Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PALE Digested Cases
PALE Digested Cases
“With all those cruel and brutal injustices heaped on me, I feel that 3. Whether the practice of law is a property right, the respondent’s
being a lawyer does not anymore deserve respect and courtesy from right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a
his own brothers in the legal profession; that there is no more logical matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the
and cogent reason for me to remain as a lawyer,” he added. fee as a regulatory measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to
enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by
Cañete said he’s hoping that his voluntary resignation from the Roll of payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.
Attorneys would lead to a meaningful reform and reorientation in the
prosecution service and the judiciary” in order to minimize corruption. But it must be emphasized that the practice of law is not a property
right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent
He said lawyers are very much aware of the ongoing corruption in the regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s
prosecution service and the judiciary but have been silent or indifferent public responsibilities.
toward it.
4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of the
Cañete cited an example wherein a lawyer loses a case because the Supreme Court to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of
opposing party had all the money to “buy” the prosecutor or the judge. Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the matters of admission,
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers and their
“Filing the petition was based on my disillusion, frustration, utter regulation and supervision have been and are indisputably recognized
disappointment as well as humiliation and embarrassment inflicted by as inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the authorities
the highly unfair and brutally unjust actions of my brothers in the legal holding such are legion.
profession who are members of the prosecution and judiciary…” he
said. Respondent Marcial A. Edillon is disbarred, and his name was ordered
to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.
Cañete passed the Bar Examinations in 1960 and was a member of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) the next year. Letter of Atty. Cecilia Y. Arevalo Jr. Requesting Exemption from
Payment of IBP Dues BM No. 1370 May 9, 2005 En Banc
In 1981, he was elected vice president of the IBP Cebu
Province Chapter. The following year, he assumed the presidency Facts:
when the elected president resigned and ran for an elective post.
Atty. Arevalo wrote a letter to the SC requesting for exemption from
In 1983, Cañete ran and was elected IBP President Cebu payment of his IBP dues from 1977-2005 in the amount of P12,035.00.
Province Chapter—a position he held until 1985. He contends that after admission to the Bar he worked at the Civil
Service Commission then migrated to the US until his retirement. His
At present, he is the chairman-emeritus of the World Eskrima contention to be exempt is that his employment with the CSC prohibits
Kali Arnis Federation. CDG him to practice his law profession and he did not practice the same
IN RE: EDILLON (1978) while in the US. The compulsion that he pays his IBP annual
membership is oppressive since he has an inactive status as a lawyer.
FACTS: His removal from the profession because of non-payment of the same
constitutes to the deprivation of his property rights bereft of due
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney process of the law.
in the Philippines. On November 1975, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) unanimously recommended to the Court the removal Issues:
of the name of Edillon from its Roll of Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to
pay his membership dues” to the IBP notwithstanding multiple due 1. Is petitioner entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during
notices sent to him. 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
ISSUES: 1986-2003?
2. Does the enforcement of the penalty of removal amount to a Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss
deprivation of property without due process? thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar and,
consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other
Held: words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege
1. No. A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege
regulation. If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it denied to foreigners.
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 The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of
Bar program without means to defray the expenses. The doctrine of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently
implied powers necessarily carries with it the power to impose such reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because “all Philippine citizens
exaction. who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have
lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225].”
The payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country
the IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires
nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as ones membership in it in accordance with RA 9225.
the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of
practice, the member is engaged in. Before he can can resume his law practice, he must first secure from
this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:
2. No. Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its
being one that entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, the updating and payment of of IBP membership dues;
we do not here pause to consider at length, as it [is] clear that under
the police power of the State, and under the necessary powers granted the payment of professional tax;
to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the respondents right to the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory
practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter continuing legal education; this is specially significant to
subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine
a regulatory measure is recognize[d], then a penalty designed to laws and update him of legal developments and
enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by
payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary. the retaking of the lawyer’s oath.
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property IN RE EPIFANIO MUNESES (Reacquisition of Philippine
right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent Citizenship) B.M. No. 2112
regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyers
Keywords:
public responsibilities.
As a final note, it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is Petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses became a lawyer in 1966
a privilege burdened with conditions, one of which is the payment of but acquired American citizenship in 1981
membership dues. Failure to abide by any of them entails the loss of Restored citizenship in 2006 by virtue of RA 9225
such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move. (Letter A Filipino lawyer who re-acquires citizenship remains to be a
of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from Payment of member of the Philippine Bar but must apply for a license or
IBP Dues, B.M. No. 1370. May 9, 2005) permit to engage in law practice.
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: On June 8, 2009, petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses with the Office of the
Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege to
xxx practice law in the Philippines.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of Petitioner became a member of the IBP in 1966 but lost his privilege to
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the practice law when he became a American citizen in 1981. In 2006, he
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 or the
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified “Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003” by taking
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, Consulate in Washington, D.C. He intends to retire in the Philippines
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special and if granted, to resume the practice of law.
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court. (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
Constitution) admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the
practice of law. The loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s
Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin Dacanay membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice
540 SCRA 424 of law. Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
FACTS: Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine
He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. Thus, a
seek medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied for Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-
Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical aid program. acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be
His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in a member of the Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the
May 2004. right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225
In July 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit
Philippine citizenship. On that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a to engage in such practice.
Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the
Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to practice of law, the OBC required, and incompliance thereof, petitioner
resume his law practice. submitted the following:
ISSUE: Whether petitioner may still resume practice? 1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
RULING: Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides an 2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen of the Philippines, at 3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character and a resident 4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine
of the Philippines.5 He must also produce before this Court satisfactory Citizenship issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of
evidence of good moral character and that no charges against him, the IC;
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in 5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City
the Philippines. 6. Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as his
updated payment of annual membership dues;
7. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010; In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to
8. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd provide his roll number for his MCLE compliances to be credited. Not
compliance period; and having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll
9. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria number.
Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program,
10. University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition,
compliance with the MCLE. praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado
justifies this lapse by characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor
The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance, intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of
particularly with the MCLE. After all the requirements were judgment.
satisfactorily complied with and finding that the petitioner has met all
the qualifications, the OBC recommended that the petitioner be The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant petition
allowed to resume his practice of law. be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter
lack of merit, saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification for
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses is hereby his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
GRANTED, subject to the condition that he shall re-take the Lawyer's
Oath on a date to be set by the Court and subject to the payment of ISSUE:
appropriate fees. Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
In re Marcos del Rosario RULING:
http://manilastandardtoday.com/news/-%20main- Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of
stories/162235/sc-allows-dual-law-practice.html a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from
the practice of law.
Filipino lawyers who became naturalized American citizen can again
practice law in the country upon acquiring dual citizenship, according Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to
to the Supreme Court. imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty
reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions. In this case, said
In an en banc resolution promulgated September 23, 2014, but action is not warranted.
released only this week, the Supreme Court granted the petition of
Marcos Del Rosario to practice his legal profession in the country after The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good faith in filing
losing his Philippine citizenship by reason of naturalization as US the petition himself, albeit after the passage of more than 30 years;
citizen. that he has shown that he possesses the character required to be a
member of the Philippine Bar; and that he appears to have been a
“The Court resolved to allow petitioner Del Rosario to resume practice competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at
of law in the Philippines, subject to the conditions that he re-takes his different firms and companies.
lawyer’s oath on a date set by the Court,” the resolution stated.
However, Medado is not free from all liability for his years of inaction.
The high court also required petition to pay “the appropriate fees, and
(submit) the original or certified true copy of the proof of payment of the A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
professional tax for 2013.” everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.
The SC cited Article XII, Section 14 of the Constitution, which provides Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact
that “the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to when he thought that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before
Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.” the oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys. However, the
moment he realized that what he had signed was just an attendance
Before moving to the US, Del Rosario passed the Philippine Bar record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid
exams after finishing his law degree from the University of the justification. At that point, he should have known that he was not a full-
Philippine in 1995. fledged member of the Philippine Bar, as it was the act of signing
therein that would have made him so. When, in spite of this
He then obtained his Master of Laws in International Business from knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law, he willfully engaged in
Fordham University in New York, NY, U.S.A in 2003 and was admitted the unauthorized practice of law.
to practice law in the State of New York and the US District Courts for
the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York after becoming a Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise
naturalized American citizen. transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. At
the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized
Del Rosario filed the petition in the SC, saying he wanted to continue practice of law. This duty likewise applies to law students and Bar
practicing law in the country. candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to conduct
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, PETITIONER. (DIGEST) profession.
B.M. No. 2540 Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer.
September 24, 2013 However, the Court imposed upon him a penalty akin to suspension by
TOPIC: allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of
the Resolution. He was also made to pay a fine of P32,000. Also,
Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Canon 9, Signing during the one-year period, petitioner was not allowed to engage in the
of the Roll of Attorneys practice of law.
