (complainant) accused With respect to paragraph 1 of the disbarment complaint, the respondent
Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the professed his sincerity, honesty and good faith in filing the petitions
Philippines Committee on BarDiscipline (IBP Committee on Bar complained of; he filed these petitions to protect the interests of his
Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the provisions clients in their property. The respondent asserted that these petitions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of were all based on valid grounds the lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC
Court: and the RTC over the underlying unlawful detainer case, the extrinsic
fraud committed by the late Atty. Catolico, and the extrinsic fraud
(1) The respondents abuse of court remedies and processes by filing a committed by the complainant and his family against his clients; he
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for discovered that the allegedly detained property did not really belong to
annulment of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for the complainant and his family but is a forest land. The respondent also
annulment of judgment before the RTC and lastly, a petition for asserted that his resort to a petition for annulment of judgment and a
declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively, subject cases) to assail petition for declaratory relief to contest the final judgments of the MeTC
and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court[2] (MeTC) and RTC were all parts of his legal strategy to protect the interests of his
and RTC[3] in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the clients.
respondents clients. The respondent in this regard, repeatedly raised the
issue of lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC knowing fully-well that On the allegations of falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the
these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The order of dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment (covered by
respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainants and his siblings paragraph 3 of the disbarment complaint), the respondent maintained
titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case; that his allegations were based on his observations and the notes he had
taken during the proceedings on what the presiding judge dictated in
(2) The respondents commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject open court.
cases in order to impede, obstruct, and frustrate the efficient
administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the right The respondent denied that he had made any unauthorized appearance
of the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC in court (with respect to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the disbarment complaint).
judgments in the unlawful detainer case; He claimed that the 52 litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 were
impleaded by inadvertence; he immediately rectified his error by
(3) The respondents lack of candor and respect towards his adversary dropping them from the case. On the petition for annulment of judgment,
and the courts by resorting to falsehood and deception to misguide, the respondent claimed that a majority (31 out of 49) of the litigants who
obstruct and impede the due administration of justice. The respondent signed the certification constituted sufficient compliance with the rules on
asserted falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of forum-shopping. The respondent likewise denied having represented the
Republic of the Philippines in the second petition for annulment of title.
Page 136

the petition for annulment of judgment by fabricating an imaginary order

issued by the presiding judge in open court which allegedly denied the The respondent pointed out that there was no allegation whatsoever that
motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case. The he was the sole representative of both the complainants (his clients) and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
the Republic of the Philippines. The respondent pointed out that the knew very well that only the Solicitor General can institute an action for
petition embodied a request to the Office of the Solicitor General to reversion on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Despite this
represent his clients in the case.[6] knowledge, the respondent solely signed the amended complaint for and
on behalf of his clients and of the Republic.
The respondent submitted that he did not commit any illegal, unlawful, The Board of Governors of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, through
unjust, wrongful or immoral acts towards the complainant and his its Resolution No. XVII-2005-164 on CBD Case No. 03-1100, adopted
siblings. He stressed that he acted in good faith in his dealings with them and approved the Report and Recommendation of Investigating
and his conduct was consistent with his sworn duty as a lawyer to uphold Commissioner Cunanan and recommended that the respondent be
justice and the law and to defend the interests of his clients. The suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.[13] On
respondent additionally claimed that the disbarment case was filed reconsideration, the Board of Governors reduced the respondents
because the complainants counsel, Atty. Cesar P. Uy (Atty. Uy), had an suspension from the practice of law to one (1) year.[14]
axe to grind against him.
The Issue
Lastly, the respondent posited in his pleadings[7] before the IBP that the The case poses to us the core issues of whether the respondent can be
present complaint violated the rule on forum shopping considering that held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional
the subject cases were also the ones on which a complaint was filed misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.
against him in CBD Case No. 03-1099 filed by Atty. Uy before the IBP
Committee on Bar Discipline. The respondent also posited that the The Courts Ruling
present complaint was filed to harass, ridicule and defame his good
name and reputation and, indirectly, to harass his clients who are Except for the penalty, we agree with the Report and
marginalized members of the KDC. Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Cunanan and the
Board of Governors of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline.
The Findings of the Investigating Commissioner
We take judicial notice that this disbarment complaint is not the only one
Except for the last charge of unauthorized appearance on behalf of 52 so far filed involving the respondent; another complaint invoking similar
litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762, Investigating Commissioner grounds has previously been filed. In Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C.
Renato G. Cunanan[8](Investigating Commissioner Cunanan) found all Garcia v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.,[15] we suspended the respondent
the charges against the respondent meritorious. In his Report and from the practice of law for his willful and intentional falsehood before the
Recommendation, he stated: court; for misuse of court procedures and processes to delay the
execution of a judgment; and for collaborating with non-lawyers in the
While an attorney admittedly has the solemn duty to defend and protect illegal practice of law. We initially imposed a suspension of two (2) years,
the cause and rights of his client with all the fervor and energy within his but in an act of leniency subsequently reduced the suspension to six (6)
command, yet, it is equally true that it is the primary duty of the lawyer to months.[16]
defend the dignity, authority and majesty of the law and the courts which Abuse of court procedures and processes
enforce it. A lawyer is not at liberty to maintain and defend the cause of
his clients thru means, inconsistent with truth and honor. He may not and
must not encourage multiplicity of suits or brazenly engage in forum- The following undisputed facts fully support the conclusion that the
shopping.[9] respondent is guilty of serious misconduct for abusing court procedures
and processes to shield his clients from the execution of the final
On the first charge on abuse of court processes, Investigating judgments of the MeTC and RTC in the unlawful detainer case against
Commissioner Cunanan noted the unnecessary use by the respondent these clients:
of legal remedies to forestall the execution of the final decisions of the
MTC and the RTC in the unlawful detainer case against his clients.[10] First, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari (docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 53892) with prayer for the issuance of preliminary injunction and
On the second charge, the Investigating Commissioner ruled that the act temporary restraining order to question the final judgments of the MeTC
of the respondent in filing two petitions for annulment of title, a petition and RTC for lack of jurisdiction. In dismissing the respondents petition,
for annulment of judgment and later on a petition for declaratory the CA held:
relief were all done to prevent the execution of the final judgment in the
unlawful detainer case and constituted prohibited forum-shopping.[11] Even for the sake of argument considering that the petition case be the
proper remedy, still it must be rejected for failure of petitioners to
On the third and fourth charges, Investigating Commissioner Cunanan satisfactorily demonstrate lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
found ample evidence showing that the respondent was dishonest in Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City over the ejectment case.[17]
dealing with the court as shown in his petition for annulment of judgment;
he resorted to falsities and attributed acts to Atty. Catolico and to the Second, notwithstanding the CAs dismissal of the petition for certiorari,
presiding judge, all of which were untrue. [12] the respondent again questioned the MeTCs and the RTCs lack of
jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case in a petition for annulment of
On the fifth and sixth charges, the Investigating Commissioner judgment (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-01-45556) before the RTC with
disregarded the respondents explanation that he had no intention to an ancillary prayer for the grant of a temporary restraining order and
represent without authority 15 of the litigants (three of whom were preliminary injunction. The RTC dismissed this petition on the basis of
already deceased) in the petition for annulment of judgment (Civil Case the motion to dismiss filed.[18]
No. Q-01-45556). To the Investigating Commissioner, the respondent
merely glossed over the representation issue by claiming that the Third, the respondent successively filed two petitions (docketed as Civil
authority given by a majority of the litigants complied with the certification Case No. Q-99-38780 and Civil Case No. Q-02-46885) for annulment of
of non-forum shopping requirement. The Investigating Commissioner the complainants title to the property involved in the unlawful detainer
Page 137

likewise brushed aside the respondents argument regarding his case. The records show that these petitions were both dismissed for lack
misrepresentation in the second complaint for annulment of title since he of legal personality on the part of the plaintiffs to file the petition.[19]

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
compromise and fraudulent acts of alleging representing them when in
Fourth, after the dismissals of the petition for annulment of judgment and truth and in fact, have connived with the attorney of the prevailing
the petitions for annulment of title, the respondent this time filed a petition party at his defeat to the prejudice of the petitioner (defendants
for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to therein) [24]
enjoin the complainant and his siblings from exercising their rights over
the same property subject of the unlawful detainer case. The respondent Yet, in paragraph 35 of the same petition, the respondent alleged that no
based the petition on the alleged nullity of the complainants title because second motion for reconsideration or for new trial, or no other petition
the property is a part of forest land. with the CA had been filed, as he believed that the decisions rendered
both by the MeTC and the RTC are null and void.[25] These conflicting
Fifth, the persistent applications by the respondent for injunctive relief in claims, no doubt, involve a fabrication made for the purpose of
the four petitions he had filed in several courts the petition for certiorari, supporting the petition for annulment. Worse, it involved a direct and
the petition for annulment of judgment, the second petition for annulment unsubstantiated attack on the reputation of a law office colleague,
of complainants title and the petition for declaratory relief reveal the another violation we shall separately discuss below.
respondents persistence in preventing and avoiding the execution of the Second, the respondent employed another obvious subterfuge when he
final decisions of the MeTC and RTC against his clients in the unlawful filed his second petition for annulment of title, which was an unsuccessful
detainer case. attempt to circumvent the rule that only the Solicitor General may
commence reversion proceedings of public lands[26] on behalf of the
Under the circumstances, the respondents repeated attempts go beyond Republic of the Philippines. This second petition, filed by a private party
the legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending and not by the Republic, showed that: (a) the respondent and his clients
the interests of his client.These are already uncalled for measures to requested that they be represented by the Solicitor General in the
avoid the enforcement of final judgments of the MeTC and RTC. In these proceedings; (b) the Republic of the Philippines was simply impleaded in
attempts, the respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of the amended petition without its consent as a plaintiff; and (c) the
Professional Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to respondent signed the amended petition where he alone stood as
observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to defeat the counsel for the plaintiffs. In this underhanded manner, the respondent
ends of justice. By his actions, the respondent used procedural rules to sought to compel the Republic to litigate and waste its resources on an
thwart and obstruct the speedy and efficient administration of justice, unauthorized and unwanted suit.
resulting in prejudice to the winning parties in that case.[20]
Third, the respondent also committed falsehood in his motion for
reconsideration of the order dismissing his petition for annulment of
judgment where he misrepresented to the court and his clients what
Filing of multiple actions and forum shopping actually transpired in the hearing of June 28, 2002 in this wise:

The respondent likewise violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 Likewise, the proceedings on said date of hearing (June 28, 2002) show,
of the Code of Professional Responsibility,[21] as well as the rule against that after both counsel have argued on the aforesaid pending
forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple incident, the Honorable Presiding Judge, in open court, and in the
actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of presence and within the hearing distance of all the plaintiffs and their
court processes; they tend to degrade the administration of justice; counsel as well as the counsel of the defendants resolved: TO DENY
wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure;[22] and add to the congestion THE MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AND DIRECTED DEFENDANTS
of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[23] COUNSEL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN THE
REMAINING PERIOD.[27][Underscoring and emphasis theirs]
While the filing of a petition for certiorari to question the lower courts
jurisdiction may be a procedurally legitimate (but substantively
erroneous) move, the respondents subsequent petitions involving the The records, however, disclose that the scheduled hearing for June 28,
same property and the same parties not only demonstrate his attempts 2002 was actually for the respondents application for temporary
to secure favorable ruling using different fora, but his obvious objective restraining order and was not a hearing on the adverse partys motion to
as well of preventing the execution of the MeTC and RTC decisions in dismiss.[28] The records also show that RTC-Branch 101 held in
the unlawful detainer case against his clients. This intent is most obvious abeyance the respondents application for injunctive relief pending the
with respect to the petitions for annulment of judgment and declaratory resolution of the motion to dismiss filed by the adverse party.[29] As stated
relief, both geared towards preventing the execution of the unlawful in the order of the Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 101:
detainer decision, long after this decision had become final. Browsing over the records of this case specifically the transcripts of
Willful, intentional and deliberate stenographic notes as transcribed by the Stenographer, the same will
falsehood before the courts indicate that the allegations in the Motion for Reconsideration are not
true.
The records also reveal that the respondent committed willful, intentional
and deliberate falsehood in the pleadings he filed with the lower courts. how can this Court make a ruling on the matter even without stating the
factual and legal bases as required/mandated by the Rules. Moreover,
First, in the petition for annulment of judgment filed before the RTC, there are no indications or iota of irregularity in the preparation by
Branch 101, Quezon City, the respondent cited extrinsic fraud as one of Stenographer of the transcripts, and by the Court interpreter of the
the grounds for the annulment sought. The extrinsic fraud was alleged in Minutes of the open Court session.[Underscoring theirs]
the last paragraph of the petition, as follows: The records further disclose that despite knowledge of the falsity of his
allegations, the respondent took advantage of his position and the trust
In here, counsel for the petitioners (defendants therein), deliberately reposed in him by his clients (who are all squatters) to convince them to
neglected to file the proper remedy then available after receipt of the support, through their affidavits, his false claims on what allegedly
denial of their Motion for Reconsideration thuscorruptly sold out the transpired in the June 28, 2002 hearing. [30]
Page 138

interest of the petitioners (defendants therein) by keeping them away For these acts, we find the respondent liable under Rule 10.01 of Canon
to the Court and in complete ignorance of the suit by a false pretense of 10 the Code of Professional Responsibility for violating the lawyers duty

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
to observe candor and fairness in his dealings with the court. This
provision states:
We support Investigating Commissioner Cunanans finding that the
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD respondent twice represented parties without proper authorization: first,
FAITH TO THE COURT in the petition for annulment of judgment; and second, in the second
petition for annulment of title.[38]
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be mislead by In the first instance, the records show that the respondent filed the
an artifice. petition for annulment of judgment on behalf of 49 individuals, 31 of
whom gave their consent while the other 15 individuals did not. We
Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath cannot agree with the respondents off-hand explanation that he truly
as a lawyer never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice believed that a majority of the litigants who signed the certification of non-
or false statement of fact or law.[31] The respondent failed to remember forum shopping in the petition already gave him the necessary authority
that his duty as an officer of the court makes him an indispensable to sign for the others. We find it highly improbable that this kind of lapse
participant in the administration of justice,[32] and that he is expected to could have been committed by a seasoned lawyer like the respondent,
act candidly, fairly and truthfully in his work.[33] His duty as a lawyer who has been engaged in the practice of law for more than 30 years and
obligates him not to conceal the truth from the court, or to mislead the who received rigid and strict training as he so proudly declares, from the
court in any manner, no matter how demanding his duties to his clients University of the Philippines College of Law and in the two law firms with
may be.[34] In case of conflict, his duties to his client yield to his duty to which he was previously associated.[39] As Investigating Commissioner
deal candidly with the court.[35] Cunanan found, the respondents explanation of compliance with the rule
In defending his clients interest, the respondent also failed to observe on the certification of non-forum shopping glossed over the real charge
Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which of appearing in court without the proper authorization of the parties he
reads: allegedly represented.

CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL In the second instance, which occurred in the second complaint for
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW annulment of title, the respondent knew that only the Solicitor General
can legally represent the Republic of the Philippines in actions for
Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain reversion of land. Nevertheless, he filed an amended petition where he
the lawful objectives of his clients x x x impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as plaintiff without its authority
and consent, as a surreptitious way of forcing the Republic to litigate.
Notably, he signed the amended complaint on behalf of all the plaintiffs
This Canon obligates a lawyer, in defending his client, to employ only his clients and the Republic.
such means as are consistent with truth and honor.[36] He should not In both instances, the respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138
prosecute patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly of the Rules of Court when he undertook the unauthorized appearances.
groundless actions.[37] The recital of what the respondent did to prevent The settled rule is that a lawyer may not represent a litigant without
the execution of the judgment against his clients shows that he actually authority from the latter or from the latters representative or, in the
committed what the above rule expressly prohibits. absence thereof, without leave of court.[40] The willful unauthorized
appearance by a lawyer for a party in a given case constitutes
Maligning the name of his fellow lawyers contumacious conduct and also warrants disciplinary measures against
the erring lawyer for professional misconduct.[41]
The Respondents Defenses
To support the charge of extrinsic fraud in his petition for annulment of
judgment, the respondent attacked (as quoted above) the name and We find no merit in the respondents defenses.
reputation of the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of deliberate
neglect, corrupt motives and connivance with the counsel for the adverse Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking
party. unconscientious advantage of another. Accordingly, in University of the
East v. Jader we said that "[g]ood faith connotes an honest intention to
We find it significant that the respondent failed to demonstrate how he abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms
came upon his accusation against Atty. Catolico. The respondent, by his and technicalities of law, together with the absence of all information or
own admission, only participated in the cases previously assigned to belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious."[42] Bad
Atty. Catolico after the latter died. At the same time, the respondents faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind affirmatively operating with
petition for annulment of judgment also represented that no second furtive design or with some motive of self-interest, ill will or for an ulterior
motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed to contest the MeTC and purpose.[43] As both concepts are states of mind, they may be deduced
RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case for the reason that the from the attendant circumstances and, more particularly, from the acts
respondent believed the said decisions were null and void ab initio. and statements of the person whose state of mind is the subject of
inquiry.
Under these circumstances, we believe that the respondent has been
less than fair in his professional relationship with Atty. Catolico and is In this case, we find that the respondent acted in bad faith in defending
thus liable for violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional the interests of his clients. We draw this conclusion from the
Responsibility, which obligates a lawyer to conduct himself with misrepresentations and the dubious recourses he made, all obviously
courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues. He geared towards forestalling the execution of the final judgments of the
was unfair because he imputed wrongdoing to Atty. Catolico without MeTC and RTC. That he took advantage of his legal knowledge and
showing any factual basis therefor; he effectively maligned Atty. Catolico, experience and misread the Rules immeasurably strengthen the
who is now dead and unable to defend himself. presence of bad faith.
Page 139

Unauthorized appearances

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
We find neither sincerity nor honest belief on the part of the respondent the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession
in pleading the soundness and merit of the cases that he filed in court to of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer
prevent the execution of the MeTC and RTC decisions, considering his worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to
own conduct of presenting conflicting theories in his petitions. The the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion
succession of cases he filed shows a desperation that negates the to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.[46]
sincere and honest belief he claims; these are simply scattershot means
to achieve his objective of avoiding the execution of the unlawful detainer Hence, we give little or no weight to the alleged personal motivation that
judgment against his clients. drove the complainant Que and his counsel to file the present disbarment
case.
On the respondents allegations regarding his discretion to determine
legal strategy, it is not amiss to note that this was the same defense he Conclusion
raised in the first disbarment case.[44] As we explained in Plus
Builders, the exercise of a lawyers discretion in acting for his client can Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the respondent
never be at the expense of truth and justice. In the words of this cited committed various acts of professional misconduct and thereby failed to
case: live up to the exacting ethical standards imposed on members of the Bar.
We cannot agree, however, that only a penalty of one-year suspension
While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full from the practice of law should be imposed. Neither should we limit
devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and ourselves to the originally recommended penalty of suspension for two
defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and (2) years.
ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. He must give a
candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of his Given the respondents multiple violations, his past record as previously
clients case with the end in view of promoting respect for the law and discussed, and the nature of these violations which shows the readiness
legal processes, and counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings to disregard court rules and to gloss over concerns for the orderly
only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes administration of justice, we believe and so hold that the appropriate
to be honestly debatable under the law. He must always remind himself action of this Court is to disbar the respondent to keep him away from
of the oath he took upon admission to the Bar that he will not wittingly or the law profession and from any significant role in the administration of
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give justice which he has disgraced. He is a continuing risk, too, to the public
aid nor consent to the same; and that he will conduct [himself] as a that the legal profession serves. Not even his ardor and overzealousness
lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all in defending the interests of his client can save him. Such traits at the
good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients. Needless to state, expense of everything else, particularly the integrity of the profession and
the lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of the orderly administration of justice, this Court cannot accept nor
truth and the administration of justice, and it must be done within the tolerate.
bounds of reason and common sense. A lawyers responsibility to protect
and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of Additionally, disbarment is merited because this is not the respondents
action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other first ethical infraction of the same nature. We penalized him in Plus
party.[45] Builders, Inc. and Edgardo Garcia versus Atty. Anastacio E.
We cannot give credence to the respondents claim that the disbarment Revilla for his willful and intentional falsehood before the court; for
case was filed because the counsel of the complainant, Atty. Uy, had an misuse of court procedures and processes to delay the execution of a
axe to grind against him. We reject this argument, considering that it was judgment; and for collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of
not Atty. Uy who filed the present disbarment case against him; Atty. Uy law. We showed leniency then by reducing his penalty to suspension for
is only the counsel in this case. In fact, Atty. Uy has filed his own six (6) months. We cannot similarly treat the respondent this time; it is
separate disbarment case against the respondent. clear that he did not learn any lesson from his past experience and since
then has exhibited traits of incorrigibility. It is time to put afinis to the
The sui generis nature of a disbarment case renders the underlying respondents professional legal career for the sake of the public, the
motives of the complainants unimportant and with very little relevance. profession and the interest of justice.
The purpose of a disbarment proceeding is mainly to determine the
fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer of the court and a WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM Resolution
participant in the dispensation of justice an issue where the complainants No. XVII-2005-164 dated December 17, 2005 and Resolution No. XVII-
personal motives have little relevance. For this reason, disbarment 2008-657 dated December 11, 2008 of the Board of Governors of the
proceedings may be initiated by the Court motu proprio upon information IBP Committee on Bar Discipline insofar as respondent Atty. Anastacio
of an alleged wrongdoing. As we also explained in the case In re: Revilla, Jr. is found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the
Almacen: Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02
and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
. . .disciplinary proceedings like the present are sui generis. Neither Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules
purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not - and does not of Court. However, we modify the penalty the IBP imposed, and hold that
involve - a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the the respondent should be DISBARRED from the practice of law.
Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict
punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. SO ORDERED.
xxx

It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary [A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000]
objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the MANUEL N. CAMACHO, complainant, vs. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO
attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL
in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a and HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND
Page 140

member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of-the Court ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, respondents.
with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and D E C I S IO N

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
VITUG, J.: JVITUG court where the civil case was pending by Attorney Regina D. Balmores
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of of the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices for defendant AMACC. A
Professional Ethics, specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz: copy of the manifestation was furnished complainant. In his Resolution,
"A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of dated 14 June 1997, Judge Lopez of the Quezon City Regional Trial
controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he Court thereupon dismissed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.
undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should On 19 June 1999, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most Philippines ("IBP") passed Resolution No. XIII-99-163, thus:
particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not "RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
law." barth Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers Resolution/Decision as Annex 'A,' and, finding the recommendation fully
comprising the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, namely, supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
Attorneys Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine with an amendment Atty. Meinrado Pangulayan is suspended from the
V. Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos. Complainant, the hired practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS for being remiss in his duty and
counsel of some expelled students from the AMA Computer College DISMISSAL of the case against the other Respondents for they did not
("AMACC"), in an action for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary take part in the negotiation of the case." Chief
Mandatory Injunction and for Damages, docketed Civil Case No. Q-97- It would appear that when the individual letters of apology and Re-
30549 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged Admission Agreements were formalized, complainant was by then
that respondents, then counsel for the defendants, procured and effected already the retained counsel for plaintiff students in the civil case.
on separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromise agreements Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact. Although aware
("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his clients in the that the students were represented by counsel, respondent attorney
aforementioned civil case which, in effect, required them to waive all proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without
kinds of claims they might have had against AMACC, the principal at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein
defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.
proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred that such an act of This failure of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is
respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter
warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the
In his comment, Attorney Pangulayan acknowledged that not one of his demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
co-respondents had taken part in the negotiation, discussion, The allegation that the context of the Re-Admission Agreements centers
formulation, or execution of the various Re-Admission Agreements only on the administrative aspect of the controversy is belied by the
complained of and were, in fact, no longer connected at the time with the Manifestation[1] which, among other things, explicitly contained the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices. The Re-Admission following stipulation; viz:
Agreements, he claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal of Civil "1.......Among the nine (9) signatories to the complaint, four (4) of whom
Case Q-97-30549 and were executed for the sole purpose of effecting assisted by their parents/guardian already executed a Re-Admission
the settlement of an administrative case involving nine students of Agreement with AMACC President, AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V
AMACC who were expelled therefrom upon the recommendation of the acknowledging guilt for violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE
Student Disciplinary Tribunal. The students, namely, Ian Dexter MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and agreed among others to
Marquez, Almira O. Basalo, Neil Jason R. Salcedo, Melissa F. terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings which they
Domondon, Melyda B. De Leon, Leila D. Joven, Signorelli A. Santiago, may have against the AMACC arising from their previous dismissal. Esm
Michael Ejercito, and Cleo B. Villareiz,, were all members of the Editorial "x x x......x x x......x x x
Board of DATALINE, who apparently had caused to be published some "3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an Urgent Motion to Withdraw
objectionable features or articles in the paper. The 3-member Student from Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 will by filed them."
Disciplinary Tribunal was immediately convened, and after a series of The Court can only thus concur with the IBP Investigating Commission
hearings, it found the students guilty of the use of indecent language and and the IBP Board of Governors in their findings; nevertheless, the
unauthorized use of the student publication funds. The body recommended six-month suspension would appear to be somewhat too
recommended the penalty of expulsion against the erring students. Jksm harsh a penalty given the circumstances and the explanation of
The denial of the appeal made by the students to Dr. Amable R. Aguiluz respondent.
V, AMACC President, gave rise to the commencement of Civil Case No. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is
Q-97-30549 on 14th March 1997 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3)
78, of Quezon City. While the civil case was still pending, letters of MONTHS effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision. The
apology and Re-Admission Agreements were separately executed by case against the other respondents is DISMISSED for insufficiency of
and/or in behalf of some of the expelled students, to wit: Letter of evidence.
Apology, dated 27 May 1997, of Neil Jason Salcedo, assisted by his Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal record of
mother, and Re-Admission Agreement of 22 June 1997 with the AMACC respondent as an attorney and as a member of the Bar, and furnished
President; letter of apology, dated 31 March 1997, of Mrs. Veronica B. the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court
De Leon for her daughter Melyda B. De Leon and Re-Admission Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
Agreement of 09 May 1997 with the AMACC President; letter of apology, SO ORDERED.
dated 22 May 1997, of Leila Joven, assisted by her mother, and Re-
Admission Agreement of 22 May 1997 with the AMACC President; letter Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
of apology, dated 22 September 1997, of Cleo Villareiz and Re- language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Admission Agreement of 10 October 1997 with the AMACC President;
and letter of apology, dated 20 January 1997, of Michael Ejercito, Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon
assisted by his parents, and Re-Admission Agreement of 23 January the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the
1997 with the AMACC President. right of any lawyer without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
Page 141

Following the execution of the letters of apology and Re-Admission assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
Agreements, a Manifestation, dated 06 June 1997, was filed with the trial counsel.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
It is the duty of a lawyer to inform the SC or the IBP of such detain" him in Atty. del Rosarios residence in his official capacity as the
malpractice to the end that the malpractitioner be properly clerk of court of the regional trial court. Hence, when Atty. del Rosario
disciplined. was appointed judge, he ceased to be the personal custodian of accused
Not to use in pleadings and in practice the following: Javellana and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the
disrespectful, abusive and abrasive language, offensive custodian under the same undertaking.
personalities, unfounded accusations or intemperate words In our mind, the perceived threats to private respondent Javelanas life
tending to obstruct, embarrass or influence the court in no longer exist. Thus, the trial courts order dated August 8, 1989 giving
administering justice. custody over him to the clerk of court must be recalled, and he shall be
detained at the Provincial Jail of Antique at San Jose, Antique.
Want of intention: not an excuse for the disrespectful
Regarding his continued practice of law, as a detention prisoner private
language used. It merely extenuates liability.
respondent Javellana is not allowed to practice his profession as a
necessary consequence of his status as a detention prisoner. The trial
LINSANGAN VS ATTY TOLENTINO (SUPRA)
courts order was clear that private respondent "is not to be allowed liberty
to roam around but is to be held as a detention prisoner." The prohibition
CANON 9 A LAWYER SHALL NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
to practice law referred not only to Criminal Case No. 4262, but to all
ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
other cases as well, except in cases where private respondent would
appear in court to defend himself. Spped
[G.R. Nos. 89591-96. January 24, 2000]
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. BONIFACIO
is deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual
SANZ MACEDA, Presiding Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court
restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the
of Antique, and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA, respondents. ULANDU
commission of the offense.[3] He must be detained in jail during the
RESOLUTION
pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court
PARDO, J.:
to be released on bail or on recognizance.[4] Let it be stressed that all
On September 8, 1999, we denied the Peoples motion seeking
prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence
reconsideration of our August 13, 1990 decision in these cases. In said
can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or
resolution, we held that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda
occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This
committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of August 8,
is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention. Consequently, all
1989 giving custody over private respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the
the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355 must be confined in the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique,
Provincial Jail of Antique.
Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal Cases
Considering that the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355 has
Nos. 3350-3355. At that time, sufficient reason was shown why private
dragged on for more than ten (10) years, the presiding judge of the
respondent Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial
Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, is ordered to
Jail. The trial courts order specifically provided for private respondents
continue with the trial of said criminal cases with all deliberate dispatch
detention at the residence of Atty. del Rosario. However, private
and to avoid further delay.
respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to be
WHEREFORE, the August 8, 1989 order of the trial court is hereby
held as detention prisoner in said residence.
SET ASIDE. All accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355, including
This order of the trial court was not strictly complied with because private
Avelino T. Javellana and Arturo F. Pacificador are ordered detained at
respondent was not detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He
the Provincial Jail of Antique, San Jose, Antique, effective immediately,
went about his normal activities as if he were a free man, including
and shall not be allowed to go out of the jail for any reason or guise,
engaging in the practice of law. Despite our resolution of July 30, 1990
except upon prior written permission of the trial court for a lawful purpose.
prohibiting private respondent to appear as counsel in Criminal Case No.
Let copies of this resolution be given to the Provincial Director, PNP
4262,[1] the latter accepted cases and continued practicing law.
Antique Provincial Police Office, San Jose, Antique and to the Provincial
On April 7, 1997, Senior State Prosecutor Henrick F. Guingoyon filed
Jail Warden, Provincial Jail of Antique, San Jose, Antique.
with the Supreme Court a motion seeking clarification on the following
SO ORDERED.
questions: "(1) Does the resolution of this Honorable Court dated July
30, 1990, prohibiting Atty. Javellana from appearing as counsel refer only
A.M. No. P-220 December 20, 1978
to Criminal Case No. 4262? (2) Is Atty. now (Judge) Deogracias del
JULIO ZETA, complainant,
Rosario still the custodian of Atty. Javellana? and (3) Since it appears
vs.
that Atty. (now Judge) del Rosario never really held and detained Atty.
FELICISIMO MALINAO, respondent.
Javellana as prisoner in his residence, is not Atty. Javellana considered
an escapee or a fugitive of justice for which warrant for his arrest should
BARREDO, J.:
forthwith be issued?"[2] Mis spped
Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao court interpreter of
In a resolution dated June 18, 1997, we "noted" the above motion.
the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar charging as follows:
After we denied the motion for reconsideration on September 8, 1999,
l ILLEGALLY APPEARING IN COURT. MR. Malinao has been
the trial court resumed hearing Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. Earlier,
appearing in the municipal court of this town for parties like attorney
on August 2, 1999, Rolando Mijares filed with the Regional Trial Court,
when he is not an attorney. Reliable information also says he has been
Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, a motion seeking the revocation of the
appearing in the municipal courts of Daram, Zumarraga, Talalora and
trial courts custody order and the imprisonment of private respondent
even Sta. Rita. He is not authorized to do so we believe. He makes it his
Javellana in the provincial jail.
means of livelihood as he collects fees from his clients. He competes
On November 15, 1999, private respondent Javellana filed with the
with attorneys but does not pay anything. We believe that his doing so
Supreme Court an urgent motion seeking to clarify whether the June 18,
should be stopped for a good government. These facts can be checked
1997 resolution finally terminated or resolved the motion for clarification
with records of those municipal courts.
filed by the State Prosecutor on April 7, 1997.
2 GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE. Being employed in the Court
Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of
of First Instance he would instigate persons, especially in his barrio to
Page 142

criminal cases against him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be under the

grab land rob or coerce. In fact he has cases in the municipal court in
custody of the law. The trial court gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the
this town involving himself and his men. He incite them telling them not
custody of private respondent Javellana with the obligation "to hold and
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
to be afraid as he is a court employee and has influence over the judges. Samar, entitled Felix Versoza versus Victor Payao, et al., for forcible
Those persons being ignorant would believe him and so would commit entry on December 15, 1962, January 26, 1963, February 18, 1963 and
crimes. This act of Mr. Malinao is contrary to good order and peace as on March 1, 1963.
he is using his supposed influences to urge persons to commit crimes. Judge Juanito Reyes declared that on March 27, 1969, the respondent
3 CRIME OF FALSIFICATION. Information has it that he is appeared as counsel for the defendant in civil case No. 318 of the
unfaithfully filing his time record in the CFI. Even he has been out Municipal Court of Zumarraga entitled Restituto Centino versus Jesus
practicing in the municipal courts sometimes he would fill his time record Tizon for forcible entry and again on June 17, 1970 in the same case.
as present. He receives salary for those absent days. This can be From the certification of the Clerk of this Court, it appears that the
checked with time record he has submitted and if he has any application respondent had the following entries in his daily time record:
for leave. He may try to cure it by submitting application for leave but this 1. Was on leave from office on August 5, 1960 and September 17, 1960;
should not be allowed as he has already committed crime. 2. Was present in office on December l5, 1962;
4 VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND CIVIL SERVICE LAW.- 3. Was present in office on January 26, 1963, and present also on
WE have reliable information it is prohibited for a civil service employee February 18, 1963 but undertime by 1 hour;
to engage in private practice any profession or business without 4. Was on leave from office on March 1, 1963;
permission from the Department Head. Mr. Malinao we are sure has not 5. Was on leave from office on March 27, 1969; and
secured that permission because he should not be allowed to practice 6. Was present in office on June 17, 1970 but undertime by 5 hours.
as he is not an attorney. If that were so, he violated that Executive Order Comparing the dates when the respondent appeared before the
and Civil Service Law and we are urgently and earnestly requesting the aforementioned Municipal Courts with his daily time records, he made it
Commissioner of Civil Service to investigate him on this. If warranted he appear that on December 15, 1962 and February 18, 1963 he was
should be given the corresponding penalty as dismissal because we present in his office although according to the testimony of Judge Miguel
believe he deserve it. (Page 2, Record.) Avestruz he was before his Court on December 15, 1962 as well as on
After respondent filed the following 3rd indorsement relative to the above February 18, 1963. Again according to Judge Juanito Reyes the
complaint: respondent appeared in his Court on June 17, 1970. The respondent
Respectfully returned to the Honorable, the Secretary of Justice, Manila, again made it appear in his daily time record that he was present with an
thru the Honorable District Judge, Court of First Instance, Branch I, undertime of five hours. The respondent did not offer any plausible
Catbalogan, Samar, and thru the Honorable Judicial Superintendent, explanation for this irregularity.
Department of Justice, Manila, the undersigned's reply to the preceding xxx xxx xxx
endorsements, to wit: That the alleged letter-complaint of one Julio Zeta With respect to the crime of falsification of his daily time record as shown
is not inclosed in the first indorsement, which absence has also been by the evidence, he had made it appear that he was present in his office
noticed and noted on the right hand corner of the said first indorsement on December 15, 1962, February 18, 1963 and June 17, 1970 when as
by the Clerk of Court, of this Court; that despite this absence, and without a matter of fact he was in the Municipal Court of Daram attending to a
waiving, however, his right to any pertinent provision of law, but for case entitled Felix Versoza versus Victor Payao, et al., for forcible entry
respect and courtesy to a Superior, he hereby states that he has not as well as in the Municipal Court of Zumarraga attending to Civil Case
violated any rule or law, much less Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service No. 318 entitled Restituto Centino versus Jesus Tizon for forcible entry.
Rules; that his participation for defendants' cause was gratuitous as they The Inquest Judge respectfully recommends that he be given stern
could not engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the warning and severe reprimand for this irregularity.
absence of one in the locality, said assistance has also checked the With respect to the fourth charge, for violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII,
miscarriage of justice by the Presiding Municipal Judge, now resigned; Republic Act 2260, as amended, again the evidence shows that
that he is attaching herewith a carbon-original of a pleading submitted by respondent had been appearing as counsel in the municipal courts of
Atty. Simeon Quiachon the attorney of record for the defendants in Civil Sta. Rita, Daram and Zumarraga in violation of the rules of the Civil
Case No. 24, entitled 'Jose Kiskisan versus Fidel Pacate, et al. for Service Law. (Pp. 28-31, Record.)
Forcible Entry, in the Municipal Court of Talalora, Samar, which is a We have carefully reviewed the record, and We find the conclusions of
'Motion To Withdraw Exhibits', as Annex 'A', as part of this reply. (Page fact of the Investigator to be amply supported by the evidence,
5, Rec.) particularly the documents consisting of public records and the
the Department of Justice that had jurisdiction over the matter then, declarations of the judges before whom respondent had appeared. It is
referred the said complaint and answer to District Judge Segundo Zosa, clear to Us that respondent, apart from appearing as counsel in various
Court of First Instance, Catbalogan, Western Samar, for investigation, municipal courts without prior permission of his superiors in violation of
report and recommendation, and after due hearing, Judge Zosa civil service rules and regulations, falsified his time record of service by
submitted his report pertinent parts of which read thus: making it appear therein that he was present in his office on occasions
Inspite of diligent efforts exerted by the Court to subpoena the when in fact he was in the municipal courts appearing as counsel, without
complainant, Julio Zeta, who is said to be a resident of Zumarraga, being a member of the bar, which, furthermore, constitutes illegal
Samar the same had failed because the said Julio Zeta appears to be a practice of law. We, therefore, adopt the above findings of fact of the
fictitious person Investigator.
Inspite of the failure of the complainant to appear in the investigation in The defense of respondent that "his participation (sic) for defendants'
connection with his complaint against Felicisimo Malinao, the Court cause was gratuitous as they could not engage the services of counsel
nevertheless proceeded to investigate the case against him by calling by reason of poverty and the absence of one in the locality" cannot, even
Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita, Samar, Judge Juanito Reyes of if true, carry the day for him, considering that in appearing as counsel in
Zumarraga, Samar and Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar. court, he did so without permission from his superiors and, worse, he
Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita, Samar, declared that according to falsified his time record of service to conceal his absence from his office
his docket books the respondent appeared as counsel for Vicente on the dates in question. Indeed, the number of times that respondent
Baculanlan in criminal case No. 1247 in the Municipal Court of Sta. Rita, acted as counsel under the above circumstances would indicate that he
Samar, for grave threats and in criminal case No. 1249 for the same was doing it as a regular practice obviously for considerations other than
accused and Romulo Villagracia for illegal possession of firearm on pure love of justice.
August 5, 1960 and on September 17, 1970. In the premises, it is quite obvious that the offense committed by
Page 143

Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar, declared that the respondent respondent is grave, hence it warrants a more drastic sanction than that
appeared as counsel in civil case No. 39 in the Municipal Court of Daram, of reprimand recommended by Judge Zosa. We find no alternative than

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
to separate him from the service, with the admonition that he desist from Liza Laconsay, Atty. Aquinos secretary, executed an affidavit[8] admitting
appearing in any court or investigative body wherein Only members of the mistake in the preparation of the complaint-affidavit. Respondent
the bar are allowed to practice. alleged that he did not read the complaint-affidavit because he assumed
WHEREFORE, respondent Felicisimo Malinao is hereby ordered that the two complaint-affidavits contained the same allegations with
dismissed from his position as interpreter in the Court of First Instance, respect to his occupation and office address. Respondent claims that he
CFI, Zumarraga, Western Samar with prejudice to reemployment in the had no intention of misrepresenting himself as a practicing lawyer.
judicial branch of the government.
In their Reply,[9] petitioners reiterate that respondent should be made
liable for indirect contempt for having made untruthful statements in the
G.R. No. 169517 complaint-affidavit and that he cannot shift the blame to Atty. Aquinos
ROGELIO A. TAN, NORMA TAN secretary.
and MALIYAWAO PAGAYOKAN,
Petitioners, The sole issue for resolution is whether respondent is liable for indirect
BENEDICTO M. BALAJADIA, contempt.
Respondent. Promulgated:
Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:
March 14, 2006
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing.
After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the
DECISION respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by
the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of
the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
xxxx

Before us is an original petition[1] for contempt filed by petitioners Rogelio (e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as
Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan against respondent such without authority;
Benedicto Balajadia.
x x x x.
Petitioners allege that on May 8, 2005, respondent filed a criminal case
against them with the Office of the City of Prosecutor of Baguio City for In several cases,[10] we have ruled that the unauthorized practice of law
usurpation of authority, grave coercion and violation of city tax ordinance by assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority
due to the alleged illegal collection of parking fees by petitioners from constitutes indirect contempt which is punishable by fine or imprisonment
respondent. In paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit, respondent or both. The liability for the unauthorized practice of law under Section
asserted that he is a practicing lawyer based in Baguio City with office 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is in the nature of criminal contempt
address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session and the acts are punished because they are an affront to the dignity and
Road, Baguio City.[2] However, certifications issued by the Office of the authority of the court, and obstruct the orderly administration of justice. In
Bar Confidant[3] and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines[4] showed that determining liability for criminal contempt, well-settled is the rule that
respondent has never been admitted to the Philippine Bar.Hence, intent is a necessary element, and no one can be punished unless the
petitioners claim that respondent is liable for indirect contempt for evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it.[11]
misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
In the case at bar, a review of the records supports respondents claim
In his Comment,[5] respondent avers that the allegation in paragraph 5 of that he never intended to project himself as a lawyer to the public. It was
the complaint-affidavit that he is a practicing lawyer was an honest a clear inadvertence on the part of the secretary of Atty Aquino. The
mistake. He claims that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the circumstances that gave rise
the subject complaint-affidavit which was patterned after Atty. Aquinos to the mistake in the drafting of the complaint-affidavit conforms to the
complaint-affidavit.[6] It appears that Atty. Aquino had previously filed a documentary evidence on record. Taken together, these circumstances
complaint-affidavit against petitioners involving the same subject matter. show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of respondents complaint-
affidavit was, indeed, the result of inadvertence.
Respondent claims that two complaint-affidavits were drafted by the
same secretary; one for the May 5, 2005 parking incident at 10:00 Respondent has satisfactorily shown that the allegation that he is a
oclock in the morning and another for the parking incident on the same practicing lawyer was the result of inadvertence and cannot, by itself,
date but which occurred at 1:00 oclock in the afternoon. Respondent establish intent as to make him liable for indirect contempt. In the cases
insists that the complaint-affidavit regarding the 1:00 oclock parking where we found a party liable for the unauthorized practice of law, the
incident correctly alleged that he is a businessman with office address at party was guilty of some overt act like signing court pleadings on behalf
Room B-204, 2/F Lopez Building, Session of his client;[12] appearing before court hearings as an
Road, Baguio City.[7] However, the complaint-affidavit regarding attorney;[13] manifesting before the court that he will practice law despite
the 10:00 oclock parking incident, which is the subject of the instant being previously denied admission to the bar;[14] or deliberately
petition, erroneously referred to him as a practicing lawyer because Atty. attempting to practice law and holding out himself as an attorney through
Aquinos secretary copied verbatim paragraph 5 of Atty. Aquinos circulars with full knowledge that he is not licensed to do so.[15]
complaint-affidavit. Hence, it was inadvertently alleged that respondent
is a practicing lawyer based in Baguio City with office address at Room In the case at bar, no evidence was presented to show that respondent
B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City, which statement acted as an attorney or that he intended to practice law. Consequently,
referred to the person of Atty. Aquino and his law office address. he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt considering his lack of
Page 144

intent to illegally practice law.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
However, while the evidence on record failed to prove respondents pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the
deliberate intent to misrepresent himself as an attorney and act as such canvassing. He explains, however, that he did not sign the pleading as
without authority, he is hereby warned to be more careful and a lawyer or represented himself as an attorney in the pleading.
circumspect in his future actions. On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent
claims that he submitted his resignation on 11 May 2001 which was
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Respondent is WARNED to allegedly accepted on the same date. He submitted a copy of the
be more careful and circumspect in his future actions. Certification of Receipt of Revocable Resignation dated 28 May 2001
signed by Vice-Mayor Napoleon Relox. Respondent further claims that
SO ORDERED. the complaint is politically motivated considering that complainant is the
daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing candidate for mayor of
[B. M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003] Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent prays that the complaint be dismissed
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L. for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
RANA, respondent. On 22 June 2001, complainant filed her Reply to respondents Comment
DECISION and refuted the claim of respondent that his appearance before the
CARPIO, J.: MBEC was only to extend specific assistance to Bunan. Complainant
The Case alleges that on 19 May 2001 Emily Estipona-Hao (Estipona-Hao) filed a
Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the petition for proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor.
requisite moral integrity for membership in the legal profession. Respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in this petition. When
Possession of moral integrity is of greater importance than possession respondent appeared as counsel before the MBEC, complainant
of legal learning. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on the questioned his appearance on two grounds: (1) respondent had not
morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice law even taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2) he was an employee of the
if he passes the bar examinations. government.
The Facts Respondent filed a Reply (Re: Reply to Respondents
Respondent Edwin L. Rana (respondent) was among those who passed Comment) reiterating his claim that the instant administrative case is
the 2000 Bar Examinations. motivated mainly by political vendetta.
On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of On 17 July 2001, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar
successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and recommendation.
complainant Donna Marie Aguirre (complainant) filed against respondent OBCs Report and Recommendation
a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC as
respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, counsel for Bunan in the May 2001 elections. The minutes of the MBEC
violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. proceedings show that respondent actively participated in the
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar proceedings. The OBC likewise found that respondent appeared in the
during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at the Philippine MBEC proceedings even before he took the lawyers oath on 22 May
International Convention Center. However, the Court ruled that 2001. The OBC believes that respondents misconduct casts a serious
respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. The OBC also
the charge against him. Thus, respondent took the lawyers oath on the believes that respondents unauthorized practice of law is a ground to
scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. deny his admission to the practice of law. The OBC therefore
Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of law and recommends that respondent be denied admission to the Philippine Bar.
grave misconduct. Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a On the other charges, OBC stated that complainant failed to cite a law
lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections which respondent allegedly violated when he appeared as counsel for
before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon, Bunan while he was a government employee. Respondent resigned as
Masbate. Complainant further alleges that respondent filed with the secretary and his resignation was accepted. Likewise, respondent was
MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the authorized by Bunan to represent him before the MBEC.
Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of The Courts Ruling
Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself as counsel We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that respondent
for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan, and signed engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve
the pleading as counsel for George Bunan (Bunan). admission to the Philippine Bar.
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the
a municipal government employee, being a secretary of the records show that respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22
Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not May 2001, before respondent took the lawyers oath. In the pleading
allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in
body. Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001,
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant respondent signed ascounsel for George Bunan. In the first paragraph
accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate of the same pleading respondent stated that he was the (U)ndersigned
George Bunan (Bunan) without the latter engaging respondents Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T.
services. Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a BUNAN. Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he had
ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate. authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him before
On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing respondent to the MBEC and similar bodies.
take the lawyers oath but disallowed him from signing the Roll of On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also retained
Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him. In the same respondent as her counsel. On the same date, 14 May 2001, Erly D. Hao
resolution, the Court required respondent to comment on the complaint informed the MBEC that Atty. Edwin L. Rana has been authorized by
against him. REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal counsel of the party and the candidate
In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his specific of the said party. Respondent himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001
assistance to represent him before the MBEC. Respondent claims that that he was entering his appearance as counsel for Mayoralty
Page 145

he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but as a person Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM-PPC. On
who knows the law. Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
petition filed before the MBEC praying for the proclamation of Estipona- effective 11 May 2001.[11] Thus, the evidence does not support the
Hao as the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. charge that respondent acted as counsel for a client while serving as
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyers secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.
oath. Clearly, respondent engaged in the practice of law without being a On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence
member of the Philippine Bar. shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his
In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,[1] the Court elucidated that: counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies. While there was no
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident law.
to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in Philippine Bar.
addition, conveyancing. In general, all advice to clients, and all action SO ORDERED.
taken for them in matters connected with the law,incorporation services,
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person
before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a the performance of any task which by law may only be performed
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and by a member of the bar in good standing.
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for
preparation and drafting of legal instruments,where the work done legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of 1. a. Where there is a pre-existing agreement, with a
facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). (Italics supplied) x x x partner or associate that , upon the latters death, money
In Cayetano v. Monsod,[2] the Court held that practice of law means any shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his
activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal estate or to the persons specified in the agreement; or
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the 2. b. Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished
practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render 3. c. Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer
any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill. employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based
Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in whole or in part of a profit sharing arrangements.
in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without Lawyer shall not negotiate with the opposite party who is
license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized represented by a counsel. Neither should lawyer attempt to
practice of law. Respondent called himself counsel knowing fully well that interview the opposite party and question him as to the facts
he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as counsel of the case even if the adverse party is willing to do so.
knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown Lawyer should deal only with counsel, even if theres a fair
moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.[3] agreement.
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a
Lawyer may however interview any witness or prospective
privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special
witness for the opposing side. Limitation: avoid influencing
qualifications duly ascertained and certified.The exercise of this privilege
witness in recital and conduct.
presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational
attainment, and even public trust[4] since a lawyer is an officer of the A lawyer must not take as partner or associate one who:
court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply 1. is not a lawyer
by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that 2. is disbarred
can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if 3. has been suspended from the practice of law
the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.[5] 4. foreign lawyer, unless licensed by the SC.
The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. In Beltran, A lawyer cannot delegate his authority without clients
Jr. v. Abad,[6] a candidate passed the bar examinations but had not consent even to a qualified person.
taken his oath and signed the Roll of Attorneys. He was held in contempt
of court for practicing law even before his admission to the Bar. Under A.C. No. 6317 August 31, 2006
Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, Complainant,
the unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court.[7] vs.
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO, Respondent.
lawyers oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally DECISION
makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint1 was filed by
qualification to become an attorney-at-law.[8] Respondent should know complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against respondent Atty. Rogelio P.
that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of
performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court an officer of the court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him
and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.[9] despite receipt of payment representing attorneys fees.
On the charge of violation of law, complainant contends that the law does According to the complainant, she engaged the services of respondent
not allow respondent to act as counsel for a private client in any court or sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her
administrative body since respondent is the secretary of the deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the
Sangguniang Bayan. amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot
Respondent tendered his resignation as secretary of the Sangguniang located in Calamba, Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2
Bayan prior to the acts complained of as constituting unauthorized and registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the
practice of law. In his letter dated 11 May 2001 addressed to Napoleon subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession then pending
Relox, vice- mayor and presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan, before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 24 docketed
Page 146

respondent stated that he was resigning effective upon your as LRC Case No. B-2610.
acceptance.[10] Vice-Mayor Relox accepted respondents resignation

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the
not protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the
subsequently entered into to end LRC Case No. B-2610.2 legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred that the Responsibility.7
P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment for legal Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
services for the recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank deceitful conduct8 and are mandated to serve their clients with
and did not include LRC Case No. B-2610 pending before the Regional competence and diligence.9 They shall not neglect a legal matter
Trial Court of Bian, Laguna. entrusted to them, and this negligence in connection therewith shall
The complaint was referred3 to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) render them liable.10
for investigation, report and recommendation. On September 21, 2005, Respondents claim that the attorneys fee pertains only to the recovery
the Investigating Commissioner submitted his report finding respondent of complainants savings deposit from Planters Development Bank
guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional cannot be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainants
Responsibility which provide: counsel in the drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or and the bank relative to LRC Case No. B-2610. Respondent admitted
deceitful conduct. that he explained the contents of the agreement to complainant before
Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal the latter affixed her signature. Moreover, the Investigating
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except: Commissioner observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate in the recovery of the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is
that, upon the latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.11
period of time to his estate or to the persons specified in the agreement; Respondents disregard for his clients interests is evident in the
or iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where the
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property; that
a deceased lawyer; or the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating ownership
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a in the bank, and that she releases her claims against it.12 As found by
retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit- the Investigating Commissioner, complainant agreed to these
sharing arrangement. concessions because respondent misled her to believe that she could
In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the still redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. The duty
Code of Professional Responsibility, the Investigating Commissioner of a lawyer to safeguard his clients interests commences from his
opined that: retainer until his discharge from the case or the final disposition of the
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money from a client
complainant. To be made the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, the establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of
charge against him must be established by convincing proof. The record fidelity to the clients cause. The canons of the legal profession require
must disclose as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the
the Supreme Court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.13
the act done as well as of the motivation thereof must be clearly Respondents admission14 that he divided the legal fees with two other
demonstrated. x x x. people as a referral fee does not release him from liability. A lawyer shall
In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of respondent that not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
the Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and solely for the recovery of the licensed to practice law, except in certain cases.15
Php180,000.00 savings account of complainant subsequent acts and Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar
events say otherwise, to wit: may be disbarred or suspended on the following grounds: 1) deceit; 2)
1.) The Php70,000.00 legal fees for the recovery of a Php180,000.00 malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office; 3) grossly immoral
savings deposit is too high; conduct; 4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5) violation of
2.) Respondent actively acted as complainants lawyer to effectuate the the lawyers oath; 6) willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior
compromise agreement. court; and 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without
By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as authority.
commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the In Santos v. Lazaro16 and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,17 we held that Rule
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is a basic postulate in
not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not legal ethics. When a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he
licensed to practice law. Worst, by luring complainant to participate in a will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise
compromise agreement with a false and misleading assurance that that degree of vigilance and attention makes such lawyer unworthy of
complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just
property respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.
Professional Responsibility which says a lawyer shall not engage in A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his clients
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.4 case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task
The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended: with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath
WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated violations as a lawyer. Thus, a lawyer should accept only as much cases as he can
to protect the public and the legal profession from his kind, it is efficiently handle in order to sufficiently protect his clients interests. It is
recommended that he be suspended for Six (6) months with a stern not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal
warning that similar acts in the future will be severely dealt with.5 matter; he must also give adequate attention to his legal work. Utmost
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels for his
investigating commissioner.6 clients cause.18
We agree with the findings of the IBP. In view of the foregoing, we find that suspension from the practice of law
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they for six months is warranted. In addition, he is directed to return to
Page 147

possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, complainant the amount he received by way of legal fees pursuant to
lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal existing jurisprudence.19

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating to engage in the unauthorized practice of law holding themselves out as
Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of Professional his partners/associates in the law firm.
Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months effective from notice, and STERNLY WARNED that any similar The dispositive portion of the decision thus reads:
infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered
to RETURN, within thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 WHEREFORE, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby found guilty of gross
to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and to submit to this Court proof misconduct and is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law,
of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom. effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent and of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
served on the IBP, as well as on the Court Administrator who shall
circulate it to all courts for their information and guidance. Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent as
SO ORDERED. attorney and served on the IBP, as well as on the court administrator
who shall circulate it to all courts for their information and guidance.[1]

PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and A.C. No. 7056 Respondent duly filed a motion for reconsideration within the
EDGARDO C. GARCIA, Present: reglementary period, appealing to the Court to take a second look at his
Complainants, case and praying that the penalty of suspension of two years be reduced
PUNO, C J., to mere reprimand or admonition for the sake of his family and the poor
QUISUMBING, clients he was defending.[2]
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO, Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, of. The courses of action he took were not meant to unduly delay the
CORONA, execution of the DARAB Decision dated November 19, 1999, but were
CARPIO MORALES, based on his serious study, research and experience as a litigation
AZCUNA, lawyer for more than 20 years and on the facts given to him by his clients
-versus- TINGA, in the DARAB case. He believes that the courses of action he took were
CHICO-NAZARIO, valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests
VELASCO, JR., of Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al.[3] He stresses that he was not the original
NACHURA, lawyer in this case. The lawyer-client relationship with the former lawyer
LEONARDO-DE was terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their
CASTRO, former counsel did not explain/argue their position very well, refused to
BRION, and listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As the new counsel,
PERALTA, JJ. respondent candidly relied on what the tenants/farmers told him in the
course of his interview. They maintained that they had been in open,
ATTY. ANASTACIO E. Promulgated: adverse, continuous and notorious possession of the land in the concept
REVILLA, JR., February 11, 2009 of an owner for more than 50 years. Thus, the filing of the action to quiet
Respondent. title was resorted to in order to determine the rights of his clients
respecting the subject property. He avers that he merely exhausted all
possible remedies and defenses to which his clients were entitled under
RESOLUTION the law, considering that his clients were subjected to harassment and
threats of physical harm and summary eviction by the complainant.[4] He
NACHURA, J. posits that he was only being protective of the interest of his clients as a
good father would be protective of his own family,[5] and that his services
Before us is a motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated to Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al were almost pro bono.[6]
September 13, 2006, finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for
committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing Anent the issue that he permitted his name to be used for unauthorized
court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment and practice of law, he humbly submits that there was actually no sufficient
collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. evidence to prove the same or did he fail to dispute this, contrary to the
findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). He was counsel of
To recall, the antecedents of the case are as follows: Leopoldo de Guzman, et al. only and not of the cooperative Kalayaan
Development Cooperative (KDC). He was just holding his office in this
On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial cooperative, together with Attys. Dominador Ferrer, Efren Ambrocio, the
Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus late Alfredo Caloico and Marciano Villavert. He signed the retainer
Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, agreement with Atty. Dominador to formalize their lawyer-client
Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez relationship, and the complainants were fully aware of such
Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco, Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez arrangement.[7]
and Maria Esguerra, who were the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio
E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondents clients were mere Finally, he submits that if he is indeed guilty of violating the rules in the
tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case courses of action he took in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and
was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court supplicates the Court for kind consideration, pardon and forgiveness. He
sustaining complainants rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his reiterates that he does not deserve the penalty of two years
clients lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional suspension, considering that the complaint fails to show him wanting in
falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the character, honesty, and probity; in fact, he has been a member of the bar
execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for more than 20 years, served as former president of the IBP
Page 148

for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title Marinduque Chapter, a legal aide lawyer of IBP Quezon City handling
despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers detention prisoners and pro bono cases, and is also a member of the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Couples for Christ, and has had strict training in the law school he CHAPTER III
graduated from and the law offices he worked with.[8] He is the sole THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
breadwinner in the family with a wife who is jobless, four (4) children who
are in school, a mother who is bedridden and a sick sister to support. The CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
familys only source of income is respondents private practice of law, a FAITH TO THE COURT.
work he has been engaged in for more than twenty-five (25) years up to
the present.[9] Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to
On August 15, 2008, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a be mislead by any artifice.
letter from respondent, requesting that he be issued a clearance for the
renewal of his notarial commission. Respondent stated therein that he Canon 32, CPE
was aware of the pendency of the administrative cases[10] against him, A lawyer should not render any service or advice to any client no matter
but pointed out that said cases had not yet been resolved with how powerful or important is the cause which will involve disloyalty to
finality. Respondent sought consideration and compassion for the the laws of the country which he is bound to uphold and obey.
issuance of the clearance -- considering present economic/financial
difficulties -- and reiterating the fact that he was the sole breadwinner in
the family. A.C. No. 6198 September 15, 2006
RENATO M. MALIGAYA, complainant,
It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give vs.
his full attention, diligence, skill and competence to the case, regardless ATTY. ANTONIO G. DORONILLA, JR., respondent.
of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.[11] A RESOLUTION
lawyers devotion to his clients cause not only requires but also entitles CORONA, J.:
him to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client what is Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. of the Judge Advocate General's Service
justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to enable the is before us on a charge of unethical conduct for having uttered a
latters cause to succeed.[12] In this case, respondent may not be wanting falsehood in open court during a hearing of Civil Case No. Q-99-38778.1
in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondents acts Civil Case No. Q-99-38778 was an action for damages filed by
complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and complainant Renato M. Maligaya, a doctor and retired colonel of the
misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and Armed Forces of the Philippines, against several military officers for
uneducated. We are not unmindful of his dedication and conviction in whom Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel. At one point during the February
defending the less fortunate. Taking the cudgels from the former lawyer 19, 2002 hearing of the case, Atty. Doronilla said:
in this case is rather commendable, but respondent should not forget his And another matter, Your Honor. I was appearing in other cases he
first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court. We stress what [complainant Maligaya] filed before against the same defendants. We
we have stated in our decision that, in support of the cause of their had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him, he will
clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense within also withdraw all the cases. So, with that understanding, he even
the authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be performed retired and he is now receiving pension.2 (emphasis supplied)
at the expense of truth and justice.[13] This is the criterion that must be Considering this to be of some consequence, presiding Judge Reynaldo
borne in mind in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case.[14] Under the B. Daway asked a number of clarificatory questions and thereafter
Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in ordered Atty. Doronilla to put his statements in writing and "file the
the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from appropriate pleading."3 Weeks passed but Atty. Doronilla submitted no
unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by such pleading or anything else to substantiate his averments.
misusing court processes.[15] On April 29, 2002, Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla in
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar
Certainly, violations of these canons cannot be countenanced, as Discipline.4 The complaint, which charged Atty. Doronilla with
respondent must have realized with the sanction he received from this "misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting [in]
Court. However, the Court also knows how to show compassion and will obstruction of justice,"5 was referred to a commissioner6 for
not hesitate to refrain from imposing the appropriate penalties in the investigation. Complainant swore before the investigating commissioner
presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondents length of service, that he had never entered into any agreement to withdraw his
acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family lawsuits.7 Atty. Doronilla, who took up the larger part of two hearings to
circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, and present evidence and explain his side, admitted several times that there
respondents advanced age, among other things, which have varying was, in fact, no such agreement.8 Later he explained in his memorandum
significance in the Courts determination of the imposable penalty. Thus, that his main concern was "to settle the case amicably among comrades
after a careful consideration of herein respondents motion for in arms without going to trial"9 and insisted that there was no proof of his
reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his misfeasance, we having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer's
are persuaded to extend a degree of leniency towards him.[16] We find oath.10 He pointed out, in addition, that his false statement (or, as he put
the suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law sufficient in this it, his "alleged acts of falsity") had no effect on the continuance of the
case case and therefore caused no actual prejudice to complainant.11
In due time, investigating commissioner Lydia A. Navarro submitted a
report and recommendation finding Atty. Doronilla guilty of purposely
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the letter-request dated August 15, stating a falsehood in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of
2008 is NOTED. Respondents Motion for Reconsideration Professional Responsibility12 and recommending that he be "suspended
is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated September 13, 2006 is from the government military service as legal officer for a period of three
hereby MODIFIED in that respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice months."13 This was adopted and approved in toto by the IBP Board of
of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of this Governors on August 30, 2003.14
Resolution. Respondent is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers who, as
Page 149

his receipt of said Resolution within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. officers of the court, participate in the dispensation of justice, to behave
at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor.15 The common

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
caricature that lawyers by and large do not feel compelled to speak the proceeding were we to do so. Therefore, we shall treat the IBP's
truth and to act honestly should not become a common reality.16 To this recommendation as one for suspension from the practice of law.
end, Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility At any rate, we are not inclined to adopt the IBP's recommendation on
state: the duration of Atty. Doronilla's suspension. We need to consider a few
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND GOOD circumstances that mitigate his liability somewhat. First, we give him
FAITH TO THE COURT. credit for exhibiting enough candor to admit, during the investigation, the
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the falsity of the statement he had made in Judge Daway's courtroom.
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled Second, the absence of material damage to complainant may also be
by any artifice. considered as a mitigating circumstance.23 And finally, since this is Atty.
By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to Doronilla's first offense, he is entitled to some measure of forbearance.24
withdraw his lawsuits, Atty. Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets Nonetheless, his unrepentant attitude throughout the conduct of this
of ethical conduct. Not only that, he violated the lawyer's oath to "do no administrative case tells us that a mere slap on the wrist is definitely not
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court," of which Canon 10 enough. Atty. Doronilla, it seems, needs time away from the practice of
and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed on every lawyer's law to recognize his error and to purge himself of the misbegotten notion
duty to "never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an that an effort to compromise justifies the sacrifice of truthfulness in court.
artifice or false statement of fact or law."17 WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. is
Atty. Doronilla's unethical conduct was compounded, moreover, by his hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO MONTHS.He
obstinate refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of what he had done. is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct shall be
From the very beginning of this administrative case, Atty. Doronilla dealt with more severely.
maintained the untenable position that he had done nothing wrong in the Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to his personal record and
hearing of Civil Case No. Q-99-38778. He persisted in doing so even copies furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the
after having admitted that he had, in that hearing, spoken of an Court Administrator, the Chief-of-Staff of the Armed Forces of the
agreement that did not in truth exist. Rather than express remorse for Philippines and the Commanding General of the AFP Judge Advocate
that regrettable incident, Atty. Doronilla resorted to an ill-conceived General's Service.
attempt to evade responsibility, professing that the falsehood had not SO ORDERED.
been meant for the information of Judge Daway but only as "a sort of
question" to complainant regarding a "pending proposal" to settle the
case.18 A.C. No. 3731 September 7, 2007
The explanation submitted by Atty. Doronilla, remarkable only for its MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN, complainant,
speciousness,19 cannot absolve him. If anything, it leads us to suspect vs.
an unseemly readiness on his part to obfuscate plain facts for the ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR, respondent.
unworthy purpose of escaping his just deserts. There is in his favor, DECISION
though, a presumption of good faith20 which keeps us from treating the CARPIO, J.:
incongruity of his proffered excuse as an indication of mendacity. The Case
Besides, in the light of his avowal that his only aim was "to settle the case On 18 October 1991, Manuel S. Sebastian (complainant) filed a
amicably among comrades in arms without going to trial,"21perhaps it is disbarment complaint against Atty. Emily A. Bajar (respondent) for
not unreasonable to assume that what he really meant to say was that "obstructing, disobeying, resisting, rebelling, and impeding final
he had intended the misrepresentation as a gambit to get the proposed decisions of Regional Trial Courts, the Court of Appeals and of the
agreement on the table, as it were. But even if that had been so, it would Honorable Supreme Court, and also for submitting those final decisions
have been no justification for speaking falsely in court. There is nothing for the review and reversal of the DARAB, an administrative body, and
in the duty of a lawyer to foster peace among disputants that, in any way, for contemptuous acts and dilatory tactics."
makes it necessary under any circumstances for counsel to state as a The Facts
fact that which is not true. A lawyer's duty to the court to employ only Complainant alleged the following:
such means as are consistent with truth and honor22 forbids recourse to 1. Respondent is a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
such a tactic. Thus, even as we give Atty. Doronilla the benefit of the (BALA) of the Department of Agrarian Reform who represented
doubt and accept as true his avowed objective of getting the parties to Fernando Tanlioco (Tanlioco) in numerous cases which raised the same
settle the case amicably, we must call him to account for resorting to issues.1 Tanlioco is an agricultural lessee of a land owned by
falsehood as a means to that end. complainants spouse and sister-in-law (landowners). The landowners
Atty. Doronilla's offense is within the ambit of Section 27, Rule 138 of the filed an Ejectment case against Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion
Rules of Court, which in part declares: order of the land use from agricultural to residential. The Regional Trial
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as Court (RTC) rendered judgment ordering Tanliocos ejectment subject to
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit x x x or for any violation of the payment of disturbance compensation.2 The RTCs judgment was
the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice x x x. affirmed by the Court of Appeals3 and the Supreme Court.4
The suspension referred to in the foregoing provision means only 2. Respondent, as Tanliocos counsel, filed another case for Specific
suspension from the practice of law. For this reason, we disagree with Performance to produce the conversion order. The RTC dismissed the
the IBP's recommendation for Atty. Doronilla's suspension from the complaint due to res judicata and lack of cause of action.5
government military service. After all, the only purpose of this 3. Respondent filed a case for Maintenance of Possession with the
administrative case is to determine Atty. Doronilla's liability as a member Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. The case raised the
of the legal profession, not his liability as a legal officer in the military same issues of conversion and disturbance compensation.6
service. Thus, it would be improper for us to order, as a penalty for his 4. Respondent has violated Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional
breach of legal ethics and the lawyer's oath, his suspension from Responsibility since she misused the rules of procedure through forum-
employment in the Judge Advocate General's Service. Of course, shopping to obstruct the administration of justice.7
suspension from employment as a military legal officer may well On 18 November 1991, the Court issued a resolution requiring
follow as a consequence of his suspension from the practice of law but respondent to comment on the complaint lodged against her.8
Page 150

that should not be reason for us to impose it as a penalty for his After a second Motion for Extension of Time to Submit
professional misconduct. We would be going beyond the purpose of this Comment,9 respondent submitted her Comment alleging the following:

