3! !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ! ! LEGPROF Readings ARTICLE VIII JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT OF 1987 CONSTI. Section 5.

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. In the matter of IBP(Jan. 9 1973) http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1973/jan1973/ibp_1973.html The power to integrate the Philippine bar is given to the SC by the Constitution. RA 6397 is a mere legislative declaration that the integration of the bar will promote public interest. The unification of the bar is Constitutional. It does not impinge upon freedom of association because it does not make the lawyer part of any group of which he is not already a member and simply provides an official organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member. The IBPs fees are inherent in the power to regulate the Bar. They are a proper exercise of police power. Freedom of speech is not impaired because the exaction of fees is a valid exercise of the SCs regulatory powers. Integration of the bar was found to be called for at the time (1973) because of the beneficial experience foreign jurisdictions upon such integration and because of the overwhelming national demand of Filipino lawyers made evident in by official statistics.

4! !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ! ! Javellana v. DILG (Aug. 10 1992) http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/aug1992/gr_102549_1992.html Facts: This petition for review on certiorari involves the right of a public official to engage in the practice of his profession while employed in the Government. Attorney Erwin B. Javellana was an elected City Councilor of Bago City, Negros Occidental. City Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia filed Administrative Case No. C-10-90 against Javellana for: (1) violation of Department of Local Government (DLG) Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 dated June 10, 1980 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 and of Section 7, paragraph b, No. 2 of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees," and (2) for oppression, misconduct and abuse of authority. Divinagracia's complaint alleged that Javellana, an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago City, and a lawyer by profession, has continuously engaged in the practice of law without securing authority for that purpose from the Regional Director, Department of Local Government, as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 of the same department. On the other hand, Javellana filed a Motion to Dismiss the administrative case against him on the ground mainly that DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 are unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has the sole and exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law. Held: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in those instances where the law allows it. Section 90 of the Local Government Code does not discriminate against lawyers and doctors. It applies to all provincial and municipal officials in the professions or engaged in any occupation. Section 90 explicitly provides that sanggunian members "may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools expect during session hours." If there are some prohibitions that apply particularly to lawyers, it is because of all the professions, the practice of law is more likely than others to relate to, or affect, the area of public service.

5! !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ! ! Garrido v. Garrido (Feb. 4 2010) http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/6593.htm Facts: The petitioner, the respondent's legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her daughter that her husband was having an affair with a woman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same information was confirmed when one of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow. After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded results telling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong. Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed financial support. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when they committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Garrido's and Valencia's actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly committed when they were not lawyers. Held: Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show the lawyer's lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or moral. In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was already required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were shouldered with the expectation that they would set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution

6! !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ! ! and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit the legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of Garrido's abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their disbarment is affirmed. In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978 Facts: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues to the IBP since the latters constitution notwithstanding due notice. Edilion contends that the provision providing for the IBP dues 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. Hence, the respondent concludes, the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect. Issue: WON the payment of IBP dues suffers constitutional infirmity? NO Held: All legislation directing the integration of the Bar have been uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of the police power over an important profession. The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State the administration of justice as an officer of the court. When the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal profession, his practice of law and his exercise of the said profession, which affect the society at large, were (and are) subject to the power of the body politic to require him to conform to such regulations as might be established by the proper authorities

7! !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ! ! for the common good, even to the extent of interfering with some of his liberties. If he did not wish to submit himself to such reasonable interference and regulation, he should not have clothed the public with an interest in his concerns. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. 6 Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the States legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers. Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. Why? The right to practise law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary. RULE 138 Attorneys and Admission to Bar Section 1. Who may practice law. Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. Section 6. Pre-Law. No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics. Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. An applicant who has passed the required examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.

8! !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ! ! Section 18. Certificate. The supreme Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such record be given to him by the clerk of court, which certificate shall be his authority to practice. Section 19. Attorney's roll. The clerk of the Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all attorneys admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when he receives his certificate. Section 20. Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney: (a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines. (b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers; (c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; (e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval; (f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged; (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest; (h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed; (i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