FACTS: AGUIRRE VS RANA (2003)
Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 Legal Ethics| Practice of Law| Signing of the Roll of Attorney’s|
May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the PICC. He was scheduled Oath-Taking
to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but failed to do so
allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of FACTS:
Attorneys. Several years later, while rummaging through his things, he Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000
found said Notice. He then realized that he had not signed in the roll, Bar Examinations.
and that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably
just an attendance record. A day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar
examiners, petitioner Donna Marie Aguirre filed a complaint charging
He thought that since he already took the oath, the signing of the Roll Rana of unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of
of Attorneys was not as important. The matter of signing in the Roll of law, and grave misrepresentation.
Attorneys was subsequently forgotten.
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was charged
at the PICC, however, the respondent cannot sign the Roll of Attorneys with the crime of homicide in connection with the death of one Raul
pending the resolution of the charge against him. Thus, respondent Camaligan. The death of Camaligan stemmed from the affliction of
passed the bar, took the lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date but has severe physical injuries upon him in course of "hazing" conducted as
not signed the Roll of Attorneys. part of the university fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993,
the accused were consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a
Petitioner alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as period ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to
counsel of a political candidate, signed pleadings as well as represent four (4) years.
himself as counsel in proceedings.
Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed an
ISSUE: application for probation with the lower court. The application was
Whether Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus granted on June 18 1993. The period of probation was set at two (2)
does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar. years, counted from the probationer's initial report to the probation
officer assigned to supervise him.
HELD:
Less than a month later, Argosino filed a petition to take the bar exam.
Yes. In Cayetano v. Monsod, the Court held that “practice of law” He was allowed and he passed the exam, but was not allowed to take
means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of the lawyer's oath of office.
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in
the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by On April 15, 1994, Argosino filed a petition to allow him to take the
members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render attorney's oath and be admitted to the practice of law. He averred that
any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill. his probation period had been terminated. It is noted that his probation
period did not last for more than 10 months.
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a
privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special ISSUE: Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath of
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this attorney and be admitted to the practice of law
privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, HELD:
educational attainment, and even public trust4 since a lawyer is an
officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may now be
practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character
law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed imposed upon those who are seeking admission to the bar. He should
the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced show to the Court how he has tried to make up for the senseless killing
law without a license. of a helpless student to the family of the deceased student and to the
community at large. In short, he must show evidence that he is a
It is true that the respondent passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and different person now, that he has become morally fit for admission to
took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of the profession of law.
Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that
respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written
is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent manifestation, of the names of the parents or brothers and sisters of
should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still Camaligan from notice.
had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by
this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. IN RE: ARGOSINO (270 SCRA 26, 03/19/1997)
Edwin Rana is denied Admission to the Philippine Bar. FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a
successful bar applicant. Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino was
In Re: Al C. Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995) previously involved with hazing which caused the death of Raul
Camaligan a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites but he was
IN MATTER OF THE ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND OATH-TAKING convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. He was
OF SUCCESSFUL BAR APPLICANT AL C. ARGOSINO sentenced with 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment where he
applied a probation thereafter which was approved and granted by the
DOCTRINES: court. He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to take
the oath. He filed for a petition to allow him to take the lawyer’s oath of
The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to office and to admit him to the practice of law averring that his probation
citizens of good moral character, with special education was already terminated. The court note that he spent only 10 months
qualifications, duly ascertained and certified. of the probation period before it was terminated.
Requirement of good moral character is of greater
ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyer’s oath office
importance so far as the general public and proper and admit him to the practice of law.
administration of justice is concerned.
All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired HELD: The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who
into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar. possess the STRICT, INTELLECTUAL and MORAL QUALIFICATIONS
required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient
Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by administration of justice. The court upheld the principle of maintaining
those who would seek admission to the bar must be a the good moral character of all Bar members, keeping in mind that
necessity more stringent than the norm of conduct expected such is of greater importance so far as the general public and the
from members of the general public. proper administration of justice are concerned. Hence he was asked by
Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings the court to produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed
inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident rejection and has become a responsible member of the community through
of that moral duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, sworn statements of individuals who have a good reputation for truth
which makes impossible a finding that the participant was and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of
possessed of good moral character. time to certify that he is morally fit to the admission of the law
profession. The petitioner is then allowed to take the lawyer’s oath,
Good moral character is a requirement possession of which sign the Roll of Attorney’s and thereafter to practice the legal
must be demonstrated at the time of the application for profession.
permission to take the bar examinations and more
importantly at the time of application for admission to the bar IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH BY ARTHUR M.
and to take the attorney's oath of office. CUEVAS, JR.
B.M. No. 810 January 27, 1998
FACTS:
FACTS:
Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr., passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. His oath- However, petitions were filed because of the emotional, physical and
taking was held in abeyance in view of the Court's resolution which financial burden to the barristers. The petitions were granted and the
permitted him to take the Bar Examinations "subject to the condition court decided to just spread the percentage of the mercantile law exam
that should (he) pass the same, (he) shall not be allowed to take the to the remaining 7 bar subjects.
lawyer's oath pending approval of the Court . . ." due to his previous
conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide. The The court appointed 3 retired justices into a Committee to investigate
conviction stemmed from petitioner's participation in the initiation rites the leakage issue. The Investigating Committee was tasked to
of the LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the SAN BEDA determine and identify the source of leakage, the parties responsible
COLLEGE OF LAW, sometime in September 1991, where Raul I. therefor or who might have benefited therefrom, recommend sanctions
Camaligan, a neophyte, died as a result of the personal violence against all those found to have been responsible for, or who would
inflicted upon him. Thereafter, petitioner applied for and was granted have benefited from, the incident in question and to recommend
probation. On May 10, 1995, he was discharged from probation and measures to the Court to safeguard the integrity of the bar
his case considered closed and terminated. examinations.
ISSUE: Cecilia Carbajosa, a bar examinee found the leakage when she
obtained a copy of the leaked questions and found that they were very
Whether or not petitioner Cuevas has the moral fitness required to take similar to the questions in the bar exam. Upon meeting with the
the lawyer’s oath? investigators, she provided a xerox of the leaked questions. The copy
was delivered to Justice Vitug, he found that 82% from examiner Atty.
HELD: Balgos was included in the leakage. He also received reports that Atty.
Petitioner is allowed to take the LAWYER’S OATH and sign the ROLL Danilo de Guzman was the source of the leakage, as he faxed the
OF ATTORNEYS. The Court shares the sentiment of Atty. Camaligan, questions to his fraternity brother, Ronan Gravida four days before the
father of hazing victim Raul Camaligan, and condoles with the untimely bar exams.
death of a son who is expected to become a lawyer and succeed his Atty. Balgos, 71 years old, does not know how to use computer except
father. In his comment submitted to the Court, Atty. Camaligan submits to type. His secretary Cheryl Palma formatted the test, printed it and
petitioner’s plea to be admitted to the membershop to the Philippine was also the keeper the Balgos’ computer password. Balgos didn’t
Bar, to the sound and judicious discretion of the Court. The deliberate know his computer was linked to 16 computers of his employees.
participation of Cuevas in the senseless beating of a helpless neophyte
which resulted to his death indicates that petitioner does not possess Balgos interrogated Silvestre Atienza, who interconnected the
the moral fitness required for admission to the Bar. However, petitioner computers in the office. He, like Atty. De Guzman, is a member of the
was discharged from probation without any infraction thereafter of the Beta sigma Lambda fraternity.
conditions of the probation and the various certifications attesting to his
righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has It was proven that Balgos indeed prepared the questions and that they
taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral came from his computer. His legal assistant, Atty. De Guzman, actually
character and atone for the unfortunate death of Camaligan. The Court admitted downloading the questions and faxing them to his frat
then decides to give petitioner a chance in the same manner that it brothers Garvida, Arlan, and Erwin Tan. Garvida then faxed it to his
allowed AL ARGOSINO, petitioner’s co-accused to take the lawyer’s brothers in MLQU (Inigo and Bugain), who then passed copies to
oath. another, and most illustrious brother, Ronald Collado who then spread
it to the MLQU brothers of the fraternity.
(Note: In re: 2003 Bar two cases 2004 and 2009)
The following were alleged, with the recommendation of De Guzman’s
In re: 2003 Bar Examinations disbarment:
B.M. No. 1222, February 4, 2004.
Per Curiam “Attorney Danilo De Guzman’s act of downloading Attorney Balgos’ test
questions in mercantile law from the latter’s computer, without his
FACTS: knowledge and permission, was a criminal act of larceny. It was theft of
intellectual property; the test questions were intellectual property of
On September 22, 2003, there was a rumored leakage in the bar Attorney Balgos, being the product of his intellect and legal
examination on the Mercantile Law subject. Investigation was lead knowledge.”
back to the office of Atty. Marcial O.T. Balgos, then Mercantile Law
Examiner, where the leakage started. Allegedly, Atty. Danilo de “Besides theft, De Guzman also committed an unlawful infraction of
Guzman (assistant lawyer in the firm of Balgos and Perez) stole a copy Balgos’ right to privacy of communication and to security of his papers
of Atty. Balgos’ file on Mercantile Law with the proposed test items, and and effects against unauthorized search and seizure—rights zealously
the former sent it to some members of the Beta Sigma Lambda protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. He transgressed the
Fraternity. very first canon of the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the
ISSUE: laws of the land, and
WON Atty. Balgos and Atty. de Guzman are guilty of gross misconduct promote respect for law and legal processes.”
unbecoming a member of the Bar.