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
1. Complainant is not the real party-in-interest. He is also not authorized recommendation that respondent be "suspended indefinitely from the
to prosecute the disbarment suit.10 practice of law for Unethical Practices and attitude showing her
2. Respondent has fulfilled allegiance to the "Attorneys Oath" and propensity and incorrigible character to violate the basic tenets and
performed duties in accordance with Section 20 of Rule 138 of the requirements of the Code of Professional Responsibility rendering her
Revised Rules of Court.11 unfit to continue in the practice of law."30 Governor Angel R. Gonzales
3. Respondents client, Tanlioco, merely availed of all legal remedies to recommended her "outright disbarment."31
obtain benefits secured for him by law.12 In its 20 January 1997 Resolution, the Court noted the IBP Resolution
On 10 March 1992, complainant filed his Reply. Complainant alleged that suspending respondent indefinitely.32
respondent did not confront the issues of her disbarment squarely but On 13 April 1999, the Court issued a Resolution directing the Office of
raised issues that were decided upon with finality by the courts.13 the Court Administrator (OCA) to circularize the resolution of the IBP
On 25 March 1992, the Court issued a Resolution requiring respondent dated 30 March 1996 suspending respondent indefinitely from the
to file a Rejoinder within 10 days from notice.14 practice of law.33
On 3 June 1992, complainant filed a Manifestation dated 2 June 1992 On 7 June 1999, the OCA, through Court Administrator Alfredo L.
stating that respondent failed to comply with the 25 March 1992 Court Benipayo, issued Circular No. 30-99 informing all courts that respondent
Resolution to file a Rejoinder.15 had been suspended indefinitely.
On 7 October 1992, the Court ordered respondent to show cause why On 30 January 2003, respondent filed a Motion to Consider the Case
she should not be subjected to disciplinary action for failure to comply Closed and Terminated. Respondent apologized for her demeanor and
with the Courts 25 March 1992 Resolution. The Court also required prayed that the suspension be lifted.34
respondent to Comment on the complainants 2 June 1992 On 16 June 2003, the Court issued a Resolution referring the case to the
Manifestation.16 IBP for report and recommendation.35
On 3 February 1993, respondent filed a Manifestation alleging that she On 29 August 2003, Investigating Commissioner Demaree J.B. Raval
had substantially complied with the Courts orders relative to her (Investigating Commissioner Raval) conducted a hearing. Respondent
defenses. She advised the Court that she had transferred to the Public claimed that she did not receive any notice of the OCAs Circular on her
Attorneys Office and since she was no longer a "BALA lawyer," the indefinite suspension.36 Respondent alleged that the Court Resolution
cases involved in this proceeding had become moot and academic.17 which she received merely noted the IBPs Resolution on her indefinite
On 1 March 1993, the Court issued a Resolution stating that the suspension.37 Respondent claimed that she only knew of the suspension
administrative case against respondent "has not been mooted and when she filed an application for a judicial position in Mandaluyong
nothing set out in her Manifestation excuses her failure to obey this City.38
Courts Resolutions of 25 March 1992 and 7 October 1992."18 The Court In the hearing, respondent admitted that she continued to practice law
had also resolved to impose a fine of P500 or imprisonment of five days as a Prosecutor in Mandaluyong City despite her suspension because
and to require respondent to comply with the 25 March 1992 and 7 she believed that a notation by the Court in the 20 January 1997
October 1992 Resolutions.19 Resolution did not mean an implementation of the IBPs Resolution on
On 24 August 1993, complainant filed a Manifestation stating that her indefinite suspension.39
respondent had not complied with the Courts orders.20 Due to the absence of complainant and his counsel, another hearing was
On 29 September 1993, the Court issued a Resolution ordering the held on 19 September 2003. Complainants counsel asserted that
arrest of respondent for detention at the National Bureau of Investigation respondent had been practicing law in the midst of her suspension and
(NBI) for five days. The Court reiterated that respondent should comply this constituted a violation of the suspension order which she wanted to
with the 25 March 1992 and 7 October 1992 Resolutions.21 be lifted.40 Investigating Commissioner Raval asked respondent to
On 20 October 1993, the NBI arrested respondent. The NBI detained present a valid ground to lift the suspension order.41 Respondent
respondent for five days and released her on 25 October 1993.22 requested that her detention for five days at the NBI be converted into a
On 10 November 1993, the Court issued a Resolution referring the case five-year suspension, one year for every day of detention such that she
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for hearing and decision.23 would have served five years of indefinite suspension.42
On 11 November 1993, respondent filed a Rejoinder. Respondent Investigating Commissioner Raval then directed the parties to file
claimed that complainant had no legal personality to file this simultaneously their Verified Position Papers.43
case.24 Respondent also alleged that she was merely protecting the In his Position Paper and Comment, complainant posited that
interest of Tanlioco as she was sworn to do so in her oath of office. respondents motion did not state valid grounds to convince the Court to
Respondent contended that "she had comported herself as [an] officer lift the suspension order. Complainant stated that by continuing to
of the court, at the risk of being disciplined by the latter if only to impart practice law, "she is flaunting her defiance of the Supreme Court by
truth and justice."25 showing that she can hoodwink another branch of
On 22 November 1995, Investigating Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose government."44Complainant also prayed for respondents disbarment
(Investigating Commissioner Jose) submitted his report and due to the gravity of her offense.45
recommendation to the IBP. Investigating Commissioner Jose In respondents Position Paper, she reiterated that complainant is not the
enumerated respondents violations of the Code of Professional real party-in-interest since the property that was litigated was owned by
Responsibility that rendered her unfit to continue the practice of law: complainants wife. She asserted that she never betrayed her clients
1. Respondent appealed a case for purposes of delay which amounted cause, she was never unfaithful to her oath, and it was complainant who
to an obstruction of justice.26 filed this case for harassment. Respondent prayed that the case be
2. Respondent abused her right of recourse to the courts. The duplication considered closed and terminated due to lack of merit.46
or multiplication of suits should be avoided,27 and respondents acts were Respondent also sent a letter to Investigating Commissioner Raval and
tantamount to forum-shopping which is a reprehensible manipulation of attached a copy of a Resolution in a Preliminary Investigation case which
court processes and proceedings.28 she handled. Respondent contended that in this Preliminary
3. Respondent uttered disrespectful language and shouted at everybody Investigation case, she recommended its dismissal because the
during the hearing on 25 May 1995.29 The want of intention is not an offended party was not the real party-in-interest.47
excuse for the disrespectful language used. Respondent insisted that complainant did not have the personality to file
On 4 October 1996, the IBP transmitted to the Court a copy of IBP the disbarment complaint against her; hence, it should have been
Page 151

Resolution No. XII-96-149 dated 30 March 1996. The IBP Board of dismissed outright.48
Governors adopted and approved Investigating Commissioner Joses

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
After the parties filed their position papers, the IBP Board of Governors her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Courts lawful
issued Resolution No. XVI-2004-229 dated 16 April 2004. The IBP orders which is only too deserving of reproof."61
adopted Investigating Commissioner Ravals Report and Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and
Recommendation that respondent be disbarred for her "manifest flagrant respondents deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard
misconduct in disobeying the SC Order of her Indefinite Suspension."49 thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to
As culled from the records, the Court had merely noted IBP Resolution disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed
No. XII-96-149 which recommended respondents indefinite suspension. upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to
"The term noted means that the Court has merely taken cognizance of show respect to their processes.62
the existence of an act or declaration, without exercising a judicious Respondents failure to comply with the Courts directive to file a
deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter it does not imply Rejoinder and to file a Comment also constitutes gross misconduct. The
agreement or approval."50 Hence, the penalty of indefinite suspension Court defined gross misconduct as "any inexcusable, shameful, flagrant,
imposed by the IBP Board of Governors has not attained finality. Section or unlawful conduct on the part of the person concerned in the
12 of Rule 139-B provides: administration of justice which is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or
Section 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors. to the right determination of a cause." It is a "conduct that is generally
xxx motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose."63
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, In Bernal Jr. v. Fernandez,64 the Court held that failure to comply with
determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice the Courts directive to comment on a letter-complaint constitutes gross
of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and misconduct and insubordination, or disrespect. In Cuizon v.
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, Macalino,65 a lawyers failure to comply with the Courts Resolutions
shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action. requiring him to file his comment was one of the infractions that merited
(Emphasis supplied) his disbarment.
Necessarily, the Court will now give its "final action" on this complaint. Furthermore, respondents defenses are untenable. Firstly, respondent
The Ruling of the Court contends that complainant is not the real party-in-interest since the
After a careful review of the records, the Court finds the evidence on property that was litigated was owned by complainants wife. The Court
record sufficient to support the IBPs findings. However, the Court is not persuaded with this defense.
disagrees with the penalty imposed on respondent. The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that
Administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis51 and they only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in
belong to a class of their own.52 They are neither civil nor criminal actions disbarment cases. In fact, the person who called the attention of the court
but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its to a lawyers misconduct "is in no sense a party, and generally has no
officer.53 They involve no private interest and afford no redress for private interest in the outcome."66 "A compromise or withdrawal of charges does
grievance.54 not terminate an administrative complaint against a lawyer."67
A disciplinary action against a lawyer is intended to protect the In Heck v. Santos,68 the Court held that "any interested person or the
administration of justice from the misconduct of its officers. This Court court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings." The right to
requires that its officers shall be competent, honorable, and reliable men institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it
in whom the public may repose confidence.55 "Lawyers must at all times necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged
faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and
their clients. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional charges.69
Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or Secondly, respondent avers that she merely availed of all the legal
suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing remedies for her client. In Suzuki v. Tiamson,70 the Court enunciated that
them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good "while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and
demeanor or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court."56 zeal in the defense of their clients rights, they should not forget that they
Clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the are first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to
penalty in disbarment or suspension proceedings.57 assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice." Respondents
The evidence presented shows that respondent failed to comply with the act of filing cases with identical issues in other venues despite the final
Courts lawful orders in two instances: ruling which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
1. In the 25 March 1992 Court Resolution, respondent was required to Court is beyond the bounds of the law. "To permit lawyers to resort to
file a rejoinder within 10 days from notice. However, she only submitted unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their
the rejoinder on 11 November 1993 after she was detained at the NBI clients is to defeat one of the purposes of the state the administration
for five days for failure to heed the Courts order. of justice."71
2. In the 7 October 1992 Court Resolution, respondent was required to Respondent abused her right of recourse to the courts. Respondent,
comment on complainants manifestation. She instead submitted a acting as Tanliocos counsel, filed cases for Specific Performance and
manifestation on 3 February 1993 or almost four months thereafter. In Maintenance of Possession despite the finality of the decision in the
her manifestation, respondent alleged that she had substantially Ejectment case which involves the same issues. The Court held that "an
complied with the Courts orders. However, the Court in its 1 March 1993 important factor in determining the existence of forum-shopping is the
Resolution stated that nothing set out in respondents manifestation vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of
excused her failure to obey the Courts Resolutions. similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.72 Indeed, "while a
These acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the
Court, which under Section 27, Rule 13858 of the Rules of Court is in expense of truth and administration of justice."73
itself a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Respondents Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers
cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. It is
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution.59Respondents evident from the records that respondent filed other cases to thwart the
conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Courts Resolution execution of the final judgment in the Ejectment case. Clearly,
is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with respondent violated the proscription in Canon 19.
Page 152

partially, inadequately, or selectively."60 Respondents obstinate refusal The penalty of suspension or disbarment is meted out in clear cases of
to comply with the Courts orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
as an officer of the court. In this case, respondent has shown her great Motion for Bail. Ms. Teofila A. Pea, Clerk III, received the said Motion
propensity to disregard court orders. Respondents acts of wantonly and noticed that it was set for hearing on December 15, 2000 and the
disobeying her duties as an officer of the court show an utter disrespect Certificate of Detention was not attached. However, the presiding judge
for the Court and the legal profession. However, the Court will not disbar instructed her to receive the Motion subject to the presentation of the
a lawyer if it finds that a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the Certificate of Detention before the hearing. Thus, the inclusion of the
desired end. Motion in the courts calendar on December 15, 2000 was authorized by
Respondents acts constitute gross misconduct and willful disobedience the presiding judge and, thus, was done by respondent Susa in faithful
of lawful orders of a superior court. Respondent also violated Canon 19 performance of his ministerial duty.
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her suspension is In a Resolution dated August 13, 2001,[4] the instant case was referred
consequently warranted. to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Emily A. Bajar is recommendation or decision.
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period ofTHREE On December 7, 2001, the Investigating Commissioner, Rebecca
YEARS effective from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition Villanueva-Maala, submitted her report and recommendation as follows:
of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that Atty. Ceasar G. Batuegas and Atty. Miguelito
to be appended to respondents personal record as an attorney, the Nazareno V. Llantino be suspended from the practice of their profession
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all as a lawyer/member of the Bar for a period of six (6) months from receipt
courts in the country for their information and guidance. hereof. The complaint against Atty. Franklin Q. Susa, upon the other
SO ORDERED. hand, is hereby recommended dismissed for lack of merit.[5]
The foregoing Report and Recommendation was adopted and approved
[A.C. No. 5379. May 9, 2003] by the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline in Resolution No. XV-2002-
WALTER T. YOUNG, complainant, vs. CEASAR G. 400, to wit:
BATUEGAS, MIGUELITO NAZARENO V. LLANTINO and RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
FRANKLIN Q. SUSA, respondents. APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
RESOLUTION Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Resolution/Decision as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
On December 29, 2000, Atty. Walter T. Young filed a Verified Affidavit- and in view of respondents commission of deliberate falsehood, Atty.
Complaint for disbarment against Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Batuegas and Atty. Llantino are hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
Nazareno V. Llantino and Franklin Q. Susa for allegedly committing of law for six (6) months. The complaint against Atty. Susa is hereby
deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyers oath.[1] DISMISSED for lack of merit.[6]
Complainant is the private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 00-187627 We agree with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating
for Murder, entitled People of the Philippines versus Crisanto Arana, Jr., Commissioner. Respondents Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27. On deliberate falsehood.
December 13, 2000, respondents Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for A lawyer must be a disciple of truth.[7] He swore upon his admission to
accused, filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the Bar that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. As court and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of
such, he is now under detention.[2] Upon personal verification with the his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where accused Arana allegedly as to his clients.[8] He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court
surrendered, complainant learned that he surrendered only on his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the
December 14, 2000, as shown by the Certificate of Detention executed facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct
by Atty. Rogelio M. Mamauag, Chief of the Security Management conclusion.[9] The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only
Division of the NBI. complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before
Respondent Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila, Branch them.[10] While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his clients rights
27, calendared the motion on December 15, 2000 despite the foregoing and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his clients cause,
irregularity and other formal defects, namely, the lack of notice of hearing his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.[11]
to the private complainant, violation of the three-day notice rule, and the The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct, whether in
failure to attach the Certificate of Detention which was referred to in the his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in
Motion as Annex 1. moral character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor, thus proving
Respondents filed their respective comments, declaring that on unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.[12]
December 13, 2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued Evidently, respondent lawyers fell short of the duties and responsibilities
against their client, they filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail with expected from them as members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion
the trial court. Then they immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and for Bail will be denied by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction
brought him to the NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed the truth by
traffic, they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority
certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered on and was under detention. Obviously, such artifice was a deliberate ruse
December 14, 2000. They argued that there was neither unethical to mislead the court and thereby contribute to injustice. To knowingly
conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleading as their client has allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous
voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the NBI. As regards the lack conduct that we strongly condemn. They violated their oath when they
of notice of hearing, they contend that complainant, as private resorted to deception.
prosecutor, was not entitled to any notice. Nevertheless, they furnished Respondents contend that their allegation of the accuseds detention was
the State and City prosecutors copies of the motion with notice of hearing merely a statement of an ultimate fact which still had to be proved by
thereof. Moreover, the hearing of a motion on shorter notice is allowed evidence at the hearing of the Motion.That they were able to show that
under Rule 15, Sec. 4(2) of the Rules of Court.[3] their client was already under the custody of the NBI at the hearing held
Page 153

For his part, respondent Susa argues in his comment that he was no on December 15, 2000 does not exonerate them. The fact remains that
longer in court when his co-respondents filed the Manifestation with

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
the allegation that the accused was in the custody of the NBI on 4. alleging in one pleading that the clients were mere
December 13, 2000 was false. lessees and in another pleading that the same clients
In Comia vs. Antona, we held: were owners
It is of no moment that the accused eventually surrendered to the police 5. presenting falsified documents in court which he knows
authorities on the same date tentatively scheduled for the hearing of the to be false
application for bail. To our mind, such supervening event is of no bearing 6. filing false charges on groundless suits
and immaterial; it does not absolve respondent judge from administrative 7. using in pleadings the IBP number of another lawyer
liability considering that he should not have accorded recognition to the 8. unsolicited appearances
application for bail filed on behalf of persons who, at that point, were 9. use of fictitious residence certificate
devoid of personality to ask such specific affirmative relief from the 10. misquotation/misrepresentation
court.[13] 11. citing a repealed or amended provision
In this jurisdiction, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, 12. asserting a fact not proved
reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or 13. verbatim reproductions down to the last word and
fiscal, or at least, he must be asked for his recommendation.[14] punctuation mark
In the case at bar, the prosecution was served with notice of hearing of 14. slight typo mistake: not sufficient to place him in
the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date. Although a contempt
motion may be heard on short notice, respondents failed to show any
good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-day notice ROC RULE 138 Section 20. Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of
rule. Verily, as lawyers, they are obliged to observe the rules of an attorney:
procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.[15] (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided
Finally, we are in accord with the Investigating Commissioner that to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor,
respondent clerk of court should not be made administratively liable for and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
including the Motion in the calendar of the trial court, considering that it artifice or false statement of fact or law;
was authorized by the presiding judge. However, he is reminded that his
administrative functions, although not involving the discretion or
judgment of a judge, are vital to the prompt and sound administration of CANON 11 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
justice.[16] Thus, he should not hesitate to inform the judge if he should RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
find any act or conduct on the part of lawyers which are contrary to the SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
established rules of procedure. OTHERS.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Attys. Ceasar G.
Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino are found guilty of committing Rule 11.01 A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
deliberate falsehood. Accordingly, they are SUSPENDED from the A lawyer may NOT wear outlandish or colorful clothing
practice of law for a period of six (6) months with a warning that a to court.
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. As an officer of the court and in order to maintain the
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records of Attys. dignity and respectability of the legal profession, a
Ceasar G. Batuegas and Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino in the Office of lawyer who appears in court must be properly attired.
the Bar Confidant and copies thereof be furnished the Integrated Bar of Consequently, the court can hold a lawyer IN CONTEMPT
the Philippines. of court if he does not appear in proper attire. Any
SO ORDERED. deviation from the commonly accepted norm of dressing
in court (barong or tie, not both) is enough to warrant a
Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent citing for contempt.
the contents of the paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision of authority, or Rule 11.02 A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or
approved. menacing language or behavior before the courts.
(missing case INSULAR LIFE EMPLOYEES VS INSULAR LIFE
ASSOCIATION) ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., A.C. No. 5768
Complainant,
Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall Present:
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
Judge-lawyer relationship: based on independence and self- - versus - BRION,
respect. DEL CASTILLO,
Lawyers duty to the court: ABAD, and
1. respect and loyalty PEREZ, JJ.
2. fairness, truth and candor ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR.,
3. no attempt to influence courts Respondent. Promulgated:
Cases of falsehood:
1. stating in the Deed of Sale that property is free from all March 26, 2010
liens and encumbrances when not so x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
2. encashing check payable to a deceased cousin by
signing the latters name on the check DECISION
Page 154

3. falsifying a power of attorney and using it in collecting

the money due to the principal ABAD, J.:

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
improbable that the court did not take steps to stop, admonish, or cite
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who is claimed to have Atty. Ferrer in direct contempt for his behavior.
hurled invectives upon another lawyer and filed a baseless suit against
him. 4. Atty. Barandon presented no evidence in support of his allegations
that Atty. Ferrer was drunk on December 19, 2000 and that he degraded
The Facts and the Case the law profession. The latter had received various citations that speak
well of his character.
On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed
a complaint-affidavit[1] with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines 5. The cases of libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment, Atty. Ferrer were still pending. Their mere filing did not make the latter
suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate guilty of the charges. Atty. Barandon was forum shopping when he filed
disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for the this disbarment case since it referred to the same libel and grave threats
following offenses: subject of the criminal cases.

1. On November 22, 2000 Atty. Ferrer, as plaintiffs counsel in Civil Case In his reply affidavit,[2] Atty. Barandon brought up a sixth ground for
7040, filed a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained disbarment. He alleged that on December 29, 2000 at about 1:30 p.m.,
abusive, offensive, and improper language which insinuated that while Atty. Ferrer was on board his sons taxi, it figured in a collision with
Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court. a tricycle, resulting in serious injuries to the tricycles passengers. [3] But
neither Atty. Ferrer nor any of his co-passengers helped the victims and,
2. Atty. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against Atty. Barandon in Civil during the police investigation, he denied knowing the taxi driver and
Case 7040 for alleged falsification of public document when the blamed the tricycle driver for being drunk. Atty. Ferrer also prevented an
document allegedly falsified was a notarized document executed on eyewitness from reporting the accident to the authorities.[4]
February 23, 1994, at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer
nor was assigned in Camarines Norte. The latter was not even a Atty. Barandon claimed that the falsification case against him had
signatory to the document. already been dismissed. He belittled the citations Atty. Ferrer allegedly
received. On the contrary, in its Resolution 00-1,[5] the IBP-
3. On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court Camarines Norte Chapter opposed his application to serve as judge of
(MTC) Daet before the start of hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, the MTC of Mercedes, Camarines Sur, on the ground that he did not
threatened have the qualifications, integrity, intelligence, industry and character of a
Atty.Barandon saying, Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasa trial judge and that he was facing a criminal charge for acts of
ma ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Ca lasciviousness and a disbarment case filed by an employee of the same
marines Norte, ang abogadona rito ay mga taga- IBP chapter.
Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito.
On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan
4. Atty. Ferrer made his accusation of falsification of public document of the IBP-CBD submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the
without bothering to check the copy with the Office of the Clerk of Court suspension for two years of Atty.Ferrer. The Investigating Commissioner
and, with gross ignorance of the law, failed to consider that a notarized found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrers violation of
document is presumed to be genuine and authentic until proven Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
otherwise. attributed to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the
falsification of the plaintiffs affidavit despite the absence of evidence that
5. The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against the document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a
repeating his unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found that
harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening remarks imputed to him in the
in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; presence of other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before the start
and criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty.Barandon filed of hearing.
against him. In October 2000, Atty. Ferrer asked Atty. Barandon to
falsify the daily time record of his son who worked with the Commission On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution XV-
on Settlement of Land Problems, Department of Justice. When 2002-225,[6] adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioners
Atty. Barandon declined, Atty. Ferrer repeatedly harassed him with recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.
inflammatory language.
Atty. Ferrer filed a motion for reconsideration but the Board denied it in
Atty. Ferrer raised the following defenses in his answer with motion to its Resolution[7] of October 19, 2002 on the ground that it had already
dismiss: endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court. On February 5, 2003,
however, the Court referred back the case to the IBP for resolution of
1. Instead of having the alleged forged document submitted for Atty. Ferrers motion for reconsideration.[8] On May 22, 2008 the IBP
examination, Atty. Barandon filed charges of libel and grave threats Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
against him. These charges came about because Atty. Ferrers clients Recommendation[9] of the Investigating Commissioner that denied
filed a case for falsification of public document against Atty. Barandon. Atty. Ferrers motion for reconsideration.[10]

2. The offended party in the falsification case, Imelda Palatolon, On February 17, 2009, Atty. Ferrer filed a Comment on Board of
vouchsafed that her thumbmark in the waiver document had been Governors IBP Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008.[11] On August 12,
falsified. 2009 the Court resolved to treat Atty.Ferrers comment as a petition for
review under Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of
3. At the time Atty. Ferrer allegedly uttered the threatening remarks Court. Atty. Barandon filed his comment,[12] reiterating his arguments
Page 155

against Atty. Barandon, the MTC Daet was already in session. It was before the IBP. Further, he presented certified copies of orders issued

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
by courts in Camarines Norte that warned Atty. Ferrer against appearing Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on
in court drunk.[13] his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life
behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
The Issues Presented
Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrers drunken
The issues presented in this case are: invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly before the start of a court
hearing. Atty. Ferrer did not present convincing evidence to support his
1. Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating denial of this particular charge. He merely presented a certification from
Commissioner erred in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the the police that its blotter for the day did not report the threat he
charges against him; and supposedly made.Atty. Barandon presented, however, the police blotter
on a subsequent date that recorded his complaint against Atty. Ferrer.
2. If in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is
justified. Atty. Ferrer said, Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama an
g lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarine
The Courts Ruling s Norte, ang abogado na rito aymga taga-
Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-
We have examined the records of this case and find no reason to rito. Evidently, he uttered these with intent to annoy, humiliate,
disagree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of incriminate, and discredit Atty.Barandon in the presence of lawyers,
Governors and the Investigating Commissioner. court personnel, and litigants waiting for the start of hearing in
court. These language is unbecoming a member of the legal
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high profession. The Court cannot countenance it.
standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these
standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.[14] Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has
lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor no place in the dignity of judicial forum.[17] Atty. Ferrer ought to have
towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal
opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides: profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it.
Whatever moral righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language he chose to express his indignation.
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Contrary to Atty. Ferrers allegation, the Court finds that he has been
accorded due process. The essence of due process is to be found in the
Atty. Ferrers actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may
shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of have in support of ones defense.[18] So long as the parties are given the
the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of due process are
imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had satisfactorily complied with.[19] Here, the IBP Investigating Commissioner
been falsified and that Atty. Barandon authored the same. gave Atty. Ferrer all the opportunities to file countless pleadings and
refute all the allegations of Atty.Barandon.
Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a
proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language against All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts
a fellow lawyer. To quote portions of what he said in his reply with motion who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence
to dismiss: they must conduct themselves honorably and
fairly.[20] Atty. Ferrers display of improper attitude, arrogance,
1. That the answer is fraught with grave and culpable misrepresentation misbehavior, and misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a
and FALSIFICATION of documents, committed to mislead this lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a
Honorable Court, but with concomitant grave responsibility of counsel for patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.
Defendants, for distortion and serious misrepresentation to the court, for
presenting a grossly FALSIFIED document, in violation of his oath of ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the May 22, 2008 Resolution of
office as a government employee and as member of the Bar, for the the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case 01-809 and ORDERS the
reason, that, Plaintiff, IMELDA PALATOLON, has never executed the suspension of Atty. Edwin Z.Ferrer, Sr. from the practice of law for one
SALAYSAY AFFIDAVIT, wherein her fingerprint has been falsified, in year effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
view whereof, hereby DENY the same including the affirmative defenses,
there being no knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Atty. Ferrers personal record as
of the same, from pars. (1) to par. (15) which are all lies and mere an attorney with the Office of the Bar Confidant and a copy of the same
fabrications, sufficient ground for DISBARMENT of the one responsible be served to the IBP and to the Office of the Court Administrator for
for said falsification and distortions.[15] circulation to all the courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.
The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in
their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system.[16] Adm. Case No. 7252 November 22, 2006
[CBD 05-1434]
Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional JOHNNY NG, Complainant,
Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity vs.
of the legal profession at all times. Rule 7.03 of the Code provides: ATTY. BENJAMIN C. ALAR, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
Page 156

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Before the Court is Resolution No. XVII-2006-223 dated April 27, 2006 beside it. His eyes, not the ingress and egress of the premises, are
of the IBP Board of Governors, to wit: blocked by something so thick he cannot see through it. His
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and impaired vision cannot be trusted, no doubt about it.
APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Dinopol has enshrined a novel rule on money
the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made claims. Whereas, before, the established rule was, in cases of money
part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation claims the employer had the burden of proof of payment. Now it is the
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and other way around. x x x For lack of a better name we should call this
rules, and considering Respondents propensity to resort to undeserved new rule the "Special Dinopol Rule". But only retirable
language and disrespectful stance, Atty. Benjamin C. Alar is commissioners are authorized to apply this rule and only when the
hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern Warning that severe penalties will money claims involved are substantial. When they are meager the
be imposed in case similar misconduct is again committed. Likewise, the ordinary rules apply.
counter complaint against Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Atty. Elvin x x x how Commissioner Dinopol is able to say that the pay slips proved
Michael Cruz is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. that the sixteen (16) claimants were already paid their service incentive
A verified complaint1 dated February 15, 2005 was filed by Johnny Ng leave pay. This finding is copied verbatim from the cross-eyed
(complainant) against Atty. Benjamin C. Alar (respondent) before the decision of Labor Arbiter Santos x x x .
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline The evidence already on record proving that the alleged blocking of
(CBD), for Disbarment. the ingress and egress is a myth seem invisible to the impaired
Complainant alleges that he is one of the respondents in a labor case sight of Commissioner Dinopol. He needs more of it. x x x
with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) docketed as Commissioner Dinopol by his decision under consideration (as
NLRC NCR CA No. 040273-04, while respondent is the counsel for ponente [of] the decision that he signed and caused his co-
complainants. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint. On commissioners in the First Division to sign) has shown great and
appeal, the NLRC rendered a Decision2affirming the decision of the LA. irreparable impartiality, grave abuse of discretion and ignorance of
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit the law. He is a shame to the NLRC and should not be allowed to
(MRMI),3pertinent portions of which read: have anything to do with the instant case any more. Commissioner
x x x We cannot help suspecting that the decision under Go and Chairman Seeres, by negligence, are just as guilty as
consideration was merely copied from the pleadings of Dinopol but, since the NLRC rules prohibit the inhibition of the entire
respondents-appellees with very slight modifications. But we cannot division, Chairman Seeres should remain in the instant case and
accept the suggestion, made by some knowledgeable individuals, that appoint two (2) other commissioners from another division to sit with him
the actual writer of the said decision is not at all connected with the and pass final judgment in the instant case.4 (Emphasis supplied)
NLRC First Division. In his Answer with Counter-Complaint dated April 6, 2005, respondent
x x x Why did the NLRC, First Division, uphold the Labor Arbiter in Alar contends that the instant complaint only intends to harass him and
maintaining that the separation pay should be only one half month to influence the result of the cases between complainant and the workers
per year of service? Is jurisprudence on this not clear enough, or is in the different fora where they are pending; that the Rules of Court/Code
there another reason known only to them? of Professional Responsibility applies only suppletorily at the NLRC
x x x If this is not grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, when the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision on disciplinary
First Division, it is ignominious ignorance of the law on the part of matters for litigants and lawyers appearing before it; that Rule X of the
the commissioners concerned. NLRC Rules of Procedure provides for adequate sanctions against
The NLRC wants proof from the complainants that the fire actually misbehaving lawyers and litigants appearing in cases before it; that the
resulted in prosperity and not losses. xxxRespondents failed to prove Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility does not apply to
their claim of losses. And the Honorable Commissioners of the lawyers practicing at the NLRC, the latter not being a court; that LAs and
First Division lost their ability to see these glaring facts. NLRC Commissioners are not judges nor justices and the Code of
x x x How much is the separation pay they should pay? One month per Judicial Conduct similarly do not apply to them, not being part of the
year of service and all of it to the affected workers not to some judiciary; and that the labor lawyers who are honestly and
people in the NLRC in part. conscientiously practicing before the NLRC and get paid on a contingent
x x x They should have taken judicial notice of this prevalent practices of basis are entitled to some latitude of righteous anger when they get
employers xxx. If the Honorable Commissioners, of the First Division cheated in their cases by reason of corruption and collusion by the
do not know this, they are indeed irrelevant to real life. cheats from the other sectors who make their lives and the lives of their
x x x we invite the Honorable Commissioners of the First Division constituents miserable, with impunity, unlike lawyers for the employers
to see for themselves the evidence before them and not merely rely who get paid, win or lose, and therefore have no reason to feel
on their reviewers and on the word of their ponente. If they do this aggrieved.5
honestly they cannot help seeing the truth. Yes, honesty on the part Attached to the Counter-Complaint is the affidavit of union president
of the Commissioners concerned is what is lacking, not the Marilyn Batan wherein it is alleged that Attys. Paras and Cruz violated
evidence. Unfair labor practice stares them in the face. the Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers in several instances,
If labor arbiter Santos was cross-eyed in his findings of fact, the such that while the labor case is pending before the NLRC, respondents
Honorable Commissioners of the First Division are doubly so and Paras and Cruz filed a new case against the laborers in the Office of the
with malice thrown in. If the workers indeed committed an illegal strike, City Engineer of Quezon City (QC) to demolish the tent of the workers,
how come their only "penalty" is removing their tent? It is obvious that thus splitting the jurisdiction between the NLRC and the City Engineer's
the Labor Arbiter and the Honorable Commissioners know deep in Office (CEO) of QC which violates Canon 12, Rules 12.02 and 13.03;
their small hearts that there was no strike. This is the only reason for that although Ng signed the disbarment complaint against Alar,
the finding of "illegal strike". Without this finding, they have no basis to respondents Parass and Cruzs office instigated the said complaint
remove the tent; they have to invent that basis. which violates Canon 8; that Ng's company did not pay income tax for
x x x The union in its "Union Reply To The Position Paper Of the year 2000 allegedly for non-operation due to fire and respondents
Management" and its Annexes has shown very clearly that the so called consented to this act of the employer which violates Canon 19, Rule
strike is a myth. But Commissioner Dinopol opted to believe the 19.02; and that when the case started, there were more or less 100
Page 157

myth instead of the facts. He fixed his sights on the tent in front of complainants, but due to the acts of the employer and the respondents,
the wall and closed his eyes to the open wide passage way and gate

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
the number of complainants were reduced to almost half which violates Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court
Canon 19, Rule 19-01, 19-02 and 19-03.6 and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through
In Answer to the Counter-Complaint dated April 14, 2005,7 respondents legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However, even the
Paras and Cruz alleged: At no time did they file multiple actions arising most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by
from the same cause of action or brook interference in the normal course the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacurom's Resolution. On its face, the
of judicial proceedings; the reliefs sought before the CEO has nothing to Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according
do with the case pending before the NLRC; the demolition of the to supporting law and jurisprudence. Though a lawyer's language may
nuisance and illegal structures is a cause of action completely irrelevant be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful,
and unrelated to the labor cases of complainant; the CEO was requested befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of unnecessary
to investigate certain nuisance structures located outside the employer's language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts
property, which consist of shanties, tents, banners and other and trust in judicial administration.
paraphernalia which hampered the free ingress to and egress out of the In Uy v. Depasucat,9 the Court held that a lawyer shall abstain from
employer's property and present clear and present hazards; the Office of scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
the City Engineer found the structures violative of pertinent DPWH and Courts.
MMDA ordinances; the pendency of a labor case with the NLRC is It must be remembered that the language vehicle does not run short of
completely irrelevant since the holding of a strike, legal or not, did not expressions which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not
validate or justify the construction of illegal nuisance structures; the CEO derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.10 A lawyer's language should
proceeded to abate the nuisance structures pursuant to its power to be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate
protect life, property and legal order; it was not their idea to file the and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.11 Submitting
disbarment complaint against respondent Alar; they merely instructed pleadings containing countless insults and diatribes against the NLRC
their client on how to go about filing the case, after having been served and attacking both its moral and intellectual integrity, hardly measures to
a copy of the derogatory MRMI; Canon 8 should not be perceived as an the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer.
excuse for lawyers to turn their backs on malicious acts done by their Respondent's assertion that the NLRC not being a court, its
brother lawyers; the complaint failed to mention that the only reason the commissioners, not being judges or justices and therefore not part of the
number of complainants were reduced is because of the amicable judiciary; and that consequently, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not
settlement they were able to reach with most of them; their engagement apply to them, is unavailing. In Lubiano v. Gordolla,12 the Court held that
for legal services is only for labor and litigation cases; at no time were respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the NLRC,
they consulted regarding the tax concerns of their client and therefore he nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an oath-bound servant
were never privy to the financial records of the latter; at no time did they of the law, whose first duty is not to his client but to the administration of
give advice regarding their client's tax concerns; respondent Alar's justice and whose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously
attempt at a disbarment case against them is unwarranted, unjustified observant of law and ethics.13
and obviously a mere retaliatory action on his part. Respondents argument that labor practitioners are entitled to some
The case, docketed as CBD Case No. 05-1434, was assigned by the IBP latitude of righteous anger is unavailing. It does not deter the Court from
to Commissioner Patrick M. Velez for investigation, report and exercising its supervisory authority over lawyers who misbehave or fail
recommendation. In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating to live up to that standard expected of them as members of the Bar.14
Commissioner found respondent guilty of using improper and abusive The Court held in Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer,15 thus:
language and recommended that respondent be suspended for a period 2. What we have before us is not without precedent. Time and again, this
of not less than three months with a stern warning that more severe Court has admonished and punished, in varying degrees, members of
penalty will be imposed in case similar misconduct is again committed. the Bar for statements, disrespectful or irreverent, acrimonious or
On the other hand, the Investigating Commissioner did not find any defamatory, of this Court or the lower courts. Resort by an attorney in
actionable misconduct against Attys. Paras and Cruz and therefore a motion for reconsideration to words which may drag this Court down
recommended that the Counter-Complaint against them be dismissed into disrepute, is frowned upon as "neither justified nor in the least
for lack of merit. necessary, because in order to call the attention of the court in a special
Acting on the Report and Recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors way to the essential points relied upon in his argument and to emphasize
issued the Resolution hereinbefore quoted. While the Court agrees with the force thereof, the many reasons stated in the motion" are "sufficient,"
the findings of the IBP, it does not agree that respondent Alar deserves and such words "superfluous." It is in this context that we must say that
only a reprimand. just because Atty. Armonio "thought best to focus the attention" of this
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates: Court "to the issue in the case" does not give him unbridled license in
CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and language. To be sure, lawyers may come up with various methods,
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing perhaps much more effective, in calling the Courts attention to the issues
tactics against opposing counsel. involved. The language vehicle does not run short of expressions,
Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. not offensive.
CANON 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the To be proscribed then is the use of unnecessary language which
courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial
others. administration, or which could have the effect of "harboring and
Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or encouraging discontent which, in many cases, is the source of disorder,
menacing language or behavior before the Courts. thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not judicial power to which those who are aggrieved turn for protection and
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. relief." Stability of judicial institutions suggests that the Bar stand firm on
The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking this precept.
both its moral and intellectual integrity, replete with implied accusations The language here in question, respondents aver, "was the result of
of partiality, impropriety and lack of diligence. Respondent used improper overenthusiasm." It is but to repeat an old idea when we say that
and offensive language in his pleadings that does not admit any enthusiasm, or even excess of it, is not really bad. In fact, the one or the
Page 158

justification. other is no less a virtue, if channeled in the right direction. However, it