9! !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ! ! ANDRES v. CABRERA Facts: Stanley R. Cabrera (Cabrera) was a successful bar examinee in 1977. Atty. Emilia Andres was a legal officer in the Ministry of Labor. She dismissed a case filed by Cabreras mother against a certain Atty. Perez. Because of the dismissal, Cabrera filed with the city fiscal of Manila criminal charges against Andres (graft and corruption, falsification of public documents) Andres then filed a case of disqualification against Cabrera. Cabrera apparently used in his affidavit vile, in civil and uncouth language (e.g. moronic, unparalleled stupidity, idiotic) Cabreras oath taking was therefore postponed. The SC required him to file an answer to why he should not be disqualified. In Cabreras reply he still used unfit language (e.g. calling Atty. Andres a moron). In subsequent motions by Cabrera, he used the words a victim of the courts inhuman and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction. 1979: The court thereafter deferred his oath taking until he has shown that he has changed his ways. Cabrera then filed a motion for contempt of court. And guess what, he still used unfit language (e.g. supreme stupidity, degradation of the administration of justice) Napikon yata yung SC, they required Cabrera to file a reply to why he should not be held in contempt. Cabrera filed an apology but guess what, the language he used were still unfit and even insincere. Issue: W/N Cabrera should be held in contempt Held: Yes! Fine of P500 and imprisonment for 50 days. The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only upon lawyers but also upon those who will choose to enter the profession. Their failure to discharge such duty may prevent them from being inducted into the office of attorney.

:! !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ! ! Code of Professional Responsibility (Promulgated June 21, 1988)

CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause. Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS. Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action. Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.

;! !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ! ! Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Rule 8.02 - 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.

CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT
HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its preferences. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies. Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause. Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgement or misuse Court processes. Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination. Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another. Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him. Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except: a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like, or b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! <! ! CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY. Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person. Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid. Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client unless: a) he is in no position to carry out the work effectively or competently; b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present client and the prospective client; Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 3! ! Tapucar vs. Tapucar A.M. No. 4148 July 30, 1998 FACTS: Complainant Remedios Tapucar and respondent Atty. Lauro Tapucar were married with 11 children. When respondent became a CFI judge, he cohabited with Elena Pea of whom he had 2 children. A certain Atty. Tranquilino Calo filed an administrative complaint against respondent for immorality. After investigation, the penalty of suspension from office for a period of six months without pay was meted by this Court upon respondent. Despite this penalty, respondent still continued to cohabit with Elena, giving rise to another charge of immorality and other administrative cases, such as: conduct unbecoming an officer of the court, and grossly immoral conduct. These cases were consolidated and after investigation, this Court ordered his dismissal and separation from the service. But his dismissal as a judge did not impel respondent to mend his ways, and even continued living with Elena. Moreover, he completely abandoned complainant and his children. Respondent later contracted marriage with Elena while the respondent's marriage to complainant subsists. Upon knowing of that her children allegedly misery because of their father's acts, including deception and intrigues against them. Complainant filed the present petition for disbarment under the compulsion of the maternal impulse to shield and protect her children from the despotic and cruel acts of their own father. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents actuations merit the penalty of disbarment? HELD: Respondent Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys. RATIO: The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that: Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Members of the Bar, must live up to the standards and norms expected of the legal profession, by upholding the ideals and tenets embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility always. Lawyers must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, as well as morality including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For they are at all times subject to the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and community approbation. Needless to state, those whose conduct both public and private fails this

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 4! ! scrutiny would have to be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings, penalized accordingly. In the case at bar, keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyer's oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent's character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action. Moreover, it should be recalled that respondent here was once a member of the judiciary, a fact that aggravates his professional infractions. For having occupied that place of honor in the Bench, he knew a judge's actuations ought to be free from any appearance of impropriety. For a judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice. Ordinary citizens consider him as a source of strength that fortifies their will to obey the law. Indeed, a judge should avoid the slightest infraction of the law in all of his actuations, lest it be a demoralizing example to others. Surely, respondent could not have forgotten the Code of Judicial Conduct entirely as to lose its moral imperatives. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent's character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 5! ! Cruz v Atty. Cabrera AC No. 5737 October 25, 2004 Facts: The complainant files an administrative charge against the respondent for misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant, a fourth year law student, appears in court in his own behalf as he instituted a case against his neighbor who is represented by the respondent as counsel. During a hearing, the respondent uttered remarks that the complainant finds arrogant and misconduct in the performance of his duties as a lawyer. The complaint was referred to the IBP commissioner who recommended suspension of respondent in the practice of law for 3 months which was annulled by a resolution of the IBP Board recommending dismissal of the case for lack of merit. ISSUE: WON the manner of respondent may constitute misconduct. RULING: The court ruled that although the outburst of the respondent is uncalled for, it is not to such a magnitude as to warrant his suspension in the practice of his profession. The court thereby dismissed the case due to lack of merit.