“By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some
RULING: members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity, possibly for pecuniary
Yes. De Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty by his fraternity profit and to given them undue advantage over the other examiners in
brothers in the examination, which is violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, the mercantile law examination, De Guzman abetted cheating or
as well as Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for dishonesty by his fraternity brothers in the examination, which is
members of the Bar. As for Atty. Balgos’ negligence, if he had taken violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of the Code of
those simple precautions to protect the secrecy of his papers, nobody Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar, which provide:
could have stolen them and copied and circulated them. The integrity “De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member of
of the bar examinations would not have been sullied by the scandal. the Bar. He violated the law instead of promoting respect for it and
Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, Atty. Daniel de Guzman, B.M. No. degraded the noble profession of law instead of upholding its dignity
1722, April 24, 2009 and integrity. His actuations impaired public respect for the Court, and
On 22 September 2003, the day following the bar examination in damaged the integrity of the bar examinations as the final measure of
Mercantile Law, Justice Jose C. Vitug, Chairman of the 2003 Bar a law graduate’s academic preparedness to embark upon the practice
Examinations of law.”
Committee, was apprised of a rumored leakage in the examination on Also, it was alleged that others were also liable, such as Balgos
the subject. himself, who was negligent and failed to prevent the leakage, as well
as the other fraternity brothers who took part in the leakage.
With this, the court decided to nullify mercantile law examination and
hold another examination in place of this. Issues:
1. Should De Guzman be disbarred? – YES Be that as it may, as a result of the scuffle, a criminal complaint for
frustrated homicide was filed by private respondent against petitioner
2. Is De Guzman the only one liable for the leakage? – NO and five others, namely, Gavino R. Meneses, Jr., Ronald B. Almeida,
Held: (Recommendations of the Court) Alfredo B. Lagamon, Jr., Walter S. Ong, and Jayme A. Sy, Jr., before
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal.
1. Atty. De Guzman should be disbarred and should write a public
apology, as well as pay damages to the Supreme Court. After the usual preliminary investigation, Second Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Herminio T. Ubana, Sr. recommended the filing of an
2. Atty. Balgos should be reprimanded and also made to issue a written information for less serious physical injuries against petitioner, Gavino
apology and FURTHER INVESTIGATION of Danilo De Guzman, R. Meneses, Jr., Ronald B. Almeida and Alfredo B. Lagamon, Jr. and
Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, Ronan Garvida, Arlan, Erwin Tan, the dismissal of the charges against Walter S. Ong and Jayme Sy, Jr.
Randy Iñigo, James Bugain, Ronald Collado and Allan Guiapal by the The recommendation was approved by Rizal Provincial Prosecutor
National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police, Mauro M. Castro on January 10, 1994.
with a view to their criminal prosecution as probable co-conspirators in
the theft and leakage of the test questions in mercantile law. Accordingly, an information for less serious physical injuries was filed
with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila on January
Re: 1999 Bar Examinations 17, 1994 against petitioner and Gavino R. Meneses, Jr., Ronaldo B.
Almeida and Alfredo B. Lagamon, Jr. The case, docketed as Criminal
The crux of the case involving Bar Matters Nos. 979 and 986 Case No. 147366, was assigned to Branch 65 of the MeTC and tried in
concerning Bar applicant Mark Anthony A. Purisima stemmed from a accordance with the Rule on Summary Procedure. The arraignment
Resolution issued by the Supreme Court on the April 13, 2000, was set on July 29, 1994, at 8:30 A.M., but petitioner filed a motion
disqualifying the applicant from membership in the Bar after he before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for the reconsideration of
successfully passed the previous year’s bar examinations. Such the resolution finding probable cause against him. As his motion was
disqualification was based on the declaration by the Court that denied by the Provincial Prosecutor, petitioner appealed to the
Purisima’s examinations were null and void for two reasons: (1) that he Department of Justice which, on July 20, 1994, directed the Provincial
failed to submit the required certificate of completion of the pre-bar Prosecutor to withdraw the information.
review course under oath for his conditional admission to the 1999 Bar
Examinations; and (2) that he committed a serious act of dishonesty Accordingly, Second Assistant Prosecutor Benjamin R. Bautista filed a
when he made it appear in his Petition to Take the 1999 Bar motion to withdraw the information in Criminal Case No. 147366.
Examinations that he took his pre-bar review course at the Philippine Private respondent in turn moved for reconsideration of the resolution
Law School (PLS) when, as certified by the school’s Acting Registrar, of the Department of Justice but his motion was denied.
no such course was offered there since 1967.
In its order dated October 13, 1994,1 the MeTC, presided over by
ISSUE: IS HE QUALIFIED TO BE ADMITTED AS MEMBER OF THE respondent Judge Felicidad Y. Navarro-Quiambao, granted the motion
BAR? of the prosecution and considered the information against petitioner
withdrawn. The MeTC stated in its order:
HELD: YES. There was only an honest mistake with respect to the
documents given to the Supreme Court for the application for bar and Considering the time limit given by the Court to
He did not commit with any grave dishonesty that would amount him to said counsel in the order dated August 15, 1994
be disqualified for admittance to law. PRINICIPLES: every applicant for within which to pursue the motion for
admission into the practice of law, two qualifications of relevance to reconsideration [of DOJ Resolution No. 525,
this instant case the requests of educational qualifications and good Series of 1994] and without said counsel having
moral character. informed this Court of the outcome of the same, 2 it
can safely be concluded that private counsel had
G.R. No. 121180 July 5, 1996 lost interest to further prosecute the case.
GERARDO A. MOSQUERA, petitioner, Moreover, Atty. Valdez acting as private counsel in
vs. the prosecution of the instant criminal case is
HON. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN, in her capacity as Presiding Judge under the direct control and supervision of the Trial
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, City of Makati, Metro Fiscal, who by virtue of the Department of Justice
Manila, HON. FELICIDAD Y. NAVARRO-QUIAMBAO, in her resolution was impliedly ordered to desist from
capacity as Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, prosecuting the case for lack of probable cause. In
Branch 65, City of Makati, Metro Manila, and MARK F. view thereof, the Court is of the opinion that the
JALANDONI, respondents. motion of the Trial Fiscal should be accorded
weight and significance, as it was premised on the
MENDOZA, J.:p findings that the filing of the information in
question has no legal basis.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of orders dated June 9, 1995
and July 19, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 64) On motion of private respondent, however, the MeTC reconsidered its
sustaining an order of the Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 65) for the order . In its order dated December 29, 1994, the MeTC said:3
reinstatement of the information for less serious physical injuries
against petitioner Gerard S. Mosquera, which the MeTC had After carefully weighing the arguments of the
previously allowed to be withdrawn by the prosecution. The parties in support of their respective claims, the
reinstatement of the case was made on motion of the offended party. Court believes that the weight of the evidence and
the jurisprudence on the matter which is now
The prosecution in the MeTC arose out of a physical encounter presented for resolution heavily leaned in favor of
between petitioner and private respondent Mark E. Jalandoni within the complainant's contention. As held in the cases
premises of the Ateneo Law School on June 21, 1993. Petitioner is a recently decided by the Hon. Supreme Court, once
graduate of the law school and a member of a fraternity in that school. a case is filed in Court, the latter acquires
On the other hand, private respondent was then a third-year student complete jurisdiction over the same without regard
enrolled in the lawschool. There is considerable dispute how the fight to technicalities and personal beliefs.
took place. Petitioner's version was that he had gone to the law school
and happened to meet respondent Jalandoni. Because Jalandoni had That while there is merit in the accused Gerard A.
a previous altercation with another member of petitioner's fraternity, Mosquera's claim that the institution of a criminal
petitioner tried to talk to Jalandoni, but the latter reacted belligerently action depends upon the sound discretion of the
and the two had a fight. On the other hand, Jalandoni claimed that Fiscal who may or may not file the complaint' or
petitioner and members of petitioner's fraternity simply attacked him information, when in his opinion the evidence is
upon seeing him, for a remark which they claimed he (Jalandoni) had insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused
made, which caused a female student to cry. The female student was a beyond reasonable doubt, the same is true only
friend of one of the fraternity members. when the case is not in court yet because after the
case is already forwarded, raffled and assigned to
a particular branch the Public Prosecutor loses sufficient interest and personality as "person(s)
control over the case. aggrieved" to file the special civil action of
prohibition and certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of
It required the parties to appear before it on January 20, Rule 65 in line with the underlying spirit of the
1995, at 9:00 A.M. liberal construction of the Rules of Court in order
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied. 4 In its to promote their object. . . .
