LEGAL ETHICS DIGEST
IN RE: VICTORIO LANUEVO(former Bar confidant)RAMON GALANG
(1971 Bar Examinee) flunked in 1969, 1966-76, 1962-64 Bar exam
1. Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for disbarment.2.Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the respective examiners for re-evalution or re-checking.3.The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the notebook tohim by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do the same andthat the examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline of passing.4.Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevo’s move but the exam results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil,Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial).5.Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical Injurieson Eufrosino de Vera, a law student of MLQU.
:The court disbarred Lanuevo – has no authority to request the examiners to re-evaluate grades of examinees w/o prior authority from Supreme Court.He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission of examinees to the bar. He does not a have any business evaluating the answers of the examinees.Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rulesof Curt of 1964, candidates for admission to the bar must be of good moral character. Galang hasa pending criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury when he declared under oaththat he had no pending criminal case this resulted him to revoked his license.
PEOPLE V. VILLANUEVAFACTS:
On Sept. 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged SImplicioVillanueva with crime of Malicious Mischiedf, before the Justice of the Peace Court of saidMunicipality. Said accused was represented by counsel de oficio, but later on replaced by counselde parte. The complainant in the same case was representry by City Attorney Ariston Fule of SanPablo City, having entered his appearance as private-prosecutor, having secuting the permission of the the Secretary of Justice.Counsel for the accused presented a “Motion in inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting asPrivate prosecutor in this case, “this time invoking sec. 32, Rule 127, now sec. 35, Rule 138,Revised Rules, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.
: Whether of not Atty. Fule violate sec. 32 of Rule 127 now Sec. 35, Rule 138, revisedRules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.
The Court holds that the appearance of Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than isolatedappearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind.The word
of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the activeand continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. It has