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 6! ! Catu vs. Rellosa [A.C. No. 5738. February 19, 2008]

FACTS:
Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon located in Manila. His mother and brother contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay. Respondent, as punong barangay, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in the (subsequent ejectment) case. Complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong

barangay. ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
YES. Respondent suspended for six (6) months.

RATIO:
[R]espondent was found guilty of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at the disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of law only with the written permission of the head of the department concerned in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. Respondent was strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 7! ! [A.C. No. 4349. December 22, 1997] LOURDES R. BUSIOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT, respondent. Complainant charged respondent with having committed the crime of estafa by misappropriating the sum of P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00 was entrusted to respondent for deposit in the bank account of complainants husband, while P2,000.00 represented the amount respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a bond in a Civil Case when no such bond was required. Respondent did not appear in the administrative proceedings to clear his name. Respondent was able to pay the amount, complainant withdrew the estafa case but proceeded with the administrative case. Held: DISBARRED. There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients without their consent. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their consent , and by deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used as a bond which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession. When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 8! ! Brion, Jr. vs. Brillantes, Jr. [A.C. No. 5305] March 17, 2003 Facts: Petitioner Marciano P. Brion, Jr., in this petition for disbarment, avers that respondent violated the courts decree of perpetual disqualification imposed upon respondent Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. (in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, entitled Lupo Almodiel Atienza v. Judge

Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr.) from assuming any post in government service, including any posts in government-owned and controlled corporations, when he accepted a legal consultancy
post at the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), from 1998 to 2000. Said consultancy included an appointment by LWUA as 6th member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta (Pangasinan) Water District. Upon expiration of the legal consultancy agreement, this was subsequently renewed as a Special Consultancy Agreement. Respondent admits the existence of the Legal Consultancy Contract as well as the Special Consultancy Contract. However, he raises the affirmative defense that under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1993, services rendered pursuant to a consultancy contract shall not be considered government services, and therefore, are not covered by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. ! Issue: Whether or not respondent has transgressed the letter and spirit of the courts decree in the Atienza case. Held: By performing duties and functions, which clearly pertain to a contractual employee, albeit in the guise of an advisor or consultant, respondent has transgressed both letter and spirit of the Courts decree in Atienza. The Court finds that for all intents and purposes, respondent performed duties and functions of a non-advisory nature, which pertain to a contractual employee of LWUA. As stated by petitioner in his reply, there is a difference between a consultant hired on a contractual basis (which is governed by CSC M.C. No. 27, s. 1993) and a contractual employee (whose appointment is governed, among others, by the CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointment and other Personnel Actions). The lawyers primary duty as enunciated in the Attorneys Oath is to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible minimum entails obedience to the legal orders of the courts. Respondents disobedience to this Courts order prohibiting his reappointment to any branch, instrumentality, or agency of government, including government owned and controlled corporations, cannot be camouflaged by a legal consultancy or a special consultancy contract. Hence, Atty. Brillantes was suspended and ordered to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00).

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 9! !

LAWYER'S OATH
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

Macarubbo v Macarubbo (Jan. 23, 2013, RESOLUTION) FACTS: This is a petition for extraordinary mercy filed by respondent Edmundo Macarubbo who seeks to be reinstated as an Attorney for the Decision in 2004 wherein the court disbarred respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage, which constituted gross immoral conduct
in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ISSUE: W/N: respondent be granted judicial clemency and reinstatement? HELD: The SC ruled that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law as he has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession; and, he has already settled his previous marital squabbles. The Court finds that he has sufficiently atoned for his transgressions. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove his errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their ways.

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! :! ! Raymundo T. Magdaluyo vs. Atty. Enrique L. Nace Adm. Case No. 3808 (February 2, 2000) Facts:

Complainant accused respondent of acts amounting to deceit and gross misconduct. Respondent was one of the squatters living in one of the complainant's parcels of land situated in Antipolo, Rizal. Allegedly, when complainant offered to relocate the squatters, the latter refused and instead filed a complaint before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) claiming to be tenants therein.

Three months later, the squatters again including respondent also filed a case before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo for the annulment or cancellation of complainant's land titles. This time, claiming to be owners and not mere tenants of the land. They traced their alleged ownership to an old Spanish title.

Because of the conflicting causes of action, both cases were dismissed. Complainant filed a case against respondent accusing him of having deliberately committed a falsehood and of forumshopping praying that proper disciplinary sanctions be imposed against the latter.

