In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILLION (IBP Administrative Case No.

MDD-1), petitioner, - IBP board of governors recommended the disbarment of atty edillion for 'stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues' IBP Argument 'Effect of non-payment of dues. ² Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys. 4 Atty edillion s argument provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution - Respondent Marcial A. Edillon was disbarred on August 3, 1978, 1 the vote being unanimous with the late. - there were various pleadings filed by respondent for reinstatement starting with a motion for reconsideration dated August 19, 1978. Characterized as it was by persistence in his adamantine refusal to admit the full competence of the Court on the matter, it was not unexpected that it would be denied. - until there are communications to the court that the tone of defiance is gone - circumstances of a mitigating character invoked ² the state of his health and his advanced age. He likewise spoke of the welfare of former clients who still rely on him for counsel, their confidence apparently undiminished. For he had in his career been a valiant, if at times unreasonable, defender of the causes entrusted to him. - nareinstate xa - full acceptance on his part na kc of the competence of this Tribunal in the exercise of its plenary power to regulate the legal profession and can integrate the bar and that the dues were duly paid. - failure to abide to the conditions entails the loss of such privilege

- time having elapsed and after actuations evidencing that there was due contrition on the part of the transgressor, he may once again be considered for the restoration of such a privilege

JOSEFINA CRUZ-AREVALO, complainant, vs. JUDGE LYDIA QUERUBIN-LAYOSA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City, respondent

-Me civil case No. Q-03-50379 entitled Josefina Cruz-Arevalo and Conrado R. Cruz v. Home Development Mutual Fund and Federico S. Quimbo.
- nagexecute ng authorization letter and SPA c condrado in favour josefina para rpresent xa c magpapagamot xa sa US Action ng judge - kahit me SPA dineclare pdn ni judge layosa na non suited c cruz due to his absence - also refused to issue an order to that effect thus depriving Cruz the right to challenge her order by way of petition for certiorari - exclude paragraphs in direct testimony of witness(ATTY CECILIO AREVALO) na d pinagcomment counsel ng complainant at d nagissue order about it -inaction Motions for Writs of Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum6 Argument ng judge authorization at SPA - not duly authorized and authenticated - SPA pertains to complainant's authority to receive Cruz's contribution to the PAG-IBIG Provident Fund and not to represent him in the pre-trial of the civil case. Exclusion - no written order is necessary because her rulings were made in open court during the course of trial and are already reflected in the transcript of the stenographic notes. Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum - the legal fees for said motions were unpaid and the person alleged to have possession or control of the documents sought to be produced is not named or specified therein

Ruling of the court - absent during the pre-trial because his authorization letter and SPA were not respectively authenticated and specific as to its purpose. - Respondent judge correctly ordered the striking out of portions in Atty. Arevalo's affidavit which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.18 Objections based on irrelevancy and immateriality need no specification or explanation. Relevancy or materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is determined simply by ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in the case. - (subpoenas)respondent judge was correct not to have entertained the same as the legal fees corresponding thereto were not paid. Respondent judge is not obliged to remind complainant or her counsel regarding said fees as the rules of procedure and practice already mandate that fees prescribed in filing of pleadings or other application which initiates an action or proceeding shall be paid in full. - Finally, complainant failed to present evidence to show the alleged bias of respondent judge; mere suspicion that a judge was partial is not enough.20 Bare allegations of partiality will not suffice in an absence of a clear showing that will overcome the presumption that the judge dispensed justice without fear or favor.

- DISMISSED for lack of merit.

MANUEL N. CAMACHO, complainant, vs. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL and HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, respondents. FACTS - some students were expelled in AMA computer, all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE for publishing objectionable features or articles in the paper - they hired atty manuel Camacho as lawyers - he filed complaint against Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, counsel for defendants(NAKIPAGCOMPROMISE AGREEMENT SA CLIENT NYA) procured and effected on separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromise agreements ("ReAdmission Agreements") with four of his clients in the aforementioned civil case which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims they might have had against

AMACC, the principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it.
Atty pangulayan argument The Re-Admission Agreements, he claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal of Civil Case Q-97-30549 and were executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case involving nine students of AMACC who were expelled therefrom upon the recommendation of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. FACTS - letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were separately executed by and/or in behalf of some of the expelled students - dinismiss ung case ng mga students Ruling ng IBP board of governors
Atty. Meinrado Pangulayan is suspended from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS for being remiss in his duty and DISMISSAL of the case against the other Respondents for they did not take part in the negotiation of the case.

Ruling of the court Canon 9 thereof, viz:
A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law.