In Lacurom v. Jacoba,8 the Court ratiocinated as follows:

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
must be circumscribed within the bounds of propriety and with due regard All told, we do not find anything actionable misconduct against Attorneys
for the proper place of courts in our system of government.16 Paras and Cruz; hence the dismissal of the counter-complaint against
Respondent has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of them is proper for absolute lack of merit.17
Professional Responsibility. His actions erode the publics perception of ACCORDINGLY, we find respondent Atty. Benjamin C. Alar
the legal profession. GUILTY of violation of Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional
However, the penalty of reprimand with stern warning imposed by the Responsibility. He is imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with STERN
IBP Board of Governors is not proportionate to respondents violation of WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be
the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, he dealt with more severely.
deserves a stiffer penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000.00. The Counter-Complaint against Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Atty.
Anent the Counter-Complaint filed against Attys. Paras and Cruz, the Elvin Michael Cruz is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Court finds no reason to disturb the following findings and SO ORDERED.
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, as approved by the
IBP Board of Governors, to wit: G.R. No. 71169 August 30, 1989
The Counter-complainant Batan failed to submit any position paper to JOSE D. SANGALANG and LUTGARDA D. SANGALANG,
substantiate its claims despite sufficient opportunity to do so.1wphi1 petitioners, FELIX C. GASTON and DOLORES R. GASTON, JOSE V.
At any rate, it must be noted that the alleged case with the Office of the BRIONES and ALICIA R. BRIONES, and BEL-AIR VILLAGE
City Engineer really partakes of a different cause of action, which has ASSOCIATION, INC.,intervenors-petitioners,
nothing to do with the NLRC case. The decision was made by the city vs.
engineer. Respondents remedy should be to question that decision, not INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and AYALA
bring it to this Commission which has no jurisdiction over it. We can not CORPORATION, respondents.
substitute our judgment for the proper courts who should determine the G.R. No. 74376 August 30, 1989
propriety or sagacity of the city engineers action. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner,
Furthermore, parties are not prohibited from availing themselves of vs.
remedies available in law provided; these acts do not exceed the bounds THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ROSARIO DE JESUS
of decency. In supporting the action against respondents conduct, no TENORIO, and CECILIA GONZALEZ,respondents.
such abuse may be gleaned. Indeed, it is the attorneys duty as an officer G.R. No. 76394 August 30, 1989
of the court to defend a judge from unfounded criticism or groundless BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner,
personal attack. This requires of him not only to refrain from subjecting vs.
the judge to wild and groundless accusation but also to discourage other THE COURT OF APPEAL and EDUARDO and BUENA
people from so doing and to come to his defense when he is so ROMUALDEZ respondents.
subjected. By the very nature of his position a judge lacks the power, G.R. No. 78182 August 30, 1989
outside of his court, to defend himself against unfounded criticism and BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner,
clamor and it is the attorney, and no other, who can better or more vs.
appropriately support the judiciary and the incumbents of the judicial COURT OF APPEALS, DOLORES FILLEY and J. ROMERO &
positions. (Agpalo, p. 143 citing People v. Carillo, 77 Phil. 572 ASSOCIATES, respondents.
(1946); Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1 G.R. No. 82281 August 30, 1989
(1970); see Cabansag v. Fernandez, 102 Phil. 152 (1957) Whether the BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner,
disbarment complaint was filed by Ng or by his lawyers is therefore not vs.
of great import, what is more apropos would be the contents of the COURT OF APPEALS, VIOLETA MONCAL, and MAJAL
complaint and whether the same is sufficient to consider disciplinary DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
sanctions. RESOLUTION
Likewise, the tax case is a different matter altogether. Since the
respondent lawyers have already stated that they were not engaged as SARMIENTO, J.:
counsels to take care of their clients tax problems, then they cannot be The incident before the Court refers to charges for contempt against Atty.
held accountable for the same. If any wrongdoing has been committed J. Cezar Sangco, counsel for the petitioners Spouses Jose and Lutgarda
by complainant Ng, he should answer for that and those lawyers who Sangalang. (G.R. No. 71169.)
were responsible for such acts be held liable jointly. There is no showing On February 2, 1989, the Court issued a Resolution, requiring, among
[that] attorneys Paras and Cruz were responsible for that tax other things, Atty. Sangco to show cause why he should not be punished
fiasco.1wphi1 for contempt "for using intemperate and accusatory language." 1 On
Finally, while it may be true that Batans group has been greatly March 2, 1989, Atty. Sangco filed an explanation.
diminished from about 100 claimants to less than half the number is not The Court finds Atty. Sangco's remarks in his motion for reconsideration,
by itself an actionable misconduct. Lawyers are duty bound to foster reproduced as follows:
amicable settlement of cases; litigation and adversarial proceedings ...
while a necessary part of the practice is not encouraged, because it will This Decision of this Court in the above-entitled case reads more like a
save expenses and help unclogged [sic] the dockets. If the compromise Brief for Ayala ... 2
is fair then there is no reason to prevent the same. There is nothing in ... [t]he Court not only put to serious question its own integrity and
the counter-complaint which shows that the compromise agreement and competence but also jeopardized its own campaign against graft and
waivers executed appear to be unfair, hence no reason to hold lawyers corruption undeniably pervading the judiciary ... 3
liable for the same. Besides, a "compromise is as often the better part of ...
justice as prudence the part of valor and a lawyer who encourages The blatant disregard of controlling, documented and admitted facts not
compromise is no less the clients champion in settlement out of court put in issue, such as those summarily ignored in this case; the
than he is the clients champion in the battle in court." (Curtis, The extraordinary efforts exerted to justify such arbitrariness and the very
Advocate: Voices in Court, 5 (1958); cited in Agpalos Legal Ethics, p. strained and unwarranted conclusions drawn therefrom, are unparalleled
86, 1980 ed.) What is therefore respondent Alar[]s beef with the in the history of this Court ... 4
Page 159

execution of these waivers if these were executed freely by his clients? ...

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
... [T]o ignore the fact that Jupiter Street was originally constructed for arguments to warrant reconsideration and they can not veil that fact with
the exclusive benefit of the residents of Bel- Air Village, or rule that inflammatory language.
respondent Court's admission of said fact is "inaccurate," as Ayala's Atty. Sangco himself admits that "[a]s a judge I have learned to live with
Counsel himself would like to do but did not even contend, is a and accept with grace criticisms of my decisions". 13 Apparently, he does
manifestation of this Court's unusual partiality to Ayala and puts to not practice what he preaches. Of course, the Court is not unreceptive
serious question its integrity on that account. 5 to comment and critique of its decisions, but provided they are fair and
... dignified. Atty. Sangco has transcended the limits of fair comment for
[i]t is submitted that this ruling is the most serious reflection on the Court's which he deserves this Court's rebuke.
competence and integrity and exemplifies its manifest partiality towards In our "show-cause" Resolution, we sought to hold Atty. Sangco in
Ayala. It is a blatant disregard of documented and incontrovertible and contempt, specifically, for resort to insulting language amounting to
uncontroverted factual findings of the trial court fully supported by the disrespect toward the Court within the meaning of Section 1, of Rule 71,
records and the true significance of those facts which both the of the Rules of Court. Clearly, however, his act also constitutes
respondent court and this Court did not bother to read and consequently malpractice as the term is defined by Canon 11 of the Code of
did not consider and discuss, least of all in the manner it did with respect Professional Responsibility, as follows:
to those in which it arrived at conclusions favorable to Ayala. 6 CANON 11-A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
To totally disregard Ayala's written letter of application for special RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
membership in BAVA which clearly state that such membership is SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
necessary because it is a new development in their relationship with Rule 11.01...
respect to its intention to give its commercial lot buyers an equal right to Rule 11.02...
the use of Jupiter Street without giving any reason therefor, smacks of Rule 11.03-A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
judicial arrogance ... 7 menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
... Rule 11.04-A lawyer should not attribute to a Judge motives not
... [A]re all these unusual exercise of such arbitrariness above suspicion? supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Will the current campaign of this Court against graft and corruption in the Rule 11.05...
judiciary be enhanced by such broad discretionary power of courts? 8 Thus, aside from contempt, Atty. Sangco faces punishment for
disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled for. His suggestions that the professional misconduct or malpractice.
Court might have been guilty of graft and corruption in acting on these WHEREFORE Atty. J. Cezar Sangco is (1) SUSPENDED from the
cases are not only unbecoming, but comes, as well, as an open assault practice of law for three (3) months effective from receipt hereof, and (2)
upon the Court's honor and integrity. In rendering its judgment, the Court ORDERED to pay a fine of P 500.00 payable from receipt hereof. Let a
yielded to the records before it, and to the records alone, and not to copy of this Resolution be entered in his record.
outside influences, much less, the influence of any of the parties. Atty. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sangco, as a former judge of an inferior court, should know better that in
any litigation, one party prevails, but his success will not justify
indictments of bribery by the other party. He should be aware that G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970
because of his accusations, he has done an enormous disservice to the IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION
integrity of the highest tribunal and to the stability of the administration of AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN In L-27654, ANTONIO
justice in general. H. CALERO,
As a former judge, Atty. Sangco also has to be aware that we are not vs.
bound by the findings of the trial court (in which his clients VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAY.
prevailed).lwph1.t But if we did not agree with the findings of the RESOLUTION
court a quo, it does not follow that we had acted arbitrarily because,
precisely, it is the office of an appeal to review the findings of the inferior CASTRO, J.:
court. Before us is Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's
To be sure, Atty. Sangco is entitled to his opinion, but not to a license to Certificate of Title," filed on September 25, 1967, in protest against what
insult the Court with derogatory statements and recourses to argumenta he therein asserts is "a great injustice committed against his client by this
ad hominem. In that event, it is the Court's duty "to act to preserve the Supreme Court." He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal
honor and dignity ... and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal "peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore
profession." 9 without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable
We are not satisfied with his explanation that he was merely defending violations of the Constitution with impunity." His client's he continues,
the interests of his clients. As we held inLaureta, a lawyer's "first duty is who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment," has
not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client's become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy." In
success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always the same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice, he
be scrupulously observant of law and ethics." 10And while a lawyer must ridicules the members of this Court, saying "that justice as administered
advocate his client's cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also
he can marshal, he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, deaf and dumb." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the
and innuendo. people's forum," so that "the people may know of the silent injustice's
That "[t]he questions propounded were not meant or intended to accuse committed by this Court," and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and
but to ... challenge the thinking in the Decision, 11 comes as an eleventh- injustices that were committed must never be repeated." He ends his
hour effort to cleanse what is in fact and plainly, an unfounded petition with a prayer that
accusation. Certainly, it is the prerogative of an unsuccessful party to ask ... a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate
for reconsideration, but as we held in Laureta, litigants should not "'think of the undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with
that they will win a hearing by the sheer multiplication of words' ". 12 As reservation that at any time in the future and in the event we regain our
we indicated (see Decision denying the motions for reconsideration in faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of
G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281, and deciding G.R. the noblest profession.
Page 160

No. 60727, dated August 25, 1989), the movants have raised no new

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the applicable case. Again, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for
aforementioned petition. Thus, on September 26, 1967, the Manila reconsideration, thus:
Times published statements attributed to him, as follows: Before this Court for resolution are the motion dated May 9, 1967 and
Vicente Raul Almacen, in an unprecedented petition, said he did it to the supplement thereto of the same date filed by defendant- appellant,
expose the tribunal's"unconstitutional and obnoxious" practice of praying for reconsideration of the resolution of May 8, 1967, dismissing
arbitrarily denying petitions or appeals without any reason. the appeal.
Because of the tribunal's "short-cut justice," Almacen deplored, his client Appellant contends that there are some important distinctions between
was condemned to pay P120,000, without knowing why he lost the case. this case and that of Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu
xxx xxx xxx Construction & Co., G.R. No. L- 16636, June 24, 1965, relied upon by
There is no use continuing his law practice, Almacen said in this this Court in its resolution of May 8, 1967. Appellant further states that in
petition, "where our Supreme Court is composed of men who are the latest case,Republic vs. Venturanza, L-20417, May 30, 1966,
calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reason their own decided by the Supreme Court concerning the question raised by
applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution appellant's motion, the ruling is contrary to the doctrine laid down in the
with impunity. Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. case.
xxx xxx xxx There is no substantial distinction between this case and that of Manila
He expressed the hope that by divesting himself of his title by which he Surety & Fidelity Co.
earns his living, the present members of the Supreme Court "will become In the case of Republic vs. Venturanza, the resolution denying the
responsive to all cases brought to its attention without discrimination, and motion to dismiss the appeal, based on grounds similar to those raised
will purge itself of those unconstitutional and obnoxious "lack of merit" or herein was issued on November 26, 1962, which was much earlier than
"denied resolutions. (Emphasis supplied) the date of promulgation of the decision in the Manila Surety Case, which
Atty. Almacen's statement that was June 24, 1965. Further, the resolution in the Venturanza case was
... our own Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our interlocutory and the Supreme Court issued it "without prejudice to
pleas of [sic] justice, who ignore their own applicable decisions and appellee's restoring the point in the brief." In the main decision in said
commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity case (Rep. vs. Venturanza the Supreme Court passed upon the issue
was quoted by columnist Vicente Albano Pacis in the issue of the Manila sub silencio presumably because of its prior decisions contrary to the
Chronicle of September 28, 1967. In connection therewith, Pacis resolution of November 26, 1962, one of which is that in the Manila
commented that Atty. Almacen had "accused the high tribunal of Surety and Fidelity case. Therefore Republic vs. Venturanza is no
offenses so serious that the Court must clear itself," and that "his charge authority on the matter in issue.
is one of the constitutional bases for impeachment." Atty. Almacen then appealed to this Court by certiorari. We refused to
The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Virginia take the case, and by minute resolution denied the appeal. Denied
Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero,1 in which Atty. Almacen was shortly thereafter was his motion for reconsideration as well as his
counsel for the defendant. The trial court, after due hearing, rendered petition for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and for
judgment against his client. On June 15, 1966 Atty. Almacen received a extension of time. Entry of judgment was made on September 8, 1967.
copy of the decision. Twenty days later, or on July 5, 1966, he moved for Hence, the second motion for reconsideration filed by him after the Said
its reconsideration. He served on the adverse counsel a copy of the date was ordered expunged from the records.
motion, but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on It was at this juncture that Atty. Almacen gave vent to his disappointment
said motion. Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for by filing his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," already
execution of the judgment. For "lack of proof of service," the trial court adverted to a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with
denied both motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a the insolent contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks
copy of his first motion for reconsideration, Atty. Almacen filed on August hereinbefore reproduced, against this Court as well as its individual
17, 1966 a second motion for reconsideration to which he attached the members, a behavior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional.
required registry return card. This second motion for reconsideration, Nonetheless we decided by resolution dated September 28, 1967 to
however, was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, withhold action on his petition until he shall have actually surrendered his
upon verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who, earlier, that is, on certificate. Patiently, we waited for him to make good his proffer. No word
August 22, 1966, had already perfected the appeal. Because the plaintiff came from him. So he was reminded to turn over his certificate, which
interposed no objection to the record on appeal and appeal bond, the he had earlier vociferously offered to surrender, so that this Court could
trial court elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. act on his petition. To said reminder he manifested "that he has no
But the Court of Appeals, on the authority of this Court's decision pending petition in connection with Case G.R. No. L-27654, Calero vs.
in Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co., L- Yaptinchay, said case is now final and executory;" that this Court's
16636, June 24, 1965, dismissed the appeal, in the following words: September 28, 1967 resolution did not require him to do either a positive
Upon consideration of the motion dated March 27, 1967, filed by plaintiff- or negative act; and that since his offer was not accepted, he "chose to
appellee praying that the appeal be dismissed, and of the opposition pursue the negative act."
thereto filed by defendant-appellant; the Court RESOLVED TO In the exercise of its inherent power to discipline a member of the bar for
DISMISS, as it hereby dismisses, the appeal, for the reason that the contumely and gross misconduct, this Court on November 17, 1967
motion for reconsideration dated July 5, 1966 (pp. 90-113, printed record resolved to require Atty. Almacen to show cause "why no disciplinary
on appeal) does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing thereof action should be taken against him." Denying the charges contained in
and is, therefore, a useless piece of paper (Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., the November 17 resolution, he asked for permission "to give reasons
Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co., G.R. No. L-16636, June 24, 1965), and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him ... in
which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, an open and public hearing." This Court resolved (on December 7) "to
consequently, the appeal was perfected out of time. require Atty. Almacen to state, within five days from notice hereof, his
Atty. Almacen moved to reconsider this resolution, urging that Manila reasons for such request, otherwise, oral argument shall be deemed
Surety & Fidelity Co. is not decisive. At the same time he filed a pleading waived and incident submitted for decision." To this resolution he
entitled "Latest decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion for manifested that since this Court is "the complainant, prosecutor and
Reconsideration," citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Gregorio A. Judge," he preferred to be heard and to answer questions "in person and
Page 161

Venturanza, L-20417, decided by this Court on May 30, 1966, as the in an open and public hearing" so that this Court could observe his
sincerity and candor. He also asked for leave to file a written explanation

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
"in the event this Court has no time to hear him in person." To give him Constitution has placed finality on your judgment against our client and
the ampliest latitude for his defense, he was allowed to file a written sensing that you have not performed your duties with "circumspection,
explanation and thereafter was heard in oral argument. carefulness, confidence and wisdom", your Respondent rise to claim his
His written answer, as undignified and cynical as it is unchastened, offers God given right to speak the truth and his Constitutional right of free
-no apology. Far from being contrite Atty. Almacen unremittingly repeats speech.
his jeremiad of lamentations, this time embellishing it with abundant xxx xxx xxx
sarcasm and innuendo. Thus: The INJUSTICES which we have attributed to this Court and the further
At the start, let me quote passages from the Holy Bible, Chapter 7, St. violations we sought to be prevented is impliedly shared by our
Matthew: President. ... .
"Do not judge, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you xxx xxx xxx
judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you measure, it shall What has been abhored and condemned, are the very things that were
be measured to you. But why dost thou see the speck in thy brother's applied to us. Recalling Madam Roland's famous apostrophe during the
eye, and yet dost not consider the beam in thy own eye? Or how can French revolution, "O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name",
thou say to thy brother, "Let me cast out the speck from thy eye"; and we may dare say, "O JUSTICE, what technicalities are committed in thy
behold, there is a beam in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the name' or more appropriately, 'O JUSTICE, what injustices are committed
beam from thy own eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the in thy name."
speck from thy brother's eyes." xxx xxx xxx
"Therefore all that you wish men to do to you, even to do you also to We must admit that this Court is not free from commission of any abuses,
them: for this is the Law and the Prophets." but who would correct such abuses considering that yours is a court of
xxx xxx xxx last resort. A strong public opinion must be generated so as to curtail
Your respondent has no intention of disavowing the statements these abuses.
mentioned in his petition. On the contrary, he refirms the truth of what he xxx xxx xxx
stated, compatible with his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood, nor The phrase, Justice is blind is symbolize in paintings that can be found
consent to the doing of any in court. But he vigorously DENY under oath in all courts and government offices. We have added only two more
that the underscored statements contained in the CHARGE are insolent, symbols, that it is also deaf and dumb. Deaf in the sense that no
contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory to the individual members of this Court has ever heard our cries for charity, generosity,
members of the Court; that they tend to bring the entire Court, without fairness, understanding sympathy and for justice; dumb in the sense,
justification, into disrepute; and constitute conduct unbecoming of a that inspite of our beggings, supplications, and pleadings to give us
member of the noble profession of law. reasons why our appeal has been DENIED, not one word was spoken
xxx xxx xxx or given ... We refer to no human defect or ailment in the above
Respondent stands four-square that his statement is borne by TRUTH statement. We only describe the. impersonal state of things and nothing
and has been asserted with NO MALICE BEFORE AND AFTER more.
THOUGHT but mainly motivated with the highest interest of justice that xxx xxx xxx
in the particular case of our client, the members have shown callousness As we have stated, we have lost our faith and confidence in the members
to our various pleas for JUSTICE, our pleadings will bear us on this of this Court and for which reason we offered to surrender our lawyer's
matter, ... certificate, IN TRUST ONLY. Because what has been lost today may be
xxx xxx xxx regained tomorrow. As the offer was intended as our self-imposed
To all these beggings, supplications, words of humility, appeals for sacrifice, then we alone may decide as to when we must end our self-
charity, generosity, fairness, understanding, sympathy and above all in sacrifice. If we have to choose between forcing ourselves to have faith
the highest interest of JUSTICE, what did we get from this COURT? and confidence in the members of the Court but disregard our
One word, DENIED, with all its hardiness and insensibility. That was the Constitution and to uphold the Constitution and be condemned by the
unfeeling of the Court towards our pleas and prayers, in simple word, it members of this Court, there is no choice, we must uphold the latter.
is plain callousness towards our particular case. But overlooking, for the nonce, the vituperative chaff which he claims is
xxx xxx xxx not intended as a studied disrespect to this Court, let us examine the
Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court grain of his grievances.
that notwithstanding the violation of the Constitution, you remained He chafes at the minute resolution denial of his petition for review. We
unpunished, this Court in the reverse order of natural things, is now in are quite aware of the criticisms2 expressed against this Court's practice
the attempt to inflict punishment on your respondent for acts he said in of rejecting petitions by minute resolutions. We have been asked to do
good faith. away with it, to state the facts and the law, and to spell out the reasons
Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for for denial. We have given this suggestion very careful thought. For we
JUSTICE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY and FAIRNESS? Did His Honors know the abject frustration of a lawyer who tediously collates the facts
attempt to justify their stubborn denial with any semblance of reason, and for many weary hours meticulously marshalls his arguments, only to
NEVER. Now that your respondent is given the opportunity to face you, have his efforts rebuffed with a terse unadorned denial. Truth to tell,
he reiterates the same statement with emphasis, DID YOU? Sir. Is this. however, most petitions rejected by this Court are utterly frivolous and
the way of life in the Philippines today, that even our own President, said: ought never to have been lodged at all.3 The rest do exhibit a first-
"the story is current, though nebulous ,is to its truth, it is still being impression cogency, but fail to, withstand critical scrutiny. By and large,
circulated that justice in the Philippines today is not what it is used to be this Court has been generous in giving due course to petitions
before the war. There are those who have told me frankly and brutally forcertiorari.
that justice is a commodity, a marketable commodity in the Philippines." Be this as it may, were we to accept every case or write a full opinion for
xxx xxx xxx every petition we reject, we would be unable to carry out effectively the
We condemn the SIN, not the SINNER. We detest the ACTS, not the burden placed upon us by the Constitution. The proper role of the
ACTOR. We attack the decision of this Court, not the members. ... We Supreme Court, as Mr. Chief Justice Vinson of the U.S. Supreme Court
were provoked. We were compelled by force of necessity. We were has defined it, is to decide "only those cases which present questions
angry but we waited for the finality of the decision. We waited until this whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular
Page 162

Court has performed its duties. We never interfered nor obstruct in the facts and parties involved." Pertinent here is the observation of Mr.
performance of their duties. But in the end, after seeing that the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Justice Frankfurter in Maryland vs. Baltimore Radio Show, 94 L. ed 562, number of decisions. There was, therefore, no need for this Court to
566: exercise its supervisory power.
A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the As a law practitioner who was admitted to the Bar as far back as 1941,
same petition different reasons may read different justices to the same Atty. Almacen knew or ought to have known that for a motion for
result ... . reconsideration to stay the running of the period of appeal, the movant
Since there are these conflicting, and, to the uninformed, even confusing must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party (which
reasons for denying petitions for certiorari, it has been suggested from he did), but also notify the adverse party of the time and place of hearing
time to time that the Court indicate its reasons for denial. Practical (which admittedly he did not). This rule was unequivocally articulated
considerations preclude. In order that the Court may be enabled to in Manila Surety & Fidelity vs. Batu Construction & Co., supra:
discharge its indispensable duties, Congress has placed the control of The written notice referred to evidently is prescribed for motions in
the Court's business, in effect, within the Court's discretion. During the general by Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 (formerly Rule 26), which provides
last three terms the Court disposed of 260, 217, 224 cases, respectively, that such notice shall state the time, and place of hearing and shall be
on their merits. For the same three terms the Court denied, respectively, served upon all the Parties concerned at least three days in advance.
1,260, 1,105,1,189 petitions calling for discretionary review. If the Court And according to Section 6 of the same Rule no motion shall be acted
is to do its work it would not be feasible to give reasons, however brief, upon by the court without proof of such notice. Indeed it has been held
for refusing to take these cases. The tune that would be required is that in such a case the motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper
prohibitive. Apart from the fact that as already indicated different reasons (Philippine National Bank v. Damasco, I,18638, Feb. 28, 1963; citing
not infrequently move different members of the Court in concluding that Manakil v. Revilla, 42 Phil. 81; Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa v.
a particular case at a particular time makes review undesirable. Municipality of Unisan, 41 Phil. 866; and Director of Lands vs. Sanz, 45
Six years ago, in Novino, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 1,21098, Phil. 117). The reason is obvious: Unless the movant sets the time and
May 31, 1963 (60 O.G. 8099), this Court, through the then Chief Justice place of hearing the Court would have no way to determine whether that
Cesar Bengzon, articulated its considered view on this matter. There, the party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on
petitioners counsel urged that a "lack of merit" resolution violates Section his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within
12 of Article VIII of the Constitution. Said Chief Justice Bengzon: which he may file his reply or opposition.
In connection with identical short resolutions, the same question has If Atty. Almacen failed to move the appellate court to review the lower
been raised before; and we held that these "resolutions" are not court's judgment, he has only himself to blame. His own negligence
"decisions" within the above constitutional requirement. They merely caused the forfeiture of the remedy of appeal, which, incidentally, is not
hold that the petition for review should not be entertained in view of the a matter of right. To shift away from himself the consequences of his
provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; and even ordinary lawyers carelessness, he looked for a "whipping boy." But he made sure that he
have all this time so understood it. It should be remembered that a assumed the posture of a martyr, and, in offering to surrender his
petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of professional certificate, he took the liberty of vilifying this Court and
right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully inflicting his exacerbating rancor on the members thereof. It would thus
explain the court's denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already appear that there is no justification for his scurrilous and scandalous
mentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion. outbursts.
By the way, this mode of disposal has as intended helped the Court Nonetheless we gave this unprecedented act of Atty. Almacen the most
in alleviating its heavy docket; it was patterned after the practice of the circumspect consideration. We know that it is natural for a lawyer to
U.S. Supreme Court, wherein petitions for review are often merely express his dissatisfaction each time he loses what he sanguinely
ordered "dismissed". believes to be a meritorious case. That is why lawyers are given 'wide
We underscore the fact that cases taken to this Court on petitions latitude to differ with, and voice their disapproval of, not only the courts'
for certiorari from the Court of Appeals have had the benefit of appellate rulings but, also the manner in which they are handed down.
review. Hence, the need for compelling reasons to buttress such Moreover, every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the
petitions if this Court is to be moved into accepting them. For it is actuations of public officers. This right is not diminished by the fact that
axiomatic that the supervisory jurisdiction vested upon this Court over the criticism is aimed at a judicial authority,4 or that it is articulated by a
the Court of Appeals is not intended to give every losing party another lawyer.5 Such right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns
hearing. This axiom is implied in sec. 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court a concluded litigation,6 because then the court's actuations are thrown
which recites: open to public consumption.7 "Our decisions and all our official actions,"
Review of Court of Appeals' decision discretionary.A review is not a said the Supreme Court of Nebraska,8 "are public property, and the
matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them,
when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, criticize and censure them as they see fit. Judicial officers, like other
while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion, public servants, must answer for their official actions before the chancery
indicate the character of reasons which will be considered: of public opinion."
(a) When the Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance, not The likely danger of confusing the fury of human reaction to an attack on
theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, nor has decided it in a one's integrity, competence and honesty, with "imminent danger to the
way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of administration of justice," is the reason why courts have been loath to
the Supreme Court; inflict punishment on those who assail their actuations.9 This danger
(b) When the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted lurks especially in such a case as this where those who Sit as members
and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such of an entire Court are themselves collectively the aggrieved parties.
departure by the lower court, as to call for the exercise of the power of Courts thus treat with forbearance and restraint a lawyer who vigorously
supervision. assails their actuations. 10 For courageous and fearless advocates are
Recalling Atty. Almacen's petition for review, we found, upon a the strands that weave durability into the tapestry of justice. Hence, as
thoroughgoing examination of the pleadings. and records, that the Court citizen and officer of the court, every lawyer is expected not only to
of Appeals had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of his appeal exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to expose the
in the light of the law and applicable decisions of this Court. Far from shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges. 11
straying away from the "accepted and usual course of judicial Courts and judges are not sacrosanct. 12 They should and expect critical
Page 163

proceedings," it traced the procedural lines etched by this Court in a evaluation of their performance. 13 For like the executive and the
legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted in the soil of democratic

