Discipline under Order dated February 2, 2006 directed

ATTY. PEDRO B. AGUIRRE vs. ATTY. CRISPIN T. the parties to manifest if they were still interested in
REYES pursuing the cases to which they both expressed interest
to continue. Another round of proceedings were held
FACTS: On December 1, 1994, complainant, Atty. Aguirre after which the parties submitted their respective
alleged that respondent, Atty. Reyes violated Rule 3.01 of memoranda, dated July and August 2006. Since then
the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false nothing has come out of the case, no proceedings of any
claims in his memo addressed to the Board of Directors of kind were held and the parties alternated having this case
Banco Filipino such as: “Undersigned counsel was moved from one setting to another.
instrumental in winning the Supreme Court case,” ; and
that he made “special arrangements” to win the case. The The IBP-CBD recommended the dismissal of the
complainant said that these amounted to false, complaint because the complainant died on September 6,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self- 2013 and that the respondent is now a centenarian and
laudatory or unfair statements or claims regarding his long retired from the practice of law.
qualifications or legal services.
ISSUE: Should the complaint for disbarment against Atty.
The complainant also said that the respondent also Reyes still proceed despite the death of Atty.
violated Rule 8.01 in relation to Rule 19.01 when he Aguirre.
drafted a confidential/restricted memo dated March 28,
1994 addressed to all Banco Filipino directors and Was Atty. Reyes liable for violation of Rule 8.01 of the
executive officers, as well as an Amended Complaint in Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rodriguez et al v. Tala Realty Services Corp. et al, which
he wrote on behalf of the minority stockholders of Banco RULING: Yes. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is
Filipino and addressed it to all concerned individuals at neither purely civil or purely criminal, but is rather an
Tala Realty Corporation where he stated: investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers.
“Truly, we have here the biggest bank fraud involving Hence, an administrative proceeding for disbarment
over 1 Billion of Banco Filipino properties sold by continues despite the desistance of a complainant, or
simulation contracts to Tala, controlled by parties who failure of the complainant to prosecute the same. The
were then BF Directors and now want the properties for unilateral decision of a complainant to withdraw from an
themselves. Once litigated, the bank will be affected and administrative complaint, or even his death, does not
damaged, while the good name, reputation, honesty and prevent the Court from imposing sanctions upon the
integrity of the 3 principal parties behind this parties subject to its administrative supervision. Thus, the
sophisticated “plunder” will be destroyed. Hence, the Court ruled for the administrative case to continue.
litigation should be avoided. This delicate case has to be
resolved now confidentially and amicably to avoid Yes. Although a lawyer’s language may be forceful and
disastrous scandal for all parties concerned. emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful,
The 3 principals behind/controlling Tala Realty should befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
now be guided by their conscience. They are already very intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no
very rich. Their immense fortune can neither be taken place in the dignity of the judicial forum. The Court found
beyond the grave while their children’s children will still the statements uncalled for and malicious, if not,
continue to live in abundance and luxury for all time.” defamatory. They constitute a personal attack against the
These statements were, also alleged by the complainant, persons being referred to as much as they were no longer
abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. It transcended relevant to the cases involving Banco Filipino and Tala
the permissible bounds of legitimate criticism. Realty Corporation at that time.

In respondent’s defense, the language he used in his As for his penalty (violation of Rule 8.01) , it was ordained
memo and amended complaint was not abusive or in Saberon: that upon the complainant's plea that
offensive. The words were apt, vivid, picturesque, respondent be disbarred, this Court has consistently
proper, and elegant. After due proceedings, the considered disbarment and suspension of an attorney as
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar the most severe forms of disciplinary action, which

