LEGAL PROFESSION

Notes

CONSTITUTION
Article VIII Section 5
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public

ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo

warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the

Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or

executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,

ordinance, or regulation is in question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty

imposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may

require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of

the judge concerned.

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of

law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall

provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,

shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or

modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies

shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil

Service Law.
 Article XII Section 14
Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of
Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-level technical manpower and
skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall
encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit.

The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in
cases prescribed by law.

Mauricio C. Ulep (Petitioner) v. The Legal Clinic (Respondent)

The clinic ran for parelegal. What they are doing is already a practice of law and they are all
paralegals. Removes a dignity of the profession (watch lincoln lawyer) – it should be the work
that speaks for itself. It should not be self-laudatory.
1. Petitioner prays to the court to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing
advertisements pertaining to exercise of law profession.
2. Advertisements contain information on legal information and books about guam divorce
3. Here are what is said by the bodies tapped to make an opinion
a. IBP - legal services and legal support services in their definition are the same,
and that the advertisements in question induce performance of actions that are
contrary to law, morals, public order and public policy
i. CPR Rule 1.02 - a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system
b. Philippine Bar Association - The practice of law is a personal right limited to
persons who have qualified themselves under the law
c. Philippine Lawyers’ Association - Same opinion that the legal clinic is engaged in
practice but with the involvement of the SC that it has the power to suppresss
and pub\nish the clinic
d. UP Women’s Circle - It appears that legal services are advertised by paralegals
e. Women Lawyer’s Association of the Philippines - Immoral because it announces
that the legal clinic could work out the celebration of a secret marraige
f. Federacion International de Abogadas - The fact that the business involves
knowledge of the law does not necessarily make respondent guilty of unlawful
practice of law
i. Law calling is there if
1. The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major
non-legal problem
2. The services performed are not customarily reserved to
members of the bar
3. No separate fee charged for the legal advice or information
ii. Law clinic wedding services: securing marriage license, making
arrangements with priests; gives informational materials on divorce,
absence, annulment
4. Solicitor General can institute quo warranto action. Court resolved to restrain and enjoin
herein respondent from its practices.
 KHAN V. SIMBILLO
1. July 5, 2000 – newspaper article in Philippine Inquirer saying “ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGE SPECIALIST”
2. Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta called the number stated in the title and spoke to
Mrs. Simbillo who said her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert In
annulment cases.
a. GUARANTEE: Annulled in 4-6 months as long as no separation of
property or custody of children.
b. CHARGE Php 48,000
c. Similar issues: Aug 2 and 6 of Manila Bulletin and Aug 5 of PH Star
3. Atty. Ismael G. Khan Jr. Assitant Court Administrator and Chief Public Info Office
fules admin coplaint against Atty. Simbillo for violating Rue 2.03 and 3.01 of the
CPR
a. Rule 2.03 – a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
b. Rule 3.01 – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory, or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
4. Respondent arguments:
a. Advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts
b. Time has come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising
and solicitation
c. Interest of the public is not served by absolute prohibition on lawyer
advertising, and that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising and
solicitation
d. He prayed that he would be exonerated from all charges against him and
that the Court promulgate a ruling tht advertisement of legal services
offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public, policy, and order ad long
as dignifed
5. Case referred to IBP found him guilty of Rules 3.02 and 3.01 of the CPR, and
Rule 138, Section 27 of Rules of Court
a. SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney
for a party without authority to do so.
 6. Respondent filed an Urgent MR, denied, hence filed for certiorari

THE LAW PRACTICE IS NOT A BUSINESS.

● A lawyer may not properly public his brief biographical and informative data in a
daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program (Ulep v. Legal Clinic)
● He repeatedly violated the rules, and advertised himself as a self-styled
“Annulment Marriage Specialist” which erodes and undermines the sanctity of an
institution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of
permissiveness in our country
Elements that distinguish legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product; and one can
attain the highest eminence without making much money;
2. Relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving
sincerity, integrity, and reliability
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice or dealing directly with their clients.
Solicitation of a legal business is not altogether proscribed. For it to be property, it
should be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. It is made in a modest and
decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.
● Simple signes with lawyer’s name, office and residence address, fields of
practice, advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same data are
permissible.

Linsangan v. Tolentino
1. Complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan, Linsangan &
Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services
2. It was alleged that respondent Tolentino with the held of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano
convinced his clients to transfer legal representation, promising financial assistance and
expeditious (speedy) collection on their claims, calling them and sending them text
messages.
a. To support claim, sworn affidavit by James Gregorio attesting to the facts was
presented. It is said that Labiano convinced him to sever lawyer-client relations
with Linsangan and to utilize Tolentino’s services – in exchange of 50k. Attached
also credit card.
3. Respondent denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of
calling card. Case referred to Commission on Bar Discipline-IBP
a. CBD-IBP said:
i. CPR Rule 8.02 was violated
 [Link] Court’s rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or
through paid agents or brokers (Section 27, Rule 138) recommending
then reprimanding with stern warning
b. Court adopted IBP findings, changed penalty and invoked CPR Canon 3
i. Canon 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES
SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Rule 2.03 of CPR

A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY
ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS.
● Law is not a business but a profession
Rule 1.03
A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR
INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY
ANY MAN'S CAUSE.
● Talks about “ambulance chasing” which is the solicitation of almost
any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an
agent to gain employment
● Protects community from barratry (taking lawsuits for profit) and
champerty

Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another
lawyer's client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service,
good result or reduced fees for his services

Rule 16.04 - lawyer cannot borrow nor lend money from client
● If the awyer lends money to the client in connection with the
client's case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject
matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome.
4. Lawyers can announce their services by publication in (a) a reputable law lists or (b) use
of simple professional cards which contain:
a. lawyer's name; (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected; (c) address;
(d) telephone number and (e) special branch of law practiced
b. Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase “with financial assistance”
5. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02
and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely
 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF
UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES OF 1946 TO 1953; ALBINO CUNANAN ET
AL., PETITIONERS.
Resolution March 18, 1954 J. Diokno
FACTS:
1. Controversy regarding the RA No. 972 passed by the Congress aka “Bar Flunkers Act
of 1953” entitled “AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR EXAMINATIONS
FROM NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX UP TO AND INCLUDING NINETEEN
HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FIVE.”
2. Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-1951………………70%

1952 …………………….71%

1953……………………..72%

1954……………………..73%

1955……………………..74%

Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.
3. Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in
any subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the
grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general average in
subsequent bar examinations.”

ISSUE/S: Whether or not RA 972 is constitutional?

HELD/RATIO:
1. RA No. 972 is unconstitutional because:
a. The regulation of the practice of law is not within the legislative power of the
Congress to enact because in the judicial system from which ours has been
evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys
at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been disputably
a judicial function and responsibility.
i. Backed by Article VIII Section 5 (5) of the Constitution:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged……
b. They also established arbitrary methods or forms that infringe constitutional
principles. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class
legislation because this law would only benefit those unsuccessful
candidates with the general average indicated from 1946 onwards; excluding
 those who failed from 1944, 1941 or the years before because the Tribunal has
no record of unsuccessful candidates in those years.
c. Their purpose or effects violate the Constitution or its basic principles because
the law would allow unsuccessful candidates of the bar from 1946-1952 to be
admitted to the Bar who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and
inadequate preparation because of the war. Such act would then revoke the
resolution of the Court on the petitions of the said candidates.
2. As to Section 1, the referring to the examinations of 1946-1952 was declared
unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force and effect. All of
Section 2 of said law are unconstitutional and therefore void without force and effect.
3. SC held the following:
a. All the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the
examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied;
b. All candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of
71.5 per cent or more, without having a grade below 50 per cent in any
subject, are considered as having passed, whether they have filed petitions
for admission or not. After this decision has become final, they shall be permitted
to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on
the date or dates that the chief Justice may set.

DEFINITION OF TERM/S:
● Class Legislation: term applied to statutory enactments which divide the people or
subjects of legislation into classes, with reference either to the grant of privileges or the
imposition of burdens, upon an arbitrary. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.)