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
society, nourished by the periodic appraisal of the citizens whom it is maintain at all times the respect due to courts of justice and judicial
expected to serve. officers. This obligation is not discharged by merely observing the rules
Well-recognized therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of of courteous demeanor in open court, but includes abstaining out of court
the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward judges
through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. The reason is personally for their judicial acts. (Bradley, v. Fisher, 20 Law. 4d. 647,
that 652)
An attorney does not surrender, in assuming the important place The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is
accorded to him in the administration of justice, his right as a citizen to essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the
criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers even those gifted with
the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers.
encouraged by the courts. (In re Ades, 6 F Supp. 487) . The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler or more learned
Criticism of the courts has, indeed, been an important part of the lawyer than the judge, and it may tax his patience and temper to submit
traditional work of the bar. In the prosecution of appeals, he points out to rulings which he regards as incorrect, but discipline and self-respect
the errors of lower courts. In written for law journals he dissects with are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to
detachment the doctrinal pronouncements of courts and fearlessly lays the effectiveness of an army. The decisions of the judge must be obeyed,
bare for -all to see that flaws and inconsistence" of the doctrines (Hill v. because he is the tribunal appointed to decide, and the bar should at all
Lyman, 126 NYS 2d 286). As aptly stated by Chief Justice Sharswood times be the foremost in rendering respectful submission. (In Re
in Ex Parte Steinman, 40 Am. Rep. 641: Scouten, 40 Atl. 481)
No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the We concede that a lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment
expansion or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or That is his privilege. And he may suffer frustration at what he feels is
integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best others' lack of it. That is his misfortune. Some such frame of mind,
opportunities for observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in however, should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attack
constant attendance on the courts. ... To say that an attorney can only a court's decision in words calculated to jettison the time-honored
act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to aphorism that courts are the temples of right. (Per Justice Sanchez
be deprived of his profession and livelihood, by the judge or judges whom in Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, L-22979. June 26, 1967)
he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his personality
monstrous to be so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus,
entertained. ... . statements made by an attorney in private conversations or
Hence, as a citizen and as Officer of the court a lawyer is expected not communications 16 or in the course of a political, campaign, 17 if couched
only to exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such in insulting language as to bring into scorn and disrepute the
right. No law may abridge this right. Nor is he "professionally answerable administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary action.
for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not Of fundamental pertinence at this juncture is an examination of relevant
expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen." (Case of Austin, 28 Am. parallel precedents.
Dee. 657, 665). 1. Admitting that a "judge as a public official is neither sacrosanct nor
Above all others, the members of the bar have the beat Opportunity to immune to public criticism of his conduct in office," the Supreme Court
become conversant with the character and efficiency of our judges. No of Florida in State v. Calhoon, 102 So. 2d 604, 608, nevertheless
class is less likely to abuse the privilege, as no other class has as great declared that "any conduct of a lawyer which brings into scorn and
an interest in the preservation of an able and upright bench. (State Board disrepute the administration of justice demands condemnation and the
of Examiners in Law v. Hart, 116 N.W. 212, 216) application of appropriate penalties," adding that:
To curtail the right of a lawyer to be critical of the foibles of courts and It would be contrary to, every democratic theory to hold that a judge or a
judges is to seal the lips of those in the best position to give advice and court is beyond bona fide comments and criticisms which do not exceed
who might consider it their duty to speak disparagingly. "Under such a the bounds of decency and truth or which are not aimed at. the
rule," so far as the bar is concerned, "the merits of a sitting judge may be destruction of public confidence in the judicial system as such. However,
rehearsed, but as to his demerits there must be profound silence." (State when the likely impairment of the administration of justice the direct
v. Circuit Court, 72 N.W. 196) product of false and scandalous accusations then the rule is otherwise.
But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona 2. In In Re Glenn, 130 N.W. 2d 672, an attorney was suspended for
fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide putting out and circulating a leaflet entitled "JUSTICE??? IN OTUMWA,"
chasm exists between fair criticism, on the One hand, and abuse and which accused a municipal judge of having committed judicial error, of
slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and being so prejudiced as to deny his clients a fair trial on appeal and of
unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is being subject to the control of a group of city officials. As a prefatory
Such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. statement he wrote: "They say that Justice is BLIND, but it took Municipal
For, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and Judge Willard to prove that it is also DEAF and DUMB!" The court did
duties which are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into the legal not hesitate to find that the leaflet went much further than the accused,
profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more as a lawyer, had a right to do.
exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the The entire publication evidences a desire on the part Of the accused to
courts. He vows solemnly to conduct himself "with all good fidelity ... to belittle and besmirch the court and to bring it into disrepute with the
the courts; 14 and the Rules of Court constantly remind him "to observe general public.
and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial 3. In In Re Humphrey, 163 Pac. 60, the Supreme Court of California
officers." 15 The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain affirmed the two-year suspension of an attorney who published a circular
towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary assailing a judge who at that time was a candidate for re-election to a
incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme judicial office. The circular which referred to two decisions of the judge
importance." concluded with a statement that the judge "used his judicial office to
As Mr. Justice Field puts it: enable -said bank to keep that money." Said the court:
... the obligation which attorneys impliedly assume, if they do not by We are aware that there is a line of authorities which place no limit to the
Page 164

express declaration take upon themselves, when they are admitted to criticism members of the bar may make regarding the capacity,
the Bar, is not merely to be obedient to the Constitution and laws, but to impartiality, or integrity of the courts, even though it extends to the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
deliberate publication by the attorney capable of correct reasoning of suspension from practice, notwithstanding that he fully retracted and
baseless insinuations against the intelligence and integrity of the highest withdrew the statements, and asserted that the affidavit was the result of
courts. See State Board, etc. v. Hart. 116 N.W. 212, 17 LRA (N.S.) 585, an impulse caused by what he considered grave injustice. The Court
15 Ann Cas 197 and note: Ex parte Steinman 95 Pac. 220, 40 Am. Rep. said:
637. In the first case mentioned it was observed, for instance: We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is a growing habit in the
"It may be (although we do not so decide) that a libelous publication by profession of criticising the motives and integrity of judicial officers in the
an attorney, directed against a judicial officer, could be so vile and of discharge of their duties, and thereby reflecting on the administration of
such a nature as to justify the disbarment of its author." justice and creating the impression that judicial action is influenced by
Yet the false charges made by an attorney in that case were of graver corrupt or improper motives. Every attorney of this court, as well as every
character than those made by the respondent here. But, in our view, the other citizen, has the right and it is his duty, to submit charges to the
better rule is that which requires of those who are permitted to enjoy the authorities in whom is vested the power to remove judicial officers for
privilege of practicing law the strictest observance at all times of the any conduct or act of a judicial officer that tends to show a violation of
principles of truth, honesty and fairness, especially in their criticism of the his duties, or would justify an inference that he is false to his trust, or has
courts, to the end that the public confidence in the due administration of improperly administered the duties devolved upon him; and such
justice be upheld, and the dignity and usefulness of the courts be charges to the tribunal, if based upon reasonable inferences, will be
maintained. In re Collins, 81 Pac. 220. encouraged, and the person making them
4. In People ex rel Chicago Bar Asso. v. Metzen, 123 N.E. 734, an protected. ... While we recognize the inherent right of an attorney in a
attorney, representing a woman who had been granted a divorce, case decided against him, or the right of the Public generally, to criticise
attacked the judge who set aside the decree on bill of review. He wrote the decisions of the courts, or the reasons announced for them, the habit
the judge a threatening letter and gave the press the story of a proposed of criticising the motives of judicial officers in the performance of their
libel suit against the judge and others. The letter began: official duties, when the proceeding is not against the officers whose acts
Unless the record in In re Petersen v. Petersen is cleared up so that my or motives are criticised, tends to subvert the confidence of the
name is protected from the libel, lies, and perjury committed in the cases community in the courts of justice and in the administration of justice;
involved, I shall be compelled to resort to such drastic action as the law and when such charges are made by officers of the courts, who are
allows and the case warrants. bound by their duty to protect the administration of justice, the attorney
Further, he said: "However let me assure you I do not intend to allow making such charges is guilty of professional misconduct.
such dastardly work to go unchallenged," and said that he was engaged 7. In In Re Mitchell, 71 So. 467, a lawyer published this statement:
in dealing with men and not irresponsible political manikins or I accepted the decision in this case, however, with patience, barring
appearances of men. Ordering the attorney's disbarment, the Supreme possible temporary observations more or less vituperative and finally
Court of Illinois declared: concluded, that, as my clients were foreigners, it might have been
... Judges are not exempt from just criticism, and whenever there is expecting too much to look for a decision in their favor against a widow
proper ground for serious complaint against a judge, it is the right and residing here.
duty of a lawyer to submit his grievances to the proper authorities, but The Supreme Court of Alabama declared that:
the public interest and the administration of the law demand that the ... the expressions above set out, not only transcend the bounds of
courts should have the confidence and respect of the people. Unjust propriety and privileged criticism, but are an unwarranted attack, direct,
criticism, insulting language, and offensive conduct toward the judges or by insinuation and innuendo, upon the motives and integrity of this
personally by attorneys, who are officers of the court, which tend to bring court, and make out a prima facie case of improper conduct upon the
the courts and the law into disrepute and to destroy public confidence in part of a lawyer who holds a license from this court and who is under
their integrity, cannot be permitted. The letter written to the judge was oath to demean himself with all good fidelity to the court as well as to his
plainly an attempt to intimidate and influence him in the discharge of client.
judicial functions, and the bringing of the unauthorized suit, together with The charges, however, were dismissed after the attorney apologized to
the write-up in the Sunday papers, was intended and calculated to bring the Court.
the court into disrepute with the public. 8. In State ex rel. Dabney v. Breckenridge, 258 Pac. 747, an attorney
5. In a public speech, a Rhode Island lawyer accused the courts of the published in a newspaper an article in which he impugned the motives
state of being influenced by corruption and greed, saying that the seats of the court and its members to try a case, charging the court of having
of the Supreme Court were bartered. It does not appear that the attorney arbitrarily and for a sinister purpose undertaken to suspend the writ
had criticized any of the opinions or decisions of the Court. The lawyer of habeas corpus. The Court suspended the respondent for 30 days,
was charged with unprofessional conduct, and was ordered suspended saying that:
for a period of two years. The Court said: The privileges which the law gives to members of the bar is one most
A calumny of that character, if believed, would tend to weaken the subversive of the public good, if the conduct of such members does not
authority of the court against whose members it was made, bring its measure up to the requirements of the law itself, as well as to the ethics
judgments into contempt, undermine its influence as an unbiased arbiter of the profession. ...
of the people's right, and interfere with the administration of justice. ... The right of free speech and free discussion as to judicial determination
Because a man is a member of the bar the court will not, under the guise is of prime importance under our system and ideals of government. No
of disciplinary proceedings, deprive him of any part of that freedom of right thinking man would concede for a moment that the best interest to
speech which he possesses as a citizen. The acts and decisions of the private citizens, as well as to public officials, whether he labors in a
courts of this state, in cases that have reached final determination, are judicial capacity or otherwise, would be served by denying this right of
not exempt from fair and honest comment and criticism. It is only when free speech to any individual. But such right does not have as its corollary
an attorney transcends the limits of legitimate criticism that he will be that members of the bar who are sworn to act honestly and honorably
held responsible for an abuse of his liberty of speech. We well both with their client and with the courts where justice is administered, if
understand that an independent bar, as well as independent court, is administered at all, could ever properly serve their client or the public
always a vigilant defender of civil rights. In Re Troy, 111 Atl. 723. 725. good by designedly misstating facts or carelessly asserting the law. Truth
6. In In Re Rockmore, 111 NYS 879, an attorney was suspended for six and honesty of purpose by members of the bar in such discussion is
months for submitting to an appellate court an affidavit reflecting upon necessary. The health of a municipality is none the less impaired by a
Page 165

the judicial integrity of the court from which the appeal was taken. Such polluted water supply than is the health of the thought of a community
action, the Court said, constitutes unprofessional conduct justifying toward the judiciary by the filthy wanton, and malignant misuse of

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
members of the bar of the confidence the public, through its duly willfully violated his obligation to maintain the respect due to courts and
established courts, has reposed in them to deal with the affairs of the judicial officers. "This obligation is not discharged by merely observing
private individual, the protection of whose rights he lends his strength the rules of courteous demeanor in open court, but it includes abstaining
and money to maintain the judiciary. For such conduct on the part of the out of court from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward the
members of the bar the law itself demands retribution not the court. judges personally for their official acts."Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. (U.S.)
9. In Bar Ass'n of San Francisco v. Philbrook, 170 Pac. 440, the filing of 355, 20 L. Ed. 646. And there appears to be no distinction, as regards
an affidavit by an attorney in a pending action using in respect to the the principle involved, between the indignity of an assault by an attorney
several judges the terms criminal corrupt, and wicked conspiracies,," upon a judge, induced by his official act, and a personal insult for like
"criminal confederates," "colossal and confident insolence," "criminal cause by written or spoken words addressed to the judge in his
prosecution," "calculated brutality," "a corrupt deadfall," and similar chambers or at his home or elsewhere. Either act constitutes misconduct
phrases, was considered conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar, wholly different from criticism of judicial acts addressed or spoken to
and the name of the erring lawyer was ordered stricken from the roll of others. The distinction made is, we think entirely logical and well
attorneys. sustained by authority. It was recognized in Ex parte McLeod supra.
10. In State Board of Examiners v. Hart, 116 N.W. 215, the erring While the court in that case, as has been shown, fully sustained the right
attorney claimed that greater latitude should be allowed in case of of a citizen to criticise rulings of the court in actions which are ended, it
criticism of cases finally adjudicated than in those pending. This lawyer held that one might be summarily punished for assaulting a judicial
wrote a personal letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of officer, in that case a commissioner of the court, for his rulings in a cause
Minnesota impugning both the intelligence and the integrity of the said wholly concluded. "Is it in the power of any person," said the court, "by
Chief Justice and his associates in the decisions of certain appeals in insulting or assaulting the judge because of official acts, if only the
which he had been attorney for the defeated litigants. The letters were assailant restrains his passion until the judge leaves the building, to
published in a newspaper. One of the letters contained this paragraph: compel the judge to forfeit either his own self-respect to the regard of the
You assigned it (the property involved) to one who has no better right to people by tame submission to the indignity, or else set in his own person
it than the burglar to his plunder. It seems like robbing a widow to reward the evil example of punishing the insult by taking the law in his own
a fraud, with the court acting as a fence, or umpire, watchful and vigilant hands? ... No high-minded, manly man would hold judicial office under
that the widow got no undue such conditions."
advantage. ... The point is this: Is a proper motive for the decisions That a communication such as this, addressed to the Judge personally,
discoverable, short of assigning to the court emasculated intelligence, or constitutes professional delinquency for which a professional
a constipation of morals and faithlessness to duty? If the state bar punishment may be imposed, has been directly decided. "An attorney
association, or a committee chosen from its rank, or the faculty of the who, after being defeated in a case, wrote a personal letter to the trial
University Law School, aided by the researches of its hundreds of bright, justice, complaining of his conduct and reflecting upon his integrity as a
active students, or if any member of the court, or any other person, can justice, is guilty of misconduct and will be disciplined by the court." Matter
formulate a statement of a correct motive for the decision, which shall of Manheim 133 App. Div. 136, 99 N.Y. Supp. 87 The same is held in Re
not require fumigation before it is stated, and quarantine after it is made, Griffin (City Ct.) 1 N.Y. 7 and in Re Wilkes (City Ct.) 3 N.Y. In the latter
it will gratify every right-minded citizen of the state to read it. case it appeared that the accused attorney had addressed a sealed letter
The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in ordering the suspension of the to a justice of the City Court of New York, in which it was stated, in
attorney for six months, delivered its opinion as follows: reference to his decision: "It is not law; neither is it common sense. The
The question remains whether the accused was guilty of professional result is I have been robbed of 80." And it was decided that, while such
misconduct in sending to the Chief Justice the letter addressed to him. conduct was not a contempt under the state, the matter should be "called
This was done, as we have found, for the very purpose of insulting him to the attention of the Supreme Court, which has power to discipline the
and the other justices of this court; and the insult was so directed to the attorney." "If," says the court, "counsel learned in the law are permitted
Chief Justice personally because of acts done by him and his associates by writings leveled at the heads of judges, to charge them with ignorance,
in their official capacity. Such a communication, so made, could never with unjust rulings, and with robbery, either as principals or accessories,
subserve any good purpose. Its only effect in any case would be to gratify it will not be long before the general public may feel that they may redress
the spite of an angry attorney and humiliate the officers so assailed. It their fancied grievances in like manner, and thus the lot of a judge will be
would not and could not ever enlighten the public in regard to their judicial anything but a happy one, and the administration of justice will fall into
capacity or integrity. Nor was it an exercise by the accused of any bad repute."
constitutional right, or of any privilege which any reputable attorney, The recent case of Johnson v. State (Ala.) 44 South. 671, was in this
uninfluenced by passion, could ever have any occasion or desire to respect much the same as the case at bar. The accused, an attorney at
assert. No judicial officer, with due regard to his position, can resent such law, wrote and mailed a letter to the circuit judge, which the latter
an insult otherwise than by methods sanctioned by law; and for any received by due course of mail, at his home, while not holding court, and
words, oral or written, however abusive, vile, or indecent, addressed which referred in insulting terms to the conduct of the judge in a cause
secretly to the judge alone, he can have no redress in any action triable wherein the accused had been one of the attorneys. For this it was held
by a jury. "The sending of a libelous communication or libelous matter to that the attorney was rightly disbarred in having "willfully failed to
the person defamed does not constitute an actionable publication." 18 maintain respect due to him [the judge] as a judicial officer, and thereby
Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 1017. In these respects the sending by breached his oath as an attorney." As recognizing the same principle,
the accused of this letter to the Chief Justice was wholly different from and in support of its application to the facts of this case, we cite the
his other acts charged in the accusation, and, as we have said, wholly following: Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall (U.S.) 364, 19 L. Ed. 214; Beene v.
different principles are applicable thereto. State, 22 Ark. 149;Commonwealth v. Dandridge, 2 Va. Cas. 408; People
The conduct of the accused was in every way discreditable; but so far as v. Green, 7 Colo 237, 244, 3 Pac. 65, 374, 49 Am. Rep. 351; Smith's
he exercised the rights of a citizen, guaranteed by the Constitution and Appeal, 179 Pa. 14, 36 Atl. 134; Scouten's Appeal, 186 Pa. 270, Atl. 481.
sanctioned by considerations of public policy, to which reference has Our conclusion is that the charges against the accused have been so far
been made, he was immune, as we hold, from the penalty here sought sustained as to make it our duty to impose such a penalty as may be
to be enforced. To that extent his rights as a citizen were paramount to sufficient lesson to him and a suitable warning to others. ...
the obligation which he had assumed as an officer of this court. When, 11. In Cobb v. United States, 172 F. 641, the court affirmed a lawyer's
Page 166

however he proceeded and thus assailed the Chief Justice personally, suspension for 18 months for publishing a letter in a newspaper in which
he exercised no right which the court can recognize, but, on the contrary,

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
he accused a judge of being under the sinister influence of a gang that evidence the incompetency or narrow mindedness of the majority of its
had paralyzed him for two years. members," and his belief that "In the wake of so many blunders and
12. In In Re Graves, 221 Pac. 411, the court held that an attorney's injustices deliberately committed during these last years, ... the only
unjustifiable attack against the official acts and decisions of a judge remedy to put an end to go much evil, is to change the members of the
constitutes "moral turpitude." There, the attorney was disbarred for Supreme Court," which tribunal he denounced as "a constant peril to
criticising not only the judge, but his decisions in general claiming that liberty and democracy" and "a far cry from the impregnable bulwark of
the judge was dishonest in reaching his decisions and unfair in his justice of those memorable times of Cayetano Arellano, Victorino Mapa,
general conduct of a case. Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were the honor and glory
13. In In Re Doss, 12 N.E. 2d 659, an attorney published newspaper of the Philippine Judiciary." He there also announced that one of the first
articles after the trial of cases, criticising the court in intemperate measures he would introduce in then forthcoming session of Congress
language. The invariable effect of this sort of propaganda, said the court, would have for its object the complete reorganization of the Supreme
is to breed disrespect for courts and bring the legal profession into Court. Finding him in contempt, despite his avowals of good faith and his
disrepute with the public, for which reason the lawyer was disbarred. invocation of the guarantee of free speech, this Court declared:
14. In State v. Grimes, 354 Pac. 2d 108, an attorney, dissatisfied with But in the above-quoted written statement which he caused to be
the loss of a case, prepared over a period of years vicious attacks on published in the press, the respondent does not merely criticize or
jurists. The Oklahoma Supreme Court declared that his acts involved comment on the decision of the Parazo case, which was then and still is
such gross moral turpitude as to make him unfit as a member of the bar. pending consideration by this Court upon petition of Angel Parazo. He
His disbarment was ordered, even though he expressed an intention to not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the
resign from the bar. presentation of a bill in the next Congress, of which he is one of the
The teaching derived from the above disquisition and impressive members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the number of
affluence of judicial pronouncements is indubitable: Post-litigation Justices from eleven, so as to change the members of this Court which
utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical of the courts and decided the Parazo case, who according to his statement, are
their judicial actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not, which incompetent and narrow minded, in order to influence the final decision
transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and legitimate of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the
criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public administration of justice. But the respondent also attacks the honesty
confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of justice, and integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the
constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with Justices of this Court into disrepute and degrading the administration. of
disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the justice ... .
Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives inherent in it as the To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years
duly constituted guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity. committing deliberately so many blunders and injustices, that is to say,
Of course, rarely have we wielded our disciplinary powers in the face of that it has been deciding in favor of Que party knowing that the law and
unwarranted outbursts of counsel such as those catalogued in the justice is on the part of the adverse party and not on the one in whose
above-cited jurisprudence. Cases of comparable nature have generally favor the decision was rendered, in many cases decided during the last
been disposed of under the power of courts to punish for contempt which, years, would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people
although resting on different bases and calculated to attain a different in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court, and
end, nevertheless illustrates that universal abhorrence of such consequently to lower ,or degrade the administration of justice by this
condemnable practices. Court. The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution,
A perusal of the more representative of these instances may afford the last bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief
enlightenment. for their grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled
1. In Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724, where counsel branded the upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity
denial of his motion for reconsideration as "absolutely erroneous and of the members of this Court and believe that they cannot expect justice
constituting an outrage to the rigths of the petitioner Felipe Salcedo and therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and
a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls," this Court, although disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. As a member of the bar
conceding that and an officer of the courts, Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty
It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes
of his client, should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to
capable, but it is not, and never will be so for him to exercise said right promote distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to the courts
by resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and guarantees the stability of other institutions, which without such guaranty
respect which the dignity of the courts requires. The reason for this is would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
that respect for the courts guarantees the stability of their institution. Significantly, too, the Court therein hastened to emphasize that
Without such guaranty, said institution would be resting on a very shaky ... an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be
foundation, respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts; he may be
found counsel guilty of contempt inasmuch as, in its opinion, the removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty
statements made disclosed of flagrant misconduct (17 L.R.A. [N.S.], 586, 594.)
... an inexcusable disrespect of the authority of the court and an 3. In Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer: In re Proceedings against
intentional contempt of its dignity, because the court is thereby charged Alfonso Ponce Enrile, et al., supra, where counsel charged this Court
with no less than having proceeded in utter disregard of the laws, the with having "repeatedly fallen" into ,the pitfall of blindly adhering to its
rights to the parties, and 'of the untoward consequences, or with having previous "erroneous" pronouncements, "in disregard of the law on
abused its power and mocked and flouted the rights of Attorney Vicente jurisdiction" of the Court of Industrial Relations, our condemnation of
J. Francisco's client ... . counsel's misconduct was unequivocal. Articulating the sentiments of the
2. In In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, counsel, a senator and the author of the Court, Mr. Justice Sanchez stressed:
Press Freedom Law, reaching to, the imprisonment for contempt of one As we look back at the language (heretofore quoted) employed in the
Angel Parazo, who, invoking said law, refused to divulge the source of a motion for reconsideration, implications there are which inescapably
news item carried in his paper, caused to be published in i local arrest attention. It speaks of one pitfall into which this Court
Page 167

newspaper a statement expressing his regret "that our High Tribunal has has repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
not only erroneously interpreted said law, but it is once more putting in Relations comes into question. That pitfall is the tendency of this Court

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
to rely on its own pronouncements in disregard of the law on jurisdiction. More than this, however, consideration of whether or not he could be
It makes a sweeping charge that the decisions of this Court, blindly held liable for contempt for such post litigation utterances and actuations,
adhere to earlier rulings without as much as making any reference to and is here immaterial. By the tenor of our Resolution of November 17, 1967,
analysis of the pertinent statute governing the jurisdiction of the industrial we have confronted the situation here presented solely in so far as it
court. The plain import of all these is that this Court is so patently inept concerns Atty. Almacen's professional identity, his sworn duty as a
that in determining the jurisdiction of the industrial court, it has committed lawyer and his fitness as an officer of this Court, in the exercise of the
error and continuously repeated that error to the point of perpetuation. It disciplinary power the morals inherent in our authority and duty to
pictures this Court as one which refuses to hew to the line drawn by the safeguard and ethics of the legal profession and to preserve its ranks
law on jurisdictional boundaries. Implicit in the quoted statements is that from the intrusions of unprincipled and unworthy disciples of the noblest
the pronouncements of this Court on the jurisdiction of the industrial court of callings. In this inquiry, the pendency or non-pendency of a case in
are not entitled to respect. Those statements detract much from the court is altogether of no consequence. The sole objective of this
dignity of and respect due this Court. They bring into question the proceeding is to preserve the purity of the legal profession, by removing
capability of the members and some former members of this Court to or suspending a member whose misconduct has proved himself unfit to
render justice. The second paragraph quoted yields a tone of sarcasm continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to
which counsel labelled as "so called" the "rule against splitting of the office of an attorney.
jurisdiction." Undoubtedly, this is well within our authority to do. By constitutional
Similar thoughts and sentiments have been expressed in other mandate, 22 our is the solemn duty, amongst others, to determine the
cases 18 which, in the interest of brevity, need not now be reviewed in rules for admission to the practice of law. Inherent in this prerogative is
detail. the corresponding authority to discipline and exclude from the practice
Of course, a common denominator underlies the aforecited cases all of law those who have proved themselves unworthy of continued
of them involved contumacious statements made in pleadings filed membership in the Bar. Thus
pending litigation. So that, in line with the doctrinal rule that the protective The power to discipline attorneys, who are officers of the court, is an
mantle of contempt may ordinarily be invoked only against scurrilous inherent and incidental power in courts of record, and one which is
remarks or malicious innuendoes while a court mulls over a pending case essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. To deny its
and not after the conclusion thereof, 19 Atty. Almacen would now seek to existence is equivalent to a declaration that the conduct of attorneys
sidestep the thrust of a contempt charge by his studied emphasis that towards courts and clients is not subject to restraint. Such a view is
the remarks for which he is now called upon to account were made only without support in any respectable authority, and cannot be tolerated.
after this Court had written finis to his appeal. This is of no moment. Any court having the right to admit attorneys to practice and in this state
The rule that bars contempt after a judicial proceeding has terminated, that power is vested in this court-has the inherent right, in the exercise
has lost much of its vitality. For sometime, this was the prevailing view in of a sound judicial discretion to exclude them from practice. 23
this jurisdiction. The first stir for a modification thereof, however, came This, because the admission of a lawyer to the practice of law is a
when, inPeople vs. Alarcon, 20 the then Chief Justice Manuel V. Moran representation to all that he is worthy of their confidence and respect. So
dissented with the holding of the majority, speaking thru Justice Jose P. much so that
Laurel, which upheld the rule above-adverted to. A complete ... whenever it is made to appear to the court that an attorney is no longer
disengagement from the settled rule was later to be made in In re worthy of the trust and confidence of the public and of the courts, it
Brillantes, 21 a contempt proceeding, where the editor of the becomes, not only the right, but the duty, of the court which made him
Manila Guardian was adjudged in contempt for publishing an editorial one of its officers, and gave him the privilege of ministering within its bar,
which asserted that the 1944 Bar Examinations were conducted in a to withdraw the privilege. Therefore it is almost universally held that both
farcical manner after the question of the validity of the said examinations the admission and disbarment of attorneys are judicial acts, and that one
had been resolved and the case closed. Virtually, this was an adoption is admitted to the bar and exercises his functions as an attorney, not as
of the view expressed by Chief Justice Moran in his dissent in Alarcon to a matter of right, but as a privilege conditioned on his own behavior and
the effect that them may still be contempt by publication even after a the exercise of a just and sound judicial discretion. 24
case has been terminated. Said Chief Justice Moran in Alarcon: Indeed, in this jurisdiction, that power to remove or suspend has risen
A publication which tends to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence above being a mere inherent or incidental power. It has been elevated to
the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding, an express mandate by the Rules of Court. 25
constitutes criminal contempt which is 'summarily punishable by courts. Our authority and duty in the premises being unmistakable, we now
A publication which tends to degrade the courts and to destroy public proceed to make an assessment of whether or not the utterances and
confidence in them or that which tends to bring them in any way into actuations of Atty. Almacen here in question are properly the object of
disrepute, constitutes likewise criminal contempt, and is equally disciplinary sanctions.
punishable by courts. What is sought, in the first kind of contempt, to be The proffered surrender of his lawyer's certificate is, of course, purely
shielded against the influence of newspaper comments, is the all- potestative on Atty. Almacen's part. Unorthodox though it may seem, no
important duty of the courts to administer justice in the decision of a statute, no law stands in its way. Beyond making the mere offer,
pending case. In the second kind of contempt, the punitive hand of justice however, he went farther. In haughty and coarse language, he actually
is extended to vindicate the courts from any act or conduct calculated to availed of the said move as a vehicle for his vicious tirade against this
bring them into disfavor or to destroy public confidence in them. In the Court. The integrated entirety of his petition bristles with vile insults all
first there is no contempt where there is no action pending, as there is calculated to drive home his contempt for and disrespect to the Court
no decision which might in any way be influenced by the newspaper and its members. Picturing his client as "a sacrificial victim at the altar of
publication. In the second, the contempt exists, with or without a pending hypocrisy," he categorically denounces the justice administered by this
case, as what is sought to be protected is the court itself and its dignity. Court to be not only blind "but also deaf and dumb." With unmitigated
Courts would lose their utility if public confidence in them is destroyed. acerbity, he virtually makes this Court and its members with verbal
Accordingly, no comfort is afforded Atty. Almacen by the circumstance talons, imputing to the Court the perpetration of "silent injustices" and
that his statements and actuations now under consideration were made "short-cut justice" while at the same time branding its members as
only after the judgment in his client's appeal had attained finality. He "calloused to pleas of justice." And, true to his announced threat to argue
could as much be liable for contempt therefor as if it had been the cause of his client "in the people's forum," he caused the publication
Page 168

perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal. in the papers of an account of his actuations, in a calculated effort ;to
startle the public, stir up public indignation and disrespect toward the

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Court. Called upon to make an explanation, he expressed no regret, administration of justice be threatened by the retention in the Bar of men
offered no apology. Instead, with characteristic arrogance, he rehashed unfit to discharge the solemn responsibilities of membership in the legal
and reiterated his vituperative attacks and, alluding to the Scriptures, fraternity.
virtually tarred and feathered the Court and its members as inveterate Finally, the power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a
hypocrites incapable of administering justice and unworthy to impose necessary incident of the power to admit persons to said practice. By
disciplinary sanctions upon him. constitutional precept, this power is vested exclusively in this Court. This
The virulence so blatantly evident in Atty. Almacen's petition, answer and duty it cannot abdicate just as much as it cannot unilaterally renounce
oral argumentation speaks for itself. The vicious language used and the jurisdiction legally invested upon it. 31 So that even if it be conceded that
scurrilous innuendoes they carried far transcend the permissible bounds the members collectively are in a sense the aggrieved parties, that fact
of legitimate criticism. They could never serve any purpose but to gratify alone does not and cannot disqualify them from the exercise of that
the spite of an irate attorney, attract public attention to himself and, more power because public policy demands that they., acting as a Court,
important of all, bring ;this Court and its members into disrepute and exercise the power in all cases which call for disciplinary action. The
destroy public confidence in them to the detriment of the orderly present is such a case. In the end, the imagined anomaly of the merger
administration of justice. Odium of this character and texture presents no in one entity of the personalities of complainant, prosecutor and judge is
redeeming feature, and completely negates any pretense of passionate absolutely inexistent.
commitment to the truth. It is not a whit less than a classic example of Last to engage our attention is the nature and extent of the sanctions
gross misconduct, gross violation of the lawyer's oath and gross that may be visited upon Atty. Almacen for his transgressions. As marked
transgression of the Canons of Legal Ethics. As such, it cannot be out by the Rules of Court, these may range from mere suspension to
allowed to go unrebuked. The way for the exertion of our disciplinary total removal or disbarment. 32 The discretion to assess under the
powers is thus laid clear, and the need therefor is unavoidable. circumstances the imposable sanction is, of course, primarily addressed
We must once more stress our explicit disclaimer of immunity from to the sound discretion of the Court which, being neither arbitrary and
criticism. Like any other Government entity in a viable democracy, the despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, should ever
Court is not, and should not be, above criticism. But a critique of the be controlled by the imperative need that the purity and independence of
Court must be intelligent and discriminating, fitting to its high function as the Bar be scrupulously guarded and the dignity of and respect due to
the court of last resort. And more than this, valid and healthy criticism is the Court be zealously maintained.
by no means synonymous to obloquy, and requires detachment and That the misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is of considerable
disinterestedness, real qualities approached only through constant gravity cannot be overemphasized. However, heeding the stern
striving to attain them. Any criticism of the Court must, possess the injunction that disbarment should never be decreed where a lesser
quality of judiciousness and must be informed -by perspective and sanction would accomplish the end desired, and believing that it may not
infused by philosophy. 26 perhaps be futile to hope that in the sober light of some future day, Atty.
It is not accurate to say, nor is it an obstacle to the exercise of our Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do disservice
authority in ;the premises, that, as Atty. Almacen would have appear, the to an advocate and that in every effervescence of candor there is ample
members of the Court are the "complainants, prosecutors and judges" room for the added glow of respect, it is our view that suspension will
all rolled up into one in this instance. This is an utter misapprehension, if suffice under the circumstances. His demonstrated persistence in his
not a total distortion, not only of the nature of the proceeding at hand but misconduct by neither manifesting repentance nor offering apology
also of our role therein. therefor leave us no way of determining how long that suspension should
Accent should be laid on the fact that disciplinary proceedings like the last and, accordingly, we are impelled to decree that the same should be
present are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this indefinite. This, we are empowered to do not alone because
proceeding is not and does not involve a trial of an action or a suit, jurisprudence grants us discretion on the matter 33 but also because,
but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its even without the comforting support of precedent, it is obvious that if we
officers. 27 Not being intended to. inflict punishment, it is in no sense a have authority to completely exclude a person from the practice of law,
criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a there is no reason why indefinite suspension, which is lesser in degree
prosecutor therein It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. 28 Public and effect, can be regarded as falling outside of the compass of that
interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination authority. The merit of this choice is best shown by the fact that it will
is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the then be left to Atty. Almacen to determine for himself how long or how
privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the short that suspension shall last. For, at any time after the suspension
Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his becomes effective he may prove to this Court that he is once again fit to
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving resume the practice of law.
the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty. Vicente Raul
administration of justice b Almacen be, as he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law until
y purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have further orders, the suspension to take effect immediately.
proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and Let copies of this resolution. be furnished the Secretary of Justice, the
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. 29 In such posture, Solicitor General and the Court of Appeals for their information and
there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor. guidance.
Undeniably, the members of the Court are, to a certain degree, aggrieved
parties. Any tirade against the Court as a body is necessarily and Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not
inextricably as much so against the individual members thereof. But in supported by the record or having no materiality to the case.
the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity
separate and distinct from the individual personalities of its members. ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS, APP G.R. No. 1
Consistently with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate court, the individual CONSTRUCTION AND
members act not as such individuals but. only as a duly constituted court. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION*
Their distinct individualities are lost in the majesty of their office.30 So AND CESAR GOCO, Present:
that, in a very real sense, if there be any complainant in the case at bar, Petitioners,
it can only be the Court itself, not the individual members thereof as QUISUMB
Page 169

well as the people themselves whose rights, fortunes and properties, CARPIO M
nay, even lives, would be placed at grave hazard should the - versus - TINGA,