Held:

After referral of the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the findings of the former are as follows:

". . . while it may be true that different causes of action are indeed involved, it is their total inconsistency, nay, total opposition with each other which raises doubts about the respondent's sincerity. It escapes this Commission [on Bar Discipline] how Respondent can, in good faith, allege to be a lawful tenant one moment, and be an owner the next. Respondent herein, as a lawyer, was remiss in his duty to correctly inform the court of the law and the facts of this case. He failed to allege in his complaint the fact that a prior dispute had been existing between the parties before the PARAB, thus deceiving the court and giving it an inaccurate appreciation of facts. Lastly, respondent was delinquent in his duty as a lawyer to maintain only such suits as appears to him to be just and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable. It has long been settled that Spanish titles cannot be used as evidence of land ownership. Yet respondent dares raise the same in his complaint to defeat Complainant's duly registered certificate of title. Any lawyer should know that a Spanish title would have no legal leg to stand on in the face of Transfer Certificate of Title over the same parcel of land."

The Court concurs with the IBP's findings and recommendations being fully supported by evidence on record. Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition in the Code of Professional Responsibility against engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. He was indeed, less than sincere

3 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! ;! ! in asserting two conflicting rights over a portion of land that, in all probability, he knew not to be his.

As a lawyer, respondent is bound by his oath not to do falsehood or consent to its commission and to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion. The lawyers oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action. Said acts are clearly in violation of his lawyer's oath that the court will not tolerate.

Cayetano v. M onsod FACTS M onsod was nom inated by President Aquino to the position of Chairm an of th e COM ELEC on April 25, 1991. Cayetano opposed the nom ination because allegedly M onsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsods nomination, petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having practiced law for the last ten years. ISSU E: Whether or not M onsod satisfies the requirem ent of the position of Chairm an of the COM ELEC . H ELD: The practice of law is not lim ited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged perform s any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. Atty. M onsods past work experiences as a lawyer-econom ist, a lawyer-m anager, a lawyerentrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily m ore than satisfy the constitutional requirem ent that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

4 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! <! !
M auricio C. U lep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc. B.M . No. 553. June 17, 1993 Facts: Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law. The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows: It is the subm ission of petitioner that the advertisem ents above reproduced are cham pertous, unethical, dem eaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the com m unity in the integrity of the m em bers of the bar and that, as a m em ber of the legal profession, he is asham ed and offended by the said advertisem ents, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted. In its answer to the petition, respondent adm its the fact of publication of said advertisem ents at its instance, but claim s that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of m odern com puters and electronic m achines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977. Issue: W hether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the sam e can properly be the subject of the advertisem ents herein com plained of. H eld: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by the respondent constitute practice of law. The definition of practice of law is laid down in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, as defined: Black defines "practice of law" as: "The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law."

4 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 3! !
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering. While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and technical know-how, such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule. What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all that respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and for which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely to court appearances but extends to legal research, giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth.

That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now assailed in this proceeding. The standards of the legal profession condem n the lawyer's advertisem ent of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a m anner sim ilar to a m erchant advertising his goods. The proscription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundam ental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. The canons of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-m erited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which m ust be earned as the outcom e of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the com m unity has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a norm al by -product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stim ulus to generate it and to m agnify his success. H e easily sees the difference between a norm al byproduct of able service and the unwholesom e result of propaganda.

4 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 4! !

Passion For Justice By: Justice Pom peyo Diaz We are not here to celebrate the successful ending of your course in the law. We are here to send you on your way because from here, you will commence your profession in the law. We hold these commencement exercises, therefore, to say good-bye to you and to wish you well on your journey. The closer a man approaches the sunset of his years, the more often his mind returns to the remembrance of things past. For to every man, if he lives long enough, there comes a point in life when he realizes, not without sadness, that there may no longer be time to climb new mountains. And that is when dreams begin to yield to memories as if reliving the past can somehow fill the void left by the flight of dreams. It is more than fifty years since I sat where you sit now, an acolyte at the altar of the law. But the lengthening shadows of life only make the recollection of it as fresh and clear as if it were only yesterday. I was given the privilege of addressing you one last time. I will do so, no longer as your teacher, but as a friend. But let me take a vantage point from which I can speak with some candor. As your own sun is rising in the east, mine has long since passed the point of high noon, and in the gathering dusk, I see you within the perspective of time. There are landmarks which I have beheld but which are still hidden from your view. Some forty years ago, I took my oath of office as judge of the Court of First Instance for the Province of Rizal in the chambers of a Justice of the Supreme Court. This was my first appointment to the bench. You know I had several. It was an occasion for deep pride in my family especially when the appointee was hardly thirty-five years of age and the Justice administering the oath to him happened to be his own father. After the oath-taking, my father took me in his own car and drove me to the courthouse in Pasig. He led me into the building, up the stairs, to the second floor, and walked with me to the door of the sala which would now be mine. He stood by the door and let me enter alone. I did, and I went straight to my desk. There I saw a piece of paper upon which were written in Latin, in my fathers own handwriting, those awesome words which must have shaken the walls of the Senate of ancient Rome: Let Justice be done, though the heavens fall! In a lifetime devoted to the study of the law, these words still do not fail to stir up in me emotions which should have long since been spent, memories which should have long since been put to sleep, questions which should have long since been laid aside. What is the law? What is the truth? What is justice? What is justice? It is to render to each man what is his due. What is the truth? It is that which you seek, and keep on seeking, so that you may render to each man what is his due. What is the law? It is the instrument by which you discover that which you have been seeking so that you may render to each man what is his due.