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE

PHILIPPINES. JANUARY 9, 1973
1. Dec 1972: Commission on Bar Integration submitted report that the Court will integrate
the Philippine Bar through adoption and promulgation of an appropriate court rule.
2. Adm. Case No. 526 prays for the integration. In 1970 there is strong nationwide
sentiment in favor of integration
3. Issues:
a. Does the court have power to integrate the bar?
b. Would the integration of the bar be constitutional?
c. Should the court ordain bar integration at this time?
4. Commission on Bar Integration
a. Integration of the Bar means official unification of entire lawyer population
requiring membership and financial support
b. Purposes:
i. Assist in the administration of justice
ii. Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity,
learning, professional competence, public service and conduct
 iii. Safeguard the professional interests of members
iv. Cultivate among members spirit of cordiality and brotherhood
v. Provide forum for the discussion of law, and the like
vi. Encourage and foster legal education
vii. Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and
adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon
viii. Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively
5. Judicial pronouncements - courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the
practice of law; the practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege practice of law is a
privilege clothed with public interest
6. Freedom of Association - to integrate is not a violation of the freedom to associate since
the integration does not make a lawyer a member of a group in which he is not already a
member. It does not compel lawyers to associate with anyone, free to attend or not
meetings, or to vote in elections. The only compulsion is payment of annual dues.
a. Compelling of state is an exercise of police power, and SC’s inherent power to
regulate the bar
7. Regulatory fee- purpose is for regulation and not for revenue
8. Freedom of speech - lawyer is free to voice his views on any subject in any manner he
wishes
9. Fair to all lawyers - applicable to all lawyers, not retroactive, and annual dues would
mean benefits to discharge resonosbilities effectively
10. In England Canada and US, Bar integration resulted to
a. Improved discipline fo rbar members
b. Greater influence
c. Better and more meaningful participation
d. Greater bar facilities
e. Elimination of unauthorized practice
f. Avoidance of costly membership campaigns
g. Establishment of an official status for the bar
h. More cohesive profession
i. Better and more effective discharge by the Bar of its obligations

PIMENTEL
● Basically about SC ruling on constitutionality of the Philippine Law School Admission
Test (PhilSat) as in the case of Oscar B. Pimentel et al vs Legal Education Board and
Jose Lean L. Abayata et al. v. Hon. Salvador Medialdea and Legal Education Board
● It was said that when the philsat is used to exclude, qualify, and restrict admissions to
law schools, PhilSAT goes beyond mere supervisions and regulation– going against
institutional academic freedom
● Improving legal education is not compromised, but rather institutional academic freedom
of law schools is protected
DIVINE GRACE P. CRISTOBAL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JONATHAN
A. CRISTOBAL, RESPONDENT.
- Petitioner filed disbarment
- Abuse
- Although denied
- IBP said that cpr canons violated
- Court said legal profession must be regulated 1.01, 7.03 violated

1. Case involves complaint for disbarment filed by Divine against her husband for
violating Canon 7 of the CPR sand the lawyer’s oath
a. Prove:
Jan 30 Admitted to pushing her
May 15 Pushed divine after argument about affair w student
Dec 11 Black eye pictures
2. In Divine’s version, she was abused verbally and physically but with the husband’s
Divine is said to be the abusive one, and that he did not hurt.
3. Ruling of IBP -
a. Dismissal for lack of merit first, but in the second resolution recommended
disbarment and stricken name for roll of atty.
b. Canon 1 and 7 of CPR violated. Cristobal filed for MR and denied, so filed for MR
again
i. CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
ii. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
4. Court said:
a. Court must regulate legal profession
i. CPR Rule 7.03 "[a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or
private life,behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession."
b. Dismissalof the case does not absolve him chrome administrative liability
c. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Jonathan A. Cristobal is
found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months from
 the practice of law, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will warrant a more severe penalty.

Khan v. Simbillo
1. Administartive complaint due to paid advertisement in the PH Daily Inquirer reading
“annulment of marriage specialist”
2. Atty. Khan filed an administrative complaint against Simbillo for improper advertising and
solicitation of services violating CPR rules 2.03 and 3.01
a. Said solicitation is not proibited and that the interest of the public is not served
through prohibition on lawyer advertising (said the respondent)
b. Filed Urgent motion for MR, denied by IBP then filed instant petition for certiorari
3. In a resolution March 2003, parties were required to manifest W/N they were willing to
submit the case for resolution on the basis for pleadings
a. Complainant filed his Manifestation stating that he is not submitting additional
pleadings whereas respondent filed a supplemental memorandum
4. Court agreed with IBP invoking CPR
a. Rule 2.03. - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
b. Rule 3.01. - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

Rules of Court was cited as well

Sec. 27 - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
5. Practice of law is NOT a business
6. Simbillo did not follow Court’s authority by repeatedly advertising his legal services (over
three times). Worse, self-styled himself “Annulment of Marriage Specialist” which
undermined sanctity of the marriage
7. Advertisment is permissible as long as dignified.
8. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found
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 Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely
Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability

Canon III - Fidelity

SECTION 24. Active involvement in legal education. — A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, and support efforts to achieve
standards of excellence in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students.

In addition, a lawyer shall assist the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, law schools, law alumni
associations, law associations, or civic organizations, in educating the public on the law and
jurisprudence.

(5a)67 The IBP Chapters shall provide supervising lawyers to the legal aid clinics in their
jurisdiction.

Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sections 1 to 19, as amended by Bar Matter

No. 1153

Here yung binago:

SEC 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. -All applicants for admission other than
those referred to in the two preceding sections, shall before being admitted to the examination,
satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law school or university officially
recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction
where the degree has been granted.

No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to
the bar examination unless lie or she has satisfactorily completed the following course in a law
school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law,
criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation
medical jurisprudence, taxation, legal ethics and clinical legal education program emphasis and
Underscoring Supplied).

A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar
examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing: (a)
completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree; (b)
recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and (c) completion of all
the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly
1·ecognized by the Philippine Government. (As amended by B.M No. 1153, March 09, 2010)
This amendment shall apply to the bar examination applicants commencing the 2023 bar
examinations.
PROPOSED GUIDELINES RE: CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (CLEP)
REQUIREMENT FOR THE 2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS

1. Coverage. The foregoing guidelines shall be applicable to applicants taking the 2023 Bar
examinations, who completed their law degree in the year 2023.

The Guidelines shall NOT apply to the following applicants:

(i) Those who obtained their law degree prior to the year 2023 and are taking
the Bar examinations for the first time;

(ii) (ii) Re-takers;

(iii) (iii) Re-applicants; and

(iv) (iv) Filipino citizens who graduated from a foreign law school.

2. Documentary Requirements. In order to comply with the CLEP requirement, Filipino citizens
who obtained their law degree in the Philippines must submit the following in both digital and
hard copies, and strictly within the periods determined by the Supreme Court through Bar
Bulletins and other relevant issuances:

a. CLEP as Stand-alone Course

(i) Certification from the School Registrar or College Secretary and duly noted by the law school
Dean or Vice Dean that the applicant has satisfactorily secured or is in the process of
completing a Level 1 or 2 certification or both (see Annex A);

(ii) Transcript of Records (TOR) which must reflect the CLEP course/(s) completed; and

(iii) Original or Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Level 1 or 2 Certification or both.

b. CLEP as Integrated Course

(i) Certification from the School Registrar or College Secretary and duly noted by the law school
Dean or Vice Dean that the applicant has satisfactorily secured or is in the process of
completing a Level 1 or 2 certification or both (see Annex A);

(ii) TOR which must reflect the CLEP course/(s) as integrated or embedded in certain, existing
courses of the school's curriculum; and

(iii) Original or CTC of the Level 1 or 2 Certification or both

3. Reportorial Requirements. The law school, through its Dean or Vice Dean or College
Secretary, must submit within thirty (30) days from the last day of the 2023 Bar examinations or
on 24 October 2023, to the OBC, in digital and hard copies, a notarized Certification (see Annex
BJ signed by (a) the law school Dean or Vice Dean, and (b) the School Registrar or College
Secretary containing the list of applicants with the following details, strictly within the periods
determined by the Supreme Court through Bar Bulletins and other relevant issuances: (i)
Applicants' name; (ii) CLEP Certification Number; and (iii) CLEP Level taken.

4. Effectivity. These guidelines shall take effect immediately upon the approval of the Court, En
Banc.

In RE: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar Vicente Ching

Facts:
1. Vicente Ching is the legitimate son of spouses Tat Ching (Chinese Citizen) and Prescila
A. Dulay (Filipino)
2. Vicente is born April 11, 1964 in Francia West, Tubao, La Union, and since birth resided
in the Philippines
3. Filed an application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations, and was allowed provided that
he will submit to the court proof of his Philippine citizenship.
○ The following was submitted:
i. Certification (1986) issued by the Board of Accountancy of the PRC
proving that Ching is a CPA.
ii. Voter Certification (1997) issued by Elizabeth B. Cerezo, Election Officer
of COMELEC in Tubao showing that Ching is a registered voter of that
place.
iii. Certification (1998), also issued by Elizabeth B. Cerezo showing Ching as
member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union during the 12
May 1992 synchronized elections.
4. Bar Examinations were released and Ching was among the successful nominees,
however due to questions on his status of citizenship, he was not allowed to take his
oath, and was required to submit proof.
5. OSG filed his comment:
○ What Ching acquired at best is inchoate Philippine citizenship
○ For an election of Philippine citizenship to be perfected: (1) the mother of the
person making the election must be a Filipina and (2) said election must be made
“upon reaching the age of majority
6. To comply, Chin filed a Manifestation with attached Affidavit of Election of Philippine
Citizenship and Oath of Allegiance (dated July 15, 1999)
○ He expressed in the Manifestation that he has always considered himself to be a
Filipino, and has consistently declared himself as one in his official documents;
that he is a CPA, participated in elections, served as member of Sangguniang
Bayan, elected Philippine citizenship in July 15, 1999 and was sworn to by him
before a notary public.
Issue: W/N Ching validly elected Philippine citizenship and is then eligible to take his oath

Held: Ching failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship

Ratio:
1. The span of fourteen years that lapsed from his age of majority until he finally expressed
intention to elect Philippine citizenship is way beyond the contemplation of the
requirement “upon reaching the age of majority”
2. Ching did not provide a reason for the delay, and that the procedure for electing
Philippine citizenship is not a tedious and painstaking process since all you need to do is
to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same
with the nearest civil registry.
3. Commonwealth Act No. 625 prescribes procedure for election of citizenship (pursuant to
1935 Constitution)
○ Legitimate children born of Filipino mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by
expressing such intention "in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party
concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed
with the nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid
statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of
the Philippines."
○ 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did not prescribe a time period for when
Philippine citizenship should be made, and that the 1935 Charter only provinces
that the election be made upon the age of majority (21 years)
i. Based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the US
Government– election should be made within a “reasonable time”
4. “Reasonable time” has been interpreted that the election should be made within three
years from reaching the age of majority. But in Cuenco vs. Secretary of Justice it was
ruled that the period is not an inflexible rule, and that it can be extended under certain
circumstances as when the person concerned has always considered himself a Filipino.
It was cautioned however that the extension is not indefinite.
5. Special circumstances invoked by Ching such as his continuous and uninterrupted stay
in the Philippines and his being a certified public accountant, a registered voter and a
former elected public official, cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law
specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of Philippine citizenship by
election.
6. Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when
needed and suppressed when convenient.

