Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Profession
Legal Profession
a.1. Lawyer – sometimes called an advocate ii. Perseverance – one must have continued
or counsel, is one who aids in the effort to achieve something despite
administration of justice. It is generally difficulties, failure, or opposition.
understood as having reference to a class of iii. Patience – one must be able to accept or
persons who are by license constituted tolerate any delay, trouble, or suffering.
officers of courts of justice, and who are
empowered to appear and prosecute and/or The Basic Tools in studying law:
defend someone and on whom peculiar
duties, responsibilities and liabilities are i. Language – it is the instrument by which
devolved by law in consequence. It is a one understands, analyzes, and expresses the
person acting professionally in legal law. Faulty command of the language is a
formalities negotiations or proceedings, by huge roadblock to both comprehension and
warrant or authority of his client. expression.
a.2. Counsel de Parte – is a private counsel, ii. Logic/Critical Analysis – it involves the
secured by a person, without intervention of accurate evaluation of a certain state of facts
the government (at his own will and choice). and the reasoning behind it.
a.3. Counsel de Officio – an attorney iii. Law – to know the law, one must read and
appointed by the court to defend an indigent continue reading to keep himself abreast with
defendant in a criminal action or to represent the current laws and jurisprudence of the
a destitute party in a case pursuant to Sec. 6, country.
Rule 116, Revised Rules of Criminal c. History and Development
Procedures of the Philippines.
The sources of Philippines legal education are Spain,
a.4. Amicus Curiae – literally means a “friend which gave the Roman Civil law and the Canon Law,
of the court” and an experienced and and the United States, which is the forerunner of
impartial attorney invited by the court to English common law in the Philippines. Worthy to
appear and help in the disposition of the mention also is the Indo-Malayan influence which
issues submitted to it. shared the Islamic law in the Philippines. Not to be
a.5. Practice of Law – is a profession, a form excluded is the fact that even prior to the Spanish
of public trust, the performance of which is regime in the country, we already have our own
entrusted only to those who are qualified and codified law, and that is the Code of Kalantiao.
who possess good moral character. As defined Legal education in the country formally began with the
Black’s Law Dictionary, it is the rendition of establishment of Faculty of Civil Law at the University
services requiring the knowledge and the of Santo Tomas in 1733. From 1734 to 1800 out of 3360
application of legal principles and technique students, only 40 students graduated – 29 in Bachelors
to serve the interest of another with his of Civil Law, 8 in Licentiate in Civil Law, and 3 in Doctor
consent.
of Civil Law. In 1898, the Universidad Literia Filipinas II. Nature
was established in Malolos, Bulacan and offered
courses in law and notary public. It moved later to a. Distinction between the Legal Profession and
Tarlac. In 1899, Don Felipe Calderon, author of the Business
1899 Malolos Constitution, founded the Escuela de The term “profession” refers to a group of men
Derecho de Manila, which in 1924 was renamed Manila pursuing a learned art as a common calling in the spirit
Law School. of public service. A profession differs from a trade or
In 1910, the College of Law of the University of the business because the primary purpose of the latter is
Philippines opened with 50 Filipino and American economic gain or profit. While in a profession, gaining
students. The first dean was Justice Sherman Moreland profits is merely incidental.
of the Philippine Supreme Court. He was later replaced The practice of law is a profession, a form of public
by George A. Malcolm, who also later on became a trust, the performance of which is entrusted only to
justice of the Philippine Supreme Court. those who are qualified and who possess good moral
In 1911, the only educational requirements for a law character. If the respect of the people in the honor and
profession were a high school degree as a pre-law and integrity of the legal profession is to be retained, both
a three-year law course. Later, the pre-law requisite lawyers and laymen must recognize and realize that the
was increased to two years of college studies in legal profession is a profession not a trade, and that the
addition to a high school degree. In 1960, Sec. 6 of Rule basic ideal of the profession is to render public service
138 of the Rules of Court was amended by the Supreme and secure justice to those who seeks its aid. Since it is
Court increasing the pre-law requisite to a four-year not a business, adequate compensation for every
bachelor’s degree in arts and science and the law service rendered should not be the primordial concern
course to four years of legal studies (bachelor of laws). of every lawyer, but rather it should be the spirit for
public service and the administration of justice.
The four-year law course put emphasis on the bar Remember that law profession is a branch of the
subjects listed under Sec. 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of administration of justice and not a mere moneymaking
Court: civil law, criminal law, remedial law, legal ethics trade.
and practical exercises, commercial law, political law,
taxation, labor laws, law on public corporation and Three Ideas involved in a Profession
public officers, public and private international law. The 1. Organization – lawyers organize as a profession thru
curriculum also contains non-bar subjects like legal the bar associations, defined as an association of
history, legal bibliography, statutory construction, legal persons practicing the profession of law formed and
research, legal medicine and court practice among maintained to promote and uphold the purposes and
others. In 1989, the Department of Education Culture spirit of that profession.
and Sports adopted a revised model curriculum for the
four-year Bachelor of Laws degree composed of 51 2. Learning – professions are learned not only from the
subjects (approximately 124 units) which took effect in nature of the art professed but historically have a
1990. It offered more subjects on the legal profession, cultural, and ideal side which furthers the exercise of
legal counseling, legal research and legal writing. that art. Problems of human relations in society, of
disease, etc. are to be dealt with by the resources of
In 1964, R.A. No. 3870 created the University of the cultivated intelligence. To carry on their tasks more
Philippines Law Center to conduct continuing legal effectively, they must be more than resourceful
education programs, legal research and publications. craftsmen. They must be learned.
R.A. No. 7662 or the Legal Education Act was enacted in
1993 to emphasize on the areas of advocacy, 3. Spirit of Public Service – every profession aims at the
counseling, problem solving, decision-making, ethics exercise of powers beneficial to mankind. The spirit of
and nobility of the legal profession, bench-bar public service in which the profession of law is a
partnership, social commitment, selection of law prerequisite of a sound administration of justice.
students, quality of law schools, the law faculty as well
as the law curriculum. The Legal Education Board was Membership in the legal profession is a privilege
likewise created. granted by the state only to those deserving
individuals. It is in the nature of a franchise conferred
The latest update on legal education is the Mandatory only for merit which must be earned by hard study,
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program for learning, and good conduct. The practice of law is a
members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. This privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the
Supreme Court Resolution requires members of the bar exacting standards of mental and moral fitness. Good
to pursue further studies in law and update themselves moral character is a condition which precedes
with the current laws and jurisprudence to ensure that admission to the Bar and is not dispensed with upon
throughout their career, they keep abreast with law admission thereto. It is a continuing qualification which
and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the all lawyers must possess.
profession and enhance the standards of the practice of
law.
The law as a profession that precedes from the basic c. Nature of an Attorney
premise that membership in the Bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions and carries with it the An attorney may be defined as a person set apart by
responsibility to live up to its exacting standards and the laws of the land relating to the high interest of
honored traditions. property, liberty, and life. An attorney at law is thus
considered as a quasi-officer of the court subject to
Although the law profession is a privilege, which may regulation. He is an inherent element in our judicial
be withheld or extended in the exercise of sound system. As an advocate of justice, he should be the
judicial discretion, yet it is also a right in a limited defender of the oppressed. A lawyer, although
sense. He has the right to protest in a respectful employed by a party in a cause to manage the same for
manner anything which he thinks is prejudicial to the him, is not a part of the cause. He should dissociate
orderly and expeditious administration of justice. He himself from the facts of the case and keep himself
has the right to stand up for his right or the right of his beyond the influences of the litigants simply because
client even in the face of a hostile court. his primary purpose is to stand by the truth.