order, dated April 24, 1995, the MeTC also set the arraignment of Petitioner cites the following statement in Cabral v. Puno8 in support of
petitioner and Meneses, Jr. on May 19, 1995. his contention that private respondent has no personality to file the
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the motion in question:
Regional Trial Court of Makati. The case, docketed as Special Civil While it is true that the offended party, Silvino San
Case No. 95-718, was assigned to Branch 65, presided over by Diego, through the private prosecutor, filed a
respondent Judge Delia H. Panganiban. motion for reconsideration within the reglementary
Initially the RTC issued a temporary restraining order but, on June 9, fifteen-day period, such move did not stop the
1995,5 it denied petitioner's application for preliminary injunction. The running of the period for appeal [from the order of
RTC upheld the reinstatement of the information against petitioner and dismissal of the information]. He did not have the
the other accused. With its denial of injunction the RTC considered the legal personality to appeal or file the motion for
petition for certiorari and prohibition as having been rendered moot and reconsideration on his behalf. The prosecution in a
academic. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC criminal case through the private prosecutor is
denied in its order of July 19, 1995. under the direction and control of the Fiscal, and
only the motion for reconsideration or appeal filed
Hence this petition for review on certiorari and for an order: by the Fiscal could have interrupted the period for
appeal.
a. Reversing the Orders dated 09 June 1995 and
19 July 1995 (cf. Annexes "A" and "B") issued by The case of Cabral, however, differs materially from this case.
respondent Judge Panganiban; In Cabral, the offended party had lost his right to intervene because
prior to the filing of the criminal case, he had instituted a civil action
b. Setting aside, as null and void, the Orders dated arising from the same act subject of the criminal case. On the other
29 December 1994 and 24 April 1995 (cf. Annexes hand, in the case at bar, the right of private respondent to intervene in
"R" and "T") issued by respondent Judge the criminal prosecution is well nigh beyond question as he had neither
Quiambao; instituted a separate civil action nor reserved or waived the right to do
c. Making the preliminary injunction final; so.9
d. Prohibiting respondent Judge Quiambao from For the foregoing reasons, we hold that private respondent has the
trying and hearing Criminal Case No. 147366; and legal personality to file the motion for reconsideration in the trial court.
e. Declaring the dismissal of Criminal Case No. Beyond the personality of the private respondent to seek a
147366 as final and executory in accordance with reconsideration of the order of dismissal of the MeTC, the central issue
the Order dated 13 October 1994 issued by in this case is whether in ordering the reinstatement of the information,
respondent Judge Quiambao. the MeTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner's contention is that, because the direction and control of The MeTC invoked its authority under Crespo v. Mogul 10 to approve
criminal prosecutions are vested in the public prosecutor, the motion the withdrawal of informations after they have been filed in court, thus:
for reconsideration of the order of October 13, 1994, which the private [O]nce a complaint or information is filed in Court
prosecutor filed without the conformity by the public prosecutor, was a any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the
nullity and did not prevent the order of dismissal from becoming final. conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
Consequently, the MeTC gravely abused its discretion in afterward sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal
reinstating the information. retains the direction and control of the prosecution
Undoubtedly private respondent, as complainant, has an interest in the of criminal cases even while the case is already in
maintenance of the criminal prosecution. The right of offended parties Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial
to appeal an order of the trial court which deprives them of due court. The Court is the best and sole judge on
process has always been recognized, the only limitation being that what to do with the case before it. The
they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so would place the determination of the case is within its exclusive
accused in double jeopardy.6 recently had occasion to reiterate this rule jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss
in Martinez v. Court of Appeals,7 where, through the Chief Justice, we the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to
held: the Court who has the option to grant or deny the
same. It does not matter if this is done before or
Under Section 2, Rule 122 of the 1988 Rules of after the arraignment of the accused or that the
Criminal Procedure, the right to appeal from a final motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon
judgment or order in a criminal case is granted to instruction of the Secretary of Justice who
"any party," except when the accused is placed reviewed the records of the investigation.
thereby in double jeopardy.
Petitioner argues that by its order of October 13, 1994, the MeTC
In People v. Guido, [57 Phil. 52 (1932)] this Court already exercised its authority under the Mogul doctrine to grant or
ruled that the word "party" must be understood to deny the public prosecutor's motion to withdraw the information and
mean not only the government and the accused, was thereafter precluded from changing its mind in absence of a
but also other persons who may be affected by the motion for reconsideration filed by the public prosecutor.
judgment rendered in the criminal proceeding.
Thus, the party injured by the crime has been held This argument is untenable. The court could have denied the public
to have the right to appeal from a resolution of the prosecutor's 'motion for the withdrawal of the information against
court which is derogatory to his right to demand petitioner, and there would have been no question of its power to do
civil liability arising from the offense. The right of so. If it could do that, so could it reconsider what it had ordered. Every
the offended party to file a special civil action of court has the power and indeed the duty to review and amend or
prohibition and certiorari from an [interlocutory] reverse its findings and conclusions when its attention is timely called
order rendered in a criminal case was likewise to any error or defect therein. 11 In this case, the motion for
recognized in the cases of Paredes reconsideration was timely filed by the private prosecutor who, as
v. Gopengco [29 SCRA 688 (1969)] and People already discussed, has the legal personality to do so.
v. Calo, Jr., [186 SCRA 620 (1990)] which held
that "offended parties in criminal cases have
Indeed, the MeTC must have realized that it had surrendered its 1. Indian Run – which required the neophytes to run a gauntlet
exclusive prerogative regarding the withdrawal of informations by of two parallel rows of Aquilans, each row delivering blows to
accepting public prosecutor's say-so that the prosecution had no basis the neophytes;
to prosecute petitioner. 12 Its order of October 13, 1994 was based 2. Bicol Express – which obliged the neophytes to sit on the
mainly on its notion that the motion of the Trial Fiscal should be floor with their backs against the wall and their legs
accorded weight and significance as it was premised on the findings [of outstretched while the Aquilans walked, jumped, or ran over
the Department of Justice] that the filing of the information in question their legs;
has no legal basis." 3. Rounds – in which the neophytes were held at the back of
their pants by the "auxiliaries" (the Aquilans charged with the
This certainly was not the exercise of discretion. As we said duty of lending assistance to neophytes during initiation
in Martinez, "whether to approve or disapprove the stand taken by the rites), while the latter were being hit with fist blows on their
prosecution is not the exercise of discretion required in cases like this arms or with knee blows on their thighs by two Aquilans; and
[under the Mogul ruling] . . . What was imperatively required was the 4. Auxies’ Privilege Round – in which the auxiliaries were
trial judge's own assessment of such evidence, it not being sufficient given the opportunity to inflict physical pain on the
for the valid and proper exercise of judicial discretion merely to accept neophytes.
the prosecution's word for its supposed insufficiency." 13
They survived their first day of initiation.
Unfortunately, just as in allowing the withdrawal of the information by
the public prosecutor, the MeTC did not make an independent On the morning of their second day, the neophytes were made to
evaluation of the evidence, neither did it do so in granting the private present comic plays, play rough basketball, and recite the Aquila
prosecutor's motion for reconsideration. In its order dated December Fraternity’s principles. Whenever they would give a wrong answer, they
29, 1994, the MeTC simply stated that it was reinstating the case would be hit on their arms or legs. Late in the afternoon, the Aquilans
against petitioner because [a]fter carefully weighing the arguments of revived the initiation rites proper and proceeded to torment them
the parties in support of their respective claims, the Court believes that physically and psychologically. The neophytes were subjected to the
the weight of the evidence and the jurisprudence on the matter which same manner of hazing that they endured on the first day of initiation.
is now presented for resolution heavily leaned in favor of complainant's
contention" and that after a case has already been" forwarded, raffled, After a while, accused alumni fraternity members Fidelito Dizon (Dizon)
and assigned to a particular branch, the Public Prosecutor loses and Artemio Villareal (Villareal) demanded that the rites be reopened.
control over the case." The order contains no evaluation of the parties' The head of initiation rites, Nelson Victorino (Victorino), initially
evidence for the purpose of determining whether there was probable refused. Upon the insistence of Dizon and Villareal, however, he
cause to proceed against petitioner. The statement that the "weight of reopened the initiation rites. The fraternity members, including Dizon
evidence . . . lean[s] heavily in favor of complainant's [Jalandoni's] and Villareal, then subjected the neophytes to "paddling" and to
contention" is nothing but the statement of a conclusion. additional rounds of physical pain.