IN RE: MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA

FACTS:
● Petitioner passed the 1999 Bar Examinations, however, the Court disqualified
him from being a member of the Philippine Bar and declared his examinations
null and void on two (2) grounds:
1) Petitioner failed to submit the required certificate of completion of the pre-bar
review course under oath for his conditional admission to the 1999 Bar
Examinations;
2) He committed a serious act of dishonesty which rendered him unfit to
become a member of the Philippine Bar that he took his pre-bar review course
at the Philippine Law School (PLS), when PLS had not offered such a course
since 1967.
● Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied.
● Petitioner claimed that the statement in par. 8 of his Petition (stating that he
passed regular 4th year review classes as PLS) was a “self-evident clerical error
and a mere result of an oversight which is not tantamount to a deliberate and
willful declaration of falsehood.”
○ It was also claimed that he obtained a “ready-made form”, to which he
requested his schoolmate/friend Ms. Lilian Felipe, to fill up the form, have
it notarized, and be filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).
○ Petitioner did not have the opportunity to check the veracity of information.
■ Had he done this, he could have readily seen that Ms. Felipe had
erroneously typed PLS instead of UST.
○ Petitioner also said that after a week of filing of the Petition to take the Bar,
he had his Certification of Completion of the Pre-Bar Review submitted by
Ms. Felipe as proof that he had actually enrolled and attended the pre-bar
review course in UST.
● To corroborate his enrollment in UST, petitioner submitted the following:
a) OR of tuition fee for the course;
b) ID for the course;
c) Carpass to UST campus;
d) Individual affidavits of classmates in the pre-bar review course;
e) Separate affidavits of 5 UST students/acquaintances (who saw him
attending review lectures);
f) Affidavit of Professor Abelarfo T. Domondo attesting to the attendance of
petitioner in his review classes and lectures in Taxation and Bar Review
Methods;
g) Affidavit of maintenance staff of UST Law Department;
h) Affidavit of office clerk at the UST Faculty Civil Law, that Dean Dimayuga
issued the Certification (that he completed the pre-bar review course in
UST).
 ● Petitioner did not submit the required certification of completion of the pre-bar
review course within 60 days from the last day of examinations because he
thought it was already unnecessary in view of the Certification of Completion
issued by Dean Dimayuga.
● OBC conducted a summary hearing and the Resolution gave the petitioner the
benefit of the doubt and allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the petitioner did enrol and complete his pre-bar review course in
UST. (YES)

HELD:
● The Supreme Court held that the petitioner should be given the benefit of the
doubt and be allowed to take his oath, fortified by undisputedly genuine
documents.
● The testimony of petitioner and Ms. Felipe that the Certification issued by Dean
Dimayuga was duly submitted to the OBC a week after the filing of the Petition
was held to be credible.
○ It is supported by documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner
enrolled and completed the required course in UST.
● There is such a certification of the UST that appears to be genuine.
○ This is backed by the affidavit of the clerk officer at the UST Faculty of
Civil Law, that she was the one who released the Certification to the
petitioner.
● There is nothing on record that impugns the authenticity of the Certification and
other documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner.
● The denial of permission for the petitioner to take his oath for about three (3)
years already should be enough penalty. The Court said that it was time to move
on.

CARONAN v. CARONAN
PATRICK A. CARONAN, complainant, vs. RICHARD A.
CARONAN a.k.a. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," respondent
[A.C. No. 11316. July 12, 2016.]
PATRICK - Aug 5, 1976
RICHARD - Feb 7, 1975
FACTS:
1. Case is about the Complaint-Affidavit filed by complainant Patrick Caronan before the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
against respondent "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan," whose real name is allegedly Richard A.
Caronan (respondent) for assuming the complainant's identity and using the former’s
 credentials to study law and eventually to take the Bar examinations to be admitted to
the practice of law.
2. In 2009, complainant was promoted as Store Manager under the Philippine Seven
Corporation (PSC here on forward; operates 7/11) but was summoned by the company’s
head office to be informed that NBI was requesting his presence regarding the
investigation involving the respondent’s involvement in a case for qualified theft and
estafa filed by Mr. Joseph G. Agtarap (Agtarap).
3. Before the Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division of the NBI, complainant was
questioned and asked to identify the following documents:
a. his and respondent's high school records;
b. his transcript of records from the University of Makati;
c. Land Transportation Office's records showing his and respondent's driver's
licenses;
d. records from St. Mary's University showing that complainant's transcript of
records from the University of Makati and his Birth Certificate were submitted
to St. Mary's University's College of Law;
e. Alumni Book of St. Mary's University showing respondent's photograph under the
name "Patrick A. Caronan."
4. In July 2013, PSC received a letter from Quasha Ancheta Peña & Nolasco Law Offices
requesting that they be furnished with the complainant's contact details or, in the
alternative, schedule a meeting with him to discuss certain matters concerning the
respondent.
5. A fellow church-member had also told him that respondent who, using the name "Atty.
Patrick A. Caronan," almost victimized his (church-member's) relatives.
6. Complainant also received a phone call from Mrs. Loyda L. Reyes (Reyes), who was
allegedly tricked by respondent into believing that he was authorized to sell a
parcel of land in Taguig City when in fact, he was not. Further, he learned that
respondent was arrested for gun-running activities, illegal possession of
explosives, and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22.
7. Due to the controversies involving respondent's use of the name "Patrick A. Caronan,"
complainant developed a fear for his own safety and security. He also became the
subject of conversations among his colleagues, which eventually forced him to resign
from his job at PSC. He then filed the present Complaint-Affidavit to stop respondent's
alleged use of the former's name and identity, and illegal practice of law.
8. Respondent denied all the allegations against him and invoked res judicata as defense
because his previous admin case filed by Agtarap was dismissed. He assailed that
complainant is being used by Reyes and her spouse to humiliate, disgrace, malign,
discredit, and harass him because he filed several administrative and criminal
complaints against them before the Ombudsman.

Procedural History
1. On March 9, 2015 IBP-CBD had a scheduled mandatory conference where both parties
failed to appear; respondent moved to reset to April 20 instead but both still failed to
 appear prompting the IBP-CBD to issue Order directing them to file their respective
position papers but neither parties complied to do so.
2. In June 15, 2015, IBP Investigating Commissioner found responder guilty of illegally and
falsely assuming complainant’s name, identity, and academic records. He observed that
respondent failed to controvert all the allegations against him and did not present any
proof to prove his identity. On the other hand, the complainant presented clear and
overwhelming evidence that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan."
3. He also noted that respondent admitted that he and complainant are siblings when he
disclosed upon his arrest on August 31, 2012 that:
a. His parents are Porferio Ramos Caronan and Norma Atillo; and
b. He is married to Rosana Halili-Caronan. However, based on the Marriage
Certificate issued by the National Statistics Office (NSO), "Patrick A. Caronan" is
married to a certain "Myrna G. Tagpis," not to Rosana Halili-Caronan.
4. Photograph taken of respondent when he was arrested as "Richard A. Caronan" on
August 16, 2012 shows the same person as the one in the photograph in the IBP
records of "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan." All these being stated, respondent indeed
assumed complainant's identity to study law and take the Bar Examinations.
5. The Commissioner recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of
Attorneys No. 49069 be dropped and stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. He also
recommended that respondent and the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from
being admitted as a member of the Bar; and finally, for making a mockery of the judicial
institution, the IBP was directed to institute appropriate actions against respondent.
6. On June 30, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. X X I - 2 0 1 5 - 6
0 7 , 48 adopting the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON IBP erred in ordering the name" Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys?
2. WON IBP erred in ordering the name “Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being
admitted to the Bar.