4 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 5! !
The answers seem such simple directives for everyone to follow. The reality, however, is different. For the law may be twisted to hide the truth in the same way that the truth may be distorted to ridicule justice. There are men in any society who are so self-serving that they try to make the law serve their selfish ends. In this group of men, the most dangerous is the man of the law who has no conscience. He has, in the arsenal of his knowledge, the very tools with which he can poison and disrupt society and bring it to an ignoble end. Against such a man, you must be fearless and indomitable, since to grant him victory is to deny yourselves the sanctity your oath and the grandeur of your vision. Such men I have met in my lifetime, both in the courtroom and outside it. Societys declared protection against such predators is the court of law before which all men are presumed to stand equal, whether mighty or weak. The integrity of the court is the foundation upon which a just society to established. Without this integrity, the vicissitudes of history will blow society towards the treacherous reefs of destruction and suck it into the whirlpool of oblivion. A man of the law with a conscience on the other hand, is the means by which a nation fashions for itself a just, orderly and civilized society, where the least of its citizens can stand in his human dignity and where justice is the yardstick by which the citizen measures himself in his relationship with others and with his God. Yet, a man of the law should have more than just a conscience. Conscience, too, can be dulled by exigencies in ones life. He may just seek a livelihood from the law. Then no matter how financially successful he becomes, and no matter how much expertise he acquires in the law and its practice, he remains no more than a craftsman. He rises no higher than the humble or mechanic from whom we expect nothing beyond an honest days work and an honest charge for work performed, and to whom we would not dream of looking for leadership, guidance, and inspiration. He reduces law to a trade and himself to a mere huckster of legal skills. What a man of the law should possess is a passion for for the truth, a passion for justice. This passion should be of such a magnitude as to give him the power to stand firm when those around him seem to be going mad. It should be of such solidity as to grant him the strength to stand alone when all else is turning into dust. It should be of such perseverance as to infuse him with a loneliness that only those who have a vision can endure. It is a passion to keep alive that eternal challenge that justice must be done whatever be the cost. You are not only men of the law. You are men of vision. Underlying all that you have learned here at the Ateneo the never ending theme of passion for the truth, of passion for justice. Your vision is forged here, and that vision is what makes you unique among your peers. You do not know yet what life has in store for you, but never sacrifice your vision on the altar of expediency. For without this vision, you shall become hollow inside, you shall become men without souls preying on the innocence and helplessness of your fellowmen. You shall become the unscrupulous auctioneers of history whose honor is on the block, ready to go the highest bidder. On the other hand, if truly you remain faithful to your vision, then you are a boon to society. You will give without favor upon your fellowmen, sifting through facts to arrive at the truth, seeking truth to render justice. The mighty and the weak shall stand naked before you, for they shall draw strength from your knowledge of

4 !"#$%&'()"*+,-#.(),/0*%+(12! 6! !
the law and from your commitment to the truth. Then and only then, shall justice truly prevail and upon this earth will shine a place of heaven. For what is justice but an attribute of God Himself? Walk firm, therefore, and walk with courage, upon this path you have chosen. Let your vision guide you. The law is a noble profession, and it is professed by noble men. See to it that you earn that nobility by acting as your fellowmens shield and protector against injustice and oppression. As future lawyers, you have your tasks cut out of you. You need have no fear that they will prove too much for you if, in taking them up, you bear always in mind that doubt is the beginning of wisdom, that humility is the grace of the wise, that compassion is the virtue of the strong and above all that reason is the life of the law, and that the service of justice, which is nothing more than the search for the truth, is one of mans noblest achievements. Farewell! May you always in your quest for a better world, walk in the shadow of Him who gave you life and honor.