Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 - Misamin v. San Juan, 72 SCRA 491 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Garcia Del Rosario
    42 views1 page
    The respondent Miguel A. San Juan, a captain in the Metro Manila Police Force and member of the bar, was charged with coercing an employee named Jose Misamin to drop charges against Misamin's employer for violating minimum wage laws. San Juan denied the charges. The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General was unable to get to the bottom of things due to Misamin's lawyer failing to appear at hearings. As a result, there was not enough evidence to find San Juan guilty of malpractice. However, San Juan's practice of law while a police officer may violate civil service rules, which is a separate matter that should be investigated

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The respondent Miguel A. San Juan, a captain in the Metro Manila Police Force and member of the bar, was charged with coercing an employee named Jose Misamin to drop charges against Misamin's employer for violating minimum wage laws. San Juan denied the charges. The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General was unable to get to the bottom of things due to Misamin's lawyer failing to appear at hearings. As a result, there was not enough evidence to find San Juan guilty of malpractice. However, San Juan's practice of law while a police officer may violate civil service rules, which is a separate matter that should be investigated

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views1 page

    75 - Misamin v. San Juan, 72 SCRA 491 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Garcia Del Rosario
    The respondent Miguel A. San Juan, a captain in the Metro Manila Police Force and member of the bar, was charged with coercing an employee named Jose Misamin to drop charges against Misamin's employer for violating minimum wage laws. San Juan denied the charges. The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General was unable to get to the bottom of things due to Misamin's lawyer failing to appear at hearings. As a result, there was not enough evidence to find San Juan guilty of malpractice. However, San Juan's practice of law while a police officer may violate civil service rules, which is a separate matter that should be investigated

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Misamin v.

    San Juan, 72 SCRA 491


    Facts:
    It certainly fails to reflect credit on a captain in the Metro Manila Police Force
    and a member of the bar, respondent Miguel A. San Juan, to be charged with being
    the legal representative of certain establishments allegedly owned by Filipinos of
    Chinese descent and, what is worse, with coercing an employee, complainant Jose
    Misamin, to agree to drop the charges filed by him against his employer Tan Hua,
    owner of New Cesar's Bakery, for the violation of the Minimum Wage Law. There
    was a denial on the part of respondent. The matter was referred to the Office of the
    Solicitor-General for investigation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, it would
    seem there was a change of heart on the part of complainant. That could very well
    be the explanation for the non- appearance of the lawyer employed by him at the
    scheduled hearings. The efforts of the Solicitor General to get at the bottom of things
    were thus set at naught. Under the circumstances, the outcome of such referral was
    to be expected. For the law is rather exacting in its requirement that there be
    competent and adequate proof to make out a case for malpractice. Necessarily, the
    recommendation was one of the complaints being dismissed, This is one of those
    instances then where this Court is left with hardly any choice. Respondent cannot be
    found guilty of malpractice.
    Issue:
    1.Whether or not Misamin should be disbarred or suspended from practice of
    law.
    Ruling:
    The Report of the Solicitor-General did not take into account respondent's practice of
    his profession notwithstanding his being a police official, as "this is not embraced in
    Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides the grounds for
    the suspension or removal of an attorney. The respondent's appearance at the labor
    proceeding notwithstanding that he was an incumbent police officer of the City of
    Manila may appropriately be referred to the National Police Commission and the Civil
    Service Commission." As a matter of fact, separate complaints on this ground have
    been filed and are under investigation by the Office of the Mayor of Manila and the
    National Police Commission." As for the charges that respondent conspired with
    complainant's counsel to mislead complainant to admitting having' received his
    separation pay and for giving illegal protection to aliens, it is understandable why the
    Report of the Solicitor-General recommended that they be dismissed for lack of This
    resolution does not in any wise take into consideration whatever violations there
    might have been of the Civil Service Law in view of respondent practicing his
    profession while holding his position of Captain in the Metro Manila police force. That
    is a matter to be decided in the administrative proceeding as noted in the
    recommendation of the Solicitor-General. Nonetheless, while the charges have to be
    dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to
    avoid all appearances of impropriety

    75

    You might also like