HELD: WHEREFORE, respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan"

(respondent) is found GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity, and academic records of
complainant Patrick A. Caronan (complainant) to obtain a law degree and take the Bar
Examinations. Accordingly, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate civil and/or criminal
cases, the Court hereby resolves that:
a. the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 is ordered
DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys;
b. respondent is PROHIBITED from engaging in the practice of law or making any
representations as a lawyer;
c. respondent is BARRED from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar in
the future;
d. the Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to
respondent under the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" and the Mandatory
 Continuing Legal Education Certificates issued in such name areCANCELLED
and/or REVOKED; and
e. the Office of the Court Administrator is ordered toCIRCULATE notices and POST
in the bulletin boards of all courts of the country a photograph of respondent with
his real name, "Richard A. Caronan," with a warning that he is not a member of
the Philippine Bar and a statement of his false assumption of the name and
identity of "Patrick A. Caronan."
RATIO:
1. Court did not recognize any reason to disturb findings and recommendations of the IBP.
They also affirmed the IBP’s order for the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys. The IBP was also correct in ordering that respondent, whose real
name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission to the Bar because he was
unable to comply with Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and complete a pre-law
course; he was only able to study in PLM for a year then transferred to PMA the next but
was not able to finish college education.
a. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to
the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily
completed a pre-law course.
2. Court also considered that respondent may late complete college education education
and earn a law degree under his real name but the false assumption of his brother's
name, identity, and educational records renders him unfit for admission to the Bar
because the practice of law is a privilege granted to citizens of good moral character. As
explained in In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the
2002 Bar Examinations and for Disciplinary Action as Member of the Philippine Shari'a
Bar, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez , the essence of good moral character includes at least
common honesty which the respondents evidently lack. He also made a mockery of the
legal profession by pretending to have necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. As
discerned the respondent and his acts do not have a place in the legal profession where
members upholds the integrity and dignity of the profession as one of their primary
duties

IN RE: Petition for the Disbarment of Atty. Estrella O. Laysa

Facts:
1. Patricia M. Ollada (complainant), a senior citizen, needed legal services for a problem
she had against her lessor, Melates M. Salcedo.
2. At Casino Filipino Tagaytay City. she was introduced to Atty. Laysa who agreed to make
a Demand Letter dated Dec. 27, 2006.
3. Atty Laysa and Ollada met up again where Ollada was shown the response letter of the
lessor. Displeased with the contents, Ollada asked Atty. Laysa to file a case against her
lessor.
4. Complainant issued a check for P 35,000 to Atty Laysa – after having the check
encashed, Atty. Laysa allegedly did not respond or communicate with the complainant
anymore.
5. Complainant got services of another counsel, Atty. cecilia Corazon S. Dulay-Archog.
 6. They demanded the Php 30,000 (5k was deducted as payment for the letter drafted)
back from Atty. Laysa but never got a response.
7. Numerous letters were sent to Atty. Laysa but none of them metired a response, and one
letter sent was returned to sender because of the wrong address.
8. The IBP Accounting office and MCLE office were ordered for any information regarding
Atty. Laysa’s standing as a member of the bar.
a. From 2001-2004, Atty. Laysa did not file her Attorney’s Compliance Report, but
completed the required number of MCLE (Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education) units.
b. MCLE stated that she was non-compliant on the MCLE units in 2004-2007,
2007-2010,2010- 2013, and 2013-2016
c. The IBP National Treasurer reported that she paid her membership dues only in
2004.
9. Atty. Laysa did not update the IBP Chapter secretary of the changes on her office and
residence addresses.

Court:
1. Despite her non-compliance with taking the MCLE units and paying her membership
dues, she still offered legal services and accepted legal fees in the amount of 35,000.
Worse, she neither communicated nor updated the complainant about her case.
2. Not only should she be listed in the delinquent lawyers for her failure to comply with
IBP and MCLE requirements, she also violated Rule 18.03 Canon 18 of the CPR, and
Rule 16.01 of the CPR
- Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
- Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
3. The Court did not disbar her because if the court finds that a lesser penalty, such as
suspension, suffices to address the desired end, they will go for the suspension.
4. Thus, Atty. Laysa is suspended for 3 yrs from the practice of law. She was also ordered
to pay the fine of 5,000 to the IBP and return the 30,00 to Ollada within 10 days of notice
with an int rate of 12% per annum until June 30 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013

Vivian A. Rubio VS Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr.

A.C. No. 13358 | En Banc | Nov 29, 2022
(Estafa, Investigation on Caoibes, Language-devil,judicial time, roll numbers, MCLE)
Laws violated:
● CPR Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
● Language (CPR)
○ Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
○ Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the Courts.
○ Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
○ Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
 ● Canon 5 of CPR: KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION
● 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 misled by any artifice.

Facts:
- Respondent, Caoibes, filed a complaint for estafa against the petitioner, Rubio, for the
amount of Php 4,500.00 ONLY with the MTC of Calaca, Batangas. But before the
prosecution was able to present its evidence, Caoibes moved for the mediation (sort of
settlement) of the matter.
- They agreed to settle at the amount of Php 200,000.00 in exchange for all cases filed to be
dismissed. Rubio paid the said amount and her counsel prepared an Affidavit of Desistance.
However, Caoibes refused to sign said document and instead insisted that they sign the
Combined Affidavits of Admission and Desistance instead.
- Rubio did not sign the document Caoibes prepared because that would mean an admission of
guilt. Hence, Caoibes did not dismiss the cases he filed against Rubio.
- Because of this, Rubio began to inquire on the demeanor of Caoibes and found out the ff:
o Caoibes’ use of cruel and disrespectful words towards Judge Vicente Montes
o Caoibes attacked the integrity of Judge Rolando Silang for ruling against his client
o A number of pending cases due to Caoibes’ repeated filing of Motions for Inhibition
o Caoibes’ non-compliance (and non-exemption) from the MCLE requirements but
said otherwise in a pleading
o Usage of roll numbers that do not belong to him
o Notarizing outside his notarial territorial jurisdiction
- Complainant posited that respondent violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon l; Rule 3.01, Canon
3; Canon 5; Rule 10.01, Canon 10; Canon 11; and Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12 of the
CPR.20 Thus, complainant filed the disbarment complaint against him before the IBP.
- Respondent filed 4 Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motions seeking for extension for the filing of
his answer which further delayed the case.
- Respondent then again attacked the ‘morality’ of the complainant saying that the conviction on
estafa case against her became final and executory, and that though she never married, she has
three kids with three different fathers. He also said that he no longer practices law due to
physical and economic reasons, thus he only relies on his notarial services for living.
- IBP Investigating Commissioner Torres recommended that Caoibes be DISBARRED for
violating the Lawyer’s Oath, CPR and Rules on Notarial Practice.
o Violation of Lawyer’s Oath: offering the dismissal of criminal cases filed in exchange
of Php200k even though he knows that he can only dismiss the civil aspects of the
case. Also the fact that he tried to charge 4,444% higher than the original amount the
complainant owed him.
o Violation of Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR & BM No 1132: use of diff roll numbers
in his pleadings four times.
o Violation of Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the CPR: use of foul, cruel and undignified words
against Judges
 o Violation of Canon 5 of CPR: non-compliance of the MCLE requirement; he even made
it appear that he did comply which manifested bad faith, dishonesty and deceit.
o Violation of Sec 11, Rule III of Notarial Rules: notarized in Calaca, Batangas but his
notarial territorial jurisdiction is only on Lemery, Batangas

Issue: W/n Caoibes should be help administratively liable and therefore disbarred for his actions?

Held: WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. GUILTY of violation of the
Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and Bar
Matter No. 850. Accordingly, the Court hereby imposes upon him the penalty of DISBARMENT from
practice of law and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys, effective
immediately.

The Court adopted and approves the findings of the IBP, with modification as to the penalty imposed on
respondent. The Court also held that Caoibes:
o Violated Lawyer’s Oath & Rule 1.01 of the CPR: misleading the complainant
- Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
o Violated of Sec 11, Rule III of Notarial Rules, Rule 1.01 Canon 1 of the CPR: notarized
in Calaca, Batangas but his notarial territorial jurisdiction is only on Lemery, Batangas
o Violated Canon 8.01, Canons 11.03-11.05 of the CPR: when he used derogatory
language against the Judges who held his cases, also in his pleadings
- Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which
is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
- Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
- Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case.
- Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
o Violated Canon 5 of the CPR: re MCLE requirements
- CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL
DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN
LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.
o Violated Canon 10.01 of the CPR: usage of wrong roll numbers
- 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 misled by any artifice.
o Non-compliance with the order of the IBP
 In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty.
MARCIAL A. EDILLION (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1)
Laws violated:
● Article III of IBP By-Laws Par. 2 (removal of delinquent member’s name in the Roll of Attorneys)
1. Respondent Marcial A. Edillion was disbarred on August 3, 1978
2. The IBP Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in Admin Case No. MDD-1
which recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the rspondent from its Roll
of Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues”
3. Par. 2, Section 24, Article III of IBP By-Laws “... Should the delinquency further continue
until the following June 29, the Board shall promptly inquire into the cause or causes
of the continued delinquency and take whatever action it shall deem appropriate,
including a recommendation to the Supreme Court for the removal of the delinquent
member's name from the Roll of Attorneys. Notice of the action taken should be submit
by registered mail to the member and to the Secretary of the Chapter concerned.”
4. Edillion said in a resolution that the provisions constitute an invasion of his
constitutional rights (to liberty and property) , as that he is being compelled financial
support to the said organization to which he admits personal antagonism towards.
5. There was the impression that his uncooperative stemmed from sheer stubbornness
and not lack of legal knowledge.
6. He communicated thereafter circumstances of a mitigating character – the state of his
health and his advanced age; likewise spoke of welfare of former clients who still
rely on him for counsel
7. Hence reinstatement granted in the resolution of October 23, 1980

LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR. REQUESTING

EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF IBP DUES
[Exemption from the IBP dues, USA, Civil Service, inactive; equal protection clause and due process
clause;deprivation of property and due process; membership fee exaction regulation]
Laws violated:
● Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court Sections 9 and 10 (Mandatory payment IBP)
FACTS
● In Atty. Cecilio’s letter, he sought exemption from payment of IBP dues in the
amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years 1977-2005.
● He alleged that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became
part of the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986, then migrated to,
and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003.
● He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was
working in the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the
practice of one's profession while in government service, and neither can he be
assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.