Nor could the MeTC rest its judgment solely on its authority under the Lenny received several paddle blows. After their last session of
Mogul doctrine to have the last word on whether an in formation should physical beatings, Lenny could no longer walk that he had to be carried
be withdrawn. The question in this case is not so much whether the to the carport. The initiation for the day was officially ended. They then
MeTC has the authority to grant or not to grant the public prosecutor's slept at the carport.
motion to withdraw the information it does but whether in the exercise After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by
of that discretion or authority it acted justly and fairly. In this case, the Lenny’s shivering and incoherent mumblings. Initially, Villareal and
MeTC did not have good reason stated in its order for the Dizon dismissed these rumblings, as they thought he was just
reinstatement of the information against petitioner, just as it did not overacting. When they realized, though, that Lenny was really feeling
have good reason for granting the withdrawal of the information. cold, some of the Aquilans started helping him. They removed his
The matter should therefore be remanded to the MeTC so that it can clothes and helped him through a sleeping bag to keep him warm.
make an independent evaluation of the evidence of the prosecution When his condition worsened, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital.
and on that basis decide whether to grant or not to grant the Lenny was pronounced dead on arrival.
withdrawal of the information against petitioner. Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against the 35
WHEREFORE, the orders dated June 9, 1995 and July 19, 1995 of the Aquilans.
Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and the orders of October 13, The trial court rendered judgment holding the 26 accused guilty
1994 and December 29, 1994 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The criminal case
Branch 65 are SET ASIDE and the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati is against the remaining nine accused commenced anew.
ORDERED within ten (10) days from receipt of this decision to
RESOLVE the public prosecutor's motion to withdraw the information in The CA set aside the finding of conspiracy by the trial court and
Criminal Case No. 147366, stating in its order clearly the reason or modified the criminal liability of each of the accused according to
reasons for its resolution, after due consideration of the evidence of the individual participation. One accused had by then passed away, so the
parties. following Decision applied only to the remaining 25 accused:
SO ORDERED. 1. Nineteen of the accused-appellants were acquitted, as their
individual guilt was not established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(note: Villareal vs people has a 2012 and 2014 case)
2. Four of the accused-appellants were found guilty of the crime
VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE of slight physical injuries.
G.R. No. 151258
February 1, 2012 3. Two of the accused-appellants – Fidelito Dizon and Artemio Villareal
– were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
FACTS: of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
In February 1991, seven freshmen law students (including Leonardo ISSUES:
"Lenny" Villa) of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law
signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila 1) Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion,
Fraternity). amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it set aside the finding
of conspiracy by the trial court and adjudicated the liability of each
On the night of February 8, 1991, the neophytes were "briefed" and accused according to individual participation (NO)
brought to the Almeda Compound in Caloocan City for the
commencement of their initiation. The rites were scheduled to last for 2) Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it
three days. pronounced Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug guilty only of slight
physical injuries (YES)
The neophytes were subjected to traditional forms of Aquilan "initiation
rites." These rites included: 3) Whether or not accused Dizon is guilty of homicide (NO)
HELD: Whether Tecson et. al. can be covered by the Probation Law despite
their appeal of conviction?
1) NO. Grave abuse of discretion cannot be attributed to a court simply
because it allegedly misappreciated the facts and the evidence. Mere HELD:
errors of judgment are correctible by an appeal or a petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and not by an application for a Yes. First, the Court in resolving this issue ruled that the RTC Branch
writ of certiorari. Pursuant to the rule on double jeopardy, the Court is 130 had no jurisdiction to act on the probation applications of Tecson
constrained to deny the Petition contra Victorino et al. – the 19 et. al. for the law requires that an application for probation be filed with
acquitted fraternity members. the trial court that convicted and sentenced the defendant, meaning
the court of origin (Branch 121). Hence, its grant of probation with
A verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a re-examination of the Tecson et. al. is void.
merits of such acquittal, even in the appellate courts, will put the
accused in jeopardy for the same offense. However, the Court abandoning its previous stance on ineligibility of
those who have appealed their conviction to probation, citing the then
2) YES. The CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting recent case of Colinares vs. People that the Probation Law never
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding Tecson, Ama, Almeda, intended to deny an accused his right to probation through no fault of
and Bantug criminally liable for slight physical injuries. his. Had the RTC done what was right and imposed the correct
penalty, he would have had the right to apply for probation. Moreover,
Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code dictates that the perpetrator the Court was quick to clarify that it remains that those who will appeal
shall be liable for the consequences of an act, even if its result is from judgments of conviction, when they have the option to try for
different from that intended. Thus, once a person is found to have probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.
committed an initial felonious act, such as the unlawful infliction of
physical injuries that results in the death of the victim, courts are Antonio Carpio: The man on the bench
required to automatically apply the legal framework governing the https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/6187-antonio-carpio-the-man-
destruction of life. This rule is mandatory, and not subject to on-the-bench
discretion. The accused cannot be held criminally liable for physical
injuries when actual death occurs. 'The most important qualification of a judge is independence, not
brilliance,' Justice Antonio Carpio had told a former associate, and that
Attributing criminal liability solely to Villareal and Dizon – as if only their explains his actuations in the Supreme Court
acts, in and of themselves, caused the death of Lenny Villa – is
contrary to the CA’s own findings. From proof that the death of the (Newsbreak wrote this profile on Supreme Court Associate Justice
victim was the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries he suffered, the Antonio T Carpio in a Dec 4, 2006 issue. We are republishing it now as
only logical conclusion is that criminal responsibility should redound to Carpio, being the most senior justice in the High Tribunal, becomes
all those who have been proven to have directly participated in the acting chief justice, following the removal of Renato Corona. A PDF
infliction of physical injuries on Lenny. version of the story as published on Newsbreak is embedded below.)
3) NO. The Court cannot sustain the CA in finding the accused MANILA, Philippines - “Let us not…delude ourselves into believing that
Dizon guilty of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal a new constitution would immediately eradicate the ills that plague our
Code on the basis of the existence of intent to kill. Animus country. Nor can we expect that tinkering with the constitution will
interficendi cannot and should not be inferred unless there is proof totally purge it of its defects and make this nation great again…. One
beyond reasonable doubt of such intent. Instead, the Court adopts and thing we cannot afford to overlook nor downgrade is the importance of
reinstates the finding of the trial court in part, insofar as it ruled that the human element. A basically workable constitution or law can
none of the fraternity members had the specific intent to kill Lenny become defective in the hands of enthroned rascals, as we are now
Villa. experiencing,” wrote Antonio Tirol Carpio.
G.R. No. 151258 December 1, 2014 No, this was not written recently but was penned by him when he was
ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, Petitioner, a 20-year-old senior economics student of the Ateneo de Manila
vs. University in 1969. Published in The Guidon, of which Carpio was then
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , Respondent. editor in chief, the piece mirrored tumultuous times.
FACTS: Before graduating in 1970, Carpio wrote in his last editorial about the
In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de seeming inevitability of a revolution, given the pervasive and severe
Manila University School of Law signified their intention to join the inequity prevailing at the time. Yet he lamented the fragmentation of
Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). Hazing was pre- revolutionary forces and their inability to overhaul the system. “A
requisite in joining for which Lenny was one of few who had undergone revolution is something that cannot be left to accident. It has to be a
the process. After the initiation, Lenny’s condition worsened due to the deliberate and organized action.”
blows he received, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was A son of the First Quarter Storm, the first months of 1970 that were
pronounced dead on arrival. marked by massive student protests against Ferdinand Marcos’s rule,
Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against the 35 Carpio would become Supreme Court (SC) justice 31 years later on
Aquilans. Four of the accused (Tecson, et. al.) were found to be guilty Oct 22, 2001, and at 52, be the youngest appointee at that by
of homicide by the trial court but was reduced to crime of slight President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
physical injuries and sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor by the Today, he’s caught in the vortex of public opinion because of his biting
Court of Appeals. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court by the language in his ponencia on people’s initiative. But Carpio—according
Office of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court ruled that they to those who know him—is just being consistent. His decision on
should be liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide instead. Charter amendments via what appears to be a rushed and personal-
In Motions for Clarification or Reconsideration, Tecson et. al. clarified agenda-driven people’s initiative is not radically different from his early
the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court to their criminal liability. views as a young student leader, they say.
According to Tecson et. al., they immediately applied for probation after
the CA rendered its Decision lowering their criminal liability from the The repressive Marcos years which he saw and experienced as a law
crime of homicide, which carries a non-probationable sentence, to student at the University of the Philippines from 1970 to 1975 shaped
slight physical injuries, which carries a probationable sentence. Hence, and left a deep imprint on him. After all, Edgar Jopson and Eman
they have already been discharged from their criminal liability and the Lacaba, student activists during Carpio’s time, were among the Ateneo
cases against them closed and terminated by virtue of their granted batchmates whom he lost to the “revolution.”
Applications for Probation for which the terms therein are already been At UP, radicalism was predominant among students who organized
complied with. and joined often violent demonstrations against the Marcos regime.
ISSUE: Although student organizations were not recognized then, fraternities
became an outlet of rage and violence, and Carpio, as head of the
Sigma Rho fraternity during his time, got caught in the tides.
