You are on page 1of 8

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No.

L-1117 March 20, 1944

constitutes "alpractice.2 3t is hi!hly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or s8ill as a "erchant advertises his wares. +aw is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer de!rades hi"self and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of "ercantilis" by advertisin! his services or offerin! the" to the public. As a "e"ber of the bar, he defiles the te"ple of 9ustice with "ercenary activities as the "oney chan!ers of old defiled the te"ple of $ehovah. 2The "ost worth and effective advertise"ent possible, even for a youn! lawyer, . . . is the establish"ent of a well "erited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but "ust be the outco"e of character and conduct.2 :Canon ,6, Code of Ethics.; 3n In re Tagorda, .& Phil., the respondent attorney was suspended fro" the practice of law for the period of one "onth for advertisin! his services and solicitin! wor8 fro" the public by writin! circular letters. That case, however, was "ore serious than this because there the solicitations were repeatedly "ade and were "ore elaborate and insistent. Considerin! his plea for leniency and his pro"ise not to repeat the "isconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, repri"anded. Yulo, C. ., !oran, "orrilleno, #aras and $ocobo, ., concur.

THE DIRECTOR OF RELI IOUS AFFAIRS, co!"#a$%a%&, vs. ESTANISLAO R. 'A(OT, respondent. Office of the Solicitor General De la Costa and Solicitor Feria for complainant. Francisco Claravall for respondent. O)AETA, J.* The respondent, who is an attorney at law, is char!ed with "alpractice for havin! published an advertise"ent in the #unday Tribune of $une %&, %'(&, which reads as follows) Marria!e license pro"ptly secured thru our assistance * the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and "arria!e arran!ed to wishes of parties. Consultation on any "atter free for the poor. Everythin! confidential.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC .R. No. L-1+727 A,-,.& /1, 1904

+e!al assistance service %, Escolta, Manila, Roo", %-. Tel. , (% /-.

1ESUS MA. CUI, plaintiff appellee, vs. ANTONIO MA. CUI, defendant appellant, ROMULO CUI, 3ntervenor appellant. ose %. Dio&no for plaintiff'appellee. aime (. )uevas and "ector *. "ofile+a for defendant'appellant. (omulo Cui in his o,n behalf as intervenor'appellants. MA2ALINTAL, J.:

Appearin! in his own behalf, respondent at first denied havin! published the said advertise"ent0 but subse1uently, thru his attorney, he ad"itted havin! caused its publication and prayed for 2the indul!ence and "ercy2 of the Court, pro"isin! 2not to repeat such professional "isconduct in the future and to abide hi"self to the strict ethical rules of the law profession.2 3n further "iti!ation he alle!ed that the said advertise"ent was published only once in the Tribune and that he never had any case at law by reason thereof. 4pon that plea the case was sub"itted to the Court for decision. 3t is undeniable that the advertise"ent in 1uestion was a fla!rant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it bein! a bra5en solicitation of business fro" the public. #ection ,. of Rule %,6 e7pressly provides a"on! other thin!s that 2the practice of solicitin! cases at law for the purpose of !ain, either personally or thru paid a!ents or bro8ers,

This is a provin! in -uo ,arranto ori!inally filed in the Court of <irst 3nstance of Cebu. The office in contention is that of Ad"inistrator of the "ospicio de San ose de $arili. $ud!"ent was rendered on ,6 April %'/% in favor of the plaintiff, $esus Ma. Cui, and appealed to us by the defendant, Antonio Ma. Cui, and by the intervenor, Ro"ulo Cui.

The =ospicio is a charitable institution established by the spouses >on Pedro Cui and >o?a Beni!na Cui, now deceased, 2for the care and support, free of char!e, of indi!ent invalids, and incapacitated and helpless persons.2 3t ac1uired corporate e7istence by le!islation :Act No. &,&' of the Philippine +e!islature passed ,6 Nove"ber %',.; and endowed with e7tensive properties by the said spouses throu!h a series of donations, principally the deed of donation e7ecuted on , $anuary %',/. #ection , of Act No. &,&' !ave the initial "ana!e"ent to the founders 9ointly and, in case of their incapacity or death, to 2such persons as they "ay no"inate or desi!nate, in the order prescribed to the".2 #ection , of the deed of donation provides as follows) @ue en caso de nuestro falleci"iento o incapacidad para ad"inistrar, nos sustituyan nuestro le!iti"e sobrino Mariano Cui, si al tie"po de nuestra "uerte o incapacidad se hallare residiendo en la caudad de Cebu, y nuestro sobrino politico >ionisio $a8osale". #i nuestro dicho sobrino Mariano Cui no estuviese residiendo entonces en la caudad de Cebu, desi!na"os en su lu!ar a nuestro otro sobrino le!iti"e Mauricio Cui. A"bos sobrinos ad"inistraran con9unta"ente el =A#P3C3A >E #AN $A#E >E BAR3+3. A la "uerte o incapacidad de estos dos ad"inistradores, la ad"inistracion del =A#P3C3A >E #AN $A#E >E BAR3+3 pasara a una sola persona 1ue sera el varon, "ayor de edad, 1ue descienda le!iti"ainente de cual1uiera de nuestros sobrinos le!iti"os Mariano Cui, Mauricio Cui, Bicente Cui y Bictor Cui, y 1ue posea titulo de abo!ado, o "edico, o in!eniero civil, o far"aceutico, o a falta de estos titulos, el 1ue pa!ue al Estado "ayor i"puesto o contribution. En i!ualdad de circu"stancias, sera preferida el varon de "as edad descendiente de 1uien tenia ulti"a"ente la ad"inistracion. Cuando absoluta"ente faltare persona de estas cualificaciones, la ad"inistracion del =A#P3C3A >E #AN $A#E >E BAR3+3 pasara al senor Abispo de Cebu o 1uien sea el "ayor di!natario de la 3!lesia Catolica, apostolica, Ro"ana, 1ue tuviere asiento en la cabecera de esta Provincia de Cebu, y en su defecto, al Cobierno Provincial de Cebu. >on Pedro Cui died in %',/, and his widow continued to ad"inister the "ospicio until her death in %','. Thereupon the ad"inistration passed to Mauricio Cui and >ionisio $a8osale". The first died on D May %'&% and the second on % $uly %'&%. An , $uly %'&% >r. Teodoro Cui, only son of Mauricio Cui, beca"e the ad"inistrator. Thereafter, be!innin! in %'&,, a series of controversies and court liti!ations ensued concernin! the position of ad"inistrator, to which, in so far as they are pertinent to the present case, reference will be "ade later in this decision. Plaintiff $esus Ma. Cui and defendant Antonio Ma. Cui are brothers, bein! the sons of Mariano Cui, one of the nephews of the spouses >on Pedro Cui and >o?a Beni!na Cui. An ,6 <ebruary %'/- the then incu"bent ad"inistrator, >r. Teodoro Cui, resi!ned in favor of Antonio Ma. Cui pursuant to a 2convenio2 entered into between the" and e"bodied in a notarial docu"ent. The ne7t day, ,D <ebruary, Antonio Ma. Cui too8 his oath of office. $esus Ma. Cui, however, had no prior notice of either the 2convenio2 or of his brotherEs assu"ption of the position. >r. Teodoro Cui died on ,6 Au!ust %'/-0 on . #epte"ber %'/- the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant de"andin! that the office be turned over to hi"0 and on %& #epte"ber %'/-, the de"and not havin! been co"plied with the plaintiff filed the co"plaint in this case. Ro"ulo Cui later on intervened, clai"in! a ri!ht to the sa"e office, bein! a !randson of

Bicente Cui, another one of the nephews "entioned by the founders of the "ospicio in their deed of donation. As between $esus and Antonio the "ain issue turns upon their respective 1ualifications to the position of ad"inistrator. $esus is the older of the two and therefore under e1ual circu"stances would be preferred pursuant to section , of the deed of donation. =owever, before the test of a!e "ay be, applied the deed !ives preference to the one, a"on! the le!iti"ate descendants of the nephews therein na"ed, 21ue posea titulo de abo!ado, o "edico, o in!eniero civil, o far"aceutico, o a falta de estos titulos el 1ue pa!ue al estado "ayor i"puesto o contribucion.2 The specific point in dispute is the "ealin! of the ter" 2titulo de abo!ado.2 $esus Ma. Cui holds the de!ree of Bachelor of +aws fro" the 4niversity of #anto To"as :Class %',/; but is not a "e"ber of the Bar, not havin! passed the e7a"inations to 1ualify hi" as one. Antonio Ma. Cui, on the other hand, is a "e"ber of the Bar and althou!h disbarred by this Court on ,' March %'.6 :ad"inistrative case No. %(%;, was reinstated by resolution pro"ul!ated on %- <ebruary %'/-, about two wee8s before he assu"ed the position of ad"inistrator of the"ospicio de $arili. The Court a -uo, in decidin! this point in favor of the plaintiff, said that the phrase 2titulo de abo!ado,2 ta8en alone, "eans that of a full fled!ed lawyer, but that has used in the deed of donation and considerin! the function or purpose of the ad"inistrator, it should not be !iven a strict interpretation but a liberal one,2 and therefore "eans a law de!ree or diplo"a of Bachelor of +aws. This rulin! is assailed as erroneous both by the defendant and by the intervenor. Fe are of the opinion, that whether ta8en alone or in conte7t the ter" 2titulo de abo!ado2 "eans not "ere possession of the acade"ic de!ree of Bachelor of +aws but "e"bership in the Bar after due ad"ission thereto, 1ualifyin! one for the practice of law. 3n #panish the word 2titulo2 is defined as 2testi"onies o instru"ento dado para e9ercer un e"pleo, di!nidad o profesion2 :>iccionario de la +en!ua Espa?ola, Real Acade"ia Espanola, %'(6 ed., p. %,,(; and the word 2abo!ado,2 as follows) 2Perito en el derecho positivo 1ue se dedica a defender en 9uicio, por escrito o de palabra, los derechos o intereses de los liti!antes, y ta"bien a dar dict"en sobre las cuestiones o puntos le!ales 1ue se le consultan : Id., p..; A BachelorEs de!ree alone, conferred by a law school upon co"pletion of certain acade"ic re1uire"ents, does not entitle its holder to e7ercise the le!al profession. The En!lish e1uivalent of 2abo!ado2 is lawyer or attorney at law. This ter" has a fi7ed and !eneral si!nification, and has reference to that class of persons who are by license officers of the courts, e"powered to appear, prosecute and defend, and upon who" peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a conse1uence. 3n this 9urisdiction ad"ission to the Bar and to the practice of law is under the authority of the #upre"e Court. Accordin! to Rule %&D such ad"ission re1uires passin! the Bar e7a"inations, ta8in! the lawyerEs oath and receivin! a certificate fro" the Cler8 of Court, this certificate bein! his license to practice the profession. The acade"ic de!ree of Bachelor of +aws in itself has little to do with ad"ission to the Bar, e7cept as evidence of co"pliance with the re1uire"ents that an applicant to the e7a"inations has 2successfully co"pleted all the prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved by the #ecretary of Education.2 <or this purpose, however, possession of the de!ree itself is not indispensable) co"pletion of the prescribed courses "ay be shown in so"e other way. 3ndeed there are instances, particularly under the for"er Code of Civil Procedure, where

persons who had not !one throu!h any for"al le!al education in colle!e were allowed to ta8e the Bar e7a"inations and to 1ualify as lawyers. :#ection %( of that code re1uired possession of 2the necessary 1ualifications of learnin! ability.2; Get certainly it would be incorrect to say that such persons do not possess the 2titulo de abo!ado2 because they lac8 the acade"ic de!ree of Bachelor of +aws fro" so"e law school or university. The founders of the "ospicio de San ose de $arili "ust have established the fore!oin! test advisely, and provided in the deed of donation that if not a lawyer, the ad"inistrator should be a doctor or a civil en!ineer or a phar"acist, in that order0 or failin! all these, should be the one who pays the hi!hest ta7es a"on! those otherwise 1ualified. A lawyer, first of all, because under Act No. &,&' the "ana!ers or trustees of the "ospicio shall 2"a8e re!ulations for the !overn"ent of said institution :#ec. &, b;0 shall 2prescribe the conditions sub9ect to which invalids and incapacitated and destitute persons "ay be ad"itted to the institute2 :#ec. &, d;0 shall see to it that the rules and conditions pro"ul!ated for ad"ission are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act0 and shall ad"inister properties of considerable value H for all of which wor8, it is to be presu"ed, a wor8in! 8nowled!e of the law and a license to practice the profession would be a distinct asset. 4nder this particular criterion we hold that the plaintiff is not entitled, as a!ainst the defendant, to the office of ad"inistrator. But it is ar!ued that althou!h the latter is a "e"ber of the Bar he is nevertheless dis1ualified by virtue of para!raph & of the deed of donation, which provides that the ad"inistrator "ay be re"oved on the !round, a"on! others, of ineptitude in the dischar!e of his office or lac8 of evident sound "oral character. Reference is "ade to the fact that the defendant was disbarred by this Court on ,' March %'.6 for i""orality and unprofessional conduct. 3t is also a fact, however, that he was reinstated on %- <ebruary %'/-, before he assu"ed the office of ad"inistrator. =is reinstate"ent is a reco!nition of his "oral rehabilitation, upon proof no less than that re1uired for his ad"ission to the Bar in the first place. Fherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the fore!oin! stipulation of facts be ad"itted and approved by this =onorable Court, without pre9udice to the parties adducin! other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. ./,ph0..+1t Fhether or not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to a !reat e7tent in the sound discretion of the court. The court action will depend, !enerally spea8in!, on whether or not it decides that the public interest in the orderly and i"partial ad"inistration of 9ustice will be conserved by the applicantEs participation therein in the capacity of an attorney and counselor at law. The applicant "ust, li8e a candidate for ad"ission to the bar, satisfy the court that he is a person of !ood "oral character H a fit and proper person to practice law. The court will ta8e into consideration the applicantEs character and standin! prior to the disbar"ent, the nature and character of the char!e for which he was disbarred, his conduct subse1uent to the disbar"ent, and the ti"e that has elapsed between the disbar"ent and the application for reinstate"ent. :. A". $ur., #ec. &-%, p. ((&; Evidence of refor"ation is re1uired before applicant is entitled to reinstate"ent, notwithstandin! the attorney has received a pardon followin! his conviction, and the re1uire"ents for reinstate"ent have been held to be the sa"e as for ori!inal ad"ission to the bar, e7cept that the court "ay re1uire a !reater de!ree of proof than in an ori!inal ad"ission. :6 C.$.#., Attorney * Client, #ec. (%, p. D%..;

The decisive 1uestions on an application for reinstate"ent are whether applicant is 2of !ood "oral character2 in the sense in which that phrase is used when applied to attorneys at law and is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the privile!es of the office of an attorney, and whether his "ental 1ualifications are such as to enable hi" to dischar!e efficiently his duty to the public, and the "oral attributes are to be re!arded as a separate and distinct fro" his "ental 1ualifications. :6 C.$.#., Attorney * Client, #ec. (%, p. D%/;. As far as "oral character is concerned, the standard re1uired of one see8in! reinstate"ent to the office of attorney cannot be less e7actin! than that i"plied in para!raph & of the deed of donation as a re1uisite for the office which is disputed in this case. Fhen the defendant was restored to the roll of lawyers the restrictions and disabilities resultin! fro" his previous disbar"ent were wiped out. This action "ust fail on one other !round) it is already barred by lapse of ti"e a"ountin! the prescription or laches. 4nder #ection %/ of Rule // :for"erly sec. %/, Rule /D, ta8en fro" section ,%/ of Act %'-;, this 8ind of action "ust be filed within one :%; year after the ri!ht of plaintiff to hold the office arose. Plaintiff $esus Ma. Cui believed hi"self entitled to the office in 1uestion as lon! a!o as %'&,. An $anuary ,/ of that year he filed a co"plaint in -uo ,arranto a!ainst >r. Teodoro Cui, who assu"ed the ad"inistration of the"ospicio on , $uly %'&%. Mariano Cui, the plaintiffEs father and Antonio Ma. Cui ca"e in as intervenors. The case was dis"issed by the Court of <irst 3nstance upon a de"urrer by the defendant there to the co"plaint and co"plaint in intervention. 4pon appeal to the #upre"e Court fro" the order of dis"issal, the case was re"anded for further proceedin!s :Cui v. Cui, /- Phil. &6, (D;. The plaintiff, however, did not prosecute the case as indicated in the decision of this Court, but acceded to an arran!e"ent whereby Teodoro Cui continued as ad"inistrator, Mariano Cui was na"ed 2le!al adviser2 and plaintiff $esus Ma. Cui accepted a position as assistant ad"inistrator. #ubse1uently the plaintiff tried to !et the position by a series of e7tra 9udicial "aneuvers. <irst he infor"ed the #ocial Felfare Co""issioner, by letter dated % <ebruary %'.-, that as of the previous % $anuary he had 2"ade clear2 his intention of occupyin! the office of ad"inistrator of the "ospicio.2 =e followed that up with another letter dated ( <ebruary, announcin! that he had ta8en over the ad"inistration as of % $anuary %'.-. Actually, however, he too8 his oath of office before a notary public only on ( March %'.-, after receivin! a reply of ac8nowled!"ent, dated , March, fro" the #ocial Felfare Co""issioner, who thou!ht that he had already assu"ed the position as stated in his co""unication of ( <ebruary %'.-. The rather "uddled situation was referred by the Co""issioner to the #ecretary of $ustice, who, in an opinion dated & April %'.- :op. No. (., #. %'.-;, correctin! another opinion previously !iven, in effect ruled that the plaintiff, not bein!s lawyer, was not entitled to the ad"inistration of the "ospicio. Meanwhile, the 1uestion a!ain beca"e the sub9ect of a court controversy. An ( March %'.-, the "ospicioco""enced an action a!ainst the Philippine National Ban8 in the Court of <irst 3nstance of Cebu :Civ. No. R %,%/; because the Ban8 had fro5en the "ospicio2s deposits therein. The Ban8 then filed a third party co"plaint a!ainst herein plaintiff appellee, $esus Ma. Cui, who had, as stated above, ta8en oath as ad"inistrator. An %' Actober %'.-, havin! been deprived of reco!nition by the opinion of the #ecretary of $ustice he "oved to dis"iss the third party co"plaint on the !round that he was

relin1uishin! 2te"porarily2 his clai" to the ad"inistration of the "ospicio. The "otion was denied in an order dated , Actober %'.&. An / <ebruary %'.( he was able to ta8e another oath of office as ad"inistrator before President Ma!saysay, and soon afterward filed a second "otion to dis"iss in Civil case No. R %,%/. President Ma!saysay, be it said, upon learnin! that a case was pendin! in Court, stated in a tele!ra" to his E7ecutive #ecretary that 2as far as :he; was concerned the court "ay disre!ard the oath2 thus ta8en. The "otion to dis"iss was !ranted nevertheless and the other parties in the case filed their notice of appeal fro" the order of dis"issal. The plaintiff then filed an e3'parte "otion to be e7cluded as party in the appeal and the trial Court a!ain !ranted the "otion. This was on ,( Nove"ber %'.(. Appellants thereupon instituted a mandamus proceedin! in the #upre"e Court :C.R. No. + D.(-;, which was decided on ,D May %'./, to the effect that $esus Ma. Cui should be included in the appeal. That appeal, however, after it reached this Court was dis"iss upon "otion of the parties, who a!reed that 2the office of ad"inistrator and trustee of the "ospicio ... should be ventilated in -uo ,arranto proceedin!s to be initiated a!ainst the incu"bent by who"soever is not occupyin! the office but believes he has a ri!ht to it2 :C.R. No. + '%-&;. The resolution of dis"issal was issued &% $uly %'./. At that ti"e the incu"bent ad"inistrator was >r. Teodoro Cui, but no action in -uo ,arranto was filed a!ainst hi" by plaintiff $esus Ma. Cui as indicated in the aforesaid "otion for dis"issal. An %- <ebruary %'/-, defendant Antonio Ma. Cui was reinstated by this Court as "e"ber of the Bar, and on the followin! ,6 <ebruary >r. Teodoro Cui resi!ned as ad"inistrator in his favor, pursuant to the 2convenio2 between the" e7ecuted on the sa"e date. The ne7t day Antonio Ma. Cui too8 his oath of office. The failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his clai" 9udicially after this Court decided the first case of Cui v. Cui in %'&( :/- Phil. &6/';, re"andin! it to the trial court for further proceedin!s0 his acceptance instead of the position of assistant ad"inistrator, allowin! >r. Teodoro Cui to continue as ad"inistrator and his failure to file an action in -uo ,arranto a!ainst said >r. Cui after &% $uly %'./, when the appeal in Civil Case No. R %,%/ of the Cebu Court was dis"issed upon "otion of the parties precisely so that the conflictin! clai"s of the parties could be ventilated in such an action H all these circu"stances "ilitate a!ainst the plaintiffEs present clai" in view of the rule that an action in -uo ,arranto "ust be filed within one year after the ri!ht of the plaintiff to hold the office arose. The e7cuse that the plaintiff did not file an action a!ainst >r. Teodoro Cui after &% $uly %'./ because of the latterEs illness did not interrupt the runnin! of the statutory period. And the fact that this action was filed within one year of the defendantEs assu"ption of office in #epte"ber %'/does not "a8e the plaintiffEs position any better, for the basis of the action is his own ri!ht to the office and it is fro" the ti"e such ri!ht arose that the one year li"itation "ust be counted, not fro" the date the incu"bent be!an to dischar!e the duties of said office. $autista v. Fa4ardo, &D Phil. /,(0 *im vs. Yulo, /, Phil. %/%. Now for the clai" of intervenor and appellant Ro"ulo Cui. This party is also a lawyer, !randson of Bicente Cui, one of the nephews of the founders of the "ospicio "entioned by the" in the deed of donation. =e is further, in the line of succession, than defendant Antonio Ma. Cui, who is a son of Mariano Cui, another one of the said nephews. The deed of donation provides) 2a la "uerte o incapacidad de estos ad"inistradores :those appointed in the deed itself; pasara a una sola persona 1ue sera el varon, "ayor de edad, 1ue descienda le!iti"a"ente de cual1uiera de nuestros sobrinos le!iti"os Mariano Cui, Mauricio Cui, Bicente Cui, Bictor Cui, y 1ue posea titulo de abo!ado ... En i!ualdad de circu"stancias, sera preferido el varon de "as edad descendiente de 1uien tenia ulti"a"ente la ad"inistration.2 Besides bein! a nearer descendant than Ro"ulo Cui, Antonio Ma. Cui is older than he and therefore is preferred when the circu"stances are

otherwise e1ual. The intervenor contends that the intention of the founders was to confer the ad"inistration by line and successively to the descendants of the nephews na"ed in the deed, in the order they are na"ed. Thus, he ar!ues, since the last ad"inistrator was >r. Teodoro Cui, who belon!ed to the Mauricio Cui line, the ne7t ad"inistrator "ust co"e fro" the line of Bicente Cui, to who" the intervenor belon!s. This interpretation, however, is not 9ustified by the ter"s of the deed of donation. 3N B3EF A< T=E <ARECA3NC CAN#3>ERAT3AN#, the 9ud!"ent appealed fro" is reversed and set aside, and the co"plaint as well as the co"plaint in intervention are dis"issed, with costs e1ually a!ainst plaintiff appellee and intervenor appellant. $eng5on, C. ., $autista 6ngelo, Concepcion, (e7es, .$.*., #aredes and (egala, concur. T=3R> >3B3#3AN .,

3A.M. SDC-97-2-P. F45r,ar6 24, 19977

SOPHIA ALA8I, complainant, vs. ASHAR( M. ALAU(A, C#4r9 o: Co,r& ;I, Shar$<a D$.&r$c& Co,r&, Mara=$ C$&6,respondent. DECISION NAR;ASA, C.J.* #ophia Alawi was :and presu"ably still is; a sales representative :or coordinator; of E. B. Billarosa * Partners Co., +td. of >avao City, a real estate and housin! co"pany. Ashari M. Alauya is the incu"bent e7ecutive cler8 of court of the (th $udicial #hariEa >istrict in Marawi City. They were class"ates, and used to be friends. 3t appears that throu!h AlawiEs a!ency, a contract was e7ecuted for the purchase on install"ents by Alauya of one of the housin! units belon!in! to the above "entioned fir" :hereafter, si"ply Billarosa * Co.;0 and in connection therewith, a housin! loan was also !ranted to Alauya by the National =o"e Mort!a!e <inance Corporation :N=M<C;. Not lon! afterwards, or "ore precisely on >ece"ber %., %''., Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Billarosa * Co. advisin! of the ter"ination of his contract with the co"pany. =e wrote) 2 II 3 a" for"ally and officially withdrawin! fro" and notifyin! you of "y intent to ter"inate the ContractJA!ree"ent entered into between "e and your co"pany, as represented by your #ales A!entJCoordinator, #AP=3A A+AF3, of your co"panyEs branch office here in Ca!ayan de Aro City, on the !rounds that "y consent was vitiated by !ross "isrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the aforesaid sales