- Under the modern concept of practice of law, it is any activity c. Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training, and experience d. Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and
brotherhood;
Criteria for the Practice of Law (Cayetano vs. Monsod, Justice
Padilla) e. Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law
reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of
1. Habituality. The term practice of law implies customarily or the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish information
habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer. It is more relating thereto;
than an isolated appearance, for it consist in frequent or
customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. f. Encourage and foster legal education;
2. Compensation. Implies that one must have presented himself g. Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive
to be in the active practice and that his professional services are and adjective law, and make reports and recommendations
available to the public for compensation, as a source of his thereon; and
livelihood or in consideration of his services. h. Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice, or procedure Persons entitled to Practice Law – under sec. 1, rule 138 of the
which calls for legal knowledge, training and experience. Rules of court, any person who has been duly licensed as a
4. Attorney-client relationship. It presupposes the existence of member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing is
lawyer-client relationship. Hence, where a lawyer undertakes an entitled to practice law
activity which requires knowledge of law but involves no - Before being admitted to the bar, an applicant must satisfy the
attorney-client relationship, he cannot be caid to be engaged in following requirements pursuant to sec. 2, Rule 138 of the Rules
the practice of his profession. of Court:
What is Not Considered Practice of Law 1. He/she must be a citizen of the Philippines;
- Gratuitous furnishing of legal aid to the poor and unfortunates 2. At least 21 years of age;
who are in pursuit of any civil remedy
3. Of good moral character;
- Ordinary preparation and drafting of legal instruments which
does not involve the determination by a trained legal mind of the 4. A resident of the Philippines; and
legal effects of facts and conditions, or whenever such acts
involve the use of skill and intellect by a legal mind trained and 5. Must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
schooled in a legal school but only involved in clerical labor evidence of his good moral character and no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed
IV. Admission to Practice or are pending in any court of the Philippines.
- Par. 5, Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that - Aside from satisfying the foregoing enumeration to prove that
the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules the applicant has the required educational, moral, and personal
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional qualification, he must also pass the bar examinations, take the
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the lawyer’s oath before the Supreme Court en banc, sign in the roll
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal of attorneys and receive a certificate from the Clerk of the
assistance to the underprivileged. This provision, however, is Supreme Court of his license to practice
subject to the following limitations:
- Although the term “good moral character” admits of broad
a. simplified and inexpensive procedures for speedy disposition dimensions and is a continuing requirement to be a lawyer, it has
of cases; been defined as including at least “common honesty”. No moral
qualification for bar membership is more important than
b. uniform for all courts of the same grade; truthfulness and candor.
c. shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights - Sec. 5, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court requires that applicants
- The legislature, in the exercise of its police power may enact for admission to the bar must have studied law for four years
laws regulating the practice of law to protect the public and and completed all prescribed courses in university approved and
promote the public welfare. But the legislature may not pass a recognized by the Secretary of Education
law that will control the Supreme Court in the performance of its - Sec. 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that in order to
function to decide who may enjoy the privilege of practicing law be admitted, applicants must present a certificate that he has
Integration of the Bar – the purposes of this are: satisfied the Secretary of Education that before he studied law,
he completed a four-year high school and college course with
a. Assist in the administration of justice;
any of the following subjects as a major or concentration: 8. Those who by special law are prohibited from engaging in the
Political Science, Logic, English, Spanish, History, and Economics practice of their profession.
- Sec. 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that citizens of Public Officials with Restrictions in the Practice of Law:
the United States of America, who, before July 4, 1946, were
duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in 1. No Senator as member of the House of Representative may
the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as personally appear as counsel before any court of justice as
such, may upon satisfactory proof of these facts before the before the Electoral Tribunals, as quasi-judicial and
Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking administrative bodies (Art. VI, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution)
the oath of office. 2. Under the Local Government Code (RA 7160, Sec. 91),
Where non-lawyers may practice law – the following are Sanggunian members may practice their professions provided
allowed limited representation on behalf of another: that if they are members of the Bar, they shall not:
1. A party may conduct his litigation personally or with the aid of a. appear as counsel before any court in any civil ase
a friend or agent appointed by him for that purpose. In case of wherein a local government unit or any office, agency,
the latter, such is allowed only if the representation is made or instrumentality of the government is the adverse
before the inferior courts (MTCs). But the agent or friend may party;
not hold himself out as habitually engaged in representing a b. appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an
party for that will constitute unauthorized practice of law. officer or employee of the national or local government
Moreover, in criminal cases, if a party cannot afford the services is accused of an offense committed in relation to this
of a counsel de parte, he shall be provided a counsel de officio; office;
2. In localities where a duly licensed member of the bar is not c. collect any fee for their appearance in administrative
available, the municipal trial court hearing a criminal case may, proceedings involving the LGU of which he is an official;
in its discretion admit or assign a person (who is not a member
of the bar), resident of the province and of good refute for d. use property and personnel of the government
probity and ability, to aid the defendant in his defense; except when the Sanggunian member concerned is
defending the interest of the government
3. Under the Labor Code, a union representative may appear for
his organization or any of its members before the National Labor 3. Under RA 910, Sec. 1, as amended, a retired justice or judge
Relations Commission, labor arbiter or arbitrator; receiving pension from the government, cannot act as counsel in
any civil case in which the Government, or any of its subdivision
4. A person representing a land claimant in cadastral court; or agencies is the adverse party or in a criminal case wherein an
5. In case of law student practice as permitted by the rules. Rule officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense
138-A of the Rules of Court provides that a law student who has in relation to his office
successfully completed 3rd year of the regular 4-year curriculum
and is enrolled in a recognized law school’s clinical legal
education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear
without compensation in any civil, criminal, or administrative
case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to
represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law
school. The appearance of the student shall be under the direct
supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines;
3. Government prosecutors;
ISSUES
HELD
5. Yes. Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member
of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct,
or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority
to do so.
(b) The regulation and supervision of legal education (a) State’s supervisory and regulatory power over legal
cannot be justified as an exercise of the Court’s education in relation to academic freedom of
“residual” power. A power is residual if it does not institutions of higher learning. Section 5(2), Article XIV
belong to either of the two co-equal branches and of the 1987 Constitution, provides: “Academic freedom
which the remaining branch can, thus, exercise shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.”
The rule is that institutions of higher learning enjoy for taking the bar examinations, is
ample discretion to decide for itself who may teach, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This requirement unduly
what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who to interferes with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to
admit, being part of their academic freedom. The State, promulgate rules concerning the practice of law and
in the exercise of its reasonable supervision and admissions thereto. The jurisdiction to determine
regulation over education, can only impose minimum whether an applicant may be allowed to take the bar
regulations. At its most elementary, the power to examinations belongs to the Court. Under Section 7(g),
supervise and regulate shall not be construed as stifling the power of the LEB is no longer confined within the
academic freedom in institutions of higher learning. In parameters of legal education, but now dabbles on the
fact, this non-intrusive relation between the State and requisites for admissions to the bar examinations, and
higher educational institutions is maintained even consequently, admissions to the bar. This is a direct
when the Constitution itself prescribes certain encroachment upon the Court’s exclusive authority to
educational “thrusts” or directions. promulgate rules concerning admissions to the bar and
should, therefore, be struck down as unconstitutional.
(b) The reasonable supervision and regulation clause
viewed together with the right to education. The (c) Section 2, par. 2 of RA 7662, which gives LEB the
normative elements of the general right to education power to supervise the continuing legal education of
under Section 1, Article XIV, are (1) to protect and practicing lawyers, encroaches upon the Supreme
promote quality education; and (2) to take appropriate Court’s power to promulgate rules concerning the IBP.
steps towards making such quality education Likewise, the clause “continuing legal education” under
accessible. In order to protect and promote quality Section 2, par. 2, and Section 7(h) unduly give the LEB
education, the political departments are vested with the power to supervise the legal education of those
the ample authority to set minimum standards to be who are already members of the bar. Inasmuch as the
met by all educational institutions. While the LEB is authorized to compel mandatory attendance of
Constitution indeed mandates the State to provide practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration
quality education, the determination of what as the LEB deems necessary, the same encroaches upon
constitutes quality education is best left with the the Court’s power to promulgate rules concerning the
political departments who have the necessary Integrated Bar which includes the education of “lawyer-
knowledge, expertise, and resources to determine the professors” as teaching of law is practice of law. The
same. While there is a right to quality higher education, mandatory continuing legal education of the members
such right is principally subject to the broad academic of the bar is, in fact, covered by BM. No. 850 or the
freedom of higher educational institutions to impose Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic dated August 22, 2000.
requirements. Plainly stated, the right to receive
education is not and should not be taken to mean as a (d) Section 7(e) of R.A. No. 7662 which gives LEB the
right to be admitted to educational institutions. power to prescribe the minimum standards for law
admission is CONSTITUTIONAL and does not conflict
LEB’s Powers under R.A. No. 7662 vis-a-vis the Supreme Court’s with the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. The
Jurisdiction Court finds no constitutional conflict between its rule-
making power and the power of the LEB to prescribe
(a) The objective of RA 7662 encroaches upon the the minimum standards for law admission under
Supreme Court’s power to promulgate rules on “legal Section 7(e) of R.A. No. 7662. Consequently, the
assistance to the underprivileged”. One of the general PhiLSAT, which intends to regulate admission to law
objectives of legal education under Section 3(a)(2) of schools, cannot be voided on this ground. LEB’s power
R.A. No. 7662 is to “increase awareness among to prescribe minimum standards for “law admission”
members of the legal profession of the needs of the pertain to admission to legal education and not to the
poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society.” This practice of law.
provision goes beyond the scope of R.A. No. 7662, i.e.,
improvement of the quality of legal education, and, The PhiLSAT is not unconstitutional in its entirety
instead delves into the training of those who are
already members of the bar. Likewise, this objective is a (a) LEB’s authority to initiate and administer an
direct encroachment on the power of the Supreme aptitude test, such as the PhiLSAT, as a minimum
Court, under Section 5, paragraph 5 of Article VII of the standard for law admission, is not per se
Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning the unconstitutional. The State has an interest in improving
practice of law and “legal assistance to the the quality of legal education for the protection of the
underprivileged” and should, thus, be voided on this community at-large, and requiring entrance test is
ground. Such objective should not find a place in the reasonably related to that interest. In other words, the
law that primarily aims to upgrade the standard of State has the power and the prerogative to impose a
schools of law as they perform the task of educating standardized test prior to entering law school, in the
aspiring lawyers. same manner and extent that the State can do so in
medical school when it prescribed the NMAT.