Dad's advice What is not widely known is Carpio’s reason for leaving Ramos in
1996, four years after serving as his chief presidential legal counsel. As
Sigma Rhoans entangled with rival Alpha Phi Betans who, at the time, legal counsel, he was instrumental in breaking up monopolies in the
were headed by Oscar Orbos, who would later become congressman telecommunications and shipping industries, the same stranglehold
and then governor of Pangasinan. The ensuing rumble resulted in which contributed to societal inequities, and which he already saw as a
casualties on both sides and, following command responsibility, college student
fraternity leaders Orbos and Carpio were suspended from law school
for a year. Orbos managed to have his suspension reduced to one Against PIRMA
semester, however, and graduated on time in 1975.
Early talk about constitutional amendments and the possibility of
Carpio, who was a year ahead of Orbos and was in third year when the extending the term of Ramos did not sit well with Carpio because he
rumble erupted, ended up graduating in 1975 instead of 1974. “This thought it was not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. And
was part of the adventure of growing up,” says an Alpha Phi Beta it put him at loggerheads with its proponents. It marked a key policy
member who recalls events that happened at the time. difference between him and his boss who did nothing to stop those
lobbying for it.
It was in UP, too, that Carpio was introduced by former beauty queen
and later activist Nelia Sancho to his future wife, Vietnamese Ruth It was after Carpio’s departure that the People’s Initiative for Reform,
Nguyen, with whom he would have two children, now both college Modernization and Action (PIRMA) was given an aggressive push by
graduates. then Budget Secretary Salvador Enriquez Jr. and spouses Alberto and
Carmen Pedrosa, with the backing of then National Security Adviser
“It was useless to be a lawyer then,” Carpio told people he knew before Jose T. Almonte. The efforts came to naught when brought to the SC,
he was appointed to the SC, but he nevertheless pursued his law however.
studies “because his father wanted him to.” His father Bernardo
Carpio, who was former regional director of the Bureau of Internal Publicist and Ramos media consultant Ed Malay describes Carpio as
Revenue in Davao, wanted his youngest to be a lawyer like him. having enjoyed the confidence of the former President. “Hindi political,
tahimik. He would not even exchange banter…. He did not smoke. He
When martial law was declared in 1972, Carpio was in his second year would attend meetings and stay for a while; he rarely attended political
in law school and like most law students, was reading the SC decision meetings.”
on the case of “Javellana vs Executive Secretary,” of then Alejandro
Melchor. In that case, the High Court ruled that the 1973 Constitution Malay says that despite the association with Ramos, Carpio showed
drafted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was ratified in his independence from his former boss. One of his first decisions as
accordance with the 1935 Constitution. associate justice involved the Public Estates Authority-Amari Coastal
Bay Development Corp. deal, which the High Court voided in 2003.
What made the decision controversial at the time was the declaration
of martial law in the middle of the convention in 1972 and the absence Written by Carpio, the decision upheld the Constitution which prohibits
of real debates on the draft Constitution that Marcos wanted the people the sale of public lands to private corporations. The deal was first
to ratify through a plebiscite. negotiated under Ramos’s term and renegotiated under the
administration of Joseph Estrada. “Akala ko ba kakampi natin (I
“It was a decision issued under the gun of the martial law regime,” thought he was with us),” Ramos is quoted as saying after the SC
Carpio is quoted by an associate as having previously said. It was released its decision.
precisely the repression of the period that left an indelible mark on the
man who would become SC justice. It would also explain some of the “The most important qualification of a judge is independence, not
important decisions he penned as a member of the High Court. brilliance,” Carpio had told a former associate, and that explains his
actuations in the SC.
The path to FVR
Out of the box
“Tony would philosophize the needs of society,” says PR consultant
Antonio Abaya, who recalls that the night before EDSA 1 broke, he, Before he joined government as Ramos’s chief legal counsel, Carpio—
along with Carpio, were supposed to meet with Jesuit priest Joaquin perhaps taking after his mother Sol Tirol who was, at one time,
Bernas who had access to Corazon Aquino, the widow of slain Sen. superintendent of the Department of Education—became a
Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. Already in private practice with the firm he professorial lecturer at the UP College of Law from 1983 to 1992.
co-founded with partners F. Arthur “Pancho” Villaraza and Avelino Notwithstanding his one-year suspension, Carpio graduated cum laude
“Nonong” Cruz Jr., Carpio was ready to risk his firm and connect with and valedictorian in 1975, and placed sixth in the Bar that same year.
the mutinous Reform the Armed Forces Movement, says Abaya.
He went into private practice before forming the firm in 1980 with
Years later, as the Aquino government remained vulnerable to coup Villaraza and Cruz. While the three went their separate ways after law
attempts—the most serious of which was the 1989 Makati siege— school (the three are Sigma Rhoans), they promised to keep in touch
Carpio joined the political fray as he got into the circle of Fidel Ramos, and get together when anyone felt he had gained sufficient wingspan.
whom he did not know personally although they were neighbors in the It was Carpio who called Villaraza to tell him it was perhaps time to
posh Ayala Alabang subdivision. Abaya says it was the late Teodoro come together.
Benigno Jr. who helped connect them directly with Ramos.
They struggled to build a steady client base as they sought to create a
Regular meetings in Alabang followed in mid-January 1990 for niche for a firm that they hoped would outlive them. While he was the
purposes of analyzing the prevailing political situation. These managing partner of the firm, Carpio took pains to travel to Diliman to
eventually gave birth to Ramos’s Alabang Group which was a merger teach credit transactions and negotiable instruments, two subjects in
of his Rotarians’ group and his neighbors’ circle. That Carpio and what law. As professor, he was known for his clarity of thinking and easily
was then the Carpio Villaraza & Cruz (CVC) law firm would play a recruited to the firm the best and the brightest among his students.
major role in the Ramos presidency and become ascendant in the
process is already widely known. To Lani Gomez Somera, one of Carpio’s former students who joined
him in the firm and later in Malacañang, Carpio is a bit standoffish and
In the 1992 presidential elections which Ramos eventually won, the is not inclined to smile. Her boss is even-tempered and the closest he
three partners of the firm had different political leanings but respected got to losing his cool was when he “took off his glasses and put them
each other’s preferences. While Carpio was for Ramos, Villaraza was on the table,” she recalls.
batting for Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr., and Cruz was for Jovito
Salonga. A known techie, the associate justice introduced his former firm to
computers as early as the 1980s when these were not yet widely used.
All three combined were a formidable team. While Villaraza was Believing that technology is both equalizing and liberating, he pushed
“tactical,” Cruz was “strategic,” and Carpio, the most serious of the for an e-library for the judiciary, the “first Web-based searchable
three, was “more deliberate,” says Abaya. Carpio put his passion electronic library in the Philippine government.”
behind whatever he targeted.
“He is solution-oriented and likes to think out of the box. He is not
He took to sailing, hunting, and sharp shooting, believing that the latter predisposed to a linear way of thinking; he likes branching out,”
was the best protection he could possibly have. Somera, who has since left the firm, adds. In discussions of cases, he
would always push with his characteristic, “And?” In the aftermath of making, which led him into such a predicament. More importantly, it
the SC ruling on people’s initiative, there was an abundance of loose has completely disregarded the overriding issue of academic freedom
talk about the firm being behind the Carpio-penned decision and which provides more than ample justification for the imposition of a
supposed differences between Carpio and Villaraza over Executive disciplinary sanction upon an erring student of an institution of higher
Order 464, which prevented Cabinet officials from appearing before a learning.
congressional investigation. Despite seeming evidence to the contrary
—given the resignation of Cruz as defense secretary and the firm’s Issue: Whether or not the Board of Regent violated Nadal's right to
other lawyers in government following suit—Villaraza declared that the due process when it rendered a decision finding Nadal guilty of the
firm remains supportive of the Arroyo administration. charges against him" during the March 29, 1993 meeting.
If there is anything that the three partners have in common, it is Held: With respect to the March 29, 1993 meeting, respondent
political astuteness. How tactics, strategy, and deliberation will come considers the same as "unquestionably void for lack of due process"
into play bears close watching. For Carpio however, his place is secure inasmuch as he was not sent a notice of said meeting, that imposition
for a good 13 more years—unless politicians in Congress try to of sanctions on students requires "observance of procedural due
impeach him. - Rappler.com/First published in Newsbreak in process," the phrase obviously referring to the sending of notice of the
December 2006 meeting. However BOR ruled that in any event it is gross error to
equate due process in the instant case with the sending of notice of the
UP Board of Regents vs Ligot-Teylan GR No 110280 12 October March 29, 1993 BOR meeting to respondent. University rules do not
1993 require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases
are included as items on the agenda of the Board. This is not exclusive
Facts: U.P. Board of Regents issued a Resolution establishing the of students whose disciplinary cases have been appealed to the Board
STFAP (Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program). All students of Regents as the final review body. At no time did respondent
are entitled to apply for STFAP benefits. Applicants are required to complain of lack of notice given to him to attend any of the regular and
accomplish a questionnaire and at the end the application form, the special BOR meetings where his case was up for deliberation.
student applicant, as well as his parent, signs a sworn statement –
University may send a fact-finding team to visit my home/residence to Counsel for Nadal charged before the lower court that Nadal was not
verify the veracity of the information given due process in the March 29 meeting because the ground upon
which he was again convicted was not the same as the original charge.
Ramon P. Nadal, a student enrolled in the College of Law, availed of Obviously, he was referring to the basis of the conditional votes on
STFAP. A team conducted a home investigation at the residence of March 28. Whether or not Nadal was telling the truth when he claimed
Nadal in Quezon City and found discrepancies between the report and that he received a scholarship grant from the AdeMU. However,
Nadal’s application form. Villanueva (head of the office of scholarship) Regent Carpio himself testified that the charge considered was
wrote Nadal informing him that he had failed to declare, not only the "exactly the same charge" of withholding information on the income of
fact that he had a 1977 Corolla car which was owned by his brother but Nadal's mother. It should be stressed that the reason why Regent
also the income of his mother who was supporting his brothers. He Carpio requested a verification of Nadal's claim that he was a scholar
reclassified him to Bracket 9 (from Bracket 4), retroactive to June at the AdeMU was that Regent Carpio was not "morally convinced" yet
1989, unless he could submit “proofs to the contrary.” Nadal was as to the guilt of Nadal. In other words, he sought additional insights
required “to pay back the equivalent amount of full school fees”. into the character of Nadal through the information that would be
Because of the discrepancies between Nadal’s application form and obtained from the AdeMU.
the certification, the U.P. charged Nadal before the Student Disciplinary The Court in this regard find such information to be irrelevant and a
Tribunal (SDT) that he willfully withheld and did not declare a car and mere superfluity. In his July, 12, 1991 certification aforementioned,
the income of his mother which acts of willfully withholding information Nadal admitted, although inconsistently, that his mother was a "TNT"
is tantamount to acts of dishonesty in relation to his studies who could not find a "stable, regular, well-paying employment" but that
SDT rendered a decision exculpating Nadal of the charge of she was supporting the education of his brothers with the help of
deliberately withholding in his STFAP application form information that another son. The court constitutes this as a sufficient admission that
he was maintaining a Toyota Corolla car, but finding him guilty of Nadal withheld information on the income, however measly and
deliberately withholding information about the income of his mother. irregular, of his mother. The court also sighted that respondent aspires
SDT imposed upon Nadal the penalty of expulsion from the University to join the ranks of the professionals who would uphold truth at all
and required him to reimburse all STFAP benefits he had received but costs so that justice may prevail. In those who exhibit duplicity in their
if he does not voluntarily make reimbursement, it shall be “effected by student days, one spots the shady character who is bound to sow the
the University thru outside legal action.” SDT decision elevated to the seeds of chicanery in the practice of his profession. With this the court
Executive Committee of U.P. Diliman for review which affirmed the ruled that it sufficiently shown that respondent has committed an act of
decision of the SDT; whereupon, Nadal appealed to the Board of dishonesty in withholding vital information in connection with his
Regents (BOR). BOR affirmed the decision of the SDT; the penalty application for STFAP benefits, all in blatant violation of the Rules and
was modified “from Expulsion to One Year- Suspension. Nadal filed a Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline of petitioner University,
MR of the BOR decision (guilty). the latter's inherent power and authority to impose disciplinary sanction
may be invoked and rightfully exercised. Therefore deciding that the
Nadal asked President Abueva not to issue any press release BOR did not violate Nadal’s right of due process.
regarding the case and filed with the RTC of Quezon City a petition
for mandamus with preliminary injunction and prayer for a TRO against The lower court is hereby ordered to DISMISS the petition for
President Abueva and the BOR. The lower court ruled that they are mandamus.
temporarily restrained. Dispensing with the filing of a motion for David Yu Kimteng petitioner vs Atty Walter T. Young respondent
reconsideration, the petitioners filed the instant petition G.R. N0 210554
for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of an
injunction or temporary restraining order, Facts:
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused her “A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name.
discretion in issuing the May 29, 1993 writ of preliminary injunction A lawyer who appears under a firm name that contains a disbarred
thereby preventing the BOR from implementing the suspension penalty lawyer's name commits indirect contempt of court.”
it had imposed on Nadal.
Through this Petition, petitioners ask that law firm, Young
Decision: The Court finds that the lower court gravely abused its Revilla Gambol & Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo (Judge Calo), be
discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction of May 29, 1993. cited in contempt of court under Rule 71 of the Rules of
The issuance of the said writ was based on the lower court’s finding Court. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (Revilla) was disbarred on December
that the implementation of the disciplinary sanction of suspension on 2009 in an En Banc Resolution of the court in A.C. No. 7054
Nadal “would work injustice to the petitioner as it would delay him in entitled Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr.
finishing his course, and consequently, in getting a decent and good
paying job.” Sadly, such a ruling considers only the situation of Nadal Young Revilla Gambol & Magat filed a Reply to the
without taking into account the circumstances clearly of his own Opposition stating that the firm opted to retain Revilla's name in the
firm name even after he had been disbarred, with the retention serving Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading
as an act of charity. Judge Calo overruled the opposition to the or assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a
appearance of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and stated that Atty. deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all
Young could still appear for the liquidator as long as his appearance its communications that said partner is deceased.
was under the Young Law Firm and not under Young Revilla Gambol &
Magat. However, Young Law Firm does not exist. Respondents argue that the use of respondent Revilla's
name is "no more misleading than including the names of dead or
On April 16, 2014, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File retired partners in a law firm's name."
Consolidated Reply. This was granted in the Resolution dated June 18,
2014. In the same Resolution, the court denied petitioners' Motion to Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is
Consider Case Submitted without Comment from Judge Calo and different from using a deceased partner's name in the firm name.
ordered the parties to await Judge Calo's comment. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 allows the use of a deceased partner's name as
long as there is an indication that the partner is deceased. This
Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a ensures that the public is not misled. On the other hand, the retention
Manifestation, informing this court that they have yet to receive a copy of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name may mislead the public
of Judge Calo's Comment. No Comment was filed by Judge Calo. into believing that the lawyer is still authorized to practice law.
Private respondents point out that the Balgos Law Firm is (b) The Complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol
derailing the liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation by filing this is DISMISSED. This is without prejudice to any disciplinary liabilities of
Petition for contempt because the Balgos Law Firm resents that its respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat, and
nominee was not elected as liquidator. Private respondents add that Judge Ofelia L. Calo.
petitioners have continuously blocked Ruby Industrial Corporation's
unsecured creditors from obtaining relief, as shown by the number of (c) The counsels are ordered to make the necessary
times that Ruby Industrial Corporation's cases have reached this court. amendments in relation to the use of the disbarred lawyer's name
including changes in their signage, notice of appearances, stationeries,
Moreover, Private respondents also raise the issue of forum and like material within a period of five (5) days from receipt.
shopping in their Comment because petitioners allegedly filed a
disbarment Complaint against them before the Commission on Bar (d) The Complaint against respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo
Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines. One of the grounds for is also ordered re-docketed as an administrative matter.
disbarment cited by petitioners was the use of Revilla's name in their Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
firm name.
SECTION 11. . . The Supreme Court en bane shall have the power to
Petitioners argue that liability for contempt is separate from discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a
disciplinary action; hence, no forum shopping was committed. Also, majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on
petitioners did not address private respondents' allegations regarding the issues in the case and voted thereon.
the delay in the liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation.
Also, Rule 4, Section 3(a) of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court,
Issues: provides that the administrative functions of this court include
(a) Whether private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. "disciplinary and administrative matters involving justices, judges, and
Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are in court personnel.
contempt of court when they continued to use respondent (e) As to the allegation of forum shopping, petitioners do not
Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.'s name in their firm name even after deny that they filed a Complaint for disbarment. They argue, however,
his disbarment. that they did not mention the disbarment proceedings against
(b) Whether private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. respondents in view of Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court,
Jovito Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are in which states that disbarment proceedings are private and confidential.
contempt of court for deliberately allowing a disbarred
lawyer to engage in the practice of law. In addition, a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 and a
(c) Whether private respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is in Complaint for disbarment are different from each other. The filing of a
contempt of court for continuing to practice law even after Complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
disbarment. and the filing of the Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not
(d) Whether public respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo is in constitute forum shopping. Forum shopping has been defined as:
contempt of court when she held that respondent Atty. when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different
Walter T. Young can appear in court as long as it is under courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the
the Young Law Firm, which is a non-existent firm. same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances,
(e) Whether the filing of the Petition despite the pendency of a and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or
disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the already resolved adversely by some other court. The elements of
Philippines constitutes forum shopping. forum shopping are:
Ruling: i. Identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the
same interests in both actions.
(a.) Respondents Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan
Reynald R. Magat are found in contempt of court for using a disbarred ii. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
lawyer's name in their firm name and are meted a fine of P30,000.00 being founded on the same facts.
each.
iii. The identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any
Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of
SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
hearing. After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity action under consideration.
given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may The Supreme Court has explained that disbarment
be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person proceedings are sui generis, and are not akin to civil or criminal
guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect cases. A disbarment proceeding "is intended to cleanse the ranks of
contempt. the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the
In this case, respondents committed acts that are considered indirect public and the courts." Also, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines'
contempt under Section 3 of Rule 71. In addition, respondents findings are recommendatory, and the power to sanction erring
disregarded the Code of Professional Responsibility when they members of the bar lies with Supreme Court.
retained the name of respondent Revilla in their firm name. PATRICK A. CARONAN v. RICHARD A. CARONAN a.k.a. “ATTY.
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states: PATRICK A. CARONAN”
A.C. No. 11316, 12 July 2016, EN BANC (Sereno, CJ)
FACTS: 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
On 2013, a complaint was filed by the real Patrick A. Bar and a statement of his false assumption of the name and identity
Caronan against his brother Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. “Atty. Patrick A. of "Patrick A. Caronan.
Caronan” before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. In his complaint,
he stated that he and his older brother both completed secondary A.C. No. 9464, August 24, 2016 - INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK,
education at the Makati High School and that he finished his college PHIL., INC., REPRESENTED BY LUIS MARCO I. AVANCEÑA,
education at the University of Makati. Thereafter, he applied and got a Complainant, v. ATTY. REBECCA S. FRANCISCO-SIMBILLO,
job at a 7-11 convenience store in Muntinlupa City, working his way up Respondent.
until he was promoted as its store manager. On the other hand, his
brother enrolled at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila and later Facts: On March 12, 2012, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
managed to enter the Philippine Military Academy in Baguio City but received a letter from the attorney for complainant Intradent
was discharged in 1993. The respondent Richard then moved to Zahnetchnik Philippines, Inc. informing about several criminal cases
Nueva Vizcaya with his wife and three children. filed and pending against respondent Rebecca Francisco-Simbillo. The
criminal cases had been filed by the complainant to charge the
Patrick said he learned from Richard that he had enrolled at respondent with estafa and qualified theft in the Office of the City
St. Mary’s University’s College of Law in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya Prosecutor of Parañaque City (docketed as I.S. No. XV-12-INV-11-J-
using Patrick’s name and college records from the UM and that he 03189), and with violation of Article 291 of the Revised Penal Code in
passed the Bar exams in 2004. the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (docketed as I.S. No.
XV-03-INV-11-J-08553). The complainant pointed out that the charges
But in 2009, he said he was ordered to report to the head for estafa and qualified theft involved moral turpitude. At the time, the
office of Philippine Seven Corporation, operator of 7-11, which results of the 2011 Bar Examinations had just been released, and the
informed him that the National Bureau of Investigation had requested respondent was among those who had passed. She was in due course
his appearance in relation to its investigation of a certain “Atty. Patrick formally notified by the OBC of the letter of the complainant, and
A. Caronan” for qualified theft and estafa. Aside from using his name, thereby required to file her comment within 15 days from notice. The
Patrick said he also learned that his brother was also facing charges OBC also informed her that she could join the mass oath taking for the
for gun-running and violation of Batas Pambansa 22 (Bouncing Checks new lawyers, but she would not be allowed to enroll her name in the
Law). Roll of Attorneys until the charges against her had been cleared. Upon
The respondent Richard denied the allegations but the SC the advice of the OBC, she had the other option to sign the Roll of
said that the identity of the real “Patrick A. Caronan” had been Attorneys subject to the condition that the letter of the complainant
established based on the probe conducted by the IBP. would be automatically converted to a disbarment complaint against
her. Choosing the latter, she signed the Roll of Attorneys on May 3,
ISSUE: 2012.
Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: The respondent stated that she had been employed by the
complainant for four years; that her employment had lasted until she
(a) The name “Patrick A. Caronan” be stricken off the Roll of was illegally dismissed; that she instituted a labor case against the
Attorneys; and complainant; that the criminal charges filed against her were intended
(b) The name “Richard A. Caronan” be barred from being to malign, inconvenience, and harass her, and to force her to desist
admitted to the Bar. from pursuing the labor case; and that at the time of the filing of her
comment, the criminal complaints brought against her had already
HELD: dismissed the criminal charge docketed as XV-12-INV-11-J-03189.
No. The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings On February 18, 2015, the respondent filed a motion seeking the
and recommendations of the IBP. Since complainant - the real "Patrick resolution of this disbarment case, alleging that the DOJ had denied
A. Caronan" - never took the Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly the complainant's appeal in respect of XV-12-INV-11-J-03189; and that
recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the as to the criminal charge docketed as XV-03-INV-11-J-08553, the
Roll of Attorneys. Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City had filed an information
against her in the Metropolitan Trial Court in Quezon City, but Branch
The IBP was also correct in ordering that respondent, whose 33 of that court had eventually dismissed the information upon the
real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission to the Prosecution's motion for the withdrawal of the information with leave of
Bar. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for court.
admission to the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had
pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law course. Clearly, Issue: May the disbarment complaint against the respondent prosper?
respondent has not completed the requisite pre-law degree.
Ruling: No,
The respondent’s false assumption of his brother's name,
identity, and educational records renders him unfit for admission to the We observe that this administrative case started as a complaint to
Bar. The practice of law, after all, is not a natural, absolute or prevent the respondent from being admitted to the Philippine Bar on
constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, the ground of the existence of criminal charges brought against her for
it is a privilege limited to citizens of good moral character. Respondent crimes involving moral turpitude. Indeed, Section 2, Rule 138 of
made a mockery of the legal profession by pretending to have the the Rules of Court requires that any applicant for admission to the Bar
necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. must show that no charges against him or her for crimes involving
moral turpitude have been filed or are pending in any court in the
WHEREFORE, respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Philippines. However, this administrative case has since been
Patrick A. Caronan" (respondent) is found GUILTY of falsely assuming converted to one for disbarment but without the complainant, which
the name, identity, and academic records of complainant Patrick A. has all the while continued to actively participate herein, alleging any
Caronan to obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations. ground for finding the respondent administratively liable except those
Accordingly, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate civil and/or already averred in its letter to the OBC. The complainant has not also
criminal cases, the Court hereby resolves that: (1) the name "Patrick A. shown that there were other criminal cases involving moral turpitude
Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 is ordered DROPPED and filed against the respondent.
STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys; (2) respondent is PROHIBITED
from engaging in the practice of law or making any representations as The complainant did not allege, much less prove, that the respondent
a lawyer; (3) respondent is BARRED from being admitted as a member had been convicted by final judgment of any criminal offense involving
of the Philippine Bar in the future; ( 4) the Identification Cards issued moral turpitude. On the contrary, the criminal cases that were the sole
by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to respondent under the name bases for the complaint for disbarment had already been dismissed
"Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" and the Mandatory Continuing Legal after due proceedings.
Education Certificates issued in such name are CANCELLED and/or Issue:
REVOKED; and (5) the Office of the Court Administrator is ordered to
CIRCULATE notices and POST in the bulletin boards of all courts of Is the termination from the service justified?
Ruling: No.
In this case, the act alleged to have caused the loss of trust and
confidence of petitioners in Simbillo was her Facebook post, which
supposedly suggests that Interadent was being “feasted on” by the BIR
and also contains insulting statements against a co-worker and hence
has compromised the reputation of the company.
According to petitioners, there was disclosure of confidential
information that gives the impression that Interadent is under
investigation by the BIR for irregular transactions. However, we agree
with the CA’s observation that the Facebook entry did not contain any
corporate record or any confidential information. Otherwise stated,
there was really no actual leakage of information. No company
information or corporate record was divulged by Simbillo.
Simbillo’s failure to substantiate her claim that the Facebook entry was
posted for a friend who consulted her on a predicament she has with
her company and that the term “b_i_r_” represents “bwitre” will not
weaken her case against petitioners. It must be emphasized at this
point that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is upon the
employer to show that the employee’s dismissal was for a valid cause.
“The employer’s case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence
and not on the weakness of that adduced by the employee, in keeping
with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of
the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.” The
Facebook entry did not mention any specific name of
employer/company/ government agency or person. Contrary to
petitioners’ insistence, the intended subject matter was not clearly
identifiable. As acknowledged by petitioners themselves, Simbillo’s
Facebook account contained a list of her former and present
employers. If anything, the entry would merely merit some suspicion on
the part of Interadent being the present employer, but it would be far-
fetched to conclude that Interadent may be involved in anomalous
transactions with the BIR.
Clearly, petitioners’ theory was based on mere speculations.
If at all, Simbillo can only be said to have acted “carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently” in making such a comment
on Facebook; however, such would not amount to loss of trust and
confidence as to justify the termination of her employment. When the
breach of trust or loss of confidence conjectured upon is not borne by
clearly established facts, as in this case, such dismissal on the ground
of loss of trust and confidence cannot be upheld. (Del Castillo, J., SC
2nd Division, Interadent Zahntechnik Philippines, Inc., et. al. vs.
Rebecca F. Simbillo, G.R. No. 207315, November 23, 2016).