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

 LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
VELASCO,and JR.,Urdaneta
and City. The RTC also directed APP and APPCDC to answer
BRION, JJ.Capalads complaint.
CITY OF URDANETA, CEFERINO J. CAPALAD, WALDO C. DEL Aggrieved, APP and APPCDC filed a petition for certiorari before the
CASTILLO, NORBERTO M. DEL PRADO, JESUS A. ORDONO AND Promulgated: Court of Appeals. In its April 15, 2003 Resolution, the Court of Appeals
AQUILINO MAGUISA,** dismissed the petition on the following grounds: (1) defective verification
Respondents. Septemberand
23, certification
2008 of non-forum shopping, (2) failure of the petitioners to
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - submit certified true copies of the RTCs assailed orders as mere
x photocopies were submitted, and (3) lack of written explanation why
DECISION service of the petition to adverse parties was not personal.[10] The Court
QUISUMBING, J.: of Appeals also denied APP and APPCDCs motion for reconsideration
The instant petition seeks to set aside the Resolutions[1] dated April 15, in its February 4, 2004 Resolution.[11]
2003 and February 4, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. Hence, this petition, which we treat as one for review on certiorari under
76170. Rule 45, the proper remedy to assail the resolutions of the Court of
This case stemmed from a Complaint[2] for annulment of contracts with Appeals.[12]
prayer for preliminary prohibitory injunction and temporary restraining Petitioners argue that:
order filed by respondent Waldo C. Del Castillo, in his capacity as I.
taxpayer, against respondents City of Urdaneta and Ceferino J. Capalad THE APPELLATE COURT PALPABLY ERRED AND GRAVELY
doing business under the name JJEFWA Builders, and petitioners Asean ABUSED ITS JUDICIAL PREROGATIVES BY SUMMARILY
Pacific Planners (APP) represented by Ronilo G. Goco and Asean DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE BASIS OF PROCEDURAL
Pacific Planners Construction and Development Corporation (APPCDC) TECHNICALITIES DESPITE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
represented by Cesar D. Goco. [THEREWITH]
Del Castillo alleged that then Urdaneta City Mayor Rodolfo E. Parayno II.
entered into five contracts for the preliminary design, construction and THE TRIAL COURT PALPABLY ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
management of a four-storey twin cinema commercial center and hotel JUDICIAL PREROGATIVES BY CAPRICIOUSLY
involving a massive expenditure of public funds amounting to P250 (a.) Entertaining the taxpayers suits of private respondents del
million, funded by a loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB). For Castillo, del Prado, Ordono and Maguisa despite their clear lack of legal
minimal work, the contractor was allegedly paid P95 million. Del Castillo standing to file the same.
also claimed that all the contracts are void because the object is outside (b.) Allowing the entry of appearance of a private law firm to represent
the commerce of men. The object is a piece of land belonging to the the City of Urdaneta despite the clear statutory and jurisprudential
public domain and which remains devoted to a public purpose as a public prohibitions thereto.
elementary school. Additionally, he claimed that the contracts, from the (c.) Allowing Ceferino J. Capalad and the City of Urdaneta to switch
feasibility study to management and lease of the future building, are also sides, by permitting the withdrawal of their respective answers and
void because they were all awarded solely to the Goco family. admitting their complaints as well as allowing the appearance of Atty.
In their Answer,[3] APP and APPCDC claimed that the contracts are Jorito C. Peralta to represent Capalad although Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun,
valid. Urdaneta City Mayor Amadeo R. Perez, Jr., who filed the citys his counsel of record, had not withdrawn from the case, in gross violation
Answer,[4] joined in the defense and asserted that the contracts were of well settled rules and case law on the matter.[13]
properly executed by then Mayor Parayno with prior authority from We first resolve whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying
the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Mayor Perez also stated that Del Castillo reconsideration of its April 15, 2003 Resolution despite APP and
has no legal capacity to sue and that the complaint states no cause of APPCDCs subsequent compliance.
action. For respondent Ceferino J. Capalad, Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun filed Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed
an Answer[5] with compulsory counterclaim and motion to dismiss on the the petition on mere technicalities since they have attached the proper
ground that Del Castillo has no legal standing to sue. documents in their motion for reconsideration and substantially complied
Respondents Norberto M. Del Prado, Jesus A. Ordono and Aquilino with the rules.
Maguisa became parties to the case when they jointly filed, also in their Respondent Urdaneta City maintains that the Court of Appeals correctly
capacity as taxpayers, a Complaint-in-Intervention[6] adopting the dismissed the petition because Cesar Goco had no proof he was
allegations of Del Castillo. authorized to sign the certification of non-forum shopping in behalf of
After pre-trial, the Lazaro Law Firm entered its appearance as counsel APPCDC.
for Urdaneta City and filed an Omnibus Motion[7] with prayer to (1) Indeed, Cesar Goco had no proof of his authority to sign the verification
withdraw Urdaneta Citys Answer; (2) drop Urdaneta City as defendant and certification of non-forum shopping of the petition for certiorari filed
and be joined as plaintiff; (3) admit Urdaneta Citys complaint; and (4) with the Court of Appeals.[14] Thus, the Court of Appeals is allowed by
conduct a new pre-trial. Urdaneta City allegedly wanted to rectify its the rules the discretion to dismiss the petition since only individuals
position and claimed that inadequate legal representation caused its vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate
inability to file the necessary pleadings in representation of its interests. of non-forum shopping in behalf of a corporation. Proof of said authority
In its Order[8] dated September 11, 2002, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) must be attached; otherwise, the petition is subject to dismissal.[15]
of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 45, admitted the entry of However, it must be pointed out that in several cases,[16] this Court had
appearance of the Lazaro Law Firm and granted the withdrawal of considered as substantial compliance with the procedural requirements
appearance of the City Prosecutor. It also granted the prayer to drop the the submission in the motion for reconsideration of the authority to sign
city as defendant and admitted its complaint for consolidation with Del the verification and certification, as in this case. The Court notes that the
Castillos complaint, and directed the defendants to answer the citys attachments in the motion for reconsideration show that on March 5,
complaint. 2003, the Board of Directors of APPCDC authorized Cesar Goco to
In its February 14, 2003 Order,[9] the RTC denied reconsideration of institute the petition before the Court of Appeals.[17] On March 22, 2003,
the September 11, 2002 Order. It also granted Capalads motion to Ronilo Goco doing business under the name APP, also appointed his
expunge all pleadings filed by Atty. Sahagun in his behalf. Capalad was father, Cesar Goco, as his attorney-in-fact to file the petition.[18] When
dropped as defendant, and his complaint filed by Atty. Jorito C. Peralta the petition was filed on March 26, 2003[19]before the Court of Appeals,
Page 170

was admitted and consolidated with the complaints of Del Castillo Cesar Goco was duly authorized to sign the verification and certification

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
except that the proof of his authority was not submitted together with the rigid adherence to the law on representation would deprive a party of his
petition. right to redress a valid grievance.[28]
Similarly, petitioners submitted in the motion for reconsideration certified We cannot agree with the Lazaro Law Firm. Its appearance
true copies of the assailed RTC orders and we may also consider the as Urdaneta Citys counsel is against the law as it provides expressly
same as substantial compliance.[20] Petitioners also included in the who should represent it. The City Prosecutor should continue to
motion for reconsideration their explanation[21] that copies of the petition represent the city.
were personally served on the Lazaro Law Firm and mailed to the RTC Section 481(a)[29] of the Local Government Code (LGC) of
and Atty. Peralta because of distance. The affidavit of 1991[30] mandates the appointment of a city legal officer. Under Section
service[22] supported the explanation. Considering the substantial issues 481(b)(3)(i)[31] of the LGC, the city legal officer is supposed to represent
involved, it was thus error for the appellate court to deny reinstatement the city in all civil actions, as in this case, and special proceedings
of the petition. wherein the city or any of its officials is a party. In Ramos v. Court of
Having discussed the procedural issues, we shall now proceed to Appeals,[32] we cited that under Section 19[33] of Republic Act No.
address the substantive issues raised by petitioners, rather than remand 5185,[34] city governments may already create the position of city legal
this case to the Court of Appeals. In our view, the issue, simply put, is: officer to whom the function of the city fiscal (now prosecutor) as legal
Did the RTC err and commit grave abuse of discretion in (a) entertaining adviser and officer for civil cases of the city shall be transferred.[35] In the
the taxpayers suits; (b) allowing a private law firm to case of Urdaneta City, however, the position of city legal officer is still
represent Urdaneta City; (c) allowing respondents Capalad vacant, although its charter[36] was enacted way back in 1998.
and Urdaneta City to switch from being defendants to becoming Because of such vacancy, the City Prosecutors appearance as counsel
complainants; and (d) allowing Capalads change of attorneys? of Urdaneta City is proper. The City Prosecutor remains as the citys
On the first point at issue, petitioners argue that a taxpayer may only sue legal adviser and officer for civil cases, a function that could not yet be
where the act complained of directly involves illegal disbursement of transferred to the city legal officer. Under the circumstances, the RTC
public funds derived from taxation. The allegation of respondents Del should not have allowed the entry of appearance of the Lazaro Law
Castillo, Del Prado, Ordono and Maguisa that the construction of the Firmvice the City Prosecutor. Notably, the citys Answer was sworn to
project is funded by the PNB loan contradicts the claim regarding illegal before the City Prosecutor by Mayor Perez. The City Prosecutor
disbursement since the funds are not directly derived from taxation. prepared the citys pre-trial brief and represented the city in the pre-trial
Respondents Del Castillo, Del Prado, Ordono and Maguisa counter that conference. No question was raised against the City Prosecutors actions
their personality to sue was not raised by petitioners APP and APPCDC until the Lazaro Law Firm entered its appearance and claimed that the
in their Answer and that this issue was not even discussed in the RTCs city lacked adequate legal representation.
assailed orders. Moreover, the appearance of the Lazaro Law Firm as counsel
Petitioners contentions lack merit. The RTC properly allowed the for Urdaneta City is against the law. Section 481(b)(3)(i) of the LGC
taxpayers suits. In Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Roxas,[23] we held: provides when a special legal officer may be employed, that is, in actions
In the case of taxpayers suits, the party suing as a taxpayer must prove or proceedings where a component city or municipality is a party adverse
that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of to the provincial government. But this case is not
money raised by taxation. Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue between Urdaneta City and theProvince of Pangasinan. And we have
where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that consistently held that a local government unit cannot be represented by
public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public private counsel[37] as only public officers may act for and in behalf of
funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or public entities and public funds should not be spent to hire private
unconstitutional law. lawyers.[38] Pro bono representation in collaboration with the municipal
xxxx attorney and prosecutor has not even been allowed.[39]
Petitioners allegations in their Amended Complaint that the loan Neither is the law firms appearance justified under the instances listed
contracts entered into by the Republic and NPC are serviced or paid in Mancenido when local government officials can be represented by
through a disbursement of public funds are not disputed by respondents, private counsel, such as when a claim for damages could result in
hence, they are invested with personality to institute the same.[24] personal liability. No such claim against said officials was made in this
Here, the allegation of taxpayers Del Castillo, Del Prado, Ordono and case. Note that before it joined the complainants, the city was the one
Maguisa that P95 million of the P250 million PNB loan had already been sued, not its officials. That the firm represents Mayor Perez in criminal
paid for minimal work is sufficient allegation of overpayment, of illegal cases, suits in his personal capacity,[40] is of no moment.
disbursement, that invests them with personality to sue. Petitioners do On the third point, petitioners claim that Urdaneta City is estopped to
not dispute the allegation as they merely insist, albeit erroneously, that reverse admissions in its Answer that the contracts are valid and, in its
public funds are not involved. Under Article 1953[25] of the Civil Code, the pre-trial brief, that the execution of the contracts was in good faith.
city acquired ownership of the money loaned from PNB, making the We disagree. The court may allow amendment of pleadings.
money public fund. The city will have to pay the loan by revenues raised Section 5,[41] Rule 10 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides that if
from local taxation or by its internal revenue allotment. evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the
In addition, APP and APPCDCs lack of objection in their Answer on the issues raised by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be
personality to sue of the four complainants constitutes waiver to raise the amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits
objection under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.[26] of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved
On the second point, petitioners contend that only the City Prosecutor thereby. Objections need not even arise in this case since the Pre-trial
can represent Urdaneta City and that law and jurisprudence prohibit the Order[42] dated April 1, 2002 already defined as an issue whether the
appearance of the Lazaro Law Firm as the citys counsel. contracts are valid. Thus, what is needed is presentation of the parties
The Lazaro Law Firm, as the citys counsel, counters that the city was evidence on the issue. Any evidence of the city for or against the validity
inutile defending its cause before the RTC for lack of needed legal of the contracts will be relevant and admissible. Note also that
advice. The city has no legal officer and both City Prosecutor and under Section 5, Rule 10, necessary amendments to pleadings may be
Provincial Legal Officer are busy. Practical considerations also dictate made to cause them to conform to the evidence.
that the city and Mayor Perez must have the same counsel since he In addition, despite Urdaneta Citys judicial admissions, the trial court is
faces related criminal cases. Citing Mancenido v. Court of still given leeway to consider other evidence to be presented for said
Page 171

Appeals,[27] the law firm states that hiring private counsel is proper where admissions may not necessarily prevail over documentary

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
evidence,[43] e.g., the contracts assailed. A partys testimony in open The Case
court may also override admissions in the Answer.[44]
As regards the RTCs order admitting Capalads complaint and dropping This administrative case arose from a complaint filed on 22 October
him as defendant, we find the same in order. Capalad insists that Atty. 2001 by Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom (Judge Lacurom), Pairing
Sahagun has no authority to represent him. Atty. Sahagun claims Judge, Regional Trial Court of CabanatuanCity, Branch 30, against
otherwise. We note, however, that Atty. Sahagun represents petitioners respondent-spouses Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco-
who claim that the contracts are valid. On the other hand, Capalad filed Jacoba (respondents). Complainant charged respondents with violation
a complaint for annulment of the contracts. Certainly, Atty. Sahagun of Rules 11.03,[1] 11.04,[2] and 19.01[3] of the Code of Professional
cannot represent totally conflicting interests. Thus, we should expunge Responsibility.
all pleadings filed by Atty. Sahagun in behalf of Capalad.
Relatedly, we affirm the order of the RTC in allowing Capalads change The Facts
of attorneys, if we can properly call it as such,
considering Capalads claim that Atty. Sahagun was never his attorney.
Before we close, notice is taken of the offensive language used by Attys. The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro
Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio B. Escalante in their pleadings before us R. Veneracion (Veneracion) in a civil case for unlawful detainer against
and the Court of Appeals.They unfairly called the Court of Appeals a defendant
court of technicalities[45] for validly dismissing their defectively prepared FedericoBarrientos (Barrientos).[4] The Municipal Trial Court of Cabanat
petition. They also accused the Court of Appeals of protecting, in their uan City rendered judgment in favor
view, an incompetent judge.[46] In explaining the concededly strong of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the Regional Trial Court. The
language, Atty. Sahagun further indicted himself. He said that the Court case was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as
of Appeals dismissal of the case shows its impatience and readiness to pairing judge.
punish petitioners for a perceived slight on its dignity and such dismissal
smacks of retaliation and does not augur for the cold neutrality and On 29 June 2001, Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution (Resolution)
impartiality demanded of the appellate court.[47] reversing the earlier judgments rendered in favor
Accordingly, we impose upon Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio B. of Veneracion.[5] The dispositive portion reads:
Escalante a fine of P2,000[48] each payable to this Court within ten days
from notice and we remind them that they should observe and maintain WHEREFORE, this Court hereby REVERSES its Decision
the respect due to the Court of Appeals and judicial officers;[49] abstain dated December 22, 2000, as well as REVERSES the Decision of the
from offensive language before the courts;[50] and not attribute to a Judge court a quo dated July 22, 1997.
motives not supported by the record.[51] Similar acts in the future will be
dealt with more severely. Furthermore, the plaintiff-appellee Alejandro Veneracion is ordered to
WHEREFORE, we (1) GRANT the petition; (2) SET ASIDE the CEASE and DESIST from ejecting the defendant-appellant
Resolutions dated April 15, 2003 and February 4, 2004 of the Court of Federico Barrientos from the 1,000 square meterhomelot covered by
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76170; (3) DENY the entry of appearance of TCT No. T-75274, and the smaller area of one hundred forty-seven
the Lazaro Law Firm in Civil Case No. U-7388 and EXPUNGE all square meters, within the 1,000 sq.m. covered by TCT No. T-78613, and
pleadings it filed as counsel of Urdaneta City; (4) ORDER the City the house thereon standing covered by Tax Declaration No. 02006-
Prosecutor to represent Urdaneta City in Civil Case No. U-7388; 01137, issued by the City Assessor of Cabanatuan City;
(5) AFFIRM the RTC in admitting the complaint of Capalad; and and Barrientos is ordered to pay Veneracion P10,000.00 for the house
(6) PROHIBIT Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun from covered by Tax Declaration No. 02006-01137.
representing Capalad and EXPUNGE all pleadings that he filed in behalf
of Capalad. SO ORDERED.[6]
Let the records of Civil Case No. U-7388 be remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings.
Finally, we IMPOSE a fine of P2,000 each on Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun Veneracions counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with Request
and Antonio B. Escalante for their use of offensive language, payable to for Inhibition)[7] dated 30 July 2001 (30 July 2001 motion), pertinent
this Court within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision. portions of which read:

UDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM, A.C. No. 5921 II. PREFATORY STATEMENT

Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and Present: This RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is
Pairing Judge, Branch 30, entirely DEVOID of factual and legal basis. It is a Legal
Complainant, QUISUMBING, J., MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable REGIONAL TRIAL
Chairperson, COURT acted as if it were the DARAB (Dept. of Agrarian Reform
CARPIO, ADJUDICATION BOARD)! x x x HOW HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE! The
- versus - CARPIO MORALES, and TINGA, JJ. mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x x

ATTY. ELLIS F. JACOBA and Promulgated: xxxx

ATTY. OLIVIA VELASCO-JACOBA,
Respondents. March 10, 2006 III. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
x--------------------------------------------------x
1. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED in Peremptorily
DECISION and Suddenly Reversing the Findings of the Lower Court Judge and the
Regular RTC Presiding Judge:
Page 172

CARPIO, J.: x x x The defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and after a very
questionable SHORT period of time, came this STUNNING and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
SUDDEN REVERSAL. Without any legal or factual basis, the Hon. court for the very disrespectful, insulting and humiliating contents of
Pairing Judge simply and peremptorily REVERSED two (2) decisions in the 30 July 2001 motion.[10] In her Explanation, Comments and
favor of the plaintiff. This is highly questionable, if not suspicious, hence, Answer,[11] Velasco-Jacoba claimed that His Honor knows beforehand
this Motion for Reconsideration. who actually prepared the subject Motion; records will show that the
undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in this
xxxx case.[12] Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any conscious or deliberate intent
to degrade the honor and integrity of the Honorable Court or to detract
[The Resolution] assumes FACTS that have not been established and in any form from the respect that is rightfully due all courts of
presumes FACTS not part of the records of the case, all loaded in favor justice.[13]She rationalized as follows:
of the alleged TENANT. Clearly, the RESOLUTION is an INSULT to the
Judiciary and an ANACHRONISM in the Judicial Process. Need we say x x x at first blush, [the motion] really appears to contain some sardonic,
more? strident and hard-striking adjectives. And, if we are to pick such stringent
words at random and bunch them together, side-by-side x x x then
xxxx collectively and certainly they present a cacophonic picture of total and
utter disrespect. x x x
4. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED in Holding That
the Defendant is Entitled to a Homelot, and That the Residential LOT in xxxx
Question is That Homelot:
We most respectfully submit that plaintiff & counsel did not just fire a
THIS ERROR IS STUPENDOUS and a real BONER. Where did the staccato of incisive and hard-hitting remarks, machine-gun style as to be
Honorable PAIRING JUDGE base this conclusion? called contumacious and contemptuous. They were just articulating their
x x x This HORRENDOUS MISTAKE must be corrected here and now! feelings of shock, bewilderment and disbelief at the sudden reversal of
their good fortune, not driven by any desire to just cast aspersions at the
xxxx Honorable Pairing judge. They must believe that big monumental errors
deserve equally big adjectives, no more no less. x x x The matters
6. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED Grievously in involved were [neither] peripheral nor marginalized, and they had to call
Holding and Declaring that The [court] A QUO Erroneously Took a spade a spade. x x x [14]
Cognizance of the Case and That It Had No Jurisdiction over the Subject-
Matter:
Nevertheless, Velasco-Jacoba expressed willingness to apologize for
whatever mistake [they] may have committed in a moment of unguarded
discretion when [they] may have stepped on the line and gone out of
bounds. She also agreed to have the allegedly contemptuous phrases
stricken off the record.[15]
Another HORRIBLE ERROR! Even an average Law Student knows that
JURISDICTION is determined by the averments of the COMPLAINT and On 13 September 2001, Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of
not by the averments in the answer! This is backed up by a Litany of contempt and penalized her with imprisonment for five days and a fine
Cases! of P1,000.[16]

xxxx
Velasco-Jacoba moved for reconsideration of the 13 September 2001
7. FINALLY, the Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge Ridiculously order. She recounted that on her way out of the house for an afternoon
ERRED in Ordering the Defendant To Pay P10,000.00 to the Plaintiff As hearing, Atty. Ellis Jacoba (Jacoba) stopped her and
Payment for Plaintiffs HOUSE: said O, pirmahan mo na ito kasi last day na, baka mahuli. (Sign this as it
is due today, or it might not be filed on time.) She signed the pleading
THIS IS the Last STRAW, but it is also the Best ILLUSTRATION of the handed to her without reading it, in trusting blind faith on her husband of
Manifold GLARING ERRORS committed by the Hon. Pairing Court 35 years with whom she entrusted her whole life and future.[17] This
Judge. pleading turned out to be the 30 July 2001 motion which Jacoba drafted
but could not sign because of his then suspension from the practice of
xxxx law.[18]

This Order of the Court for the plaintiff to sell his RESIDENTIAL HOUSE Velasco-Jacoba lamented that Judge Lacurom had found her guilty of
to the defendant for the ridiculously LOW price of P10,000.00 best contempt without conducting any hearing. She accused
illustrates the Long Line of Faultyreasonings and ERRONEOUS Judge Lacurom of harboring a personal vendetta, ordering her
conclusions of the Hon. Pairing Court Presiding Judge. Like the imprisonment despite her status as senior lady lawyer of the
proverbial MONSTER, the Monstrous Resolution should be slain on IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter, already a senior citizen, and a grandmother
sight![8] many times over.[19] At any rate, she argued, Judge Lacurom should
have inhibited himself from the case out of delicadeza because
The 30 July 2001 motion prayed that (1) Judge Lacurom inhibit himself [Veneracion] had already filed against him criminal cases before the
in order to give plaintiff a fighting chance and (2) the Resolution be Office of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City and before the
reconsidered and set aside.[9]Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba (Velasco- Ombudsman.[20]
Jacoba) signed the motion on behalf of the Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law
Firm. The records show that with the assistance of counsel Jacoba and
the Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm, Veneracion had executed an
Page 173

On 6 August 2001, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear affidavit on 23 August 2001 accusing Judge Lacurom of knowingly
before his sala and explain why she should not be held in contempt of

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
rendering unjust judgment through inexcusable negligence and
ignorance[21] and violating The Courts Ruling
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019).[22] The first charge
became the subject of a preliminary investigation[23] by the City On a preliminary note, we reject Velasco-Jacobas contention that the
Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City. On the second charge, Veneracion set present complaint should be considered sub judice in view of the petition
forth his allegations in a Complaint-Affidavit[24] filed on 28 August 2001 for certiorari and mandatory inhibition with preliminary injunction (petition
with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. for certiorari)[35] filed before the Court of Appeals.

Judge Lacurom issued another order on 21 September 2001, this time The petition for certiorari, instituted by Veneracion and Velasco-
directing Jacoba to explain why he should not be held in Jacoba on 4 October 2001, seeks to nullify the following orders issued
contempt.[25] Jacoba complied by filing an Answer with Second Motion by Judge Lacurom in Civil Case No. 2836: (1) the Orders dated 26
for Inhibition, wherein he denied that he typed or prepared the 30 July September 2001 and 9 November 2001 denying respondents respective
2001 motion. Against Velasco-Jacobas statements implicating motions for inhibition; and (2) the 13 September 2001 Order which found
him, Jacobainvoked the marital privilege rule in Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt. The petitioners allege that
evidence.[26] Judge Lacurom later rendered a Judge Lacurom acted with grave abuse of discretion [amounting] to lack
decision[27] finding Jacoba guilty of contempt of court and sentencing him of jurisdiction, in violation of express provisions of the law and applicable
to pay a fine ofP500. decisions of the Supreme Court.[36]

On 22 October 2001, Judge Lacurom filed the present complaint against Plainly, the issue before us is respondents liability under the Code of
respondents before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Professional Responsibility. The outcome of this case has no bearing on
the resolution of the petition for certiorari, as there is neither identity of
issues nor causes of action.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
Neither should the Courts dismissal of the administrative complaint
Respondents did not file an answer and neither did they appear at the against Judge Lacurom for being premature impel us to dismiss this
hearing set by IBP Commissioner Atty. Lydia A. Navarro (IBP complaint. Judge Lacuroms orders in Civil Case No. 2836 could not be
Commissioner Navarro) despite sufficient notice.[28] the subject of an administrative complaint against him while a petition for
certiorari assailing the same orders is pending with an
IBP Commissioner Navarro, in her Report and Recommendation of 10 appellate court.Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor
October 2002, recommended the suspension of respondents from the cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to the
practice of law for six months.[29]IBP Commissioner Navarro found that aggrieved parties and the same has not been resolved with finality. Until
respondents were prone to us[ing] offensive and derogatory remarks and there is a final declaration that the challenged order or judgment is
phrases which amounted to discourtesy and disrespect for manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether the
authority.[30] Although the remarks were not directed at judge is administratively liable.[37]
Judge Lacurom personally, they were aimed at his position as a judge,
which is a smack on the judiciary system as a whole.[31] The respondents are situated differently within the factual setting of this
case. The corresponding implications of their actions also give rise to
The IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) adopted IBP Commissioner different liabilities. We first examine the charge against Velasco-Jacoba.
Navarros Report and Recommendation, except for the length of
suspension which the IBP Board reduced to three months.[32] On 10 There is no dispute that the genuine signature of Velasco-
December 2002, the IBP Board transmitted its recommendation to this Jacoba appears on the 30 July 2001 motion. Velasco-
Court, together with the documents pertaining to the case. Jacobas responsibility as counsel is governed by Section 3, Rule 7 of
the Rules of Court:
Several days later, Velasco-Jacoba sought reconsideration of the IBP SEC. 3. Signature and address.Every pleading must be signed by the
Board decision, thus:[33] party or counsel representing him x x x.

The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has

xxxx read the pleading, that to the best of his knowledge, information,
and belief there is good ground to support it, and that it is not
3. For the information of the Honorable Commission, the present interposed for delay.
complaint of Judge Lacurom is sub judice; the same issues x x x Counsel who x x x signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or
involved in this case are raised before the Honorable Court of alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein x x x shall be subject
Appeals presently pending in CA-G.R. SP No. 66973 for Certiorari to appropriate disciplinary action. (Emphasis supplied)
and Mandatory Inhibition with TRO and Preliminary Injunction x x x;
By signing the 30 July 2001 motion, Velasco-Jacoba in effect certified
4. We filed an Administrative Case against Judge Lacurom before the that she had read it, she knew it to be meritorious, and it was not for the
Supreme Court involving the same issues we raised in the purpose of delaying the case. Her signature supplied the motion with
aforementioned Certiorari case, which was dismissed by the Supreme legal effect and elevated its status from a mere scrap of paper to that of
Court for being premature, in view of the pending Certiorari case before a court document.
the Court of Appeals;
Velasco-Jacoba insists, however, that she signed the 30 July 2001
5. In like manner, out of respect and deference to the Court of Appeals, motion only because of her husbands request but she did not know its
the present complaint should likewise be dismissed and/or suspended contents beforehand. Apparently, this practice of signing each others
pending resolution of the certiorari case by the Court of pleadings is a long-standing arrangement between the spouses.
Page 174

Appeals.[34] (Emphasis supplied) According to Velasco-Jacoba, [s]o implicit is [their] trust for each other
that this happens all the time. Through the years, [she] already lost count

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
of the number of pleadings prepared by one that is signed by the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according
other.[38] By Velasco-Jacobas own admission, therefore, she violated to supporting law and jurisprudence. Though a lawyers language may be
Section 3 of Rule 7. This violation is an act of falsehood before the forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful,
courts, which in itself is a ground befitting the dignity of the legal profession.[46] The use of unnecessary
language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts
and trust in judicial administration.[47]
for subjecting her to disciplinary action, independent of any other ground
arising from the contents of the 30 July 2001 motion.[39] In maintaining the respect due to the courts, a lawyer is not merely
enjoined to use dignified language but also to pursue the clients
We now consider the evidence as regards Jacoba. His name does not cause through fair and honest means, thus:
appear in the 30 July 2001 motion. He asserts the inadmissibility
of Velasco-Jacobas statement pointing to him as the author of the Rule 19.01.A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain
motion. the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain
The Court cannot easily let Jacoba off the hook. Firstly, his Answer with an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Second Motion for Inhibition did not contain a denial of his wifes account.
Instead, Jacoba impliedly admitted authorship of the motion by stating
that he trained his guns and fired at the errors which he perceived and Shortly after the filing of the 30 July 2001 motion but before its
believed to be gigantic and monumental.[40] resolution, Jacoba assisted his client in instituting two administrative
cases against Judge Lacurom. As we have earlier noted, Civil Case No.
Secondly, we find Velasco-Jacobas version of the facts more plausible, 2836 was then pending before Judge Lacuroms sala. The Courts
for two reasons: (1) her reaction to the events was immediate and attention is drawn to the fact that the timing of the filing of these
spontaneous, unlike Jacobasdefense which was raised only after a administrative cases could very well raise the suspicion that the cases
considerable time had elapsed from the eruption of the were intended as leverage against Judge Lacurom.
controversy; and (2) Jacoba had been
counsel of record for Veneracion in Civil Case No. 2836, supporting Respondent spouses have both been the subject of administrative cases
Velasco-Jacobas assertion that she had not actually participate[d] in the before this Court. In Administrative Case No. 2594, we
prosecution of the case. suspended Jacoba from the practice of law for a period of six months
because of his failure to file an action for the recovery of possession of
Moreover, Jacoba filed a Manifestation in Civil Case No. 2836, praying property despite the lapse of two and a half years from receipt by him
that Judge Lacurom await the outcome of the petition for certiorari before of P550 which his client gave him as filing and sheriffs fees.[48] In
deciding the contempt charge against him.[41] This petition for certiorari Administrative Case No. 5505, Jacoba was once again found remiss in
anchors some of its arguments on the premise that the motion was, in his duties when he failed to file the appellants brief, resulting in the
fact, Jacobas handiwork.[42] dismissal of his clients appeal. We imposed the penalty of one year
suspension.[49]
The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by As for Velasco-Jacoba, only recently this Court fined her P5,000 for
failure of the claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any appearing in barangay conciliation proceedings on behalf of a party,
conduct that may be construed as implied consent.[43] This waiver knowing fully well the prohibition contained in Section 415 of the Local
applies to Jacoba who impliedly admitted authorship of the 30 July 2001 Government Code.[50]
motion.
In these cases, the Court sternly warned respondents that a repetition of
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: similar acts would merit a stiffer penalty. Yet, here again we are faced
with the question of whether respondents have conducted themselves
Rule 11.03.A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or with the courtesy and candor required of them as members of the bar
menacing language or behavior before the Courts. and officers of the court. We find respondents to have fallen short of the
mark.
Rule 11.04.A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported
by the record or have no materiality to the case. WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of
law for two (2) years effective upon finality of this
Decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the
No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly practice of law for two (2) months effective upon finality of this Decision.
exceeded the vigor required of Jacoba to defend ably his clients cause. We STERNLY WARN respondents that a repetition of the same or
We recall his use of the following words and phrases: abhorrent similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.
nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake, horrible error, boner,
and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism in the judicial process. Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant,
Even Velasco-Jacoba acknowledged that the words created a to be appended to respondents personal records as attorneys; the
cacophonic picture of total and utter disrespect.[44] Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.
Respondents nonetheless try to exculpate themselves by saying that
every remark in the 30 July 2001 motion was warranted. We disagree. SO ORDERED.

Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court Rule 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to
and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through the proper authorities already.
legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.[45] However, even the A lawyer is an officer of the court. He occupies a quasi-judicial
Page 175

most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by office with a tripartite obligation to the courts, to the public and
the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms Resolution. On its face, the to his clients.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
The public duties of the attorney take precedence over his injustices that were committed must never be repeated." He ends his
private duties. His first duty is to the courts. Where duties to petition with a prayer that
the courts conflict with his duties to his clients, the latter must ... a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate
yield to the former. of the undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with
Lawyers must be respectful not only in actions but also in the reservation that at any time in the future and in the event we regain our
use of language whether in oral arguments or in pleadings. faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of
the noblest profession.
Must exert efforts that others (including clients, witnesses)
He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the
shall deal with the courts and judicial officers with respect.
aforementioned petition. Thus, on September 26, 1967, the Manila
Obedience to court orders and processes. Times published statements attributed to him, as follows:
Criticisms of courts must not spill the walls of decency. There Vicente Raul Almacen, in an unprecedented petition, said he did it to
is a wide difference between fair criticism and abuse and expose the tribunal's"unconstitutional and obnoxious" practice of
slander of courts and judges. Intemperate and unfair criticism arbitrarily denying petitions or appeals without any reason.
is a gross violation of the duty to respect the courts. It Because of the tribunal's "short-cut justice," Almacen deplored, his client
amounts to misconduct which subjects the lawyer to was condemned to pay P120,000, without knowing why he lost the case.
disciplinary action. xxx xxx xxx
A mere disclaimer of any intentional disrespect by appellant There is no use continuing his law practice, Almacen said in this
is not a ground for exoneration. His intent must be petition, "where our Supreme Court is composed of men who are
determined by a fair interpretation of the languages employed calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reason their own
by him. He cannot escape responsibility by claiming that his applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution
words did not mean what any reader must have understood with impunity.
them to mean. xxx xxx xxx
Lawyer can demand that the misbehavior of a judge be put He expressed the hope that by divesting himself of his title by which he
on record. earns his living, the present members of the Supreme Court "will become
Lawyers must be courageous enough to expose arbitrariness responsive to all cases brought to its attention without discrimination, and
and injustice of courts and judges. will purge itself of those unconstitutional and obnoxious "lack of merit" or
A lawyer may submit grievances against judges in the "denied resolutions. (Emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court, Ombudsman, or Congress (for impeachment Atty. Almacen's statement that
of SC judges only). ... our own Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our
pleas of [sic] justice, who ignore their own applicable decisions and
CONST ART VIII: commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity
SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision was quoted by columnist Vicente Albano Pacis in the issue of the Manila
over all courts and the personnel thereof. Chronicle of September 28, 1967. In connection therewith, Pacis
commented that Atty. Almacen had "accused the high tribunal of
SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower offenses so serious that the Court must clear itself," and that "his charge
courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reached the age is one of the constitutional bases for impeachment."
of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Virginia
office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero,1 in which Atty. Almacen was
judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of counsel for the defendant. The trial court, after due hearing, rendered
the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in judgment against his client. On June 15, 1966 Atty. Almacen received a
the case and voted thereon. copy of the decision. Twenty days later, or on July 5, 1966, he moved for
its reconsideration. He served on the adverse counsel a copy of the
G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970 motion, but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on
IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION said motion. Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for
AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN In L-27654, ANTONIO execution of the judgment. For "lack of proof of service," the trial court
H. CALERO, denied both motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a
vs. copy of his first motion for reconsideration, Atty. Almacen filed on August
VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAY. 17, 1966 a second motion for reconsideration to which he attached the
RESOLUTION required registry return card. This second motion for reconsideration,
however, was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966,
CASTRO, J.: upon verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who, earlier, that is, on
Before us is Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's August 22, 1966, had already perfected the appeal. Because the plaintiff
Certificate of Title," filed on September 25, 1967, in protest against what interposed no objection to the record on appeal and appeal bond, the
he therein asserts is "a great injustice committed against his client by this trial court elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
Supreme Court." He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal But the Court of Appeals, on the authority of this Court's decision
"peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore in Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co., L-
without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable 16636, June 24, 1965, dismissed the appeal, in the following words:
violations of the Constitution with impunity." His client's he continues, Upon consideration of the motion dated March 27, 1967, filed by plaintiff-
who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment," has appellee praying that the appeal be dismissed, and of the opposition
become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy." In thereto filed by defendant-appellant; the Court RESOLVED TO
the same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice, he DISMISS, as it hereby dismisses, the appeal, for the reason that the
ridicules the members of this Court, saying "that justice as administered motion for reconsideration dated July 5, 1966 (pp. 90-113, printed record
by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also on appeal) does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing thereof
and is, therefore, a useless piece of paper (Manila Surety & Fidelity Co.,
Page 176