(b) Section 7(g) of RA 7662, which grants LEB the power
to establish a law practice internship as a requirement
(b) PhiLSAT becomes UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it for law schools taking into account, among others, the
restricts admission to law school for being violative of qualifications of the members of the faculty without encroaching
academic freedom. The PhiLSAT, when administered as upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning;
an aptitude test to guide law schools in measuring the and
applicants’ aptness for legal education along with such
other admissions policy that the law school may 2. Section 7(e) of R.A. No. 7662 insofar as it gives the Legal
consider, is within the power of the LEB under its Education Board the power to prescribe the minimum
charter to prescribe minimum standards for law requirements of for admission to legal education and minimum
admission. However, the PhiLSAT presently operates qualifications of faculty members without encroaching upon the
not only as a measure of an applicant’s aptitude for law academic freedom of institutions of higher learning.
school. The PhiLSAT, as a pass or fail exam, dictates As UNCONSTITUTIONAL for encroaching upon the power of the
upon law schools who among the examinees are to be court:
admitted to any law program. When the PhiLSAT is
used to exclude, qualify, and restrict admissions to law 1. Section 2, par. 2 of R.A. No. 7662 insofar as it unduly includes
schools, as its present design mandates, the PhiLSAT “continuing legal education” as an aspect of legal education
goes beyond mere ‘supervision and regulation, violates which is made subject to Executive supervision and control;
institutional academic freedom, becomes unreasonable
and therefore, unconstitutional. The Court partially 2. Section 3(a)(2) of R.A. No. 7662 and Section 7(2) of LEBMO No.
nullifies LEBMO No. 7-2016 insofar as it absolutely 1-2011 on the objective of legal education to increase awareness
prescribes the passing of the PhiLSAT and the taking among members of the legal profession of the needs of the poor,
thereof within two years as a prerequisite for admission deprived and oppressed sectors of society;
to any law school which, on its face, directly counter to
3. Section 7(g) of R.A. No. 7662 and Section 11(g) of LEBMO No.
institutional academic freedom. The rest of LEBMO No.
1-2011 insofar as it gives the Legal Education Board the power to
7-2016, being free from any taint of unconstitutionality,
establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking
should remain force and effect.
the Bar and
PhiLSAT and the Right to Education. Anent the argument that the
4. Section 7(h) of R.A. No. 7662 and Section 11(h) of LEBMO No.
PhiLSAT transgresses petitioners’ right to education and their
1-2011 insofar as it gives the Legal Education Board the power to
right to select a profession or course of study, suffice to state
adopt a system of mandatory continuing legal education and to
that the PhiLSAT is a minimum admission standard that is
provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in
rationally related to the interest of the State to improve the
such courses and for such duration as it may deem necessary.
quality of legal education and, accordingly, to protect the
general community. The constitutionality of the PhiLSAT, As UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being ultra vires:
therefore, cannot be voided on the ground that it violates the
right to education as stated under Section 1, Article XIV of the 1. The act and practice of the Legal Education Board of excluding,
Constitution. restricting, and qualifying admissions to law schools in violation
of the institutional academic freedom on who to admit,
Law Masters Degree requirement for law faculty. Moreover, the particularly;
operation of educational institutions involves public interest. The
government has a right to ensure that only qualified persons, in a. Paragraph 9 of LEBMO No. 7-2016 which provides
possession of sufficient academic knowledge and teaching skills, that all college graduates or graduating students
are allowed to teach in such institutions. However, the applying for admission to the basic law course shall be
mandatory character of the master of laws degree requirement, required to pass the PhiLSAT as a requirement for
under pain of downgrading, phase-out and closure of the law admission to any law school in the Philippines and that
school, is in sharp contrast with the previous requirement under no applicant shall be admitted for enrollment as a first
DECS Order No. 27-1989 which merely prefer faculty members year student in the basic law courses leading to a
who are holders of a graduate law degree, or its equivalent. The degree of either Bachelor of Laws or Juris Doctor unless
LEB’s authority to review the strength or weakness of the faculty he/she has passed the PhiLSAT taken within two years
on the basis of experience or length of time devoted to teaching before the start of studies for the basic law course;
violates an institution’s right to set its own faculty standards.
b. LEBMC No. 18-2018 which prescribes the passing of
DISPOSITION the PhiLSAT as a prerequisite for admission to law
schools;
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED.
Accordingly, the temporary restraining order issued on
The jurisdiction of the Legal Education Board over legal March 12, 2019 enjoining the Legal Education Board
education is UPHELD. from implementing LEBMC No. 18-2018 is made
PERMANENT. The regular admission of students who
The Court further declares;
were conditionally admitted and enrolled is left to the
As CONSTITUTIONAL: discretion of the law schools in the exercise of their
academic freedom; and
1. Section 7(c) of R.A. No. 7662 insofar as it. gives the Legal
Education Board the power to set the standards of accreditation c. Sections 15, 16, and 17 of LEBMO No. 1-2011;
2. The act and practice of the Legal Education Board of dictating
the qualifications and classification of faculty members, dean,
and dean of graduate schools of law in violation of institutional
academic freedom on who may teach, particularly:
FACTS 1. Yes. It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is
not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service,
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not
that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT OF advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The
MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667." gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The
duty to public service and to the administration of justice should
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate
Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
telephone number and pretended to be an interested party. She
spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. There is no question that respondent committed the acts
Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases and complained of. He himself admits that he caused the publication
can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided of the advertisements. While he professes repentance and begs
the case will not involve separation of property or custody of for the Court's indulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering
children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee the fact that he advertised his legal services again after he
of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the pleaded for compassion and after claiming that he had no
case and the other half after a decision thereon has been intention to violate the rules. What adds to the gravity of
rendered. respondent's acts is that in advertising himself as a self-styled
"Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the
Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the
Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed,
Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be
services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of obtained in four to six months from the time of the filing of the
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules case, he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise
of Court, which state that: been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their
marriage bonds, to do so.
Rule 2.03. - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business. Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether
proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be
Rule 3.01. - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
lawyer and to the bar. Thus, the use of simple signs stating the
services.
name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address
Rule 138, Section 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legal
Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the the use of calling cards is now acceptable. Publication in
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason
conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and
informative data is likewise allowable.