1
should be imposed with great caution. They should be committed the acts complained of. He, himself, admitted
meted out only for duly proven serious administrative in his answer that his legal services were hired by the
charges.Thus, while respondent is guilty of using complainants through Magat regarding the purported
infelicitous language, such transgression is not of a titling of land supposedly purchase. He used his position
grievous character as to merit the respondent’s as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants into
disbarment. In light of the respondent’s apologies, the believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject
Court finds it best to temper the penalty for his infraction, properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from
which, under the circumstances, is considered simple, the money given by the complainants in the amount of
rather than grave, misconduct. Thus, applying Saberon, PhP 495,000.00.
Atty. Reyes is guilty of simple misconduct for which he
was fined Php 2, 000.00. The Supreme Court find the respondent in violation of
the Rule 2.03, Canon 2 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the CPR.
The respondent was suspended from practice of law for
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. one year and return the amount of PhP 200,000.00 to
Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco with 10 days upon
A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012 receipt of decision. The respondent is required to submit
Facts: to the Supreme Court proof of compliance.
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs. THE LEGAL
malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, CLINIC, INC., respondent.
and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 223 SCRA 378
April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the
connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally REGALADO, J
committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against
the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful Facts:
words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The
land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, Legal Clinic because of its advertisements which invite
who are the acquaintance of the complainants. potential clients to inquire about secret marriage and
divorce in Guam and annulment, absence, Visa, etc. It is
It started when the respondent convinced the also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article
complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in The Philippine Star
495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of because it is composed of specialists that can take care of
the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation a client’s situation no matter how complicated it is,
by presenting himself as the lawyer of William especially on marriage problems like the Sharon and
Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the land. He also led Gabby situation. Atty. Ulep claims that such
complaints to believe that he has contracts at NAMRIA, advertisements are unethical and destructive of the
DENR, CENRO and the Register of Deeds which confidence of the community in the integrity of lawyers.
representation he well knew were false, fraudulent and In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of
were only made to induce the complainants to give and publication of said advertisements at its instance, but
deliver the said amount. Upon receipt of the money, he claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in
did not comply with his obligation to expedite the titling the rendering of "legal support services" through
of the land but instead use the money for personal use. paralegals. As for its advertisement, respondent said it
The complainants demanded the return of the money to should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US
no avail. which now allows it. And that besides, the advertisement
is merely making known to the public the services that
Issue: The Legal Clinic offers.
Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)? Issue:
1.Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the
Held: practice of law;
The Supreme Court held that the respondent 2. Whether or not such is allowed;
2
3. Whether or not its advertisement may be allowed. decision had been rendered on the aforementioned
special proceedings case and that there was no hearing.
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services Thus, Afurong filed a verified letter-complaint for
offered by the respondent constitute practice of law, disbarment against Aquino, for filing frivolous
however such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic harassment cases to delay the execution of a final
offers services for various legal problems wherein a client decision, committing falsehood in an Urgent Motion for
may avail of legal services from installation of computer Postponement, and misrepresenting himself as an
systems and programs to the giving out of legal attorney for the Citizens Legal Assistance Office.
information to laymen and lawyers. The Legal Clinic is
composed mainly of paralegals and such services Atty. Aquino denied the charges against him and
aforementioned are undoubtedly beyond the domain of contended that such acts had been done without malice.In
the paralegals. As stated in a previous jurisprudence, a Reply, complainant asserted that Atty. Aquino was
practice of law is only reserved for the members of the declared guilty of contempt of court and correspondingly
Philippine bar, and not to paralegals. As with the Legal fined by this Court for making false allegations in his
Clinic’s advertisements, the Code of Professional Urgent Motion for Postponement. The IBP Commission
Responsibility provides that “a lawyer in making known on Bar Discipline submitted a Report finding that Aquino
his legal services must use only honest, fair, dignified and failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as
objective information or statement of facts. A lawyer provided under the existing Canons of Professional
cannot advertise his talents in a manner that a merchant Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the
advertises his goods. The Legal Clinic promotes divorce, time of the commission of the acts in question. They
secret marriages, bigamous marriages which are recommended that he be penalized with 6 months
undoubtedly contrary to law. The only allowed form of suspension. Board of Gov. of the IBP resolved to adopt
advertisements by the Supreme Court would be: 1. Citing and approve the report and recommendation of the
your involvement in a reputable law list, 2. An ordinary Investigating Commissioner
professional card 3. Phone directory listing without
designation to a lawyer’s specialization. ISSUE:
WON Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an
AFURONG vs. AQUINO [1999] attorney as provided under the existing Canons of
Administrative Matter in the SC. Malpractice Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in
force at the time of the commission of the acts in question
FACTS: Paraluman B. Afurong filed a complaint for
ejectment against Victorino Flores for nonpayment of RULING:
rentals and the court rendered judgment in favor of The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty
petitioner Paraluman Afurong and the court issued a writ of an attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or
of execution. Facing eviction, Flores sought help from proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such
Citizens Legal Assistance Office and they assigned Atty. defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable
Angel G Aquino to his case. He filed two petitions. When under the law.
the court set a pre-trial, he filed an Urgent Motion for Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a
Postponement and signed his name as counsel for Flores petition for certiorari considering that there was no
and indicated the address of Citizens Legal Assistance apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution of a
Office as his office address notwithstanding the fact that valid judgment.
he was separated from Citizens Legal Assistance Office at Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his
that time. In the aforesaid motion, he stated that he could Urgent Motion for Postponement that he had to attend
not attend the pre-trial conference because he had to the hearing of a special proceedings case the same day as
attend the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case before the the pre-trial of the Civil Case. Such act violates the Canons
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that same day and of Professional Ethics which obliges an attorney to avoid
hour. the concealment of the truth from the court. A lawyer is
mandated not to mislead the court in any manner.
But the Clerk of Court of the JDR Court certified that a Lower court correctly declared respondent in contempt