deaf and dumb." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the
people's forum," so that "the people may know of the silent injustice's Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co., G.R. No. L-16636, June 24, 1965),
committed by this Court," and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, require Atty. Almacen to state, within five days from notice hereof, his
consequently, the appeal was perfected out of time. reasons for such request, otherwise, oral argument shall be deemed
Atty. Almacen moved to reconsider this resolution, urging that Manila waived and incident submitted for decision." To this resolution he
Surety & Fidelity Co. is not decisive. At the same time he filed a pleading manifested that since this Court is "the complainant, prosecutor and
entitled "Latest decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion for Judge," he preferred to be heard and to answer questions "in person and
Reconsideration," citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Gregorio A. in an open and public hearing" so that this Court could observe his
Venturanza, L-20417, decided by this Court on May 30, 1966, as the sincerity and candor. He also asked for leave to file a written explanation
applicable case. Again, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for "in the event this Court has no time to hear him in person." To give him
reconsideration, thus: the ampliest latitude for his defense, he was allowed to file a written
Before this Court for resolution are the motion dated May 9, 1967 and explanation and thereafter was heard in oral argument.
the supplement thereto of the same date filed by defendant- appellant, His written answer, as undignified and cynical as it is unchastened, offers
praying for reconsideration of the resolution of May 8, 1967, dismissing -no apology. Far from being contrite Atty. Almacen unremittingly repeats
the appeal. his jeremiad of lamentations, this time embellishing it with abundant
Appellant contends that there are some important distinctions between sarcasm and innuendo. Thus:
this case and that of Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu At the start, let me quote passages from the Holy Bible, Chapter 7, St.
Construction & Co., G.R. No. L- 16636, June 24, 1965, relied upon by Matthew:
this Court in its resolution of May 8, 1967. Appellant further states that in "Do not judge, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you
the latest case,Republic vs. Venturanza, L-20417, May 30, 1966, judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you measure, it shall
decided by the Supreme Court concerning the question raised by be measured to you. But why dost thou see the speck in thy brother's
appellant's motion, the ruling is contrary to the doctrine laid down in the eye, and yet dost not consider the beam in thy own eye? Or how can
Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. case. thou say to thy brother, "Let me cast out the speck from thy eye"; and
There is no substantial distinction between this case and that of Manila behold, there is a beam in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the
Surety & Fidelity Co. beam from thy own eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the
In the case of Republic vs. Venturanza, the resolution denying the speck from thy brother's eyes."
motion to dismiss the appeal, based on grounds similar to those raised "Therefore all that you wish men to do to you, even to do you also to
herein was issued on November 26, 1962, which was much earlier than them: for this is the Law and the Prophets."
the date of promulgation of the decision in the Manila Surety Case, which xxx xxx xxx
was June 24, 1965. Further, the resolution in the Venturanza case was Your respondent has no intention of disavowing the statements
interlocutory and the Supreme Court issued it "without prejudice to mentioned in his petition. On the contrary, he refirms the truth of what he
appellee's restoring the point in the brief." In the main decision in said stated, compatible with his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood, nor
case (Rep. vs. Venturanza the Supreme Court passed upon the issue consent to the doing of any in court. But he vigorously DENY under oath
sub silencio presumably because of its prior decisions contrary to the that the underscored statements contained in the CHARGE are insolent,
resolution of November 26, 1962, one of which is that in the Manila contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory to the individual
Surety and Fidelity case. Therefore Republic vs. Venturanza is no members of the Court; that they tend to bring the entire Court, without
authority on the matter in issue. justification, into disrepute; and constitute conduct unbecoming of a
Atty. Almacen then appealed to this Court by certiorari. We refused to member of the noble profession of law.
take the case, and by minute resolution denied the appeal. Denied xxx xxx xxx
shortly thereafter was his motion for reconsideration as well as his Respondent stands four-square that his statement is borne by TRUTH
petition for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and for and has been asserted with NO MALICE BEFORE AND AFTER
extension of time. Entry of judgment was made on September 8, 1967. THOUGHT but mainly motivated with the highest interest of justice that
Hence, the second motion for reconsideration filed by him after the Said in the particular case of our client, the members have shown callousness
date was ordered expunged from the records. to our various pleas for JUSTICE, our pleadings will bear us on this
It was at this juncture that Atty. Almacen gave vent to his disappointment matter, ...
by filing his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," already xxx xxx xxx
adverted to a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with To all these beggings, supplications, words of humility, appeals for
the insolent contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks charity, generosity, fairness, understanding, sympathy and above all in
hereinbefore reproduced, against this Court as well as its individual the highest interest of JUSTICE, what did we get from this COURT?
members, a behavior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional. One word, DENIED, with all its hardiness and insensibility. That was the
Nonetheless we decided by resolution dated September 28, 1967 to unfeeling of the Court towards our pleas and prayers, in simple word, it
withhold action on his petition until he shall have actually surrendered his is plain callousness towards our particular case.
certificate. Patiently, we waited for him to make good his proffer. No word xxx xxx xxx
came from him. So he was reminded to turn over his certificate, which Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court
he had earlier vociferously offered to surrender, so that this Court could that notwithstanding the violation of the Constitution, you remained
act on his petition. To said reminder he manifested "that he has no unpunished, this Court in the reverse order of natural things, is now in
pending petition in connection with Case G.R. No. L-27654, Calero vs. the attempt to inflict punishment on your respondent for acts he said in
Yaptinchay, said case is now final and executory;" that this Court's good faith.
September 28, 1967 resolution did not require him to do either a positive Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for
or negative act; and that since his offer was not accepted, he "chose to JUSTICE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY and FAIRNESS? Did His Honors
pursue the negative act." attempt to justify their stubborn denial with any semblance of reason,
In the exercise of its inherent power to discipline a member of the bar for NEVER. Now that your respondent is given the opportunity to face you,
contumely and gross misconduct, this Court on November 17, 1967 he reiterates the same statement with emphasis, DID YOU? Sir. Is this.
resolved to require Atty. Almacen to show cause "why no disciplinary the way of life in the Philippines today, that even our own President, said:
action should be taken against him." Denying the charges contained in "the story is current, though nebulous ,is to its truth, it is still being
the November 17 resolution, he asked for permission "to give reasons circulated that justice in the Philippines today is not what it is used to be
Page 177

and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him ... in before the war. There are those who have told me frankly and brutally
an open and public hearing." This Court resolved (on December 7) "to that justice is a commodity, a marketable commodity in the Philippines."

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
xxx xxx xxx Be this as it may, were we to accept every case or write a full opinion for
We condemn the SIN, not the SINNER. We detest the ACTS, not the every petition we reject, we would be unable to carry out effectively the
ACTOR. We attack the decision of this Court, not the members. ... We burden placed upon us by the Constitution. The proper role of the
were provoked. We were compelled by force of necessity. We were Supreme Court, as Mr. Chief Justice Vinson of the U.S. Supreme Court
angry but we waited for the finality of the decision. We waited until this has defined it, is to decide "only those cases which present questions
Court has performed its duties. We never interfered nor obstruct in the whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular
performance of their duties. But in the end, after seeing that the facts and parties involved." Pertinent here is the observation of Mr.
Constitution has placed finality on your judgment against our client and Justice Frankfurter in Maryland vs. Baltimore Radio Show, 94 L. ed 562,
sensing that you have not performed your duties with "circumspection, 566:
carefulness, confidence and wisdom", your Respondent rise to claim his A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the
God given right to speak the truth and his Constitutional right of free same petition different reasons may read different justices to the same
speech. result ... .
xxx xxx xxx Since there are these conflicting, and, to the uninformed, even confusing
The INJUSTICES which we have attributed to this Court and the further reasons for denying petitions for certiorari, it has been suggested from
violations we sought to be prevented is impliedly shared by our time to time that the Court indicate its reasons for denial. Practical
President. ... . considerations preclude. In order that the Court may be enabled to
xxx xxx xxx discharge its indispensable duties, Congress has placed the control of
What has been abhored and condemned, are the very things that were the Court's business, in effect, within the Court's discretion. During the
applied to us. Recalling Madam Roland's famous apostrophe during the last three terms the Court disposed of 260, 217, 224 cases, respectively,
French revolution, "O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name", on their merits. For the same three terms the Court denied, respectively,
we may dare say, "O JUSTICE, what technicalities are committed in thy 1,260, 1,105,1,189 petitions calling for discretionary review. If the Court
name' or more appropriately, 'O JUSTICE, what injustices are committed is to do its work it would not be feasible to give reasons, however brief,
in thy name." for refusing to take these cases. The tune that would be required is
xxx xxx xxx prohibitive. Apart from the fact that as already indicated different reasons
We must admit that this Court is not free from commission of any abuses, not infrequently move different members of the Court in concluding that
but who would correct such abuses considering that yours is a court of a particular case at a particular time makes review undesirable.
last resort. A strong public opinion must be generated so as to curtail Six years ago, in Novino, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 1,21098,
these abuses. May 31, 1963 (60 O.G. 8099), this Court, through the then Chief Justice
xxx xxx xxx Cesar Bengzon, articulated its considered view on this matter. There, the
The phrase, Justice is blind is symbolize in paintings that can be found petitioners counsel urged that a "lack of merit" resolution violates Section
in all courts and government offices. We have added only two more 12 of Article VIII of the Constitution. Said Chief Justice Bengzon:
symbols, that it is also deaf and dumb. Deaf in the sense that no In connection with identical short resolutions, the same question has
members of this Court has ever heard our cries for charity, generosity, been raised before; and we held that these "resolutions" are not
fairness, understanding sympathy and for justice; dumb in the sense, "decisions" within the above constitutional requirement. They merely
that inspite of our beggings, supplications, and pleadings to give us hold that the petition for review should not be entertained in view of the
reasons why our appeal has been DENIED, not one word was spoken provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; and even ordinary lawyers
or given ... We refer to no human defect or ailment in the above have all this time so understood it. It should be remembered that a
statement. We only describe the. impersonal state of things and nothing petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of
more. right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully
xxx xxx xxx explain the court's denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already
As we have stated, we have lost our faith and confidence in the members mentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion.
of this Court and for which reason we offered to surrender our lawyer's By the way, this mode of disposal has as intended helped the Court
certificate, IN TRUST ONLY. Because what has been lost today may be in alleviating its heavy docket; it was patterned after the practice of the
regained tomorrow. As the offer was intended as our self-imposed U.S. Supreme Court, wherein petitions for review are often merely
sacrifice, then we alone may decide as to when we must end our self- ordered "dismissed".
sacrifice. If we have to choose between forcing ourselves to have faith We underscore the fact that cases taken to this Court on petitions
and confidence in the members of the Court but disregard our for certiorari from the Court of Appeals have had the benefit of appellate
Constitution and to uphold the Constitution and be condemned by the review. Hence, the need for compelling reasons to buttress such
members of this Court, there is no choice, we must uphold the latter. petitions if this Court is to be moved into accepting them. For it is
But overlooking, for the nonce, the vituperative chaff which he claims is axiomatic that the supervisory jurisdiction vested upon this Court over
not intended as a studied disrespect to this Court, let us examine the the Court of Appeals is not intended to give every losing party another
grain of his grievances. hearing. This axiom is implied in sec. 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
He chafes at the minute resolution denial of his petition for review. We which recites:
are quite aware of the criticisms2 expressed against this Court's practice Review of Court of Appeals' decision discretionary.A review is not a
of rejecting petitions by minute resolutions. We have been asked to do matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only
away with it, to state the facts and the law, and to spell out the reasons when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following,
for denial. We have given this suggestion very careful thought. For we while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion,
know the abject frustration of a lawyer who tediously collates the facts indicate the character of reasons which will be considered:
and for many weary hours meticulously marshalls his arguments, only to (a) When the Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance, not
have his efforts rebuffed with a terse unadorned denial. Truth to tell, theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, nor has decided it in a
however, most petitions rejected by this Court are utterly frivolous and way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of
ought never to have been lodged at all.3 The rest do exhibit a first- the Supreme Court;
impression cogency, but fail to, withstand critical scrutiny. By and large, (b) When the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted
this Court has been generous in giving due course to petitions and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such
Page 178

forcertiorari. departure by the lower court, as to call for the exercise of the power of
supervision.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Recalling Atty. Almacen's petition for review, we found, upon a citizen and officer of the court, every lawyer is expected not only to
thoroughgoing examination of the pleadings. and records, that the Court exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to expose the
of Appeals had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of his appeal shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges. 11
in the light of the law and applicable decisions of this Court. Far from Courts and judges are not sacrosanct. 12 They should and expect critical
straying away from the "accepted and usual course of judicial evaluation of their performance. 13 For like the executive and the
proceedings," it traced the procedural lines etched by this Court in a legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted in the soil of democratic
number of decisions. There was, therefore, no need for this Court to society, nourished by the periodic appraisal of the citizens whom it is
exercise its supervisory power. expected to serve.
As a law practitioner who was admitted to the Bar as far back as 1941, Well-recognized therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of
Atty. Almacen knew or ought to have known that for a motion for the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and
reconsideration to stay the running of the period of appeal, the movant through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. The reason is
must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party (which that
he did), but also notify the adverse party of the time and place of hearing An attorney does not surrender, in assuming the important place
(which admittedly he did not). This rule was unequivocally articulated accorded to him in the administration of justice, his right as a citizen to
in Manila Surety & Fidelity vs. Batu Construction & Co., supra: criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and
The written notice referred to evidently is prescribed for motions in the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been
general by Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 (formerly Rule 26), which provides encouraged by the courts. (In re Ades, 6 F Supp. 487) .
that such notice shall state the time, and place of hearing and shall be Criticism of the courts has, indeed, been an important part of the
served upon all the Parties concerned at least three days in advance. traditional work of the bar. In the prosecution of appeals, he points out
And according to Section 6 of the same Rule no motion shall be acted the errors of lower courts. In written for law journals he dissects with
upon by the court without proof of such notice. Indeed it has been held detachment the doctrinal pronouncements of courts and fearlessly lays
that in such a case the motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper bare for -all to see that flaws and inconsistence" of the doctrines (Hill v.
(Philippine National Bank v. Damasco, I,18638, Feb. 28, 1963; citing Lyman, 126 NYS 2d 286). As aptly stated by Chief Justice Sharswood
Manakil v. Revilla, 42 Phil. 81; Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa v. in Ex Parte Steinman, 40 Am. Rep. 641:
Municipality of Unisan, 41 Phil. 866; and Director of Lands vs. Sanz, 45 No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the
Phil. 117). The reason is obvious: Unless the movant sets the time and expansion or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or
place of hearing the Court would have no way to determine whether that integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best
party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on opportunities for observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in
his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within constant attendance on the courts. ... To say that an attorney can only
which he may file his reply or opposition. act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to
If Atty. Almacen failed to move the appellate court to review the lower be deprived of his profession and livelihood, by the judge or judges whom
court's judgment, he has only himself to blame. His own negligence he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too
caused the forfeiture of the remedy of appeal, which, incidentally, is not monstrous to be
a matter of right. To shift away from himself the consequences of his entertained. ... .
carelessness, he looked for a "whipping boy." But he made sure that he Hence, as a citizen and as Officer of the court a lawyer is expected not
assumed the posture of a martyr, and, in offering to surrender his only to exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such
professional certificate, he took the liberty of vilifying this Court and right. No law may abridge this right. Nor is he "professionally answerable
inflicting his exacerbating rancor on the members thereof. It would thus for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not
appear that there is no justification for his scurrilous and scandalous expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen." (Case of Austin, 28 Am.
outbursts. Dee. 657, 665).
Nonetheless we gave this unprecedented act of Atty. Almacen the most Above all others, the members of the bar have the beat Opportunity to
circumspect consideration. We know that it is natural for a lawyer to become conversant with the character and efficiency of our judges. No
express his dissatisfaction each time he loses what he sanguinely class is less likely to abuse the privilege, as no other class has as great
believes to be a meritorious case. That is why lawyers are given 'wide an interest in the preservation of an able and upright bench. (State Board
latitude to differ with, and voice their disapproval of, not only the courts' of Examiners in Law v. Hart, 116 N.W. 212, 216)
rulings but, also the manner in which they are handed down. To curtail the right of a lawyer to be critical of the foibles of courts and
Moreover, every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the judges is to seal the lips of those in the best position to give advice and
actuations of public officers. This right is not diminished by the fact that who might consider it their duty to speak disparagingly. "Under such a
the criticism is aimed at a judicial authority,4 or that it is articulated by a rule," so far as the bar is concerned, "the merits of a sitting judge may be
lawyer.5 Such right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns rehearsed, but as to his demerits there must be profound silence." (State
a concluded litigation,6 because then the court's actuations are thrown v. Circuit Court, 72 N.W. 196)
open to public consumption.7 "Our decisions and all our official actions," But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona
said the Supreme Court of Nebraska,8 "are public property, and the fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide
press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them, chasm exists between fair criticism, on the One hand, and abuse and
criticize and censure them as they see fit. Judicial officers, like other slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and
public servants, must answer for their official actions before the chancery unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is
of public opinion." Such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.
The likely danger of confusing the fury of human reaction to an attack on For, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and
one's integrity, competence and honesty, with "imminent danger to the duties which are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into the legal
administration of justice," is the reason why courts have been loath to profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more
inflict punishment on those who assail their actuations.9 This danger exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the
lurks especially in such a case as this where those who Sit as members courts. He vows solemnly to conduct himself "with all good fidelity ... to
of an entire Court are themselves collectively the aggrieved parties. the courts; 14 and the Rules of Court constantly remind him "to observe
Courts thus treat with forbearance and restraint a lawyer who vigorously and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial
Page 179

assails their actuations. 10 For courageous and fearless advocates are officers." 15 The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain
the strands that weave durability into the tapestry of justice. Hence, as towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme judicial office. The circular which referred to two decisions of the judge
importance." concluded with a statement that the judge "used his judicial office to
As Mr. Justice Field puts it: enable -said bank to keep that money." Said the court:
... the obligation which attorneys impliedly assume, if they do not by We are aware that there is a line of authorities which place no limit to the
express declaration take upon themselves, when they are admitted to criticism members of the bar may make regarding the capacity,
the Bar, is not merely to be obedient to the Constitution and laws, but to impartiality, or integrity of the courts, even though it extends to the
maintain at all times the respect due to courts of justice and judicial deliberate publication by the attorney capable of correct reasoning of
officers. This obligation is not discharged by merely observing the rules baseless insinuations against the intelligence and integrity of the highest
of courteous demeanor in open court, but includes abstaining out of court courts. See State Board, etc. v. Hart. 116 N.W. 212, 17 LRA (N.S.) 585,
from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward judges 15 Ann Cas 197 and note: Ex parte Steinman 95 Pac. 220, 40 Am. Rep.
personally for their judicial acts. (Bradley, v. Fisher, 20 Law. 4d. 647, 637. In the first case mentioned it was observed, for instance:
652) "It may be (although we do not so decide) that a libelous publication by
The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is an attorney, directed against a judicial officer, could be so vile and of
essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the such a nature as to justify the disbarment of its author."
assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers even those gifted with Yet the false charges made by an attorney in that case were of graver
superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers. character than those made by the respondent here. But, in our view, the
The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler or more learned better rule is that which requires of those who are permitted to enjoy the
lawyer than the judge, and it may tax his patience and temper to submit privilege of practicing law the strictest observance at all times of the
to rulings which he regards as incorrect, but discipline and self-respect principles of truth, honesty and fairness, especially in their criticism of the
are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to courts, to the end that the public confidence in the due administration of
the effectiveness of an army. The decisions of the judge must be obeyed, justice be upheld, and the dignity and usefulness of the courts be
because he is the tribunal appointed to decide, and the bar should at all maintained. In re Collins, 81 Pac. 220.
times be the foremost in rendering respectful submission. (In Re 4. In People ex rel Chicago Bar Asso. v. Metzen, 123 N.E. 734, an
Scouten, 40 Atl. 481) attorney, representing a woman who had been granted a divorce,
We concede that a lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment attacked the judge who set aside the decree on bill of review. He wrote
That is his privilege. And he may suffer frustration at what he feels is the judge a threatening letter and gave the press the story of a proposed
others' lack of it. That is his misfortune. Some such frame of mind, libel suit against the judge and others. The letter began:
however, should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attack Unless the record in In re Petersen v. Petersen is cleared up so that my
a court's decision in words calculated to jettison the time-honored name is protected from the libel, lies, and perjury committed in the cases
aphorism that courts are the temples of right. (Per Justice Sanchez involved, I shall be compelled to resort to such drastic action as the law
in Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, L-22979. June 26, 1967) allows and the case warrants.
In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his personality Further, he said: "However let me assure you I do not intend to allow
so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, such dastardly work to go unchallenged," and said that he was engaged
statements made by an attorney in private conversations or in dealing with men and not irresponsible political manikins or
communications 16 or in the course of a political, campaign, 17 if couched appearances of men. Ordering the attorney's disbarment, the Supreme
in insulting language as to bring into scorn and disrepute the Court of Illinois declared:
administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary action. ... Judges are not exempt from just criticism, and whenever there is
Of fundamental pertinence at this juncture is an examination of relevant proper ground for serious complaint against a judge, it is the right and
parallel precedents. duty of a lawyer to submit his grievances to the proper authorities, but
1. Admitting that a "judge as a public official is neither sacrosanct nor the public interest and the administration of the law demand that the
immune to public criticism of his conduct in office," the Supreme Court courts should have the confidence and respect of the people. Unjust
of Florida in State v. Calhoon, 102 So. 2d 604, 608, nevertheless criticism, insulting language, and offensive conduct toward the judges
declared that "any conduct of a lawyer which brings into scorn and personally by attorneys, who are officers of the court, which tend to bring
disrepute the administration of justice demands condemnation and the the courts and the law into disrepute and to destroy public confidence in
application of appropriate penalties," adding that: their integrity, cannot be permitted. The letter written to the judge was
It would be contrary to, every democratic theory to hold that a judge or a plainly an attempt to intimidate and influence him in the discharge of
court is beyond bona fide comments and criticisms which do not exceed judicial functions, and the bringing of the unauthorized suit, together with
the bounds of decency and truth or which are not aimed at. the the write-up in the Sunday papers, was intended and calculated to bring
destruction of public confidence in the judicial system as such. However, the court into disrepute with the public.
when the likely impairment of the administration of justice the direct 5. In a public speech, a Rhode Island lawyer accused the courts of the
product of false and scandalous accusations then the rule is otherwise. state of being influenced by corruption and greed, saying that the seats
2. In In Re Glenn, 130 N.W. 2d 672, an attorney was suspended for of the Supreme Court were bartered. It does not appear that the attorney
putting out and circulating a leaflet entitled "JUSTICE??? IN OTUMWA," had criticized any of the opinions or decisions of the Court. The lawyer
which accused a municipal judge of having committed judicial error, of was charged with unprofessional conduct, and was ordered suspended
being so prejudiced as to deny his clients a fair trial on appeal and of for a period of two years. The Court said:
being subject to the control of a group of city officials. As a prefatory A calumny of that character, if believed, would tend to weaken the
statement he wrote: "They say that Justice is BLIND, but it took Municipal authority of the court against whose members it was made, bring its
Judge Willard to prove that it is also DEAF and DUMB!" The court did judgments into contempt, undermine its influence as an unbiased arbiter
not hesitate to find that the leaflet went much further than the accused, of the people's right, and interfere with the administration of justice. ...
as a lawyer, had a right to do. Because a man is a member of the bar the court will not, under the guise
The entire publication evidences a desire on the part Of the accused to of disciplinary proceedings, deprive him of any part of that freedom of
belittle and besmirch the court and to bring it into disrepute with the speech which he possesses as a citizen. The acts and decisions of the
general public. courts of this state, in cases that have reached final determination, are
3. In In Re Humphrey, 163 Pac. 60, the Supreme Court of California not exempt from fair and honest comment and criticism. It is only when
Page 180

affirmed the two-year suspension of an attorney who published a circular an attorney transcends the limits of legitimate criticism that he will be
assailing a judge who at that time was a candidate for re-election to a held responsible for an abuse of his liberty of speech. We well

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
understand that an independent bar, as well as independent court, is administered at all, could ever properly serve their client or the public
always a vigilant defender of civil rights. In Re Troy, 111 Atl. 723. 725. good by designedly misstating facts or carelessly asserting the law. Truth
6. In In Re Rockmore, 111 NYS 879, an attorney was suspended for six and honesty of purpose by members of the bar in such discussion is
months for submitting to an appellate court an affidavit reflecting upon necessary. The health of a municipality is none the less impaired by a
the judicial integrity of the court from which the appeal was taken. Such polluted water supply than is the health of the thought of a community
action, the Court said, constitutes unprofessional conduct justifying toward the judiciary by the filthy wanton, and malignant misuse of
suspension from practice, notwithstanding that he fully retracted and members of the bar of the confidence the public, through its duly
withdrew the statements, and asserted that the affidavit was the result of established courts, has reposed in them to deal with the affairs of the
an impulse caused by what he considered grave injustice. The Court private individual, the protection of whose rights he lends his strength
said: and money to maintain the judiciary. For such conduct on the part of the
We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is a growing habit in the members of the bar the law itself demands retribution not the court.
profession of criticising the motives and integrity of judicial officers in the 9. In Bar Ass'n of San Francisco v. Philbrook, 170 Pac. 440, the filing of
discharge of their duties, and thereby reflecting on the administration of an affidavit by an attorney in a pending action using in respect to the
justice and creating the impression that judicial action is influenced by several judges the terms criminal corrupt, and wicked conspiracies,,"
corrupt or improper motives. Every attorney of this court, as well as every "criminal confederates," "colossal and confident insolence," "criminal
other citizen, has the right and it is his duty, to submit charges to the prosecution," "calculated brutality," "a corrupt deadfall," and similar
authorities in whom is vested the power to remove judicial officers for phrases, was considered conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar,
any conduct or act of a judicial officer that tends to show a violation of and the name of the erring lawyer was ordered stricken from the roll of
his duties, or would justify an inference that he is false to his trust, or has attorneys.
improperly administered the duties devolved upon him; and such 10. In State Board of Examiners v. Hart, 116 N.W. 215, the erring
charges to the tribunal, if based upon reasonable inferences, will be attorney claimed that greater latitude should be allowed in case of
encouraged, and the person making them criticism of cases finally adjudicated than in those pending. This lawyer
protected. ... While we recognize the inherent right of an attorney in a wrote a personal letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
case decided against him, or the right of the Public generally, to criticise Minnesota impugning both the intelligence and the integrity of the said
the decisions of the courts, or the reasons announced for them, the habit Chief Justice and his associates in the decisions of certain appeals in
of criticising the motives of judicial officers in the performance of their which he had been attorney for the defeated litigants. The letters were
official duties, when the proceeding is not against the officers whose acts published in a newspaper. One of the letters contained this paragraph:
or motives are criticised, tends to subvert the confidence of the You assigned it (the property involved) to one who has no better right to
community in the courts of justice and in the administration of justice; it than the burglar to his plunder. It seems like robbing a widow to reward
and when such charges are made by officers of the courts, who are a fraud, with the court acting as a fence, or umpire, watchful and vigilant
bound by their duty to protect the administration of justice, the attorney that the widow got no undue
making such charges is guilty of professional misconduct. advantage. ... The point is this: Is a proper motive for the decisions
7. In In Re Mitchell, 71 So. 467, a lawyer published this statement: discoverable, short of assigning to the court emasculated intelligence, or
I accepted the decision in this case, however, with patience, barring a constipation of morals and faithlessness to duty? If the state bar
possible temporary observations more or less vituperative and finally association, or a committee chosen from its rank, or the faculty of the
concluded, that, as my clients were foreigners, it might have been University Law School, aided by the researches of its hundreds of bright,
expecting too much to look for a decision in their favor against a widow active students, or if any member of the court, or any other person, can
residing here. formulate a statement of a correct motive for the decision, which shall
The Supreme Court of Alabama declared that: not require fumigation before it is stated, and quarantine after it is made,
... the expressions above set out, not only transcend the bounds of it will gratify every right-minded citizen of the state to read it.
propriety and privileged criticism, but are an unwarranted attack, direct, The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in ordering the suspension of the
or by insinuation and innuendo, upon the motives and integrity of this attorney for six months, delivered its opinion as follows:
court, and make out a prima facie case of improper conduct upon the The question remains whether the accused was guilty of professional
part of a lawyer who holds a license from this court and who is under misconduct in sending to the Chief Justice the letter addressed to him.
oath to demean himself with all good fidelity to the court as well as to his This was done, as we have found, for the very purpose of insulting him
client. and the other justices of this court; and the insult was so directed to the
The charges, however, were dismissed after the attorney apologized to Chief Justice personally because of acts done by him and his associates
the Court. in their official capacity. Such a communication, so made, could never
8. In State ex rel. Dabney v. Breckenridge, 258 Pac. 747, an attorney subserve any good purpose. Its only effect in any case would be to gratify
published in a newspaper an article in which he impugned the motives the spite of an angry attorney and humiliate the officers so assailed. It
of the court and its members to try a case, charging the court of having would not and could not ever enlighten the public in regard to their judicial
arbitrarily and for a sinister purpose undertaken to suspend the writ capacity or integrity. Nor was it an exercise by the accused of any
of habeas corpus. The Court suspended the respondent for 30 days, constitutional right, or of any privilege which any reputable attorney,
saying that: uninfluenced by passion, could ever have any occasion or desire to
The privileges which the law gives to members of the bar is one most assert. No judicial officer, with due regard to his position, can resent such
subversive of the public good, if the conduct of such members does not an insult otherwise than by methods sanctioned by law; and for any
measure up to the requirements of the law itself, as well as to the ethics words, oral or written, however abusive, vile, or indecent, addressed
of the profession. ... secretly to the judge alone, he can have no redress in any action triable
The right of free speech and free discussion as to judicial determination by a jury. "The sending of a libelous communication or libelous matter to
is of prime importance under our system and ideals of government. No the person defamed does not constitute an actionable publication." 18
right thinking man would concede for a moment that the best interest to Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 1017. In these respects the sending by
private citizens, as well as to public officials, whether he labors in a the accused of this letter to the Chief Justice was wholly different from
judicial capacity or otherwise, would be served by denying this right of his other acts charged in the accusation, and, as we have said, wholly
free speech to any individual. But such right does not have as its corollary different principles are applicable thereto.
Page 181

that members of the bar who are sworn to act honestly and honorably The conduct of the accused was in every way discreditable; but so far as
both with their client and with the courts where justice is administered, if he exercised the rights of a citizen, guaranteed by the Constitution and

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
sanctioned by considerations of public policy, to which reference has Our conclusion is that the charges against the accused have been so far
been made, he was immune, as we hold, from the penalty here sought sustained as to make it our duty to impose such a penalty as may be
to be enforced. To that extent his rights as a citizen were paramount to sufficient lesson to him and a suitable warning to others. ...
the obligation which he had assumed as an officer of this court. When, 11. In Cobb v. United States, 172 F. 641, the court affirmed a lawyer's
however he proceeded and thus assailed the Chief Justice personally, suspension for 18 months for publishing a letter in a newspaper in which
he exercised no right which the court can recognize, but, on the contrary, he accused a judge of being under the sinister influence of a gang that
willfully violated his obligation to maintain the respect due to courts and had paralyzed him for two years.
judicial officers. "This obligation is not discharged by merely observing 12. In In Re Graves, 221 Pac. 411, the court held that an attorney's
the rules of courteous demeanor in open court, but it includes abstaining unjustifiable attack against the official acts and decisions of a judge
out of court from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward the constitutes "moral turpitude." There, the attorney was disbarred for
judges personally for their official acts."Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. (U.S.) criticising not only the judge, but his decisions in general claiming that
355, 20 L. Ed. 646. And there appears to be no distinction, as regards the judge was dishonest in reaching his decisions and unfair in his
the principle involved, between the indignity of an assault by an attorney general conduct of a case.
upon a judge, induced by his official act, and a personal insult for like 13. In In Re Doss, 12 N.E. 2d 659, an attorney published newspaper
cause by written or spoken words addressed to the judge in his articles after the trial of cases, criticising the court in intemperate
chambers or at his home or elsewhere. Either act constitutes misconduct language. The invariable effect of this sort of propaganda, said the court,
wholly different from criticism of judicial acts addressed or spoken to is to breed disrespect for courts and bring the legal profession into
others. The distinction made is, we think entirely logical and well disrepute with the public, for which reason the lawyer was disbarred.
sustained by authority. It was recognized in Ex parte McLeod supra. 14. In State v. Grimes, 354 Pac. 2d 108, an attorney, dissatisfied with
While the court in that case, as has been shown, fully sustained the right the loss of a case, prepared over a period of years vicious attacks on
of a citizen to criticise rulings of the court in actions which are ended, it jurists. The Oklahoma Supreme Court declared that his acts involved
held that one might be summarily punished for assaulting a judicial such gross moral turpitude as to make him unfit as a member of the bar.
officer, in that case a commissioner of the court, for his rulings in a cause His disbarment was ordered, even though he expressed an intention to
wholly concluded. "Is it in the power of any person," said the court, "by resign from the bar.
insulting or assaulting the judge because of official acts, if only the The teaching derived from the above disquisition and impressive
assailant restrains his passion until the judge leaves the building, to affluence of judicial pronouncements is indubitable: Post-litigation
compel the judge to forfeit either his own self-respect to the regard of the utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical of the courts and
people by tame submission to the indignity, or else set in his own person their judicial actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not, which
the evil example of punishing the insult by taking the law in his own transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and legitimate
hands? ... No high-minded, manly man would hold judicial office under criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public
such conditions." confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of justice,
That a communication such as this, addressed to the Judge personally, constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with
constitutes professional delinquency for which a professional disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the
punishment may be imposed, has been directly decided. "An attorney Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives inherent in it as the
who, after being defeated in a case, wrote a personal letter to the trial duly constituted guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity.
justice, complaining of his conduct and reflecting upon his integrity as a Of course, rarely have we wielded our disciplinary powers in the face of
justice, is guilty of misconduct and will be disciplined by the court." Matter unwarranted outbursts of counsel such as those catalogued in the
of Manheim 133 App. Div. 136, 99 N.Y. Supp. 87 The same is held in Re above-cited jurisprudence. Cases of comparable nature have generally
Griffin (City Ct.) 1 N.Y. 7 and in Re Wilkes (City Ct.) 3 N.Y. In the latter been disposed of under the power of courts to punish for contempt which,
case it appeared that the accused attorney had addressed a sealed letter although resting on different bases and calculated to attain a different
to a justice of the City Court of New York, in which it was stated, in end, nevertheless illustrates that universal abhorrence of such
reference to his decision: "It is not law; neither is it common sense. The condemnable practices.
result is I have been robbed of 80." And it was decided that, while such A perusal of the more representative of these instances may afford
conduct was not a contempt under the state, the matter should be "called enlightenment.
to the attention of the Supreme Court, which has power to discipline the 1. In Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724, where counsel branded the
attorney." "If," says the court, "counsel learned in the law are permitted denial of his motion for reconsideration as "absolutely erroneous and
by writings leveled at the heads of judges, to charge them with ignorance, constituting an outrage to the rigths of the petitioner Felipe Salcedo and
with unjust rulings, and with robbery, either as principals or accessories, a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls," this Court, although
it will not be long before the general public may feel that they may redress conceding that
their fancied grievances in like manner, and thus the lot of a judge will be It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights
anything but a happy one, and the administration of justice will fall into of his client, should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is
bad repute." capable, but it is not, and never will be so for him to exercise said right
The recent case of Johnson v. State (Ala.) 44 South. 671, was in this by resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and
respect much the same as the case at bar. The accused, an attorney at respect which the dignity of the courts requires. The reason for this is
law, wrote and mailed a letter to the circuit judge, which the latter that respect for the courts guarantees the stability of their institution.
received by due course of mail, at his home, while not holding court, and Without such guaranty, said institution would be resting on a very shaky
which referred in insulting terms to the conduct of the judge in a cause foundation,
wherein the accused had been one of the attorneys. For this it was held found counsel guilty of contempt inasmuch as, in its opinion, the
that the attorney was rightly disbarred in having "willfully failed to statements made disclosed
maintain respect due to him [the judge] as a judicial officer, and thereby ... an inexcusable disrespect of the authority of the court and an
breached his oath as an attorney." As recognizing the same principle, intentional contempt of its dignity, because the court is thereby charged
and in support of its application to the facts of this case, we cite the with no less than having proceeded in utter disregard of the laws, the
following: Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall (U.S.) 364, 19 L. Ed. 214; Beene v. rights to the parties, and 'of the untoward consequences, or with having
State, 22 Ark. 149;Commonwealth v. Dandridge, 2 Va. Cas. 408; People abused its power and mocked and flouted the rights of Attorney Vicente
Page 182