DISPOSITION
A.C. No. 10164 March 10, 2014 A.C. No. 6368 June 13, 2012
FACTS FACTS
On August 9, 2002, complainant spouses filed a complaint This is a complaint for disbarment filed by complainants against
against respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline respondent Atty. Pablo Bernardo for estafa, deceit, malpractice,
(CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Complainant conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and violation of his
spouses alleged that in February 1997, they engaged the services duties and oath as a lawyer.
of Atty. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they acquired in
Bonbon, Nueva Caseres; that Atty. Guaren asked for a fee of Atty. Pablo Bernardo, with the help of a certain Andres Magat,
P10,000.00 including expenses relative to its proceeding, and illegally committed a fraudulent act with intent to defraud herein
asked for additional payment which they dutifully gave; that they complainants wherein he would expedite the titling of the land
always reminded Atty. Guaren about the case but to no avail; belonging to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City who are the
that they became bothered by the slow progress of the case so acquaintance of complainants herein and they convinced
they demanded the return of the money they paid; and that complainants that if they will finance him the amount of
respondent agreed to return the same provided that the amount [₱]495,000.00 as advance money he would expedite the titling of
of P5,000.00 be deducted to answer for his professional fees. the subject land. He also misrepresented himself as lawyer of
William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the subject land
Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an and that he has contracts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and
attorney-client relationship between them, Atty. Guaren made a REGISTER OF DEEDS which representation he well knew were
special appearance against them in a case pending before the false were only made to induce the complainants to give and
Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu (MCTC). deliver the said amount and converted the said amount to his
personal use and benefit and despite demand upon him to
Atty. Guaren admitted that he indeed charged complainants an return the said amount, he failed and refused to do so. Bernardo
acceptance fee of P10,000.00, but denied that the amount was countered by claiming that it was only Magat whom they
inclusive of expenses for the titling of the lot and claimed that he contacted and received the said money from them, and that
did not commit betrayal of trust and confidence when he there was no connivance between Magat and respondent.
participated in a case filed against the complainants in MCTC Furthermore, during the hearing before the RTC, respondent
explaining that his appearance was for and in behalf of Atty. failed to answer the complaint for disbarment despite due notice
Ervin Estandante, the counsel on record, who failed to appear in on several occasions and appear on the scheduled hearings set.
the said hearing.
ISSUES
ISSUE
1. WoN respondent should be disbarred.
1. WoN violated the code of professional responsibility.
HELD
HELD
1. Yes. As a lawyer, the respondent is considered as an officer of
1. Yes. Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional the court who is called upon to obey and respect court
Responsibility provides that: processes. Such acts of the respondent are a deliberate and
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and contemptuous affront on the court’s authority which cannot be
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. countenanced. Most importantly, respondent failed to uphold
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and He himself admitted in his answer that his legal services were
diligence. hired by the complainants through Magat regarding the
purported titling of land supposedly purchased. While he begs
Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of P7,000.00 for the Court’s indulgence, his contrition is shallow considering
as partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to the fact that he used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive
perform his obligation to file the case for the titling of the complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling
complainants’ lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren of the subject properties. He never denied that he did not
breached his duty to serve his client with competence and benefit from the money given by the complainants in the
diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. amount of ₱495,000.00.
DISPOSITION DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ronald L. Guaren is found GUILTY WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Pablo S.
of having violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice
for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective from receipt of this of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon notice hereof.
Resolution, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future
shall be dealt with more severely. Further, the Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) to RETURN
the amount of P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita
Bengco within TEN (10) DAYS from receipt of this Decision and GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS TALENTS POOL, INC., vs. ATTY.
(2) to SUBMIT his proof of compliance thereof to the Court, PRIMO R. NALDOZA
through the Office of the Bar Confidant within TEN (10) DAYS
therefrom; with a STERN WARNING that failure to do so shall A.C. No. 4017 September 29, 1999
merit him the additional penalty of suspension from the practice FACTS
of law for one (1) year.
Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc., filed before this Court a
Petition for disbarment against Attorney Primo R. Naldoza. The
precursor of this Petition was the action of respondent, as
counsel for complainant, appealing a Decision of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). In relation to the appeal,
complainant asserts that respondent should be disbarred for the
following acts:
ISSUE
HELD
ISSUE
HELD
ISSUE
HELD
1. Yes. The defense is reminded that at its instance, this case has
been postponed at least eight (8) times, and that the
government witnesses have to come all the way from Manapala.
After which, it was noted in such order that there was no
incompatibility between the duty of petitioner to the accused
and to the court and the performance of his task as an election
registrar of the Commission on Elections and that the ends of
justice "would be served by allowing and requiring Mr. Ledesma
to continue as counsel de oficio, since the prosecution has
already rested its case.” The law is a profession, not a trade or a
craft. Those enrolled in its ranks are called upon to aid in the
performance of one of the basic purposes of the State, the
administration of justice. To avoid any frustration thereof,
especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a lawyer may be
required to act as counsel de oficio. The fact that his services are
rendered without remuneration should not occasion a
diminution in his zeal. Rather the contrary. This is not, of course,
to ignore that other pressing matters do compete for his
attention. After all, he has his practice to attend to. That
circumstance possesses a high degree of relevance since a
lawyer has to live; certainly he cannot afford either to neglect his
paying cases. Nonetheless, what is incumbent upon him as
counsel de oficio must be fulfilled. For, indeed a lawyer who is a
vanguard in the bastion of justice is expected to have a bigger
dose of social conscience and a little less of self-interest."
DISPOSITION
Respondent Brillantes, in a civil case (Civil Case 657) in which he In view of all the foregoing, this Court does not consider it
is a counsel, notarized a deed of sale of real property without necessary to resolve the additional issues raised in the
being commissioned as a notary public in violation of Art. 171 of supplemental complaints of Atty. Bringas. ACCORDINGLY,
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and knowingly introduced said Agripino A. Brillantes of Bangued, Abra is hereby disbarred. This
deed as evidence in Civil Case in violation of the last paragraph decision shall be immediately executory.
of Art. 172 of the RPC, in an attempt to pass the document as
true and suit the defendant’s defense.
ISSUE
HELD
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree fiduciary. 1. No. The Court finds no sufficient reason to depart from their
previous rulings which held that:
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods The use in their partnership names of the names of deceased
of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing partners will run counter to Article 1815 of the Civil Code which
directly with their clients." provides: Art. 1815. Every partnership shall operate under a firm
name, which may or may not include the name of one or more of
Practice of Law – The right to practice law is not a natural or the partners.
constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise.
It is limited to persons of good moral character with special Those who, not being members of the partnership, include their
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does not names in the firm name, shall be subject to the liability, of a
only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and partner.
attainment, hut also the exercise of a special privilege, highly It is clearly tacit in the above provision that names in a firm
personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust. name of a partnership must either be those of living partners
IN RE: SYCIP AND OZAETA and in the case of non-partners, should be living persons who
can be subjected to liability. In fact, Article 1825 of the Civil Code
July 30, 1979 prohibits a third person from including his name in the firm
name under pain of assuming the liability of a partner. The heirs
FACTS of a deceased partner in a law firm cannot be held liable as the
Two separate Petitions were filed before this Court 1) by the old members to the creditors of a firm particularly where they
surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip and 2) by the are nonlawyers. Canon 34 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, praying that they be "prohibits an agreement for the payment to the widow and heirs
allowed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of a deceased lawyer of a percentage, either gross or net, of the
of partners who had passed away. fees received from the future business of the deceased lawyer's
clients, both because the recipients of such division are not
Petitioners base their petitions on the following arguments: lawyers and because such payments will not represent service or
responsibility on the part of the recipient." There being no
1. A partnership is not prohibited from continuing its business benefits accruing, there can be no corresponding liability.
under a firm name which includes the name of a deceased
partner under Article 1840 of the Civil Code which states that the Moreover, the public relations value of the use of an old firm
use of such name shall not of itself make the individual property name can tend to create undue advantages and disadvantages in
of the deceased partner liable for any debts contracted by such the practice of the profession. An able lawyer without
person or partnership. connections will have to make a name for himself starting from
scratch. Another able lawyer, who can join an old firm, can
2. In regulating other professions, such as accountancy and initially ride on that old firm's reputation established by
engineering, the legislature has authorized the adoption of firm deceased partners.
names without any restriction as to the use, in such firm name,
of the name of a deceased partner. As regards Article 1840, it treats more of a commercial
partnership with a good will to protect rather than of a
3. Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states that the professional partnership, with no saleable good will but whose
continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner reputation depends on the personal qualifications of its
when permissible by local custom, is not unethical but care individual members. Thus, it has been held that a saleable
should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced goodwill can exist only in a commercial partnership and cannot
through this use. arise in a professional partnership consisting of lawyers.
4. There is no possibility of imposition or deception because the As regards the second point raised, a partnership for the practice
deaths of their respective deceased partners were well- of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other
publicized in all newspapers of general circulation for several professionals or for business. For one thing, the law on
days. accountancy specifically allows the use of a trade name in
connection with the practice of accountancy.
5. No local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased
partner's name in a professional firm's name. As regards the third, fifth, and sixth point, it is true that Canon 33
does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of
6. The continued use of a deceased's name in the firm name of
a deceased or former partner in the firm name of a law
partnerships has been consistently allowed by U.S. Courts and is
partnership when such a practice is permissible by local custom.