3
of court for conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice, Private respondent filed complaint for damages against
in violation of Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Revised Rules the petitioner. A summon was issued by the court for both
of Court. parties but petitioner PORAC TRUCKING INC. failed to
Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe received the said summons, hence it was rendered
that he was still employed with the Citizens Legal default. However, a certain Atty. Macalino appeared in
Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from court and filed a Motion for Leave to file Answer Beyond
said office. the Reglementary period.
The Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Angel G. Subsequently another lawyer filed a Petition for Relief
Aquino guilty of malpractice and SUSPENDS him from from Judgment on the ground of irregularity in serving
the practice of law for six (6) months commencing upon the summons resulting to violation of due process on the
receipt of notice hereof. part of the petitioner which turns out the official counsel
of the petitioner. Atty. Macalino on the other hand, is the
--NANGATIK NA APIL XA SA Citizens Legal Assistance in house counsel of Rico General Insurance Company, the
Office BISAG DILI GANI. insurer of PORAC TRUCKING INC.
UG NAGFILE UG MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT
KAY NAA DAW XA ATENDAN NA KASO PERO Issue:
WALA DIAE.. (1) Whether the Petition for Relief from Judgment on
SUSPEND 6 MONTHS the ground of violation of due process has merit
(2) Whether the unsolicited appearance of Atty.
PORAC TRUCKING v. CA Macalino is acceptable under the CPR. Held:
(1) Yes. Petition is granted to avoid any possibility of
Recit-Ready Pointers: infringement of due process.
(2) No. The unsolicited appearance of Atty. Rodolfo
• Subject matter of the case: A complaint for Macalino, in the absence of a client-lawyer relationship
damages filed by private respondent with the petitioner corporation, is unbecoming of a
• Against who: Atty. Macalino member of the bar, to say the least
• What was the violation done: Unsolicited
appearance of a lawyer without client-lawyer
relationship Dacanay v. Baker & Mckengie, A.M. No. 2131, May 10,
• Canon / Law involved: Not mentioned in the 1985.
case. (but it can be Rule 18.01)
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot
practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of
Doctrine: Court). As admitted by the respondents in their
Appearances made by lawyers in court must be bound by memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional
client-lawyer relationship. Making appearances in court partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with
and representing someone without the latter’s consent is members and associates in 30 cities around the world.
unbecoming of a lawyer. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine
bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres,
are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.
Facts:
The case at bar arose from a complaint for damages filed As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use
by the private respondent Emerenciana Guevarra in of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a
the Regional Trial Court, Branch LV at San Fernando, representation that being associated with the firm they
Pampanga 3 against PORAC TRUCKING and Albert could "render legal services of the highest quality to
Mercado, in a joint and several capacity, arising from a multinational business enterprises and others engaged in
collision incident involving the truck owned by the foreign trade and investment.”. This is unethical because
petitioner while driven by a certain Albert Mercado, and Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here.
the mini Isuzu cargo truck of Guevarra.