v. Green, 7 Colo 237, 244, 3 Pac. 65, 374, 49 Am. Rep. 351; Smith's J. Francisco's client ... .
Appeal, 179 Pa. 14, 36 Atl. 134; Scouten's Appeal, 186 Pa. 270, Atl. 481.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
2. In In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, counsel, a senator and the author of the counsel's misconduct was unequivocal. Articulating the sentiments of the
Press Freedom Law, reaching to, the imprisonment for contempt of one Court, Mr. Justice Sanchez stressed:
Angel Parazo, who, invoking said law, refused to divulge the source of a As we look back at the language (heretofore quoted) employed in the
news item carried in his paper, caused to be published in i local motion for reconsideration, implications there are which inescapably
newspaper a statement expressing his regret "that our High Tribunal has arrest attention. It speaks of one pitfall into which this Court
not only erroneously interpreted said law, but it is once more putting in has repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
evidence the incompetency or narrow mindedness of the majority of its Relations comes into question. That pitfall is the tendency of this Court
members," and his belief that "In the wake of so many blunders and to rely on its own pronouncements in disregard of the law on jurisdiction.
injustices deliberately committed during these last years, ... the only It makes a sweeping charge that the decisions of this Court, blindly
remedy to put an end to go much evil, is to change the members of the adhere to earlier rulings without as much as making any reference to and
Supreme Court," which tribunal he denounced as "a constant peril to analysis of the pertinent statute governing the jurisdiction of the industrial
liberty and democracy" and "a far cry from the impregnable bulwark of court. The plain import of all these is that this Court is so patently inept
justice of those memorable times of Cayetano Arellano, Victorino Mapa, that in determining the jurisdiction of the industrial court, it has committed
Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were the honor and glory error and continuously repeated that error to the point of perpetuation. It
of the Philippine Judiciary." He there also announced that one of the first pictures this Court as one which refuses to hew to the line drawn by the
measures he would introduce in then forthcoming session of Congress law on jurisdictional boundaries. Implicit in the quoted statements is that
would have for its object the complete reorganization of the Supreme the pronouncements of this Court on the jurisdiction of the industrial court
Court. Finding him in contempt, despite his avowals of good faith and his are not entitled to respect. Those statements detract much from the
invocation of the guarantee of free speech, this Court declared: dignity of and respect due this Court. They bring into question the
But in the above-quoted written statement which he caused to be capability of the members and some former members of this Court to
published in the press, the respondent does not merely criticize or render justice. The second paragraph quoted yields a tone of sarcasm
comment on the decision of the Parazo case, which was then and still is which counsel labelled as "so called" the "rule against splitting of
pending consideration by this Court upon petition of Angel Parazo. He jurisdiction."
not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the Similar thoughts and sentiments have been expressed in other
presentation of a bill in the next Congress, of which he is one of the cases 18 which, in the interest of brevity, need not now be reviewed in
members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the number of detail.
Justices from eleven, so as to change the members of this Court which Of course, a common denominator underlies the aforecited cases all
decided the Parazo case, who according to his statement, are of them involved contumacious statements made in pleadings filed
incompetent and narrow minded, in order to influence the final decision pending litigation. So that, in line with the doctrinal rule that the protective
of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the mantle of contempt may ordinarily be invoked only against scurrilous
administration of justice. But the respondent also attacks the honesty remarks or malicious innuendoes while a court mulls over a pending case
and integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the and not after the conclusion thereof, 19 Atty. Almacen would now seek to
Justices of this Court into disrepute and degrading the administration. of sidestep the thrust of a contempt charge by his studied emphasis that
justice ... . the remarks for which he is now called upon to account were made only
To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years after this Court had written finis to his appeal. This is of no moment.
committing deliberately so many blunders and injustices, that is to say, The rule that bars contempt after a judicial proceeding has terminated,
that it has been deciding in favor of Que party knowing that the law and has lost much of its vitality. For sometime, this was the prevailing view in
justice is on the part of the adverse party and not on the one in whose this jurisdiction. The first stir for a modification thereof, however, came
favor the decision was rendered, in many cases decided during the last when, inPeople vs. Alarcon, 20 the then Chief Justice Manuel V. Moran
years, would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people dissented with the holding of the majority, speaking thru Justice Jose P.
in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court, and Laurel, which upheld the rule above-adverted to. A complete
consequently to lower ,or degrade the administration of justice by this disengagement from the settled rule was later to be made in In re
Court. The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, Brillantes, 21 a contempt proceeding, where the editor of the
the last bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief Manila Guardian was adjudged in contempt for publishing an editorial
for their grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled which asserted that the 1944 Bar Examinations were conducted in a
upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity farcical manner after the question of the validity of the said examinations
of the members of this Court and believe that they cannot expect justice had been resolved and the case closed. Virtually, this was an adoption
therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and of the view expressed by Chief Justice Moran in his dissent in Alarcon to
disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. As a member of the bar the effect that them may still be contempt by publication even after a
and an officer of the courts, Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty case has been terminated. Said Chief Justice Moran in Alarcon:
bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes A publication which tends to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence
fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding,
promote distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to the courts constitutes criminal contempt which is 'summarily punishable by courts.
guarantees the stability of other institutions, which without such guaranty A publication which tends to degrade the courts and to destroy public
would be resting on a very shaky foundation. confidence in them or that which tends to bring them in any way into
Significantly, too, the Court therein hastened to emphasize that disrepute, constitutes likewise criminal contempt, and is equally
... an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be punishable by courts. What is sought, in the first kind of contempt, to be
respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts; he may be shielded against the influence of newspaper comments, is the all-
removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty important duty of the courts to administer justice in the decision of a
of flagrant misconduct (17 L.R.A. [N.S.], 586, 594.) pending case. In the second kind of contempt, the punitive hand of justice
3. In Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer: In re Proceedings against is extended to vindicate the courts from any act or conduct calculated to
Alfonso Ponce Enrile, et al., supra, where counsel charged this Court bring them into disfavor or to destroy public confidence in them. In the
with having "repeatedly fallen" into ,the pitfall of blindly adhering to its first there is no contempt where there is no action pending, as there is
previous "erroneous" pronouncements, "in disregard of the law on no decision which might in any way be influenced by the newspaper
Page 183

jurisdiction" of the Court of Industrial Relations, our condemnation of publication. In the second, the contempt exists, with or without a pending

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
case, as what is sought to be protected is the court itself and its dignity. acerbity, he virtually makes this Court and its members with verbal
Courts would lose their utility if public confidence in them is destroyed. talons, imputing to the Court the perpetration of "silent injustices" and
Accordingly, no comfort is afforded Atty. Almacen by the circumstance "short-cut justice" while at the same time branding its members as
that his statements and actuations now under consideration were made "calloused to pleas of justice." And, true to his announced threat to argue
only after the judgment in his client's appeal had attained finality. He the cause of his client "in the people's forum," he caused the publication
could as much be liable for contempt therefor as if it had been in the papers of an account of his actuations, in a calculated effort ;to
perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal. startle the public, stir up public indignation and disrespect toward the
More than this, however, consideration of whether or not he could be Court. Called upon to make an explanation, he expressed no regret,
held liable for contempt for such post litigation utterances and actuations, offered no apology. Instead, with characteristic arrogance, he rehashed
is here immaterial. By the tenor of our Resolution of November 17, 1967, and reiterated his vituperative attacks and, alluding to the Scriptures,
we have confronted the situation here presented solely in so far as it virtually tarred and feathered the Court and its members as inveterate
concerns Atty. Almacen's professional identity, his sworn duty as a hypocrites incapable of administering justice and unworthy to impose
lawyer and his fitness as an officer of this Court, in the exercise of the disciplinary sanctions upon him.
disciplinary power the morals inherent in our authority and duty to The virulence so blatantly evident in Atty. Almacen's petition, answer and
safeguard and ethics of the legal profession and to preserve its ranks oral argumentation speaks for itself. The vicious language used and the
from the intrusions of unprincipled and unworthy disciples of the noblest scurrilous innuendoes they carried far transcend the permissible bounds
of callings. In this inquiry, the pendency or non-pendency of a case in of legitimate criticism. They could never serve any purpose but to gratify
court is altogether of no consequence. The sole objective of this the spite of an irate attorney, attract public attention to himself and, more
proceeding is to preserve the purity of the legal profession, by removing important of all, bring ;this Court and its members into disrepute and
or suspending a member whose misconduct has proved himself unfit to destroy public confidence in them to the detriment of the orderly
continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to administration of justice. Odium of this character and texture presents no
the office of an attorney. redeeming feature, and completely negates any pretense of passionate
Undoubtedly, this is well within our authority to do. By constitutional commitment to the truth. It is not a whit less than a classic example of
mandate, 22 our is the solemn duty, amongst others, to determine the gross misconduct, gross violation of the lawyer's oath and gross
rules for admission to the practice of law. Inherent in this prerogative is transgression of the Canons of Legal Ethics. As such, it cannot be
the corresponding authority to discipline and exclude from the practice allowed to go unrebuked. The way for the exertion of our disciplinary
of law those who have proved themselves unworthy of continued powers is thus laid clear, and the need therefor is unavoidable.
membership in the Bar. Thus We must once more stress our explicit disclaimer of immunity from
The power to discipline attorneys, who are officers of the court, is an criticism. Like any other Government entity in a viable democracy, the
inherent and incidental power in courts of record, and one which is Court is not, and should not be, above criticism. But a critique of the
essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. To deny its Court must be intelligent and discriminating, fitting to its high function as
existence is equivalent to a declaration that the conduct of attorneys the court of last resort. And more than this, valid and healthy criticism is
towards courts and clients is not subject to restraint. Such a view is by no means synonymous to obloquy, and requires detachment and
without support in any respectable authority, and cannot be tolerated. disinterestedness, real qualities approached only through constant
Any court having the right to admit attorneys to practice and in this state striving to attain them. Any criticism of the Court must, possess the
that power is vested in this court-has the inherent right, in the exercise quality of judiciousness and must be informed -by perspective and
of a sound judicial discretion to exclude them from practice. 23 infused by philosophy. 26
This, because the admission of a lawyer to the practice of law is a It is not accurate to say, nor is it an obstacle to the exercise of our
representation to all that he is worthy of their confidence and respect. So authority in ;the premises, that, as Atty. Almacen would have appear, the
much so that members of the Court are the "complainants, prosecutors and judges"
... whenever it is made to appear to the court that an attorney is no longer all rolled up into one in this instance. This is an utter misapprehension, if
worthy of the trust and confidence of the public and of the courts, it not a total distortion, not only of the nature of the proceeding at hand but
becomes, not only the right, but the duty, of the court which made him also of our role therein.
one of its officers, and gave him the privilege of ministering within its bar, Accent should be laid on the fact that disciplinary proceedings like the
to withdraw the privilege. Therefore it is almost universally held that both present are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this
the admission and disbarment of attorneys are judicial acts, and that one proceeding is not and does not involve a trial of an action or a suit,
is admitted to the bar and exercises his functions as an attorney, not as but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its
a matter of right, but as a privilege conditioned on his own behavior and officers. 27 Not being intended to. inflict punishment, it is in no sense a
the exercise of a just and sound judicial discretion. 24 criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
Indeed, in this jurisdiction, that power to remove or suspend has risen prosecutor therein It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. 28 Public
above being a mere inherent or incidental power. It has been elevated to interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination
an express mandate by the Rules of Court. 25 is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
Our authority and duty in the premises being unmistakable, we now privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the
proceed to make an assessment of whether or not the utterances and Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his
actuations of Atty. Almacen here in question are properly the object of actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving
disciplinary sanctions. the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest
The proffered surrender of his lawyer's certificate is, of course, purely administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by
potestative on Atty. Almacen's part. Unorthodox though it may seem, no their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be
statute, no law stands in its way. Beyond making the mere offer, entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of
however, he went farther. In haughty and coarse language, he actually an attorney. 29 In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak
availed of the said move as a vehicle for his vicious tirade against this of a complainant or a prosecutor.
Court. The integrated entirety of his petition bristles with vile insults all Undeniably, the members of the Court are, to a certain degree, aggrieved
calculated to drive home his contempt for and disrespect to the Court parties. Any tirade against the Court as a body is necessarily and
and its members. Picturing his client as "a sacrificial victim at the altar of inextricably as much so against the individual members thereof. But in
Page 184

hypocrisy," he categorically denounces the justice administered by this the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity
Court to be not only blind "but also deaf and dumb." With unmitigated separate and distinct from the individual personalities of its members.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Consistently with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate court, the individual ROC RULE 138
members act not as such individuals but. only as a duly constituted court. Section 20. Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney:
Their distinct individualities are lost in the majesty of their office.30 So (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an
that, in a very real sense, if there be any complainant in the case at bar, action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive
it can only be the Court itself, not the individual members thereof as or interest;
well as the people themselves whose rights, fortunes and properties,
nay, even lives, would be placed at grave hazard should the Rule 12.01 A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has
administration of justice be threatened by the retention in the Bar of men adequately prepared himself with the law and the facts of his case,
unfit to discharge the solemn responsibilities of membership in the legal the evidence he will adduce and the order of its preference. He
fraternity. should also be ready with the original documents for comparison
Finally, the power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a with the copies.
necessary incident of the power to admit persons to said practice. By Newly hired counsel: must acquaint himself with all the
constitutional precept, this power is vested exclusively in this Court. This antecedent proceedings and processes that have transpired
duty it cannot abdicate just as much as it cannot unilaterally renounce in the record prior to his takeover.
jurisdiction legally invested upon it. 31 So that even if it be conceded that
If presenting documentary exhibits, he must be ready with the
the members collectively are in a sense the aggrieved parties, that fact
originals for the purpose of comparison with copies thereof.
alone does not and cannot disqualify them from the exercise of that
power because public policy demands that they., acting as a Court,
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
exercise the power in all cases which call for disciplinary action. The
adequate preparation.
present is such a case. In the end, the imagined anomaly of the merger
in one entity of the personalities of complainant, prosecutor and judge is
[A.C. No. 4762. June 28, 2004]
absolutely inexistent.
LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO, complainant, vs. ATTY. PEPITO C.
Last to engage our attention is the nature and extent of the sanctions
PRESQUITO, respondent.
that may be visited upon Atty. Almacen for his transgressions. As marked
RESOLUTION
out by the Rules of Court, these may range from mere suspension to
PUNO, J.:
total removal or disbarment. 32 The discretion to assess under the
circumstances the imposable sanction is, of course, primarily addressed
On June 9, 1997, Linda Vda. de Espino wrote a letter-complaint[1] with
to the sound discretion of the Court which, being neither arbitrary and
the then Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo, charging respondent
despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, should ever
Atty. Pepito C. Presquito, a member of the Integrated Bar of the
be controlled by the imperative need that the purity and independence of
Philippines (IBP), Misamis Oriental Chapter, for having employed fraud,
the Bar be scrupulously guarded and the dignity of and respect due to
trickery and dishonest means in refusing to honor and pay [her] late
the Court be zealously maintained.
husband Virgilio Espino, when he was still alive, the sum
That the misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is of considerable
of P763,060.00. According to complainant, respondents unlawful refusal
gravity cannot be overemphasized. However, heeding the stern
and dilatory tactics partly triggered the death of her husband, who died
injunction that disbarment should never be decreed where a lesser
disillusioned and embittered.[2] The letter-complaint and affidavit also
sanction would accomplish the end desired, and believing that it may not
alleged that notwithstanding the numerous oral demands by Mr. Espino
perhaps be futile to hope that in the sober light of some future day, Atty.
and complainant (after the death of Mr. Espino), respondent still refused
Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do disservice
to pay the amounts represented by the eight checks which had all been
to an advocate and that in every effervescence of candor there is ample
dishonored. Complainant surmised that Atty. Presquitos refusal to pay
room for the added glow of respect, it is our view that suspension will
may be due to his reliance on the influence of his father-in-law, a former
suffice under the circumstances. His demonstrated persistence in his
Executive Judge of the RTC (Cagayan de Oro), and of his uncle, an RTC
misconduct by neither manifesting repentance nor offering apology
judge (Cagayan de Oro).
therefor leave us no way of determining how long that suspension should
The records show that sometime in September 1995, respondent was
last and, accordingly, we are impelled to decree that the same should be
introduced to complainants late husband, Mr. Virgilio M. Espino. Mr.
indefinite. This, we are empowered to do not alone because
Espino, a resident of Davao City, had sought the assistance of
jurisprudence grants us discretion on the matter 33 but also because,
respondent, a resident of Cagayan de Oro, regarding the sale of his
even without the comforting support of precedent, it is obvious that if we
piece of land with an area of 11,057.59 sq.m. situated in Misamis
have authority to completely exclude a person from the practice of law,
Oriental. The discussion between Mr. Espino and the respondent
there is no reason why indefinite suspension, which is lesser in degree
resulted in the sale of the property to respondent.[3] Under the terms of
and effect, can be regarded as falling outside of the compass of that
the agreement between Mr. Espino and respondent,[4] the purchase
authority. The merit of this choice is best shown by the fact that it will
price of the land was P1,437,410.00, payable on a staggered basis and
then be left to Atty. Almacen to determine for himself how long or how
by installments.[5] Pursuant to the terms of payment in the agreement,
short that suspension shall last. For, at any time after the suspension
respondent issued eight post-dated checks,
becomes effective he may prove to this Court that he is once again fit to
totalingP736,060.00.[6] Respondent then entered into a joint venture or
resume the practice of law.
partnership agreement with Mrs. Guadalupe Ares for the subdivision of
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty. Vicente Raul
the land into home-size lots and its development, with a portion of the
Almacen be, as he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law until
land retained by respondent for his own use.[7] The land was eventually
further orders, the suspension to take effect immediately.
titled in the name of respondent and Mrs. Ares, and subdivided into 35
Let copies of this resolution. be furnished the Secretary of Justice, the
to 36 lots.
Solicitor General and the Court of Appeals for their information and
Meanwhile, the eight post-dated checks issued by respondent were all
guidance.
dishonored. Mr. Espino made repeated demands for payment from
respondent but the latter refused. Mr. Espino died in December
CANON 12 A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND
1996. His widow, complainant, then tried to collect from respondent the
CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND
Page 185

value of the eight checks. When complainants numerous pleas remained

EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
unheeded, she filed the complaint in June 1997.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
In his comment dated September 22, 1997, respondent denied any From the termination of complainants presentation of evidence on
wrongdoing, and said that the allegations that he had employed fraud, December 1998 until Commissioner Dulays report on November 12,
trickery and dishonest means with the late Mr. Espino were totally false 2002, the records show that respondent was unable to present evidence
and baseless. The complaint, according to respondent, stemmed from - either testimonial or documentary - to prove that he had legal cause to
complainants lack of knowledge as to the real story of the transaction refuse payment, or that he was entitled to legal compensation. Even
between complainants husband and respondent. He also vehemently respondents own statements - which, without corroborating evidence,
took exception to the imputation that he was banking on the influence of remain mere self-serving allegations - fall short of testimony, as he failed
his father-in-law and uncle-in-law. to submit to cross-examination by opposing counsel or for clarificatory
Respondent does not deny the issuance of the eight checks. What questions by the IBP-CBD. Worse, respondent attached eighteen
respondent claims, however, is that the nonpayment was justified by the documents to his comment, but only went so far as to mark (without a
unresolved problems he and Mrs. Ares have with respect to the right-of- formal offer) the agreement between him and Mr. Espino (for the sale of
way of the land. He alleged that Mr. Espino had made assurances that the land), and the partnership agreement between him and Mrs.
the land had a right-of-way required for its development, but respondent Ares. Thus, respondent had no evidence other than his own allegations.
later found out that such road-right-of-way required the consent of four Respondents failure to present evidence is a breach of Rule 12.01 of the
other land owners, and the expense would be considerably more than Code of Professional Responsibility,[15] especially in the light of the
he was made to believe. According to respondent, he and Mr. Espino numerous postponements and resettings he requested for and was
had agreed that the latter would not encash the checks or demand the granted with, on the ground that he needed more time to prepare his
equivalent of the same until the right-of-way problem of the land had evidence. We note that respondent was first scheduled to present his
been resolved.[8] Respondents position is that until the problem of evidence on December 14, 1998. Two years - five resettings, and three
obtaining a right-of-way to the land has been resolved, nothing has yet orders submitting the case for resolution - later, respondent still had not
accrued against him or Mrs. Ares (his partner), as it would be very unfair proffered testimonial or documentary evidence.
and unjust for them to pay Mr. Espino when the land could not be Respondent claims that his failure to present evidence was due to his
developed and sold.[9] financial difficulties, i.e., he could not afford to spend for travel expenses
Respondent also alleged that he was entitled to set-off against the of his witnesses.[16] We are not persuaded. First, it boggles the mind how
amount he owes Mr. Espino or his heirs from the purchase of the land, financial constraints could have prevented respondent from presenting
the advances he made to Mr. Espino, and the cost he incurred when he the originals of the documents attached to his comment, proving, among
defended Mr. Espinos son in a criminal case. He later on manifested that others, the alleged advances and costs on Mr. Espinos behalf. The
he has fully paid the portion of the land which had been titled in his name originals of these documents are presumably in his possession. Second,
through the same advances and incurred expenses.[10] with respect to the absence of testimony, respondent could have
In a resolution dated November 26, 1997,[11] the case was referred to the submitted the affidavits of his witnesses - the taking of which he could
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and have done himself in Cagayan de Oro to keep down the cost. The
recommendation/decision, and assigned to the IBP-Commission on Bar records are clear that he was allowed this option.[17] But he did neither.
Discipline (CBD). All these circumstances lead us to the ineluctable conclusion
In the IBP-CBD report dated November 12, 2002,[12] Investigating that respondent could not present evidence because there really was
Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay found that the facts and credible none to justify his nonpayment.[18]
evidence made available in this case indubitably establish respondents Even if we were to excuse respondents procedural lapse and consider
failure to live up to the demands of the Lawyers Code of Professional his written pleadings as testimony, we agree with Commissioner Dulay
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics. For having failed that respondents problems with respect to the right-of-way or his
to act with candor and fairness toward complainant, Commissioner Dulay partnership with Mrs. Ares do not excuse his nonpayment. As stated in
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law the IBP-CBD report:
for six (6) months, and ordered to immediately account with complainant [T]he solution to the right-of-way problem however clearly lies in the
regarding the sale of the piece of land which had been subdivided in the hands of respondent.We note that respondent has already taken title
name of respondent and his business partner. On June 21, 2003, the over the property together with Guadalupe Ares by making complainants
Board of Governors of the IBP passed a Resolution adopting/approving late husband, sign over the property by way of the Deed of Sale. We
the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Dulay, finding that therefore find respondents position vis--vis the widowed complainant
respondents lack of fairness and candor and honesty [was] in violation sneaky and unfair. We reiterate that respondent has assumed
of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. responsibility for the negotiations on the road-right-of-way and was
After a careful consideration of the record of the instant case, we agree aware of the problem. To [sic] our mind he has used the alleged road-
that respondent was wanting in fairness, candor and honesty demanded right-of-way problem only as an afterthought and a reason to delay and
of him by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of in fact deny the complainant payment of what is due her. Respondent
Professional Ethics. We find, however, the recommended penalty of six also alleges and blames the deceased husband of complainant for the
(6) months suspension too light considering respondents gross failed project but the facts show otherwise. They are just bare allegations
misconduct. and remain unsubstantiated. Besides, respondent and Ares took risks in
Complainants testimony and exhibits have clearly established that: (1) the business venture and are now the titled owners of the property. The
there was an agreement between respondent and complainants late seller cannot be blamed for any failure in the project. Respondents
husband for the sale of the latters land; (2) respondent had issued the actuations in the whole transaction is [sic] not at par with the standards
eight checks in connection with said agreement; (3) these checks were demanded of him as a member of the bar. Respondent is lacking in
dishonored and remain unpaid; and (4) the land sold had an existing fairness and candour [sic] and honesty. The fact that he has
road-right-of-way.Complainants exhibits were formally offered as early unreasonably delayed and failed to account with complainant for a long
as January 6, 1999,[13] and were admitted without objection from time and the fact of his having allowed the checks he issued to bounce
respondent.[14] is [sic] unacceptable and censurable behavior for a member of the
In the face of these uncontroverted facts, it was incumbent upon bar.[19] [citations omitted]
respondent to prove a legal excuse or defense for nonpayment of the Having no legal defense to refuse payment of the eight dishonored
eight checks. checks, respondents indifference to complainants entreaties for payment
Page 186

Respondent utterly failed in this regard. was conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and an officer of the
court. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct towards complainant and to rule on the same related causes, asking the same
her late husband,[20] first by allowing the eight (8) checks he issued to relief.
bounce, then by ignoring the repeated demands for payment until Forum shopping constitutes DIRECT CONTEMPT of
complainant was forced to file this complaint, and finally by deliberately court and may subject the offending lawyer to
delaying the disposition of this case with dilatory tactics. Considering that disciplinary action.
the property of complainant and her late husband is already in Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time
respondent and Mrs. Ares name, the injustice of respondents different to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
maneuvers to evade payment of the eight checks - due and unpaid since submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
1996 - becomes more manifest. so.
It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks, Asking for extension of time must be in good faith.
seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and
public order. We have already declared, most recently in Lao v. ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR- A.C. No. 6273
Medel,[21] that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross FABROA,
misconduct, and puts the erring lawyers moral character in serious Complainant, Present:
doubt, though it is not related to his professional duties as a member of
the bar.[22] He not only sets himself liable for a serious criminal offense PUNO, C.J.,
under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the Code of Professional CARPIO,
Responsibility, specifically the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the laws of CORONA,
the land and promote the respect for law. - versus - CARPIO MORALES,
It behooves respondent to remember that a lawyer may be suspended VELASCO, JR.,
or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, NACHURA,
as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO, LEONARDO-DE
or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a Respondent. CASTRO,
good condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing BRION,
qualification for all members of the bar.[23] A lawyer may be disciplined PERALTA,
for any conduct, in his professional or private capacity, that renders him BERSAMIN,
unfit to continue to be an officer of the court.[24] Thus, the Code of DEL CASTILLO,
Professional Responsibility provides: ABAD,
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or VILLARAMA, JR.,
deceitful conduct. PEREZ, and
xxx xxx xxx MENDOZA, JJ.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private Promulgated:
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal March 15, 2010
profession. x--------------------------------------------------x
Given the foregoing, and in line with jurisprudence involving lawyers who
issued worthless checks - Lao v. Medel,[25] Co v. DECISION
Bernardino,[26] and Ducat v. Villalon, Jr.,[27] - we find respondents
reprehensible conduct warrants suspension from the practice of law for CARPIO MORALES, J.:
one (1) year. An Information for Estafa[1] was filed on June 21, 2001 against
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO is found Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa (complainant) along with others based
guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice on a joint affidavit-complaint which Atty. Oscar Paguinto (respondent)
of law for one (1) year, and ORDERED to immediately account with prepared and notarized. As the joint affidavit-complaint did not indicate
complainant regarding the sale of the piece of land, which has been the involvement of complainant, complainant filed a Motion to Quash the
subdivided in the name of respondent and his business partner. Information which the trial court granted.[2] Respondents Motion for
Let a copy of this decision be spread in his file at the Office of the Bar Reconsideration of the quashal of the Information was denied[3]
Confidant and of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED. Respondent also filed six other criminal complaints against complainant
for violation of Article 31 of Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code of
Rule 12.02 A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the the Philippines) before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, but he
same cause. eventually filed a Motion to Withdraw them.[4]
Forum shopping omission to disclose pendency of
appeal or prior dismissal of his case by a court of On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was Chairperson of the General
concurrent jurisdiction. Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a
Forum shopping exists when as a result of an adverse Notice of Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on October 14, 2001
opinion in one forum: to consider the removal of four members of the Board of Directors (the
1. a party seeks favorable opinion (other than by appeal or Board), including her and the General Manager.[5] The notice was signed
certiorari) in another; or by respondent.
2. when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly presided by
the other would make a favorable disposition (Benguet respondent and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L. Gerangco (Gerangco), who
Electric Corp. vs. Flores, 287 SCRA 449, March 12, 1998). were not members of the then current Board,[6] Gerango, complainants
The most important factor in determining the existence predecessor, as Chair of the GEMASCO board, declared himself Chair,
Page 187

of forum-shopping is the VEXATION caused the courts appointed others to replace the removed directors, and appointed
and party-litigants by a party who asks different courts respondent as Board Secretary.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took over the 1.5 Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to
GEMASCO office and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
and operations. On even date, respondent sent letter-notices to submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
complainant and the four removed directors informing them of their
removal from the Board and as members of GEMASCO, and advising 2. Whether or not the above acts of respondent constitute violations
them to cease and desist from further discharging the duties of their of his lawyers oath, particularly the following:
positions.[7]
2.1 support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders
Complainant thus filed on October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative of the duly constituted authorities therein
Development Authority (CDA)-Calamba a complaint for annulment of the
proceedings taken during the October 14, 2001 Special General 2.2 will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court
Assembly.
2.3 will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by Resolution of February 21, unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same
2002, declared the questioned general assembly null and void for having
been conducted in violation of GEMASCOs By-Laws and the 2.4 will delay no man for money or malice
Cooperative Code of the Philippines.[8] The RDs Resolution of February
21, 2002 was later vacated for lack of jurisdiction[9] of CDA. 3. Whether or not the above acts of [respondent] complained of are
grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court
In her present complainant[10] against respondent for disbarment, as provided for in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.[21]
complainant alleged that respondent:

X X X PROMOTED OR SUED A GROUNDLESS, FALSE OR Respondents counsel who represented him during the conference
UNLAWFUL SUIT, AND GAVE AID AND CONSENT TO THE SAME[11] proposed the issue of whether, on the basis of the allegations of the
complaint, misconduct was committed by respondent.[22]
X X X DISOBEYED LAWS OF THE LAND, PROMOTE[D]
DISRESPECT FOR LAW AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION[12] After the conclusion of the conference, both parties were ordered to
submit position papers.[23] Complainant filed hers,[24] but respondent,
X X X DID NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS despite grant, on his motion, of extension of time, did not file any position
AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUE AND paper.
ENGAGED IN HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
COUNSEL[13] In her Report and Recommendation,[25] Investigating Commissioner
Lolita A. Quisumbing found respondent guilty of violating the Lawyers
X X X VIOLATED CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of
CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW[14] Professional Responsibility. Noting that respondent had already been
previously suspended for six months, the Commissioner recommended
X X X RUINED AND DAMAGED NOT ONLY THE GEN. MARIANO that respondent be suspended for two years.
ALVAREZ SERVICES COOPERATIVE, INC. (GEMASCO, INC.) BUT
THE ENTIRE WATER-CONSUMING COMMUNITY AS WELL[15] The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Board of Governors opted
for the dismissal of the complaint, however, for lack of merit.[26]
Despite the Courts grant,[16] on respondents motion,[17] of extension of
time to file Comment, respondent never filed any comment. The Court On Motion for Reconsideration,[27] the IBP-CBD Board of Governors
thus required him to showcause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
with,[18] but just the same he failed to comply.[19] for six months.
The Court finds that by conniving with Gerangco in taking over the Board
The Court thus referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the of Directors and the GEMASCO facilities, respondent violated the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.[20] provisions of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines and the
GEMASCO By-Laws. He also violated the Lawyers Oath, which provides
It appears that during the mandatory conference before the IBP, that a lawyer shall support the Constitution and obey the laws.
complainant proposed the following issues:
When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints
1. Whether or not the acts of respondent constitute violations of the against complainant, he violated the Lawyers Oath that a lawyer shall
Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following: not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, nor give aid or consent to the same.
1.1 Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal [processes]. When, after obtaining an extension of time to file comment on the
complaint, respondent failed to file any and ignored this Courts
1.2 Canon 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and subsequent show cause order, he violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing Professional Responsibility, which states that A lawyer shall not, after
tactics against opposing counsel. obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let
the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation
1.3 Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. for his failure to do so. Sebastian v. Bajar[28] teaches:

1.4 Canon 19 A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the x x x Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of
Page 188

bounds of the law. the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial
institution. Respondents conduct indicates a high degree of

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
irresponsibility. A Courts Resolution is not to be construed as a mere In the Courts Resolution3 of July 16, 2008, we required Atty. Villaseca
request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or to comment on the complaint.
selectively. Respondents obstinate refusal to comply with the Courts On September 10, 2008, Atty. Villaseca filed his comment,4 refuting the
orders not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also allegations against him. Atty. Villaseca explained that he made known to
underscores her disrespect of the Courts lawful orders which is only too the complainant that the testimony of a handwriting expert was
deserving of reproof. necessary only if the prosecution would be able to produce the original
copy of the SPA. Atty. Villaseca also claimed that his absences during
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and the hearings, as well as his numerous motions for postponement, were
respondents deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard justified and were never intended for delay. He denied having collected
thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to appearance fees when he did not attend the scheduled hearings, and
disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed maintained that the fees he received were intended to compensate him
upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to for his services in the other cases filed by the complainant. Atty. Villaseca
show respect to their processes.[29] (Citations omitted). further claimed that he immediately corrected the case number in the
notice of appeal when he discovered this error.
In a Resolution5dated October 15, 2008, we referred the case to the
The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
the practice of law for six months for violation of the Code of Professional recommendation.
Responsibility,[30] he having been found to have received an acceptance The IBPs Report and Recommendation
fee and misled the client into believing that he had filed a case for her In his Report and Recommendation6 dated September 16,
when he had not.[31] It appears, however, that respondent has not 2009,Investigating Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag recommended
reformed his ways. A more severe penalty this time is thus called for. that Atty. Villaseca be suspended for six (6) months from the practice of
law.
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, Commissioner Hababag ruled that Atty. Villasecas reckless and gross
is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law for violation of negligence deprived his clients of due process; his actuations in the
Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional criminal case showed utter disregard for his clients life and liberty.
Responsibility and the Lawyers Oath, effective immediately. Commissioner Hababag explained that Atty. Villaseca failed to file a
demurrer to evidence despite the sufficient length of time that had been
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, given to him by the RTC to submit this pleading, and waived his right to
to be appended to respondents personal record as an attorney; the present evidence for the defense, opting instead to file a memorandum
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in the country for their only. Commissioner Hababag concluded that Atty. Villasecas failure to
information and guidance. properly attend to the interests of his clients led to their conviction.
In Resolution No. XIX-2011-2517 dated May 14, 2011, the IBP Board of
SO ORDERED. Governors adop