IBP’s COMMENT
 ● Membership in the IBP is not based on the actual practice of law;
○ that a lawyer continues to be included in the Roll of Attorneys as long as
he continues to be a member of the IBP;
○ that one of the obligations of a member is the payment of annual dues as
determined by the IBP Board of Governors and duly approved by the
Supreme Court as provided for in Sections 9 and 10, Rule 139-A of the
Rules of Court;.
● It asserted that what the petitioner could have done was to inform the secretary
of the IBP of his intention to stay abroad, so that his membership in the IBP
could have been terminated, thus, his obligation to pay dues could have been
stopped.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
● Petitioner contends that what he is questioning is the IBP Board of Governor's
Policy of Non-Exemption in the payment of annual membership dues of
lawyers regardless of whether or not they are engaged in active or inactive
practice.
● He asseverates that the Policy of Non-Exemption in the payment of annual
membership dues suffers from constitutional infirmities, such as equal
protection clause and the due process clause.
● He also posits that compulsory payment of the IBP annual membership dues
would indubitably be oppressive to him considering that he has been in an
inactive status and is without income derived from his law practice.
● He adds that his removal from nonpayment of annual membership dues would
constitute deprivation of property right without due process of law.
● Lastly, he claims that non-practice of law by a lawyer-member in inactive
status is neither injurious to active law practitioners, to fellow lawyers in
inactive status, nor to the community where the inactive lawyers-members
reside.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during
the time that he was inactive in the practice of law, that is, when he was in the Civil
Service from 1962-1986 and he was working abroad from 1986-2003? (NO)

HELD
● Organized by or under the direction of the State, an Integrated Bar is an official
national body of which all lawyers are required to be members. They are,
therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar,
including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the
 effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a code of
professional ethics or professional responsibility, breach of which constitutes
sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper cause appearing,
a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the offending member.
● The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire
lawyer population. This requires membership and financial support of every
attorney as condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention
of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
● Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free
to attend or not to attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or
refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he
is subjected is the payment of his annual dues.
● A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation, while
tax purpose of a tax is a revenue. If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate
the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a
membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to put on an
integrated Bar program without means to defray the expenses. The doctrine
of implied powers necessarily carries with it the power to impose such exaction.
● Thus, payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the
IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of
payment of dues subsists for as long as one's membership in the IBP
remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the
member is engaged in.
● But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a
mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the
Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
● As a final note, it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions, one of which is the payment of membership dues.
Failure to abide by any of them entails the loss of such privilege if the gravity
thereof warrants such drastic move.

VICTORIA BARRIENTOS, complainant, vs. TRANSFIGURACION

DAAROL, respondent.
[A.C. No. 1512. January 29, 1993.]
[Disbarment, 20 year old, convention, joy ride, pregnant, 16 years, abortion, not responding, muslim, void,
but complainant christian]
Laws violated:
● Grossly Immoral Conduct
Fact/s:
1. Barrientos seeks the disbarment of respondent Daarol on grounds of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct.
 2. Court resolved to refer the case to the SolGen for investigation after the respondent filed
his answer. As per recommendation of SolGen, the Provincial Fiscal of Zamboanga del
Norte was authorized to conduct investigation and to submit reports with transcription
notes and exhibits submitted by parties.
3. Barrientos, a 20 year old, college student who was acquainted to Daarol, whom she
knew to be single and the General Manager of Zaneco, through her sister. Daarol is also
a former a student of Barrientos’ father in 1952 and a former high school classmate of
her mother so it was not odd when he befriended and invited her, with her parents'
consent, to be one of the usherettes during the Masonic Convention in Sicayab, Dipolog
City from June 28 to 30, 1973; he used to fetch her at her residence in the morning and
took her home from the convention site after each day's activities; where they allegedly
became closer with each other.
4. In July 1973, Daarol professed his love and courted Barrientos; to which the latter
accepted after a week. Since then, he visits her more often. They were set to be married
in December of that year.
5. In August 1973, Daarol successfully had sexual relations with Barrientos inside his car
parked near the airport where they can be alone. Barrientos was hesitant because they
are not yet married but Daarol assured her and reiterated his promise of marrying her.
They engaged in sexual relations from August to October, 2-3x a week; she consented
because of her love and belief in all his promises. She fell pregnant in September but
Daarol suggested to get the child aborted. When Barrientos refused to do that he
reassured her that they will be married in a month. Barrientos and her mother went to
Manila by boat first, and Daarol promised to follow so they could secretly get married in
Manila without being scandalized with Barrientos’ pregnancy.
6. In October 1973, Daarol arrived in Manila only to say that he cannot marry Barrientos
because he is still married to Romualda A. Sumaylo with whom he has a son; they have
been separated for 16 years and he said he would work on the annulment and
subsequently marry Barrientos. He assured her monthly support while in Manila to which
he obliged.
7. Barrientos gave birth in Cebu aided by her sister and when she returned to Zamboanga,
she cannot contact Daarol. She consulted a lawyer and filed an administrative case
against respondent with the National Electrification Administration; the case was referred
to the Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative (ZANECO) and it was dismissed and
thus she filed the present administrative case
Ruling
1. Respondent is therefore guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
2. The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the exacting
standards of mental and moral fitness. Respondent having exhibited debased morality,
the Court is constrained to impose upon him the most severe disciplinary action —
disbarment.
3. As officers of the court. lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but
must also be seen to be of good moral character and must lead life in accordance with
the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar
and an officer of the Court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or
 the keeping of mistresses but must also behave himself in such a manner as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
4. In brief, the Court find respondent Daarol morally delinquent and as such, should not be
allowed continued membership in the ancient and learned profession of law.
5. ACCORDINGLY, We find respondent Transfiguracion Daarol guilty of grossly immoral
conduct unworthy of being a member of the Bar and is hereby ordered DISBARRED and
his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. Let copies of this Resolution be
furnished to all courts of the land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the
Bar Confidant and spread on the personal record of respondent Daarol.

​Zerna v. Zerna
A.C. No. 8700, September 8, 2020
[3 daughters wife, grace, judelyn-choose, evelyn-cohabit-child, after passing bar stopped giving support to
[Link]]
Laws violated:
● Gross Immoral Conduct
FACTS:
The complainant and the respondent were married on May 6, 1990 at the Mary Immaculate Church in
Dumaguete City. Their union produced three daughters: Phoebe Manelle, Kristine Anne, and June
Evangel.

In May 1999, respondent took his oath as a member of the Bar. Complainant alleged that after passing the
Bar, respondent stopped extending financial support to their children and started having illicit affairs with
women. Complainant discovered in 1999 that respondent, on the same year, was also engaged in another
illicit relationship with a woman named Judelyn, respondent maintained romantic relations with another
woman named Evelyn Martinez.

On July 5, 2009, complainant filed criminal charges against respondent for concubinage, for allegedly
openly cohabiting with Evelyn and siring a child with the latter. Complainant claimed that respondent
abandoned his financial obligation to his legal family, resulting in severe financial difficulties as well as
mental and emotional anguish.

In his comment, the respondent countered that their marriage was void ab initio for lack of a valid
marriage license, as complainant allegedly forged his signature and obtained a marriage license even
without his personal appearance. That the complainant never supported him either financially or
emotionally as a dutiful wife should. He denied the accusation that he failed to give support to his
children, and that he abandoned his family. He, likewise, denied complainant’s allegations of
concubinage, claiming that these were brought about by complainant’s misplaced and unfounded jealousy.
He claimed that Grace was a mere acquaintance and prospective client; that Judelyn was just a friend; and
that Evelyn was just a close family friend.

The matter was referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. Commissioner Oliver
A. Cachapero of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline found merit in the complaint and recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. The Commissioner found
that there was enough evidence to hold respondent administratively liable for maintaining illicit affairs
despite him being married to complainant. The IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No
XX-2013-7213 adopting and approving, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the IBP
Commissioner, and suspending respondent from the practice of law for three years instead of one year.

On April 18, 2016, the Court resolved to require the complainant to report to the Court within ten days
from notice the veracity of the “death” of the respondent, it appearing that the copy of the Court’s
resolution suspending respondent from the practice of law was returned unserved, with postal carrier’s
notation “RTS-addressee deceased” on the envelope. On May 14, 2019, the IBP National Secretary
submitted to the Court its compliance with the Court’s January 30, 2019 Resolution, informing the Court
that as of that date, the IBP National Office had not officially received any information about the death of
respondent Atty Manolo Zerna and was, thus, unable to confirm the same. In view of the foregoing, the
Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the case be resolved by the Court.