4
FACTS: Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, in his 1980 verified assuming the liability of a partner. The heirs of a deceased
complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine partner in a law firm cannot be held liable as the old
other lawyers from practising law under the name of members to the creditors of a firm particularly where they
Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. are non-lawyers. Thus, Canon 34 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics "prohibits all agreement for the
In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente payment to the widow and heirs of a deceased lawyer of
A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, a percentage, either gross or net, of the fees received from
which contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie the future business of the deceased lawyer's clients, both
Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products because the recipients of such division are not lawyers
International, Inc. to and because such payments will not represent service or
H. E. Gabriel, a client. responsibility on the part of the recipient." Accordingly,
neither the widow nor the heirs can be held liable for
Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, transactions entered into after the death of their lawyer-
denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested predecessor. There being no benefits accruing, there can
that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is be no corresponding liability.
Baker & McKenzie "and if not, what is your purpose in
using the letterhead of another law office." Not having Prescinding the law, there could be practical objections to
received any reply, he filed the instant complaint. allowing the use by law firms of the names of deceased
partners. The public relations value of the use of an old
firm name can tend to create undue advantages and
ISSUE: Whether or not the the respondents are enjoined disadvantages in the practice of the profession. An able
from practicing law under the firm name Baker & lawyer without connections will have to make a name for
McKenzie. (YES) himself starting from scratch. Another able lawyer, who
can join an old firm, can initially ride on that old firm's
RULING: Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, reputation established by deceased partners
cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138,
Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their FACTS: Two separate Petitions were filed before this
memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander
partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with Sycip, who died on May 5, 1975, and 2) by the surviving
members and associates in 30 cities around the world. partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, who died on February
Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine 14, 1976, praying that they be allowed to continue using,
bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, in the names of their firms, the names of partners who had
are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie. passed away.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use Petitioners argued that under the law, a partnership is not
of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a prohibited from continuing its business under a firm
representation that being associated with the firm they name which includes the name of a deceased partner; in
could "render legal services of the highest quality to fact, Article 1840 of the Civil Code explicitly sanctions the
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in practice. Second, The Canons of Professional Ethics are
foreign trade and investment.”. This is unethical because not transgressed by the continued use of the name of a
Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here. deceased partner in the firm name of a law partnership
Wherefore, the respondents are enjoined from practising because Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie. adopted by the American Bar Association declares that: ".
. . The continued use of the name of a deceased or former
Petition for authority to Continue Use of Firm Name partner when
“Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez and Castillo,
G.R. No. x92-1, July 30, 1979.
permissible by local custom, is not unethical, but care
Article 1825 of the Civil Code prohibits a third person should be taken that no imposition or deception is
from including his name in the firm name under pain of practiced through this use. . . ." Third, there is no