a!ent which "ade said contract void ab initio. #aid sales a!ent actin! in bad faith perpetrated such ille!al and unauthori5ed acts which "ade said contract an Anerous Contract pre9udicial to "y ri!hts and interests.2 =e then proceeded to e7pound in considerable detail and 1uite acerbic lan!ua!e on the 2!rounds which could evidence the bad faith, deceit, fraud, "isrepresentation, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the unscrupulous sales a!ent II 02 and closed with the plea that Billarosa * Co. 2a!ree for the "utual rescission of our contract, even as 3 infor" you that 3 cate!orically state on record that 3 a" ter"inatin! the contract II. 3 hope 3 do not have to resort to any le!al action before said onerous and "anipulated contract a!ainst "y interest be annulled. 3 was actually fooled by your sales a!ent, hence the need to annul the controversial contract.2 Alauya sent a copy of the letter to the Bice President of Billarosa * Co. at #an Pedro, Cusa, Ca!ayan de Aro City. The envelope containin! it, and which actually went throu!h the post, bore no sta"ps. 3nstead at the ri!ht hand corner above the description of the addressee, the words, 2<ree Posta!e H P> ,/,2 had been typed. An the sa"e date, >ece"ber %., %''., Alauya also wrote to Mr. <er"in T. Ar5a!a, Bice President, Credit * Collection Croup of the National =o"e Mort!a!e <inance Corporation :N=M<C; at #alcedo Billa!e, Ma8ati City, repudiatin! as fraudulent and void his contract with Billarosa * Co.0 and as8in! for cancellation of his housin! loan in connection therewith, which was payable fro" salary deductions at the rate ofP(,&&D.-- a "onth. A"on! other thin!s, he said) 2 II :T;hrou!h this written notice, 3 a" ter"inatin!, as 3 hereby annul, cancel, rescind and voided, the E"anipulated contractE entered into between "e and the E.B. Billarosa * Partner Co., +td., as represented by its sales a!entJcoordinator, #AP=3A A+AF3, who "aliciously and fraudulently "anipulated said contract and unlawfully secured and pursued the housin! loan without "y authority and a!ainst "y will. Thus, the contract itself is dee"ed to be void ab initio in view of the attendin! circu"stances, that "y consent was vitiated by "isrepresentation, fraud, deceit, dishonesty, and abuse of confidence0 and that there was no "eetin! of the "inds between "e and the swindlin! sales a!ent who concealed the real facts fro" "e.2 And, as in his letter to Billarosa * Co., he narrated in so"e detail what he too8 to be the ano"alous actuations of #ophia Alawi. Alauya wrote three other letters to Mr. Ar5a!a of the N=M<C, dated <ebruary ,%, %''/, April %., %''/, and May &, %''/, in all of which, for the sa"e reasons already cited, he insisted on the cancellation of his housin! loan and discontinuance of deductions fro" his salary on account thereof. a =e also wrote on $anuary %D, %''/ to Ms. Cora5on M. Ardo?e5, =ead of the <iscal Mana!e"ent * Bud!et Affice, and to the Chief, <inance >ivision, both of this Court, to stop deductions fro" his salary in relation to the loan in 1uestion, a!ain assertin! the ano"alous "anner by which he was alle!edly duped into enterin! into the contracts by 2the sche"in! sales a!ent.2 b The upshot was that in May, %''/, the N=M<C wrote to the #upre"e Court re1uestin! it to stop deductions on AlauyaEs 4=+P loan 2effective May %''/,2 and be!an ne!otiatin! with Billarosa * Co. 2for the buy bac8 of II :AlauyaEs; "ort!a!e, and II the refund of II :his; pay"ents.2c

An learnin! of AlauyaEs letter to Billarosa * Co. of >ece"ber %., %''., #ophia Alawi filed with this Court a verified co"plaint dated $anuary ,., %''/ to which she appended a copy of the letter, and of the above "entioned envelope bearin! the typewritten words, 2<ree Posta!e H P> ,/.2K%L 3n that co"plaint, she accused Alauya of) %. 23"putation of "alicious and libelous char!es with no solid !rounds throu!h "anifest i!norance and evident bad faith02 ,. &. 2Causin! undue in9ury to, and ble"ishin! her honor and established reputation02 24nauthori5ed en9oy"ent of the privile!e of free posta!e II02 and