Issue: Whether or not the complainant has presented enough evidence to substantiate her claim that
respondent Atty Manilo Zerna is guilty of gross immorality and may, therefore, be removed or suspended
by the Supreme Court? YES

Held: WHEREFORE, respondent Manolo Zerna is found GUILTY of GROSS IMMORALITY and is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.

Ratio: After a thorough review of the records, the Court agrees with the finding of the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline and IBP Board of Governors that the complainant has presented enough evidence to
substantiate her claim that respondent Atty Manolo Zerna is guilty of gross immorality, and may,
therefore, be removed or suspended by the Supreme Court for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.

The Court has emphasized that as officers of the court, lawyers must not only, in fact, be of good moral
character but also must be seen to be of good moral character in leading in lives in accordance with the
highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the
Court is required not only to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but also to
conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards.
In the present case, complainant alleged that the respondent carried on a number of adulterous and illicit
relations throughout their marriage, eventually abandoning her and their children to openly cohabit with
one paramour. Through pieces of documentary evidence in the form of email messages and photos,
among others, as well as the corroborating affidavits of her witnesses, complainant was able to establish
respondent’s illicit relations with other women, particularly Evelyn, through substantial evidence which is
necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalties on a member of the Bar. On the other hand,
respondent only offered self-serving denials.

Basic is the principle that denials are weak especially if unsupported by evidence. Thus, it bears emphasis
that aside from respondent’s claim that complainant was not the hapless and pitiful wife she claimed to be
and that complainant’s allegations of his infidelities were purely brought about by misplaced and
unfounded jealousy, respondent did not present countervailing evidence to substantiate his bare
allegations.

While the court is cognizant that cases such as this usually include self-serving arguments, this Court
finds that between the two parties, it was complainant who was able to build her case against the
respondent. Thus, this Court will not deviate from the findings of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
that there was enough evidence to support the claims of gross immorality against the respondent.

GARRIDO v. GARRIDO

[Disbarment, 6 children, had an illicit relationship, hongkong, “bad boy”, invald marriage-wife 1 dead, IBP:
disbar; court:practice of law public interest]
Laws violated:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE
LEGALPROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, norshall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legalprofession

FACTS: Maelotisea Sipin Garrido filed a complaint of gross immorality for

disbarment against the respondents before the IBP committee on discipline. Atty. Garrido
married Atty. Valencia while he was still married with Maelotisea. The IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline disbarred Atty. Garrido for gross immorality and the case against Atty. Valencia was
dismissed.

ISSUE: The issue is whether Atty. Garrido and Atty. Valencia committed gross immorality.

RULING: Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which expressly states that a member of
the bar may bedisbarred or suspended from his office as attorney…for, among others, any
deceit, grossly immoralconduct, or violation of the oath that he is required to take before
admission to the practice of law.

The court found Atty. Garrido in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule
7.03 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of
the Codeof Professional Responsibility.

The Supreme Court ruled to Disbar both Atty. Garrido and [Link].
Rule 1.01A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful [Link]
7CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGALPROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED [Link] 7.03Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, norshall he whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legalprofession

MARIA FELICISIMA GONZAGA, COMPLAINANT, VS.

ATTY. EDGARDO H. ABAD, RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 13163. March 15, 2022 ]
A lawyer who orchestrated the fraudulent scheme of acquiring a fake decision and passing it off as authentic to the concerned
parties for his personal interest must not go unpunished. This act makes a mockery of the administration of justice and diminishes
the faith of the people in the judiciary and its processes.

[
Laws violated:
● Canon 1, Rule 1.01
● Canon 7, Rule 7.03
Facts:
1. In 2008, Maria Felisicima Gonzaga and Atty. Edgardo Abad were colleagues in the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
2. Gonzaga sought the counsel of Atty. Abad with regard to the petitioner’s marital
problems, and was advised to file for a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
3. Parties agreen a payment of P80,000. Afterwhich another P12,000 was given for
psychological tests and P10,000 for filing fees, the lawyer assuring Gonzaga that there
will be no hearings because Abad knows the judge who will handle the case.
4. In Feb 2010, Abad contacted Gonzaga saying that the petition is granted, and will have
to be registered, handing the petitioner a photocopy of the RTC decision. For
registration, another 50k must be paid. On October of that year, Abad explained that
decision cannot be made since petitioner has not paid the pending balance of 80k.
5. Gonzaga got suspicious and consulted a different lawyer who was able to verify in the
RTC Branch 281 that "there is NO Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage between
Maria Felicisima Gonzaga-Rivera and Francisco P. Rivera with JDRC Case No. 6952 in
the dockets of this court." and that the judge who signed the decision was already
promoted to the Court of Appeals in Nov. 2009– date prior to the decision.
6. Money asked to return, estafa case is filed, alongside a disbarment complaint for gross
misconduct, malpractice, and deceit.

Issue: W/N Atty. Abad should be disbarred - YES

Held: The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful
compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a
member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.40

FOR THESE REASONS, Atty. Edgardo H. Abad is DISBARRED from the practice of law and
his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio:
● Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7 Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandate all lawyers to possess good moral character at the time of their application for
admission to the Bar, and require them to maintain such character until their retirement
from the practice of law. Also, members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves
according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to their clients. These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with
their clients considering the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship.
● Atty. Abad fell below the standards of morality, integrity, and honesty required of a lawyer. It
is undisputed that Atty. Abad misrepresented to Gonzaga that he filed a petition for nullity of
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC. Atty. Abad even
received money from Gonzaga representing the professional and filing fees as well as the
expenses for psychological evaluation. Even mentioned knowing the judge who will make the
decision.
● the Court concludes that Atty. Abad authored the fake decision and placed his personal
interest above the integrity of the judiciary and its processes. Atty. Abad's infractions not only
tarnished the noble image of the legal profession but also tainted the faith of the people in
the courts, casting serious doubt as to their ability to effectively administer justice.

Proceedings where lawyers are PROHIBITED TO APPEAR as Counsels

1. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Section 415 - In all katarungang pambarangay

proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or
representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their
next-of-kin who are not lawyers.
2. Rules on expedited procedures on first level courts
a. Sec. 17. Appearance. – The parties shall personally appear on the designated
date of hearing.

Appearance through a representative must be for a valid cause. The

representative of an individual-party must not be a lawyer.

Juridical entities shall not be represented by a lawyer in any capacity. The

representative must be authorized under a Special Power of Attorney (Form
7-SCC), board resolution or secretary’s certifi cate, as the case may be, to enter
into an amicable settlement of the dispute and to enter into stipulations or
admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits.
b. Sec. 18. Appearance of attorneys not allowed. – No attorney shall appear in
behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff
or defendant.

If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her/its claim or
defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another
individual who is not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter’s consent.
​5. Proceedings Where Lawyers are Prohibited to Appear as Counsels

· Republic Act No. 7160 (1991) or the Local

Government Code, Section 415
"Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. – In all katarungang
pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the
assistance of the counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents
who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers."

· Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level

Courts (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)

· Rule IV (Rule on Small Claims), Sections 17 & 18

SEC. 17. Availability of Forms; Assistance by Court Personnel.– The Clerk of Court or
other court personnel shall provide such assistance as may be requested by a plaintiff or a
defendant regarding the availability of forms and other information about the coverage,
requirements as well as procedure for small claims cases.

SEC. 18. Appearance.– The parties shall personally appear on the designated date of
hearing.

Appearance through a representative must be for a valid cause. The representative of an

individual-party must not be a lawyer, and must be related to or next-of-kin of the
individual-party. Juridical entities shall not be represented by a lawyer in any capacity.

The representative must be authorized under a Special Power of Attorney (Form 7-SCC)
to enter into an amicable settlement of the dispute and to enter into stipulations or
admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits.

6. Non-Delegable Legal Tasks

· CPRA, Canon II (Propriety), Sections 34 & 35

SECTION 34. Paralegal services; lawyer’s responsibility. — A paralegal is one who performs
tasks that require familiarity with legal concepts, employed or retained by a lawyer, law office,
corporation, governmental agency, or other entity for non-diagnostic and non-advisory work in
relation to legal matters delegated by such lawyer, law office, corporation, governmental agency,
or other entity.
A lawyer must direct or supervise a paralegal in the performance of the latter’s delegated duties.
The lawyer’s duty of confidentiality shall also extend to the services rendered by the paralegal,
who is equally bound to keep the privilege. (n)

SECTION 35. Non-delegable legal tasks. — A lawyer shall not delegate to or permit a
non-lawyer, including a paralegal, to:

(a) accept cases on behalf of the lawyer;

(b) give legal advice or opinion;

(c) act independently without the lawyer’s supervision or direction;

(d) to hold himself or herself out as a lawyer, or be named in association with a lawyer in any
pleading or submission to any court, tribunal, or other government agency;

(e) appear in any court, tribunal, or other government agency, or actively participate in formal
legal proceedings on behalf of a client, except when allowed by the law or rules;

(f) conduct negotiations with third parties unless allowed in administrative agencies, without a
lawyer’s supervision or direction;

(g) sign correspondence containing a legal opinion;

(h) perform any of the duties that only lawyers may undertake. (9.01a)

These provisions shall not apply to law student practitioners under Rule 138-A of the Rules of
Court. (n)

7. Sanctions for Practice Without Authority

· Rules of Court, Rule 71, Section 3(e)

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 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;

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such

without authority
· Revised Penal Code, Article 315(2)(a)
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any
of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in
its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty
provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one
year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with
the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this
Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the
case may be.