It would appear that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were formalized, complainant was by then already the retained counsel for plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact. Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar. - six month suspension is too harsh

- 3 months suspension CERINA B. LIKONG, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ALEXANDER H. LIM, respondent. - nagloan c likong ng P 92, 100 kay geesnell yap, - nagexecute xa ng deed of assignment assigning to Yap pension checks which she regularly receives from the United States government as a widow of a US pensioner - SPA attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect and receive her pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran City - prepared and notarized by respondent Alexander H. Lim, Yap's counsel. - after 3 months nirevoke nya SPA kya yap filed a complaint for injunction with damages - Alexander H. Lim appeared as counsel for Yap while Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado appeared for complainant (as defendant). - nag file clan g motion na inaallow na c yap withdraw the pension checks, motion does not bear the signatures of complainant's counsel - nagenter cla compromise agreement without the participation of the likong¶s counsel (Cerina B. Likong admitted an obligation to Yap of P150,000.00. It was likewise stated therein that complainant and Yap agreed that the amount would be paid in monthly installments over a period of 54 months at an interest of 40% per annum discounted every six (6) months.) Reason for filing of complaint - prevented from seeking assistance, advise and signature of any of her two (2) lawyers; no copy thereof
was furnished to either of them -was even advised by respondent she would only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a new lawyer - Finally, respondent fraudulently or without authority assumed to represent complainant and connived in her defeat; . . .

Atty lim argument - inabandoned na xa ng lawyers nya kc d mkabayad ng fees

Ruling of the court - no showing na ngtry c atty lim inform counsel ni likong or inform trial court of the abandonment - respondent saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, - Undoubtedly, respondent's conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal profession.
9. Negotiations with opposite party. A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law. Rule 1.01 ² A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Rule 8.02 ² A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Rule 15.03 ² A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

- 1 year suspension


- On September 25, 2000, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private prosecutor, in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 for Grave Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness. - third year law student - his appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.2 that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant.

- MeTC denied it based from Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law Student Practice Rule) - Motion for Reconsideration alleging that Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, does not have the effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule 138, for the authority to interpret the rule is the source itself of the rule, which is the Supreme Court alone.
- MeTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration

- petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against the private respondent and the public respondent MeTC. - the RTC, deny the issuance of an injunctive writ on the ground that the crime of Grave Threats, being no claim for civil indemnity, and that therefore, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not legally tenable.

The basic question is whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant.
Ruling of the court

In Section 34 of Rule 138, the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed, while Rule 138-A. provides for conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts. - di dapat gamitin Rule 138-A in denying permission coz it is not the basis for the petitioner¶s appearance. - Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts. - with regard to RTC decision, Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable except in instances when no actual damage results from an offense, such as espionage, violation of neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against popular representation. such that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.10 - granted

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONCIO SANTOCILDES, JR. y SIGA-AN, accused-appellant

- Santocildes charged with the crime of rape in the town of Barangay San Luis, San Joaquin, Iloilo - rtc guilty Santocildes argument - on appeal kumuha xa bago counsel c atty igmedio prado at nalaman nila na dip ala lawyer ung una nyang counsel n c gualberto ompong at argues na dapat nagresult eto sa acquittal nya. Office of the solicitor general argument - kahit ganun nangyari he still afforded due process taz hinawakan naman ni Gualberto ompong ung case in a skillfu; manner.
Ruling of the court - kahit pa me 3 cousel ang accused from PAO still reremand padin ang case if it is proven na ang accused eh di effectively naaccordan ng right to counsel. - The presence and participation of counsel in criminal proceedings should never be taken lightly. 8 Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. - WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is SET ASIDE, and the case is hereby REMANDED to the trial court for new trial.

Bar Matter No. 139 October 11, 1984 RE: ELMO S. ABAD, 1978 Successful Bar Examinee, ATTY. PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN, JR., President of the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association. Inc., complainant, vs. ELMO S. ABAD, respondent.

- Court held respondent ELMO S. ABAD in contempt of court for unauthorized practice of law and he was fined P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case he failed to pay the fine. (121 SCRA 217.) He paid the fine. - atty beltran filed a motion to circularize to all Metro Manila courts the fact that respondent is not authorized to practice law - he reiterated his motion stating that mr abad is still practicing law

Evidence of alleged unauthorized practice of law - last December 8, 1983 at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Abad appeared before the Regional Trial Court, - Mrs. Eufrocina B. Ison the Court Reporter who took down and transcribed the stenographic notes of the proceedings in the afternoon of December 8, 1983 Abad s argument In connection with his defense, he filed ² (1) a motion to present the video tape to show his whereabouts at the time of the said hearing in the afternoon of December 8, 1983 in Branch 100, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City; and (2) a motion that his signature in the aforesaid motions filed in the said trial court in said criminal cases be compared with his genuine signature. Report ng NBI CONCLUSION: The questioned and the standard signatures ELMO S. ABAD were written by one and the same person.
Ruling of the court

It is thus respectfully recommended that respondent be: a. imposed a fine of P2,000.00 payable within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution or an imprisonment of twenty (20) days in case of nonpayment thereof, with warning of drastic disciplinary action of imprisonment in case of any further practice of law after receipt of this resolution; and

b. debarred from admission to the Philippine Bar until such time that the Court finds him fit to become such a member. It is further recommended that a circular be issued to all courts in the Philippines through the Office of the Court Administrator that respondent Elmo S. Abad has not been admitted to the Philippine Bar, and is therefore not authorized to practice law. Respectfully submitted: (SGD.) GLORIA C. PARAS Clerk of Court

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful