DOMINADOR BRBE vs ATTY.

ALBERTO MAGULTA

Facts:
Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him recover a claim of money
against a creditor. Respondent prepared demand letters for the petitioner, which were not
successful and so the former intimated that a case should already be filed. As a result,
petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts for the filing of the case.
Petitioner made several follow-ups in the lawyer’s office but to no avail. The lawyer went back
to the petitioner with the news that the Clerk of Court was absent that day. Suspicious of the
acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally went to the office of the clerk of court to see for himself
the status of his case. Petitioner found out that no such case has been filed.
Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie to with the excuse that the delay
was being caused by the court personnel, and only when shown the certification did he admit
that he has not at all filed the complaint because he had spent the money for the filing fee for
his own purpose.

Issue:
Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
IBP as the failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees
deposited by complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client,
which caused complainant additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly dishonest
conduct on his part, unbecoming a member of the law profession. The subsequent
reimbursement by the respondent of part of the money deposited by complainant for filing
fees, does not exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of said funds.”

BONGALONTA vs ATTY. PABLITO CASTILLO CBD

FACTS:
In a sworn letter-complaint dated February 15, 1995, addressed to the Commission on Bar
Discipline, National Grievance Investigation Office, Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
complainant Sally Bongalonta charged Pablito M. Castillo and Alfonso M. Martija, members of
the Philippine Bar, with unjust and unethical conduct, to wit: representing conflicting interests
and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which
complainant might obtain.
The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
Criminal Case No. 7653-55, for estafa, against the Sps. Luisa and Solomer Abuel. She also
filed, a separate civil action Civil Case No. 56934, where she was able to obtain a writ of
preliminary attachment and by virtue thereof, a piece of real property situated in Pasig, Rizal
and registered in the name of the Sps. Abuel under TCT No. 38374 was attached. Atty. Pablito
Castillo was the counsel of the Sps. Abuel in the aforesaid criminal and civil cases.

Consequently, the charge against the two respondents (i.e. representing conflicting interests
and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which
Bongalonta and her husband might obtain against the Abuel spouses) has no leg to stand on.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Pablito M. Castillo be suspended unjust and unethical conduct of a lawyer?

HELD:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castillo be SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for using the IBP Official Receipt No. of
his co-respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Martija.

The complaint against Atty. Martija is hereby DISMISSED for lack of evidence

IN THE MATTER OF THE IBP MEMBERSHIP DUES DELINQUENCY OF ATTY. MARCIAL

EDILLION AM No. 1928

FACTS:
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The
IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent
from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the
provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the
IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and
suspension for failure to pay the same.
Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in
the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in
good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a
consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is
admitted personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly
guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes the above provisions
of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP.

HELD:
The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as
distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All
lawyers are subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including
payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements.
The right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to
regulation and inquiry. And if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize
then a penalty designed to enforce its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary.
Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission, suspension, disbarment,
and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of its inherent judicial functions and
responsibilities.

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS OF MICHAEL MEDADO

BM No. 2540

FACTS:
Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 May 1980, he took the
Attorney’s Oath at the PICC. He was scheduled 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
Attorneys. Several years later, while rummaging through his things, he found said Notice. He
then realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of
the PICC was probably just an attendance record.
He thought that since he already took the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as
important. The matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys was subsequently forgotten. In 2005,
when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to provide his roll number which he
was unable to provide his roll number.
About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be allowed
to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant
petition be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit,
saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of
Attorneys.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of a fine and the
imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law. Not allowing Medado
to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of
disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions. In this case, said
action is not warranted.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to
know the law and its consequences. Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-
fledged lawyer. However, the Court imposed upon him a penalty akin to suspension by
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, during the one-year period, petitioner was not
allowed to engage in the practice of law.

IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH OF CEASAR DISTRITO BM No. 1209

Facts:

Caesar Distrito petitioned before the court to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign in the
Roll of Attorneys. Thepetitioner was conditionally allowed to take the 2001 Bar
Examinations but he was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath and sign in the roll of
attorneys because of pending charge against him. The petitioner was a former Sangguniang
Kabataan Chairman of Barangay Singcang Airport, Bacolod City thepetitioner not being the
President of Bacolod City Sangguniang Kabataan Federation unlawfully presides overthe
special session. Moreover, the OBC received a letter from a certain Mr. Benjamin Montinola
informing thesaid office with several cases of Distrito. Also alleged the petitioner who took
his oath as an Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines member, where in fact he had not yet
taken the lawyer ’s oath nor signed in the Roll of Attorneys.

The unethical act of CAESAR Z. DISTRITO when he took his oath as a lawyer/member before
a testimonial dinner tendered by the IBP-Negros Occidental Chapter and witnessed not only
by it's Officials, present members and honored guests but by thousands of Television viewers
not only in Bacolod City but the whole of Western Visayas if not the whole country, despite also
of his personal knowledge that he is not qualified to do so for the same reason above-stated, is
tantamount to IMPERSONATION that should be properly acted upon by the said body who will
be furnished a copy of this information and to also protect their integrity and to avoid similar
incident that may happen in the future for lack of proper screening.

Thus, we disagree with the findings of the OBC, and find that the petitioner is unfit to become a
member of the bar.The petitioner must show this Court that he has satisfied the moral
requirements before he can be admitted to the practice of law.

ISSUE:

WON Caesar Z. Distrito be allowed to take the oath as member of the Philippine Bar and to
sign the Roll of Attorneys in accordance with Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court?

RULING:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition of CAESAR Z. DISTRITO to be allowed to take the oath as
member of the Philippine Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys in accordance with Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court is hereby DENIED.

IN THE MATTER OF ADMISSION TO PRACTICE LAW OF HENRY ONIA BM No. 887

Facts:
Respondent Henry Rada Onia took and passed the 1998 Bar examinations. After the release
of the results of the said examinations, or on April 16, 1999, a complaint was filed by the
Spouses Agripino and Francisca de Vera against the respondent averring that the latter does
not possess the moral qualification expected from a member of the Bar.
In the complaint dated April 15, 1999, the Spouses de Vera charged respondent with
usurpation of authority and falsification relative to the ejectment case filed against them by
Hildergarda Rada-Onia and Laurenlino Rada, respondent's mother and uncle, respectively,
with the Municipal Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan.
Respondent cannot be held liable for usurpation of authority or misrepresentation by appearing
as counsel for the plaintiffs in the Civil Case No. 1674. Nothing in the evidence, both
documentary and testimonial, which complainants presented show that respondent held
himself out as a lawyer. The most that they could show to substantiate their accusation of
usurpation of authority or misrepresentation against respondent was the latter's appearance
during the pre-trial conference of the said case.
We also note that the instant complaint is the only instance where respondent's appearance in
court was questioned. There is no evidence to show that respondent engaged in an
unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as a lawyer when he is not yet a member
of the bar

ISSUE:
Wether or not Henry R. Onia be held liable for usurpation of authority or misrepresentation by
appearing as counsel?

RULING:
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the complaint; respondent Henry R. Onia is
allowed to take the lawyer's oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITIONERS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF
UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES OF 1946 TO 1953(CUNANAN, ET. AL.)

FACTS:
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The
title of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to
and including 1955. It is provided however that the examinee shall have no grade lower than
50%.
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject
shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in
the computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations.”

ISSUE:
Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.

RULING:
Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the
title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
examinations.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to
1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under
the following reasons:
The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952
had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World War II;
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the said
candidates. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who
may be admitted to practice of law.

IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH AND SIGN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
BM No. 1099
Facts:
Before us is the Petition of Randy P. Bareng, Clerk III in Branch 4 of the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila (MTC), to take his oath as a member of the . Philippine Bar and to sign the
Roll of Attorneys.
On November 4, 1999, the next scheduled date of hearing in the. aforementioned criminal
-cases, Atty. Arnold F. Españo, the private prosecutor, and the private complainant arrived at
the MTC to attend said hearing. The lawyer checked the court's calendar for the day and was
surprised to learn that Criminal Cases Nos. 322928-322948 were not included. On November
15, 1999, Atty. Españo filed, with the Office of the Court Administrator, an administrative
complaint against Judge Leonardo P. Reyes, Annie Grace A. Arreola and petitioner for
unilaterally canceling a previously scheduled trial date for Criminal Cases Nos. 322928-
322948 and for disrespectful remarks.
In the interim, petitioner took the Bar Examinations on September 2, 9, 16 and 23, 2001.
Petitioner was one of the successful examinees therein. However, due to the pendency of the
aforementioned administrative complaint filed against him, he was not allowed to take the
Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.
As found by the Court, petitioner is guilty of inefficiency and conduct unbecoming of a court,
personnel. As such, the Court resolved to reprimand petitioner with a stern .warning that the
commission of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE:
Wether or not Randy P. Bareng be guilty of inefficiency and conduct unbecoming of a court
personnel?

RULING:
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is GRANTED. Petitioner Randy P.
Bareng is allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign, the Roll of Attorneys on a date to be set
by the Court, subject to the payment of appropriate fees. Let this resolution be attached to the
Petitioner's personal records in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH, VICTOR REY GINGOYON BM No. 890

Facts:

Petitioner was conditionally admitted to take the 1999 Bar Examinations. Like many others he
was directed "to submit the required certification of completion of the pre-bar review course
within sixty (60) days from the last day of the examinations."
Petitioner passed the 1999 Examinations. But in a Resolution dated 13 April 2000 the Court
disqualified him from becoming a member of the Philippine Bar and declared his examinations
null and void on two (2) grounds: (a) Petitioner failed to submit the required certificate of
completion of the pre-bar review course under oath for his conditional admission to the 1999
Bar Examinations; and (b) He committed a serious act of dishonesty which rendered him unfit
to become a member of the Philippine Bar when he made it appear in his Petition to Take the
1999 Bar Examinations that he took his pre-bar review course at the Philippine Law School
(PLS) when, as certified by Acting Registrar Rasalie G. Kapauan, PLS had not offered such
course since 1967. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the 13 April 2000 Resolution but
his motion was denied.

Considering petitioner’s explanation, fortified by undisputedly genuine documents, at the very

least, petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to take his oath.
Indeed, it must be stressed that there is nothing on record which impugns the authenticity of
the subject Certification as well as that of the other documentary evidence proferred by
petitioner to establish that he was duly enrolled and took the pre-bar review course in UST, not
in PLS. As to the argument that the Certification of Dean Dimayuga did not include the "taking
and completion" of the pre-bar review course, the realities of our bar reviews render it difficult
to record the attendance religiously of the reviewees every single day for several months.
For the Court to insist on strict compliance may be literally asking for the moon but it can be
done. We just have to bear in mind that this requirement is not an empty or idle ceremony; it is
intended to ensure the quality and preparedness of those applying for admission to the bar.

ISSUE:
Wether or not Mr. Mark Anthony A Purisima be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath, sign the roll
of attorneys and be admitted to the Philippine Bar?

RULING:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, as recommended by the Office of the Bar Confidant in its
Report and Recommendation dated 7 November 2002, the prayer in Bar Matters Nos. 979 and
986 is granted and examinee MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA who passed the 1999 Bar
Examinations is now allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and be admitted to the Philippine Bar.
He is further allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys upon payment of the required fees.

PETITION OF SOCORRO LADRERA, 1954 SUCCESSFUL BAR EXAMINEES TO TAKE

THE LAWYER'S OATH BM No. 135, 29 January 1987

Facts:
Socorro Ke. Ladrera passed the 1954 bar examinations. Before he could participate in the
scheduled oath taking of successful bar examinees, an administrative complaint for immorality
was filed against him by Lucila C. Casas.
Lucila stated that she and Ladrera were married on May 23, 1944 and that when she married
him he represented himself to be single. Sometime in 1948, Lucila learned that her husband
had been previously married on March 23, 1936 to Florencia Orticio

The Court, in the past, consistently denied the annual petitions of Ladrera that he be allowed
to take the lawyer's oath. He claimed that when he married his second wife, he sincerely
believed that his first wife was already dead. He married his third wife only after the first wife
had been declared presumptively dead and after his second marriage-e had been annulled.
There may have been compliance with a strict or narrow interpretation of the letter of the law
but the Court was of the view that Ladrera had failed to live up to the high moral standards
required for membership in the Bar.

All of that, however, is in the past. Ladrera now states that if he has committed an act which
justified the suspension from taking the lawyer's oath, the time that has elapsed is more than
sufficient punishment. He submits that "he humbly believes with all candor and sincerity that
he has more than atoned for it by living a very moral and exemplary life since then."

There was moral deliquency in Mr. Ladrera's younger days but he has made up for it by
observing a respectable, useful, and religious life since then. Thirty-two years of rejecting his
petitions are enough for chastisement and retribution. Considering that the respondent has
realized the wrongfulness of his past conduct and demonstrated a sincere willingness to make
up for that moral lapse, the Court has decided to admit him to membership in the Philippine
bar.

ISSUE:
Wether or not Mr. Socorro Ke. Ladrera to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath?

RULING:
Yess, it is wherefore the PETITION of Mr. Socorro Ke. Ladrera to be allowed to take the
lawyer's oath is hereby GRANTED.

In Re: Argosino B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995

FACTS:
This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant.
Argosino was previously involved with hazing that caused the death of Raul Camaligan but
was sentenced with homicide through reckless imprudence after he pleaded guilty.

He was sentenced with 2 years imprisonment where he applied for a probation thereafter
which was granted by the court with a 2 yr probation. He took the bar exam and passed but
was not allowed to take oath. He filed a petition to allow him to take the attorney’s oath of
office averring that his probation was already terminated. The court note that he spent only 10
months of the probation period before it was terminated.

ISSUE:

WON Argosino may take oath of office.

RULING:
The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good morals of all Bar members, keeping in
mind that such is of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper
administration of justice are concerned, than the possession of legal learning.

Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed
and have become a responsible member of the community through sworn statements of
individuals who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for
a significant period of time to certify he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The
court also ordered that said a copy of the proceeding be furnished to the family relatives of
Raul Camaligan.

A.C. 11316
July 12, 2016
Complainant: Patrick A. Caronan vs
Respondent: Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan”

Facts:

Complainant and respondent are full siblings and both completed their secondary education at
Makati High School where they graduated in 1993 and in 1991, respectively. Complainant
graduated at the University of Makati in 1997 with a degree in Business Administration. He
married Myrna G. Tapis in 2001 with whom he has two daughters. Concurrently, respondent
enrolled at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) for one year and then transferred to
Philippine Military Academy in 1992 where he was discharged after a year.

He maintained that his identity can no longer be raised as an issue as it had already been
resolved in CBD Case No. 09-2362 where the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the
administrative case filed against him, and which case had already been declared closed and
terminated by the Supreme Court in A.C. No. 10074.32.

Moreover, according to him, complainant is being used by Reyes and her spouse, Brigadier
General Joselito M. Reyes, to humiliate, disgrace, malign, discredit, and harass him because
he filed several administrative and criminal complaints against them before the Ombudsman.
Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera issued his Report and Recommendation, finding
respondent GUILTY of illegally and falsely assuming complainant's name, identity, and
academic records.

Issue:
Whether or not the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) erred in their ordering that (a) the
name “Patrick A. Caronan” be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name “Richard A.
Caronan” be barred from being admitted to the Bar.

Ruling:

No. Respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" (respondent) is found
GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity, and academic records of complainant Patrick
A.Caronan (complainant) to obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations.
The Court hereby resolves that: (1) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No.
49069 is ordered DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys; (2) respondent is
PROHIBITED from engaging in the practice of law or making any representations as a lawyer;
(3) respondent is BARRED from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar in the
future; ( 4) the Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to
respondent under the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" and the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education Certificates issued in such name are CANCELLED and/or REVOKED; and (5) the
Office of the Court Administrator is ordered to CIRCULATE notices and POST in the bulletin
boards of all courts of the country a photograph of respondent with his real name, "

Richard A. Caronan," with a warning that he is not a member of the Philippine Bar and a
statement of his false assumption of the name and identity of "Patrick A. Caronan."