2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if
the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed
6,000 pesos; and

4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed
200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by
any of the following means:

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value

which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though
such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration.

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money,

goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be
totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such
money, goods, or other property.

(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in

blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank, to the
prejudice of the offended party or of any third person.

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts

executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
 (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his

art or business.

(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without

prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to
bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty.

(d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation

when the offender therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.
The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover
his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the
payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of
funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act. (As amended by R.A. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)

(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn,

restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house and the like
without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof,
or by obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or
apartment house by the use of any false pretense, or by abandoning or
surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house or apartment house after obtaining credit, food,
refreshment or accommodation therein without paying for his food, refreshment
or accommodation.

3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:

(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.

(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a

gambling game.

(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court

record, office files, document or any other papers.
· In re: Medado, B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013
Notes: 09/29

Points on legal profession

1. Katarungang pambarangay

● First process called brangay conciliation

● FOR purposes of the exam (just study katarungang pambarangay law) - so you
know the instance when certain counsels may appear
● LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Section 415 - In all katarungang pambarangay
proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel
or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by
their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.

Why are lawyers not allowed to appear in katarungang pambarangay

● If you live the same vicinity, to preserve harmony, let’s not involve the lawyers here
AYAYA
● The rationale behind the personal appearance requirement is to enable the lupon to
secure first hand and direct information about the facts and issues, the exception being
in cases where minors or incompetents are parties. There can be no quibbling that
laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between
 themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose
presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues.

Where to file small claims

● Small claims - does not exceed 1M
○ Money owed under the any contract of lease, contract of loan, contract of
services, contract of sale, or contract of mortgage.
○ Liquidated damages arising from contracts.
○ The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award
involving a money claim.
● Lawyers are allowed to appear if they are parties to the case (allowed to represent
themselves)
○ But if you are the plaintiff or the defendant you are not allowed to appear
○ Juridical persons - cannot be represented by lawyers (anyone can do it but not
lawyers) – corporations for example usually act through their boards (which is
what is submitted to court)
● Lawyers are prohibited because
○ Usually involves small amounts and does not need the involvement of a lawyer
(issue not too complex and not too technical)
○ But the CPRA has nondelegable legal tasks
■ Nondelegable legal task -
● Ex. paralegal cant execute contracts, notarize, can draft contracts
but names cannot be put as counsel
● Tasks as mentioned in Canon II, Sec. 35 of the CPRA:
○ Portraying themselves and acting as lawyers
○ Cannot sign legal opinions, pleadings
○ Suggest STUDY AND MEMORIZE for MT and BAR

Sanctions holding out themselves as lawyers in public

● Law students may appear and sign pleadings
● There are tasks that are actually duties of lawyers

Law student
- Can give legal dive for clinics
- Level 2: perform all the tasks the level 1 can do
- Taking of depositions (taking the testimony of witness out of court)
- Can also prepare judicial affidavits: affidavits in q&a form so during presentation.
Content of the judicial affidavits is the direct testimony

Suggestion: if you read the rules try going beyond them. Try making the rules make sense

Why is the SC imposing:

- In anticipation when you become lawyers
- Law student practitioner also has an oath
 - There are certain sanctions for misdeed: amount to unauthorized practice

Can an accused in can criminal case represent himself:

- Yes
- arraignment : guilty or not guildty (plead)
- If guilt assign ka sa council de officio
- And if to defend yourself in person
- Persons has the right to defend themselves

City councilors
- City councilors who are lawyers cannot represent a counsel that is based in that city

You are not allowed to engage in the private practice unless authorized by law
General rule: to avoid conflict of interest
 8. When Non-Lawyers are Allowed to Appear in Proceedings

a. Law Student Practice Rule

· Rules of Court, Rule 138-A, as amended by A.M. No.

19-03-24- SC
RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Section 1. Who may practice law. — Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every applicant for admission as a
member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral
character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America. — Citizens of the
United States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in
active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as such may, upon
satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such practice after
taking the following oath of office:
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the
Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor
give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
Section 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions. — Applicants for admission who, being
Filipino citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United States or in
any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the
United States, and who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in
any of said courts, that such practice began before July 4, 1946, and that they have never been suspended
or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination.
Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. — All applicants for admission other than those
referred to in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily
show that they have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed
courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of Education.
The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or school of law, shall be
filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the
following courses in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial
law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social
legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.
Section 6. Pre-Law. — No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he
presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of
law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college,
requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study
prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or
field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics.
Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. — All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk
of the Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the
beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this rule they shall also file
within the same period the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within sections
3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence
that the same has not been revoked, and certificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also
file at the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship.
Section 8. Notice of Applications. — Notice of applications for admission shall be published by the clerk
of the Supreme Court in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days
before the beginning of the examination.
Section 9. Examination; subjects. — Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this
rule, shall be subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social
Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and
Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil Procedure,
Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and
Conveyancing).
Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. — Persons taking the
examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the
same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee.
Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be
difficult to read his answers without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to
use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used.
The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution of
papers or commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers.
No oral examination shall be given.
Section 11. Annual examination. — Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take
place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of
the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and
International Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law
(morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon);
Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (afternoon).
Section 12. Committee of examiners. — Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar
examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the
Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to serve for one year,
and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The names
of the members of this committee shall be published in each volume of the official reports.
Section 13. Disciplinary measures. — No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the
committee, and during examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they
give or receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any other provision of this
rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a failure against him, and further
disciplinary action, including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court.
Section 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his examinations
successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below
50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the
following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile
Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10
per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. — Not later than February 15th after
the examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the
result of such examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the
clerk and may there be examined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved the report.
Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. — Candidates who have failed the bar examinations
for three times shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of
the court that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a
pre-bar review course in a recognized law school.
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates under this rule shall certify
under oath that the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same
conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the particular subject.
Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. — An applicant who has passed the required
examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe
before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.
Section 18. Certificate. — The supreme Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar
for all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records,
and that a certificate of such record be given to him by the clerk of court, which certificate shall be his
authority to practice.
Section 19. Attorney's roll. — The clerk of the Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all attorneys admitted to
practice, which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when he receives his certificate.
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and
obey the laws of the Philippines.
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
 (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of
his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him
or with his knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or
delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his
personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to
the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. — an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to
represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to
appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable
grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce
or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name
of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attorneys
wilfully appear in court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be
punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official transactions.
Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent client on appeal. — An attorney
who appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue representing his client
on appeal, unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the appellate court.
Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. — Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any
case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of
ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's
litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.
Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the
importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the
professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert
witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its
own professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor
unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
Section 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt. — When an attorney unjustly retains in his
hands money of his client after it has been demanded, he may be punished for contempt as an officer of
the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be
a bar to a criminal prosecution.
Section 26. Change of attorneys. — An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special
proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an
action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and
attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name
of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and
written notice of the change shall be given to the advance party.
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract between
client and attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable
cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract.
However, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene in the case to protect his rights. For
the payment of his compensation the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case wherein his services
had been retained by the client.
Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar
may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Section 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. — The Court of
Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in
the last preceding section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his profession until
further action of the Supreme Court in the premises.
Section 29. Upon suspension by the Court of Appeals or Court of First Instance, further proceedings in
Supreme Court. — Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Court of First Instance shall
forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of
the facts upon which the same was based. Upon the receipt of such certified copy and statement, the
Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the facts involved and make such order revoking or
extending the suspension, or removing the attorney from his office as such, as the facts warrant.
Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be removed or
suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to
answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or
counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed
to determine the matter ex parte.
Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. — A court may assign an attorney to render professional aid
free of charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it appears that the party is destitute and unable
to employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to
protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required
service, unless he is excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause shown.
Section 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio. — Subject to availability of funds as may be provided
by the law the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de oficio to be
compensates in such sum as the court may fix in accordance with section 24 of this rule. Whenever such
compensation is allowed, it shall be not less than thirty pesos (P30) in any case, nor more than the
following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos (P50) in light felonies; (2) One hundred pesos (P100) in less grave
felonies; (3) Two hundred pesos (P200) in grave felonies other than capital offenses; (4) Five Hundred
pesos (P500) in capital offenses.
Section 33. Standing in court of person authorized to appear for Government. — Any official or other
person appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear for the Government of the Philippines
shall have all the rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to appear in any case in which said
government has an interest direct or indirect.
Section 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct
his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for the purpose, or with the aid
an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and
his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge or other official or employee of the superior
courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or
give professional advice to clients.
Section 36. Amicus Curiae. — Experienced and impartial attorneys may be invited by the Court to appear
as amici curiae to help in the disposition of issues submitted to it.
Section 37. Attorneys' liens. — An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his
client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a
lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance
of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall
have the caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering
such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have the caused written notice thereof to be delivered
to his client and to the adverse paty; and he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and
executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and
disbursements.

b. Accused in Criminal Cases

· Rules of Court, Rule 116, Section 6

Section 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. — Before arraignment, the
court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have one.
Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed a counsel of his
choice, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him. (6a)
 · People v. Mamatik, G.R. No. L-11922, April 16, 1959

c. Administrative Proceedings

· 2011 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor

Relations Commission, as amended, Rule III,
Section 6
SECTION 6. APPEARANCES. – (a) A lawyer appearing for a party is presumed to be properly
authorized for that purpose. In every case, he/she shall indicate in his/her pleadings and
motions his/her Attorney’s Roll Number, as well as his/her PTR and IBP numbers for the current
year and MCLE compliance.