(. 4surpation of the title of 2attorney,2 which only re!ular "e"bers of the Philippine Bar "ay properly use. #he deplored AlauyaEs references to her as 2unscrupulous, swindler, for!er, "anipulator, etc.2 without 2even a bit of evidence to cloth :sic; his alle!ations with the essence of truth,2 denouncin! his i"putations as irresponsible, 2all concoctions, lies, baseless and coupled with "anifest i!norance and evident bad faith,2 and assertin! that all her dealin!s with Alauya had been re!ular and co"pletely transparent. #he closed with the plea that Alauya 2be dis"issed fro" the service, or be appropriately disciplined :sic; II 2 The Court resolved to order Alauya to co""ent on the co"plaint. Confor"ably with established usa!e that notices of resolutions e"anate fro" the correspondin! Affice of the Cler8 of Court, the notice of resolution in this case was si!ned by Atty. Alfredo P. Marasi!an, Assistant >ivision Cler8 of Court. K,L Alauya first sub"itted a 2Preli"inary Co""ent2 K&L in which he 1uestioned the authority of Atty. Marasi!an to re1uire an e7planation of hi", this power pertainin!, accordin! to hi", not to 2a "ere Asst. >iv. Cler8 of Court investi!atin! an E7ecutive Cler8 of Court.2 but only to the >istrict $ud!e, the Court Ad"inistrator or the Chief $ustice, and voiced the suspicion that the Resolution was the result of a 2stron! lin82 between Ms. Alawi and Atty. Marasi!anEs office. =e also averred that the co"plaint had no factual basis0 Alawi was envious of hi" for bein! not only 2the E7ecutive Cler8 of court and e7 officio Provincial #heriff and >istrict Re!istrar,2 but also 2a scion of a Royal <a"ily II.2 K(L 3n a subse1uent letter to Atty. Marasi!an, but this ti"e in "uch less a!!ressive, even obse1uious tones,K.L Alauya re1uested the for"er to !ive hi" a copy of the co"plaint in order that he "i!ht co""ent thereon. K/L =e stated that his acts as cler8 of court were done in !ood faith and within the confines of the law0 and that #ophia Alawi as sales a!ent of Billarosa * Co. had, by falsifyin! his si!nature, fraudulently bound hi" to a housin! loan contract entailin! "onthly deductions of P(,&&&.%- fro" his salary. And in his co""ent thereafter sub"itted under date of $une ., %''/, Alauya contended that it was he who had suffered 2undue in9ury, "ental an!uish, sleepless ni!hts, wounded feelin!s and untold financial sufferin!,2 considerin! that in si7 "onths, a total of P,/,-,D./- had been deducted fro" his salary. K6L =e declared that there was no basis for the co"plaint0 in co""unicatin! with Billarosa * Co. he had "erely acted in defense of his ri!hts. =e denied any abuse of the fran8in! privile!e, sayin! that he !ave P,-.-- plus transportation fare to a subordinate who" he entrusted with the "ailin! of certain letters0 that the words) 2<ree Posta!e H P> ,/,2 were typewritten on the envelope by so"e other

person, an aver"ent corroborated by the affidavit of Absa"en C. >o"ocao, Cler8 3B :subscribed and sworn to before respondent hi"self, and attached to the co""ent as Anne7 $;0KDL and as far as he 8new, his subordinate "ailed the letters with the use of the "oney he had !iven for posta!e, and if those letters were indeed "i7ed with the official "ail of the court, this had occurred inadvertently and because of an honest "ista8e. K'L Alauya 9ustified his use of the title, 2attorney,2 by the assertion that it is 2le7ically synony"ous2 with 2Counsellors at law,2 a title to which #hariEa lawyers have a ri!htful clai", addin! that he prefers the title of 2attorney2 because 2counsellor2 is often "ista8en for 2councilor,2 28onsehal or the Maranao ter" 2consial,2 connotin! a local le!islator beholden to the "ayor. Fithal, he does not consider hi"self a lawyer. =e pleads for the CourtEs co"passion, alle!in! that what he did 2is e7pected of any "an unduly pre9udiced and in9ured.2 K%-L =e clai"s he was "anipulated into reposin! his trust in Alawi, a class"ate and friend. K%%L =e was induced to si!n a blan8 contract on AlawiEs assurance that she would show the co"pleted docu"ent to hi" later for correction, but she had since avoided hi"0 despite 2nu"erous letters and follow ups2 he still does not 8now where the property sub9ect of his supposed a!ree"ent with AlawiEs principal, Billarosa * Co. is situated0K%,L =e says Alawi so"ehow !ot his C#3# policy fro" his wife, and althou!h she pro"ised to return it the ne7t day, she did not do so until after several "onths. =e also clai"s that in connection with his contract with Billarosa * Co., Alawi for!ed his si!nature on such pertinent docu"ents as those re!ardin! the down pay"ent, clearance, lay out, receipt of the 8ey of the house, salary deduction, none of which he ever saw. K%&L Averrin! in fine that his acts in 1uestion were done without "alice, Alauya prays for the dis"issal of the co"plaint for lac8 of "erit, it consistin! of 2fallacious, "alicious and baseless alle!ations,2 and co"plainant Alawi havin! co"e to the Court with unclean hands, her co"plicity in the fraudulent housin! loan bein! apparent and de"onstrable. 3t "ay be "entioned that in contrast to his two :,; letters to Assistant Cler8 of Court Marasi!an :dated April %', %''/ and April ,,, %''/;, and his two :,; earlier letters both dated >ece"ber %., %''/ all of which he si!ned as 2Atty. Ashary M. Alauya2 in his Co""ent of $une ., %''/, he does not use the title but refers to hi"self as 2>AT4 A#=ARG M. A+A4GA.2 The Court referred the case to the Affice of the Court Ad"inistrator for evaluation, report and reco""endation.K%(L The first accusation a!ainst Alauya is that in his aforesaid letters, he "ade 2"alicious and libelous char!es :a!ainst Alawi; with no solid !rounds throu!h "anifest i!norance and evident bad faith,2 resultin! in 2undue in9ury to :her; and ble"ishin! her honor and established reputation.2 3n those letters, Alauya had written inter alia that) %; Alawi obtained his consent to the contracts in 1uestion 2by !ross "isrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence02 ,; Alawi acted in bad faith and perpetrated II ille!al and unauthori5ed acts II II pre9udicial to II :his; ri!hts and interests02 &; Alawi was an 2unscrupulous :and 2swindlin!2; sales a!ent2 who had fooled hi" by 2deceit, fraud, "isrepresentation, dishonesty and abuse of confidence02 and