5
possibility of imposition or deception because the deaths neither the widow nor the heirs can be held liable for
of their respective deceased partners were well- transactions entered into after the death of their lawyer-
publicized in all newspapers of general circulation for predecessor. There being no benefits accruing, there can
several days. Fourth, no local custom prohibits the be no corresponding liability.
continued use of a deceased partner’s name in a
professional firm’s name; there is no custom or usage in Prescinding the law, there could be practical objections to
the Philippines, or at least in the Greater Manila Area, allowing the use by law firms of the names of deceased
which recognizes that the name of a law firm necessarily partners. The public relations value of the use of an old
identifies the individual members of the firm. Lastly, the firm name can tend to create undue advantages and
continued use of a deceased partner's name in the firm disadvantages in the practice of the profession. An able
name of law partnerships has been consistently allowed lawyer without connections will have to make a name for
by U.S. Courts and is an accepted practice in the legal himself starting from scratch. Another able lawyer, who
profession of most countries in the world. can join an old firm, can initially ride on that old firm's
reputation established by deceased partners
ISSUE: Whether or not the surviving partners may be
allowed to retain the name of the partners who already It is true that Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the
passed away in the name of the firm. (NO) continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner
in the firm name of a law partnership when such a
RULING: Inasmuch as "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, practice is permissible by local custom but the Canon
Hernandez and Castillo" and "Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, warns that care should be taken that no imposition or
Mabanta and Reyes" are partnerships, the use in their deception is practiced through this use. The possibility of
partnership names of the names of deceased partners will deception upon the public, real or consequential, where
run counter to Article 1815 of the Civil Code which the name of a deceased partner continues to be used
provides: cannot be ruled out. A person in search of legal counsel
might be guided by the familiar ring of a distinguished
"Art. 1815. Every partnership shall operate under a firm name appearing in a firm title. The public relations value
name, which may or may not include the name of one or of the use of an old firm name can tend to create undue
more of the partners. advantages and disadvantages in the practice of the
profession. An able lawyer without connections will have
"Those who, not being members of the partnership to make a name for himself starting from scratch. Another
include their names in the firm name, shall be subject to able lawyer, who can join an old firm, can initially ride on
the liability of a partner." that old firm’s reputation established by deceased
partners.
It is clearly tacit in the above provision that names in a MA. ELENA NEBREJA vs ATTY REONAL
firm name of a partnership must either be those of living FACTS:
partners and, in the case of non-partners, should be living  complainant filed a Complaint before the CBP of
persons who can be subjected to liability. In fact, Article the IBP against respondent. Complainant alleged
1825 of the Civil Code prohibits a third person from that sometime in March 2004, she engaged
including his name in the firm name under pain of respondent's services to file her petition for
assuming the liability of a partner. The heirs of a deceased annulment. She paid in cash and in checks,2 the
partner in a law firm cannot be held liable as the old various fees he asked from her on several
members to the creditors of a firm particularly where they occasions which totalled P55,000.00.
are non-lawyers. Thus, Canon 34 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics "prohibits all agreement for the  After paying respondent, however, complainant
payment to the widow and heirs of a deceased lawyer of did not receive any word from him with regard
a percentage, either gross or net, of the fees received from to the status of her petition for annulment other
the future business of the deceased lawyer's clients, both than his claim that they needed to wait for her
because the recipients of such division are not lawyers appointment with the psychologist evaluation.
and because such payments will not represent service or
responsibility on the part of the recipient." Accordingly,  On April 4, 2005, respondent told complainant
that her petition for annulment was dismissed for
6
 lack of evidence. He then again asked for sums of
money, on separate occasions, totalling
P25,900.00, to pay for the psychological test, the
sheriff’s fee, the re-filing fee, and the publication.

 Complainant again, despite respondent’s receipt

of sums of money, failed to receive any update
from respondent. When complainant asked for
the schedule of her psychological test,
respondent merely told her that the psychologist
was unavailable. When she tried to ask for the
number of her case and to obtain copies of the
records, respondent just told her that the records
were kept in a cabinet, the key to which was in
the possession of his law partner who was out of
town at that time.

 On March 14, 2006, complainant met with

respondent to secure copies of her annulment
case file. Respondent, merely handed to her
photocopies of her marriage contract and her
children’s birth certificates. When she asked for
copies of her case files, he just told her that his
law office could not let her use the pleadings of
the case. She then asked for his office address to
appeal to his law partners, but respondent
refused to give it.

 Complainant also found out that resp used

fictitious address.

 complainant suspect that he did not file any

petition for annulment at all.

In his answer , respondent denied having been engaged

to handle her petition for annulment and having been
paid therefor.
ISSUE: WON Resp lawyer violated Canon 18 of the CPR
for negligence in his duties?
HELD: Yes.
In this case, respondent clearly received his acceptance
fee, among others, and then completely neglected his
client’s cause. Moreover, he failed to inform
complainant of the true status of the petition. His act of
receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in
handling the complainant's case and, subsequently,
failing to render the services, was a clear violation of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.