(b) A non-lawyer may appear in any of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter or Commission
only under the following conditions:
 (1) he/she represents himself/herself as party to the case;

(2) he/she represents a legitimate labor organization, as defined under Article 212 (now
219) and 242 (now 251) of the Labor Code, as amended, which is a party to the case:
Provided that, he/she presents to the Commission or Labor Arbiter during the mandatory
conference or initial hearing: (i) a certification from the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
or Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) attesting that
the organization he/she represents is duly registered and listed in the roster of legitimate
labor organizations; (ii) a verified certification issued by the secretary and attested to by
the president of the said organization stating that he/she is authorized to represent the
said organization in the said case; and (iii) a copy of the resolution of the board of
directors of the said organization granting him such authority;

(3) he/she represents a member or members of a legitimate labor organization that is

existing within the employer’s establishment, who are parties to the case: Provided that,
he/she presents: (i) a verified certification attesting that he/she is authorized by such
member or members to represent them in the case; and (ii) a verified certification issued
by the secretary and attested to by the president of the said organization stating that the
person or persons he/she is representing are members of their organization which is
existing in the employer’s establishment; and,

(4) he/she is a duly-accredited member of any legal aid office recognized by the
Department of Justice or Integrated Bar of the Philippines: Provided that, he/she (i)
presents proof of his/her accreditation; and (ii) represents a party to the case;

(c) Appearances of a non-lawyer in contravention of this Section shall not be recognized in any
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter or the Commission.

(d) Appearances may be made orally or in writing. In both cases, the complete name and office
address of counsel or authorized representative shall be made of record and the adverse party
or his counsel or authorized representative properly notified.

(e) In case of change of address, the counsel or representative shall file a notice of such
change, copy furnished the adverse party and counsel or representative, if any.

(f) Any change or withdrawal of counsel or authorized representative shall be made in

accordance with the Rules of Court, as amended. (8a)

(g) A corporation or establishment which is a party to the case may be represented by the
owner or its president or any other authorized person provided that, he/she presents: (i) a
verified certification attesting that he/she is authorized to represent said corporation or
establishment; and (ii) a copy of the resolution of the board of directors of said corporation, or
other similar resolution or instrument issued by said establishment, granting him/her such
authority. (6a) (As amended by En Banc Resolution No. 11-12, Series of 2012)
Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 126625, September 18, 1997

2016 Rules of Procedure of the Social Security System, as

amended, Rule II, Section 13
Section 13. Appearances. - An attorney appearing for a party is presumed to be properly
authorized for that purpose. In every case, he/she shall indicate in his/her pleadings and
motions his/her Attorney's Roll Number, his/her IBP and PTR numbers for the current year, the
number and date of issue of his/her MCLE certificate of compliance or exemption for the
immediately preceding compliance period and the contact details such as office address, email
address, and telephone and cellphone numbers.

A non-lawyer may appear before the Commission only if:

(a) He/She represents himself/herself as party to the case;

(b) He/She represents an organization or its members or a juridical entity, provided that he/she
shall be made to present a special power of attorney or a secretary’s certificate that he/she is an
authorized representative of the organization or its members or the juridical entity.

(c) He/She is a law student who has successfully completed his/her 3rd year of the regular
4-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal
education program approved by the Supreme Court. He/She may appear without compensation
before the Commission to represent an indigent or low-income litigant accepted by the legal
clinic. The appearance of such law student shall be under the direct supervision and control of a
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all
pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed must be signed by the
supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

The rules safeguarding privileged communication between attorney and client shall apply to
similar communications made to or received by the law student, acting for the legal clinic.

The law student shall comply with the standards of professional conduct governing members of
the Bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision of student practice may be a
ground for disciplinary action.

Appearances may be made orally or in writing. In both cases, the complete office address and
contact numbers of parties and their counsels shall be made of record and the adverse party or
his/her counsel or representative should be properly advised thereof.

Any change in the address of counsel or representative should forthwith be filed with the record
of the case and notice thereof furnished the adverse party or counsel.
2019 PCAB Rules of Procedure, Rule III Section 6(b)
SECTION 6. APPEARANCES. –

a. A lawyer appearing for a party should be properly authorized for that purpose and
enter his/her formal entry of appearance. In every case, he/she shall indicate in
his/her pleadings and motions his/her Attorney’s Roll Number, as well as his/her
PTR and IBP numbers for the current year and MCLE compliance.

b. A non-lawyer may appear in any of the proceedings before the PCAB investigating
officer but should be properly authorized by the party in writing. Provided that: in
cases where the party is a corporation, the non-lawyer must be authorized via a
notarized certification issued by the board secretary and attested to by the president
of the corporation stating that the bearer is authorized to represent the said
corporation in said case;

c. In case of change of address, the counsel or representative shall file a notice of such
change, copy furnished the adverse party and counsel or representative, if any.

d. Any change or withdrawal of counsel or authorized representative shall be made in

accordance with the Rules of Court.

2021 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Revised

Rules of Procedure, Rule VIII, Section 44
BENITO B. NATE, Complainant, -versus – JUDGE LELU P. CONTRERAS,
Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Virac, Catanduanes, Respondent. A.M. No. RTJ-15-2406, FIRST DIVISION, February 18, 2015, SERENO, C

1. Complainant Atty. Benito B. Nate calls the attention of this Court to the supposed grave
misconduct of respondent Contreras while she was still clerk of court and ex officio
provincial sheriff of RTC-Iriga City. According to him, there were three instances in which
respondent abused her authority.
2. First, respondent Contreras allegedly notarized an administrative complaint that was
prepared by her own father and led with this Court sometime in June 2003.
3. Complainant Nate stresses that respondent could not have legally notarized a
document. He points out that Section 3, Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice
disqualifies notaries from performing a notarial act if they are related to the principal
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
4. Furthermore, he argues that respondent acted beyond her authority when she notarized
in Iriga City a document that was signed in the Municipality of Buhi, which was outside
that city. We note that complainant was the subject of the administrative complaint
filed by respondent's father.
5. Next, complainant Nate claims that respondent certified a document as a true copy of
the original, and that her sister-in-law later on used the certified document in a labor
case then pending with the National Labor Relations Commission in Naga City. He
points out that respondent, as an ex officio notary public, was empowered to
authenticate only those documents that were in her custody. Since the document
— an amended labor complaint — was not a document pending before the
RTC-Iriga City, respondent allegedly went beyond her authority when she
authenticated it.
6. Finally, purportedly without this Court's prior written authority, respondent Contreras
appeared as her father's counsel before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP.
Complainant Nate alleges that respondent herself admitted during the proceedings
before the IBP that she had not yet obtained a written authority.

ISSUES
Whether Contreras is administratively liable for the following acts:
1. Affixing her signature to the jurat portion of the administrative complaint prepared by her
father (YES)
2. Authenticating documents as genuine copies of the original labor complaint (YES)
3. Appearing as counsel before the IBP on behalf of her father (NO)

RULING
1. Proceeding now to the first act complained about, we agree with the OCA findings that
respondent's act of affixing her signature to the jurat portion of the administrative
complaint prepared by her father had no direct relation to her work as the then clerk of
court of RTC-Iriga City. Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the proceedings
involving the disbarment and discipline of attorneys shall be conducted before the IBP.
This means that clerks of court are not among the touchpoints in the regular procedure
 pertaining to complaints against an attorney. Neither may a pleading in a case involving
lawyers be filed with the RTC.
2. We apply the same legal reasoning to the second act of respondent being complained
about; that is, her certification of a copy of her sister-in-law's labor complaint.
Respondent herself admits that the document was filed before the National Labor
Relations Commission in Naga City, not the RTC-Iriga City. Thus, in the regular course
of her duties, she would not have come across, encountered, or been in custody of the
document. While we agree with her that clerks of court are allowed to perform the
notarial act of copy certification, this act must still be connected to the exercise of their
official functions and duties — meaning to say, it must be done in connection with public
documents and records that are, by virtue of their position, in their custody.
3. With regard to the third act, we reiterate that the primary employment of court personnel
must be their full-time position in the judiciary, which is the chief concern requiring their
dutiful attention. Nevertheless, we recognize that the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees does allow for limited exceptions. Section
7 (b) thereof in relation to Rule X, Section 1 (c) of its implementing rules, provides that
public officials and employees are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of
their profession unless authorized by the Constitution, law, or regulation; and under the
condition that their practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
functions. Respondent has satisfactorily proved that she was granted authority by this
Court to "represent her father in Administrative Case No. 6089 provided that she files the
corresponding leaves of absence on the scheduled dates of hearing of the case
and that she will not use offcial time in preparing for the case." We thus agree with the
OCA recommendation that she did not commit any irregularity when she represented her
father before the IBP.

Midterms
● 2 hours
● Codal Provisions
● Application of the Rules
○ Reasons must be based on an applicable law, provisions, court judgement/case
etc.
● True/False with explanation
● Identification/Enumeration