It must be conceded that in the Philippines, no local custom
permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or former
partner's name in the firm names of law partnerships. Firm
names, under our custom, identify the more active and/or more
senior members or partners of the law firm. Petitioners argue
that U.S. Courts have consistently allowed the continued use of a
deceased partner's name in the firm name of law partnerships.
But that is so because it is sanctioned by custom. Moreover,
Courts take no judicial notice of custom. A custom must be
proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. 20 A local
custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of
justice unless such custom is properly established by competent
evidence like any other fact.
DISPOSITION
FACTS DISPOSITION
On April 16, 1959, Flora Quingwa filed before this Court a Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby disbarred and,
verified complaint charging Armando Puno, a member of the as a consequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll
Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. Quingwa is an of Attorneys.
educated woman, having been a public-school teacher for a
number of years. She testified that respondent took her to the
Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, signing the hotel register as
"Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno," and succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her on the promise of marriage. The hotel
register of the Silver Moon Hotel shows that "Mr. and Mrs. A.
Puno" arrived at that hotel on June 1, 1958 at 3:00 P.M. and
departed at 7:00 P.M.
This case was set for hearing in this Court on July 20, 1962. On
the day of the hearing Solicitor Ceferino E. Gaddi who appeared
for the complainant submitted the case for decision without oral
argument. There was no appearance for the respondents.
ISSUE
HELD
... The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the
admission to the profession of candidates unfit or unqualified
because deficient in either moral character or education. He
should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain
the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but
the administration of justice.
ISSUE
HELD
But what surprises this Court even more is the perverted sense
of respondent's moral values when he said that: "I see nothing
wrong with this relationship despite my being married." Worse,
he even suggested abortion. Finally, respondent even had the
temerity to allege that he is a Moslem convert and as such, could
enter into multiple marriages and has inquired into the
possibility of marrying complainant. As records indicate,
People vs. Fe Tuanda
A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990 Practice of Law - Practice of law, whether under the regular or
the Shari’a Court, is not a matter of right but merely a privilege
FACTS bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law
In a Motion to Lift Order of Suspension, respondent Fe T. but who are also known to possess good moral character. The
Tuanda, a member of the Philippine Bar, asks this Court to lift requirement of good moral character is not only a condition
the suspension from the practice of law imposed upon her by a precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued
decision of the Court of Appeals. possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.
Respondent received from one Herminia A. Marquez several IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE
pieces of jewelry, with a total stated value of P36,000.00, for sale HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS
on a commission basis, with the condition that the respondent B. M. No. 1154 June 8, 2004
would turn over the sales proceeds and return the unsold items
to Ms. Marquez on or before 14 February 1984. Sometime in FACTS
February 1984, respondent, instead of returning the unsold
pieces of jewelry which then amounted to approximately Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the Office of
P26,250.00, issued three checks. Upon presentment for payment the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling
within ninety (90) days after their issuance, all three (3) checks (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose
were dishonored by the drawee bank, Traders Royal Bank, for on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the
insufficiency of funds. Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of Philippine Shari’a Bar. Melendrez alleges that Meling did not
dishonor, respondent made no arrangements with the bank disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he
concerning the honoring of checks which had bounced and made has three (3) pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial
no effort to settle her obligations to Ms. Marquez. Court in Cotabato which arose after Meling allegedly uttered
defamatory words against him and his wife in front of media
Consequently, four (4) informations were filed against practitioners, and hitting the face of his wife which caused
respondent with the Regional Trial Court of Manila: 1 for estafa injuries. Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been
and 3 for violation of BP Blg. 22. The court acquitted respondent using the title "Attorney" in his communications, as Secretary to
of the charge of estafa but convicted her of violating BP Blg. 22. the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC member of the Bar.
with an additional punishment of suspension from practice of
law. Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal before the Supreme Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed
Court but was told that the CA’s decision had become final and against him by Melendrez because retired Judge Corocoy Moson,
executory upon the expiration of the period for filing of petition their former professor, advised him to settle his
for certiorari. misunderstanding with Melendrez. Believing in good faith that
the case would be settled because the said Judge has moral
ISSUE ascendancy over them, he being their former professor in the
College of Law, Meling considered the three cases that actually
WoN the respondent’s suspension should be lifted. arose from a single incident and involving the same parties as
HELD "closed and terminated." As regards the use of the title
"Attorney," Meling admits that some of his communications
No. Respondent was correctly suspended from the practice of really contained the word "Attorney" as they were, according to
law because she had been convicted of crimes involving moral him, typed by the office clerk.
turpitude pursuant to Sections 27 and 28 of the Revised. Rules of
Court. We should add that the crimes of which respondent was Consequently, the OBC recommended that Meling not be
convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney's oath allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys
and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which in the event that he passes the Bar Examinations. Further, it
she was bound to "obey the laws of the land." Conviction of a recommended that Meling’s membership in the Shari’a Bar be
crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, suspended until further orders from the Court.
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the ISSUES
profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and
affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such 1. WoN Meling should not be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath
offense. and sign the Roll of Attorneys,
2. On the other hand, the prayer in the same Petition for the
Court to impose the appropriate sanctions upon him as a Practice of Law - Practice is more than an isolated appearance,
member of the Shari’a Bar is ripe for resolution and has to be for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of
acted upon. acts of the same kind. The practice of law by attorneys employed
in the government, to fall within the prohibition of statute, has
It has been held that good moral character is what a person been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one’s self
really is, as distinguished from good reputation or from the out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such
opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is services. The appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not
held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private
character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to practice of law. The word private practice of law implies that one
objective reality. The standard of personal and professional must have presented himself to be in the active and continued
integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a practice of the legal profession and that his professional services
person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his
character includes at least common honesty. livelihood or in consideration of his said services.
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is People vs Villanueva
not a matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon
individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965
known to possess good moral character. The requirement of FACTS
good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also Simplicio Villanueva was charged with the Crime of Malicious
essential for remaining in the practice of law. Mischief before the Justice of the Peace Court of Laguna. The
complainant in the same case was represented by City Attorney
Moreover, his use of the appellation "Attorney", knowing fully Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as
well that he is not entitled to its use, cannot go unchecked. private prosecutor, after securing the permission of the
Persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members Secretary of Justice. The condition of his appearance as such,
of the Philippine Bar, hence, may only practice law before Shari’a was that every time he would appear at the trial of the case, he
courts. While one who has been admitted to the Shari’a Bar, and would be considered on official leave of absence, and that he
one who has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be would not receive any payment for his services.
considered "counselors," in the sense that they give counsel or
advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an "attorney." The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor was
The title "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained questioned by the counsel for the accused as it would violate the
the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken ruling held in the case of Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, wherein it was
the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar ruled that "when an attorney had been appointed to the position
of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified,
and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this by operation of law, he ceased to engage in private law
jurisdiction. practice." The court sustained the appearance of Atty. Fule.
Then, counsel for the accused presented a Motion to Inhibit,
DISPOSITION invoking Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which
WHEREFORE, the Petition is granted insofar as it seeks the states that, “No judge or other official or employee of superior
imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in
member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Accordingly, the private practice as a member of the bar or give professional
membership of Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar is advice to clients.” The JP Court still affirmed the appearance of
hereby SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the Atty. Fule. This was then appealed before the CFI of Laguna
suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition which affirmed the decision of the JP Court, to which the Court
seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath said:
and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine “Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court
Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in
academic. person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for
that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. Assistant City
Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace Court as an
agent or friend of the offended party. It does not appear that he
was being paid for his services or that his appearance was in a
professional capacity. As Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo he
had no control or intervention whatsoever in the prosecution of
crimes committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna,
because the prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos
are handled by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and not by the
City Attornev of San Pablo. There could be no possible conflict in
the duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule as Assistant City
Attorney of San Pablo and as private prosecutor in this criminal
case.”
ISSUE
HELD
ISSUE
DISPOSITION
DISPOSITION
In their Answer, Attys. Era and Bragas alleged that Bonifacio has
no personal knowledge as to what transpired on November 28,
2013 and December 3, 2013 as the latter was not present
therein. Atty. Era further argued that he did not violate the
Court's order of suspension from the practice of law as he
merely acted as his clients' attorney-in-fact pursuant to a Special
Power of Attomey.
ISSUE
1. WoN respondent is administratively liable for engaging in the DISPOSITION
practice of law during the period of her suspension and prior to
an order of the Court lifting such suspension. WHEREFORE, Atty. Haide V. Gumba is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for an additional period of six (6) months
HELD (from her original six (6) months suspension) and WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more
1. Yes. The practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege severely.
subject to the inherent regulatory power of the Court. With
regard to suspension to practice law, in Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, Atty. Haide V. Gumba is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the
the Court laid down the guidelines for the lifting of an order of date of her receipt of this Decision, to determine the reckoning
suspension, to wit: point when her suspension shall take effect.
G.R. No. 176278 June 25, 2010 AC No. 6517 December 6, 2006
FACTS FACTS
Petitioner, as citizen and taxpayer, filed a writ of certiorari to Invoking the principle of res ipsa loquitor, complainant objects to
invalidate President GMA’s nomination of respondent former the fact that Civil Case No. 1518-BG was raffled to the
Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as Permanent Representative to respondent Judge, who was the former counsel of the plaintiff
the UN for violation of Sec. 23 of RA No. 7157 (Philippine Foreign therein in Civil Case No. 1081-BG. Another reason for his
Service Act of 1991). Respondent’s age is 70 which disqualifies objection is that, allegedly, some paragraphs in the complaint in
him from holding his post because the RA pegged the mandatory Civil Case No. 1518-BG were obviously copied from Civil Case No.
retirement age of all officers and employees of the DFA at 65. 1081-BG wherein the complaint was prepared by respondent
Judge in his capacity as then lawyer of herein complainant
Davide, Office of the Pres., and the Sec. of DFA raised three (plaintiff therein). Complainant claims that the foregoing
questions: constitute misconduct which imply malice or wrongful intent,
1. Petitioner has no standing to bring the suit due to his not just mere errors of judgment. He insists that the fact that
suspension from the practice of law. respondent Judge will try the case upon a complaint in which the
plaintiff was his former client and which complaint was copied
2. Neither petitioner’s citizenship nor his taxpayer status vests from the complaint he himself prepared does not speak well of
him with standing to question respondent Davide’s appointment his intention as to the disposition of the case.
because petitioner remains without personal and substantial
interest in the outcome of a suit. On 8 November 2001, respondent judge was appointed as the
presiding judge of RTC Branch 67. By reason of his appointment,
3. This suit is in truth a petition for quo warranto which can only he completely severed all his professional relationships with his
be filed by a contender for the office in question. clients, including Roque, the plaintiff in Civil Case 1081-BG which
involved mortgaging 6 parcels of land to the Rural Bank of Luna,
ISSUE and turned over or relinquished all case records of his office to
said clients.
1. WoN petitioner has standing to bring the suit despite being
suspended. Going over the individual case folders of the newly raffled cases
to his court, respondent judge came across Civil Case No. 1518-
HELD
BG and discovered that the plaintiff therein was Roque, his
1. No. Petitioner’s suspension from the practice of law bars him former client. Immediately, without going over the allegations of
from performing "any activity, in or out of court, which requires the complaint, the respondent judge issued an Order dated 23
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and January 2004 inhibiting himself from the case.
experience." Certainly, preparing a petition raising carefully
ISSUE
crafted arguments on equal protection grounds and employing
highly legalistic rules of statutory construction to parse Section 1. WoN petitioner’s suit is groundless.
23 of RA 7157 falls within the proscribed conduct.
HELD
DISPOSITION
1. Yes. A reading of the records of this case clearly shows that
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. the present administrative case is unfounded, as it is devoid of
factual and legal basis for the following reasons:
In conclusion, the OSG points out that Ching has not formally
elected Philippine citizenship and, if ever he does, it would
already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by present
jurisprudence. However, due to the peculiar circumstances
surrounding Ching's case, the OSG recommends the relaxation of
the standing rule on the construction of the phrase "reasonable
period" and the allowance of Ching to elect Philippine Ching's reliance on Mallare is misplaced. The facts and
citizenship. circumstances obtaining therein are very different from those in
the present case, thus, negating its applicability. First, Esteban
After Ching elected Philippine citizenship on 15 July 1999, the Mallare was born before the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution
question raised is whether he has elected Philippine citizenship and the enactment of C.A. No. 625. Hence, the requirements and
within a "reasonable time." In the affirmative, whether his procedures prescribed under the 1935 Constitution and C.A. No.
citizenship by election retroacted to the time he took the bar 625 for electing Philippine citizenship would not be applicable to
examination. him. Second, the ruling in Mallare was an obiter since, as
When Ching was born in 1964, the governing charter was the correctly pointed out by the OSG, it was not necessary for
1935 Constitution. Under Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Esteban Mallare to elect Philippine citizenship because he was
Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a already a Filipino, he being a natural child of a Filipino mother.
Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of An election of Philippine citizenship presupposes that the person
the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child electing is an alien. Or his status is doubtful because he is a
elected Philippine citizenship. This was recognized by the 1973 national of two countries. There is no doubt in this case about
Constitution and was the latter was carried over to the 1987 Mr. Ong's being a Filipino when he turned twenty-one (21). Any
Constitution. However, the 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 election of Philippine citizenship on the part of the private
did not prescribe a time period within which the election of respondent would not only have been superfluous but it would
Philippine citizenship should be made. The age of majority then also have resulted in an absurdity. How can a Filipino citizen
commenced upon reaching 21 years. In the decisions of the elect Philippine citizenship?
Court, the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was 3
years from reaching the age of majority. However, it was held in Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of
Cuenco vs. Secretary of Justice, that the 3-year period is not an Philippine citizenship. The prescribed procedure in electing
inflexible rule. However, the option to elect Philippine citizenship Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking
is not indefinite. process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an
affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file
ISSUE the same with the nearest civil registry. Ching's unreasonable
1. WoN Ching’s election of Philippine citizenship falls within the and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply
“reasonable time” prescribed by law. glossed over.
HELD DISPOSITION
1. No. Ching, having been born on 11 April 1964, was already IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolves to DENY
thirty-five (35) years old when he complied with the Vicente D. Ching's application for admission to the Philippine
requirements of C.A. No. 625 on 15 June 1999, or over fourteen Bar.
(14) years after he had reached the age of majority. Based on the
interpretation of the phrase "upon reaching the age of majority,"
Ching's election was clearly beyond, by any reasonable yardstick,
the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. It
should be stated, in this connection, that the special
circumstances invoked by Ching, i.e., his continuous and
uninterrupted stay in the Philippines and his being a certified
public accountant, a registered voter and a former elected public
official, cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law
specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of
Philippine citizenship by election.
(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
ISSUE
HELD
DISPOSITION
RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH c. As a Christian, he has forgiven petitioner and his co-accused
for the death of his son. However, as a loving father who had lost
B.M. No. 712 March 19, 1997 a son whom he had hoped would succeed him in his law
FACTS: practice, he still feels the pain of an untimely demise and the
stigma of the gruesome manner of his death.
Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations
held in 1993. The Court however deferred his oath-taking due to d. He is not in a position to say whether petitioner is now morally
his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In fit for admission to the bar. He therefore submits the matter to
Homicide. the sound discretion of the Court.
On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty. Gilbert - The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will
Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment on petitioner's prayer to continue with the assistance he has been giving to his
be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. community. As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to
render legal and other services to the more unfortunate
In his comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty. Camaligan states members of society.
that:
NOTES
a. He still believes that the infliction of severe physical injuries
which led to the death of his son was deliberate rather than The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who
accidental. The offense therefore was not only homicide but possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications required
murder since the accused took advantage of the neophyte's of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient
helplessness implying abuse of confidence, taking advantage of administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not
superior strength and treachery. only to "weed out" lawyers who have become a disgrace to the
noble profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to
b. He consented to the accused's plea of guilt to the lesser prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer's oath, thereby further
offense of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide only out of tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent years has
pity for the mothers of the accused and a pregnant wife of one undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.
of the accused who went to their house on Christmas day 1991
and Maundy Thursday 1992, literally on their knees, crying and
begging for forgiveness and compassion. They also told him that
the father of one of the accused had died of a heart attack upon
learning of his son's involvement in the incident.
AGUIRRE vs. RANA
NOTES
- may a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still practice
law in the Philippines? No.
Ponente: Justice DIOKNO, 1954 (a) Constitution expressly provided the Congress the
power to repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning
FACTS pleading, practice, and procedure, and admission to the practice
In 1953, the Congress passed Republic Act No. 972, known as of law. All discussions in support of proposition that the power
“Bar Flunkers Act of 1953”, which fixed the passing marks for the to regulate the admission to the practice of law is inherently
Bar Examinations held from 1946 up to and including 1955. judicial are immaterial.
The Act provides: (b) Resolution on the rejection of the petition of bar
candidates, asking for re-evaluation, does not have the finality of
Article 1. Any bar candidate who obtained a general average of decisions.
70% in any bar examinations after July 4, 1946 up to the August
1951 bar examinations; 71% in the 1952 bar examinations; 72% (c) RA 972 is not an ex post facto law.
in the in the 1953 bar examinations; 73% in the 1954 bar (d) RA 972 is not a class legislation. It cannot be said that
examinations; 74% in the 1955 bar examinations without bar candidates prior to July 1, 1946, are being discriminated
obtaining a grade below fifty per cent in any subject be allowed against, because we no longer have any record of those who
to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as might have failed before the war, apart from the circumstance
member of the Philippine Bar. that 75 percent had always been the passing mark during said
Article 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% per period.
cent in any subject in any bar examination after July 4, 1946 shall (e) Republic Act No. 972 cannot be assailed on the ground
be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such that it is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, since this Court
grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing had already adopted as passing averages 69 per cent for the
general average that said candidate may obtain in any 1947 bar examinations and 70 per cent for the 1948
subsequent examinations that he may take. examinations.
According to the author of the said Act, "The reason for relaxing (f) Court should not inquire into the wisdom of the law,
the standard 75 per cent passing grade is the tremendous since this is a matter that is addressed to the judgment of the
handicap which students during the years immediately after the legislators.
Japanese occupation have to overcome such as the insufficiency
of reading materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of
students who took up law soon after the liberation."
(g) To say that the admission of the bar candidates
ISSUE benefited under Republic Act 972 is against public interest, is to
assume that the matter of whether said Act is beneficial or
W/N R.A. 972 is valid. harmful to the general public was not considered by the
DECISION Congress.
R.A. no. 972 is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without DEFINITION:
any force or effect for the following reasons: What is a Class Legislation?
(a) The act deprives the court the opportunity to determine if Class Legislation – Legislation that affects only a specific
the Bar Candidates, in those years provided for in the act, are geographic area or a particular class of persons. Such legislation
prepared to become members of the bar. It manifests is unconstitutional if it arbitrarily or capriciously distinguishes
encroachment on the Constitutional Responsibility of the between members of the same class.
Supreme Court.
For a Classification to be Valid:
(b) The Act would adversely affect the resolutions revoking the
petitions of the Bar Candidates asking for re-evaluation of their “There must be such a difference between the situation and
ratings. circumstances of all the members of the class and the situation
and circumstances of all other members of the state in relation
(c) Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal, alter to the subjects of the discriminatory legislation as presents a just
and supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. and natural reason for the difference made in their liabilities and
(d) The act is undoubtedly a class legislation. burdens and in their rights and privileges. A law is not general
because it operates on all within a clause unless there is a
(e) Article 2 is not embraced in the title of the law, and being substantial reason why it is made to operate on that class only,
inseparable to Article 1, the entire law is void. and not generally on all." – Justice DIOKNO
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
IN RE: VICTORIO LANUEVO (former Bar confidant)
RAMON GALANG (1971 Bar Examinee) flunked in 1969, 1966- Tan vs. Sabandal, B.M. No. 44, February 24, 1992
76, 1962-64 Bar exam
Facts
FACTS
Respondent passed the 1978 Bar Examination but was denied to
Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for take his oath in view of the finding of the Court that he was
disbarment. guilty of unauthorized practice of law.
Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Acting to his latest petition in 1989, the Court directed the
Ramon E. Galang back to the respective examiners for re- executive judge of the province where the respondent is
evalution or re-checking. domiciled to submit a comment of respondent’s moral fitness to
be a member of the bar.
The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked
the notebook to him by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has In compliance, the executive judge filed his comment stating that
the authority to do the same and that the examinee concerned although he is not aware of any acts committed by him as would
failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline of disqualify him from the admission to the Bar.
passing.
Said judge, however, informed the court that respondent has a
Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of pending civil case before his court for cancellation/reversion
Lanuevo’s move but the exam results bears that he failed in 5 proceedings, in which respondent, then working as a Land
subjects namely in (Political, Civil, Mercantile, Criminal & Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, as per complaint filed by the
Remedial). Office of the Solicitor General, is alleged to have secured a free
patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land, which
Galang on the other hand, denied of having charged of Slight upon investigation, turned out to be swampland and not
Physical Injuries on Eufrosino de Vera, a law student of MLQU. susceptible of acquisition under a free patent and which he later
RULING mortgaged to the bank.
The court disbarred Lanuevo – has no authority to request the The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land sold at public
examiners to re-evaluate grades of examinees w/o prior auction and respondent has not redeemed the land since then.
authority from Supreme Court. Said case was however been settled when the parties entered
He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of into an amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement
admission of examinees to the bar. He does not a have any cancelled the Original Certificate of Title under Free Patent in the
business evaluating the answers of the examinees. name of the respondent and latter’s mortgage in the bank;
provided for the surrender of the certificate of title to the
Consequently, Galang was also disbarred. Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of Register of Deeds for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of
the Revised Rules of Court of 1964, candidates for admission to public domain the land covered by the aforementioned
the bar must be of good moral character. Galang has a pending certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising acts
criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury when he of possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also
declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case this paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and interest.
resulted him to revoked his license.
Issue
Held
His petition was denied. Time and again, it has been held that
the practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege
bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law
but who are also known to possess good moral character.
Issue
Held
Yes. Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar was disbarred. Well settled is the rule
that good moral character is not only a condition precedent for
admission to the legal profession, but it must also remain intact
in order to maintain one's good standing. There is perhaps no
profession after that of the sacred ministry in which a high-toned
morality is more imperative than that of law. 10 The Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates that:
As officers of the court, lawyers must ensure the faith and Facts
confidence of the public that justice is administered with dignity Carmelita Zaguirre and Atty. Alfredo Castillo met sometime in
and civility. A high degree of moral integrity is expected of a 1996 when the two became officemates at the National Bureau
lawyer in the community where he resides. He must maintain of Investigation (NBI). Castillo courted Zaguirre and promised to
due regard for public decency in an orderly society. marry her while representing himself to be single.
Every lawyer needs to strive at all times to honor and maintain Little did she know that he was already married with three
the dignity of his profession, and thus improve not only the children when they had an affair. As a result of their relationship,
public regard for the Bar but also the administration of justice. Zaguirre got pregnant. Castillo, who already passed the bar
Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior exams at that time, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child
one still subsists, as well as abandoning and/or mistreating the and offering her support.
wife and their children, show his disregard of family obligations, By this time however, he started to refuse recognizing the child
morality and decency, the law and the lawyer's oath. and giving her any form of support. He also added that he never
In this case, records show that despite previous sanctions represented himself as single as it was known in the NBI that he
imposed upon him, he still continued with his illicit liaison with a was already a family man.
woman other than his lawfully-wedded wife. He exhibited a Zaguirre filed a petition for disbarment on the ground of Gross
cavalier attitude in the face of charges against him. Such gross Immoral Conduct. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious found him guilty of the same and recommended that he be
flaw in Atty. Tapucar’s character, his moral indifference to meted with penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of
scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of law.
established norms. All these could not but put the legal
profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the Issue
administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but
appropriate disciplinary action. The court then directed to strike W/N the penalty imposed is proper.
out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
Held
Petitioner Rolando P. Dela Torre was disqualified by the 2. No. The legal effect of probation is only to suspend the
COMELEC from running for the position of Mayor of Cavinti, execution of the sentence. Petitioner’s conviction of fencing
Laguna in the May 8, 1995 elections on the ground that he was subsists and remains totally unaffected notwithstanding the
convicted by the MTC of violation the Anti-Fencing Law, citing grant of probation. In fact, a judgment of conviction in a criminal
Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991 which case ipso facto attains finality when the accused applies for
provides as follows: probation, although it is not executory pending resolution of the
application for probation.
“Sec. 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are
disqualified from running for any elective local position: Clearly then, petitioner's theory has no merit. Hence, Dela Torre
is disqualified from seeking public office.
“(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving
moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby
more of imprisonment within two (2) years after serving DISMISSED and the assailed resolutions of the COMELEC dated
sentence;” May 6, 1995 and August 28, 1995 are AFFIRMED in toto.
Issue
Held
Facts Facts
Hon. Remigio E. Zari, Presiding Judge of Branch VI City Court of This concerns the disbarment of Quinciano Vailoces as member
Quezon City, recommended the dismissal from the service of Mr. of the Philippine bar.
Diosdado S. Flores, Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI, City
Court, on grounds of moral turpitude and persistent attempts to Vailoces, on December 14, 1950, acknowledged the execution of
unduly influence the complainant amounting to undue interest a document purporting to be the last will and testament of one
in cases pending before Branch VI and gross discourtesy to Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus. Presented for probate before the
superior officers as manifested by his uncalled for and unjustified Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, the will was impugned
use of strong and contemptuous language in addressing the City by her surviving spouse and daughter. Consequently, the
Judges probate court, finding that the will was a forgery, rendered
decision denying probate to the will. This decision is final.
Issue
On the basis of this decision a criminal action for falsification of
Whether or not respondent’s acts constitute grounds for public document was filed against Vailoces and the three
dismissal from the service attesting witnesses to the will before the Court of First Instance
of Negros Oriental. After trial, they were found guilty and
Held convicted on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
In his affidavit subscribed and sworn to before then City Judge with regard to Vailoces but modified it with record to his co-
Oscar A. Inocentes on June 10, 1969, the respondent stated that accused.
I am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no As finally adjudged, Vailoces was found guilty beyond reasonable
administrative, criminal or police record. This claim is not true doubt of the crime of falsification of public document.
because the respondent had been convicted of libel in Criminal
Case No. Q-7171, of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch This sentence having become final, Vailoces began serving it in
IV, in a sentence dated April 28, 1967. This prevarication in a the insular penitentiary. As a consequence, the offended party
sworn statement is a ground for serious disciplinary action. instituted the present disbarment proceedings.
That in his accomplished Civil Service Form No. 212 which was In his answer, respondent not only disputes the judgment of
subscribed and sworn to, the respondent admits having acted as conviction rendered against him in the criminal case but
counsel for three companies; and that the giving of legal advice contends that the same is based on insufficient and inconclusive
by notaries and others who are not admitted to the practice of evidence, the charge being merely motivated by sheer
law is dangerous to the welfare of the community, because such vindictiveness, malice and spite on the part of herein
persons have not demonstrated their capacity by submitting to complainant, and that to give course to this proceeding would be
examinations lawfully established in the practice of law. tantamount to placing him in double jeopardy. He pleads that
the complaint be dismissed.
The respondent's conviction for libel shows his propensity to
speak ill of others as reflected in his letter to Judge Minerva C. Issue/s
Genovea, then Executive Judge of the City Court of Quezon City
which contains defamatory and uncalled for language. 1. Whether or not Falsification of public document be considered
ground for disbarment
Held
Dispositive
WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby removed from his office as
attorney and, to this effect, our Clerk of Court is enjoined to
erase his name from the roll of attorneys.
Villaber vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 148326, The COMELEC ruled that a conviction for violation of B.P. BIg. 22
November, 15, 2001 involves moral turpitude following the ruling of this Court en
banc in the administrative case of People vs. Atty. Fe Tuanda.
Facts
Issue/s
In this petition for certiorari, Pablo C. Villaber, seeks the
nullification of two Resolutions of the Commission on Election Whether or not violation of B.P. Blg. 22 involves moral turpitude
(COMELEC).
Held
The first one was issued by its Second Division on April 30, 2001,
In People vs. Atty. Fe Tuanda we held that a conviction for
disqualifying him as a candidate for the position of Congressman
violation of B.P. BIg. 22 "imports deceit" and "certainly relates to
in the First District of the Province of Davao del Sur in the last
and affects the good moral character of a person.…" The effects
May 14, 2001 elections, and cancelling his certificate of
of the issuance of a worthless check, as we held in the landmark
candidacy; and the second is the en banc Resolution dated May
case of Lozano vs. Martinez, through Justice Pedro L. Yap,
10, 2001 denying his motion for reconsideration.
"transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved
Both petitioner Villaber and respondent Douglas R. Cagas were in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at
rival candidates for a congressional seat in the First District of large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or
Davao del Sur during the May 14, 2001 elections. holder, but also an injury to the public" since the circulation of
valueless commercial papers "can very well pollute the channels
Villaber filed his certificate of candidacy for Congressman on of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
February 19, 2001, while Cagas filed his on February 28, 2001. eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest."
Thus, paraphrasing Black's definition, a drawer who issues an
On March 4, 2001, Cagas filed with the Office of the Provincial
unfunded check deliberately reneges on his private duties he
Election Supervisor, Commission On Elections (COMELEC), Davao
owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted
del Sur, a consolidated petition to disqualify Villaber and to
and customary rule of right and duty, justice, honesty or good
cancel the latter's certificate of candidacy.
morals.
Cagas alleged in the said consolidated petition that on March 2,
As to the meaning of "moral turpitude," we have consistently
1990, Villaber was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of
adopted the definition in Black's Law Dictionary as "an act of
Manila for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The check that
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a
bounced was in the sum of P100,000.00.
man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to
Cagas further alleged that this crime involves moral turpitude; the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man
hence, under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code, he is and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
disqualified to run for any public office. good morals." In In re Vinzon,14 the term "moral turpitude" is
considered as encompassing "everything which is done contrary
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated April23, to justice, honesty, or good morals."
1992 affirmed the RTC Decision.
Disposition
Undaunted, Villaber filed with this Court a petition for review on
certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals Decision. However, in its WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.
Resolution of October 26, 1992, this Court dismissed the
petition. On February 2, 1993, our Resolution became final and
executory.
The aforesaid Resolution was disseminated for implementation This case falls squarely within the fifth exception to the general
by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of San Isidro. Hence, on rule, i.e. the proclamation of Lorenzo as Mayor of San Isidro was
May 18, 2001, petitioner Lorenzo was proclaimed as the Mayor- null and void. As of May 18, 2001, the date on which Lorenzo
elect of San Isidro. was proclaimed Mayor-elect of San Isidro, the question as
regards Magno’s qualifications for said post was still pending,
Meanwhile, respondent Magno brought a petition for certiorari and was raised as an issue before this Court in certiorari
before this Court, assailing his disqualification by the COMELEC. proceedings in G.R. No. 147904. The question of Magno’s
qualifications for the office of Mayor was not resolved until
On October 4, 2002, this Court rendered a Decision reversing and
October 4, 2002, when we expressly ruled that Magno was
setting aside the two challenged Resolutions of the COMELEC
qualified for said post.
dated May 7 and 12, 2001, and declaring that Magno was under
no disqualification to run for mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in Disposition
the May 14, 2001 elections.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
On October 21, 2002, respondent Magno filed an Omnibus The Resolution dated May 13, 2003, and the Orders dated May
Motion with the COMELEC, seeking: (a) that his name be 22, 2003 and June 10, 2003 of the Commission on Elections,
reinstated in the certified list of candidates for municipal mayor which (a) ordered the creation of a new Board of Election
of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2001 local election; (b) Inspectors for all precincts in the municipality of San Isidro in
the nullification of the proclamation of Lorenzo as mayor of San Nueva Ecija; and (b) ordered the immediate constitution of a
Isidro, Nueva Ecija; (c) that a special board of canvassers be new Municipal Board of Canvassers in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija,
formed to continue the canvas of votes cast in favor of are hereby AFFIRMED.
respondent Magno; and (d) after completion of the canvas, that
Magno be proclaimed the winner.
Issue/s
Held
Issue/s
Held
Held
There are two modes by which a public officer who has a direct
or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business,
contract, or transaction may violate Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019.
The first mode is when the public officer intervenes or takes part
in his official capacity in connection with his financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction. The
second mode is when he is prohibited from having such an
interest by the Constitution or by law. In Teves v.
Sandiganbayan,12 petitioner was convicted under the second
mode for having pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit which
is prohibited under Sec. 89(2) of the Local Government Code of
1991. The offense proved, therefore, is the second mode of
violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law, which is
possession of a prohibited interest.
According to petitioner, he was "accorded grossly insufficient WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January
legal assistance by his former lawyer" who informed him that 9, 2014 and Resolution dated March 14, 2014 issued by the
"there was no necessity for a preliminary investigation and to Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24461 are hereby
present any evidence." His former counsel also "failed to cross AFFIRMED.
examine the main prosecution witness because said counsel was
inexplicably absent on the trial date" and even "failed to prepare
and file a memorandum" and "merely relied on the defense
presented by the lawyers of co-accused Valencia and Maramot
by adopting the defenses of the other accused and all their
pleadings and manifestations, even when these were clearly not
applicable to petitioner’s defense." Thus, petitioner avers that
his constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due
process and of law and to competent counsel were violated.
Issue/s
Held