(; Alawi had "aliciously and fraudulently "anipulated the contract with Billarosa * Co., and unlawfully secured and pursued the housin! loan without II :his; authority and a!ainst II :his; will,2 and 2concealed the real facts II.2 AlauyaEs defense essentially is that in "a8in! these state"ents, he was "erely actin! in defense of his ri!hts, and doin! only what 2is e7pected of any "an unduly pre9udiced and in9ured,2 who had suffered 2"ental an!uish, sleepless ni!hts, wounded feelin!s and untold financial sufferin!,2 considerin! that in si7 "onths, a total of P,/,-,D./- had been deducted fro" his salary.K%.L The Code of Conduct and Ethical #tandards for Public Afficials and E"ployees :RA /6%&; inter alia enunciates the #tate policy of pro"otin! a hi!h standard of ethics and ut"ost responsibility in the public service. K%/L #ection ( of the Code co""ands that 2:p;ublic officials and e"ployees II at all ti"es respect the ri!hts of others, and II refrain fro" doin! acts contrary to law, !ood "orals, !ood custo"s, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.2K%6L More than once has this Court e"phasi5ed that 2the conduct and behavior of every official and e"ployee of an a!ency involved in the ad"inistration of 9ustice, fro" the presidin! 9ud!e to the "ost 9unior cler8, should be circu"scribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct "ust at all ti"es be characteri5ed by, a"on! others, strict propriety and decoru" so as to earn and 8eep the respect of the public for the 9udiciary.2K%DL Now, it does not appear to the Court consistent with !ood "orals, !ood custo"s or public policy, or respect for the ri!hts of others, to couch denunciations of acts believed however sincerely to be deceitful, fraudulent or "alicious, in e7cessively inte"perate. insultin! or virulent lan!ua!e. Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a ri!ht of action a!ainst #ophia Alawi. The law re1uires that he e7ercise that ri!ht with propriety, without "alice or vindictiveness, or undue har" to anyone0 in a "anner consistent with !ood "orals, !ood custo"s, public policy, public order, supra0 or otherwise stated, that he 2act with 9ustice, !ive everyone his due, and observe honesty and !ood faith.2 K%'L Ri!hteous indi!nation, or vindication of ri!ht cannot 9ustify resort to vituperative lan!ua!e, or downri!ht na"e callin!. As a "e"ber of the #hariEa Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is sub9ect to a standard of conduct "ore strin!ent than for "ost other !overn"ent wor8ers. As a "an of the law, he "ay not use lan!ua!e which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, "enacin!, or otherwise i"proper.K,-L As a 9udicial e"ployee, it is e7pected that he accord respect for the person and the ri!hts of others at all ti"es, and that his every act and word should be characteri5ed by prudence, restraint, courtesy, di!nity. =is radical deviation fro" these salutary nor"s "i!ht perhaps be "iti!ated, but cannot be e7cused, by his stron!ly held conviction that he had been !rievously wron!ed. As re!ards AlauyaEs use of the title of 2Attorney,2 this Court has already had occasion to declare that persons who pass the #hariEa Bar are not full fled!ed "e"bers of the Philippine Bar, hence "ay only practice law before #hariEa courts. K,%L Fhile one who has been ad"itted to the #hariEa Bar, and one who has been ad"itted to the Philippine Bar, "ay both be considered 2counsellors,2 in the sense that they !ive counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an 2attorney.2 The title of 2attorney2 is reserved to those who, havin! obtained the necessary de!ree in the study of law and successfully ta8en the Bar E7a"inations, have been ad"itted to the 3nte!rated Bar of the Philippines and re"ain "e"bers thereof in !ood standin!0 and it is they only who are authori5ed to practice law in this 9urisdiction. Alauya says he does not wish to use the title, 2counsellor2 or 2counsellor at law,2 because in his re!ion, there are pe9orative connotations to the ter", or it is confusin!ly

si"ilar to that !iven to local le!islators. The ratiocination, valid or not, is of no "o"ent. =is disinclination to use the title of 2counsellor2 does not warrant his use of the title of attorney. <inally, respectin! AlauyaEs alle!ed unauthori5ed use of the fran8in! privile!e, the record contains no evidence ade1uately establishin! the accusation. 8HEREFORE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby REPR3MAN>E> for the use of e7cessively inte"perate, insultin! or virulent lan!ua!e, i.e., lan!ua!e unbeco"in! a 9udicial officer, and for usurpin! the title of attorney0 and he is warned that any si"ilar or other i"propriety or "isconduct in the future will be dealt with "ore severely. SO ORDERED. Davide, r., !elo, Francisco, and #anganiban, 3N RE) C4NANAN Fac&.* Controversies arose when Republic Act No. '6, MBar <lun8ersN Act of %'.&O was enacted. 4nder the Rules of Court !overnin! ad"ission to the bar, Min order that a candidate :for ad"ission to the Bar; "ay be dee"ed to have passed his e7a"inations successfully, he "ust have obtained a !eneral avera!e of 6. per cent in all sub9ects, without fallin! below .per cent in any sub9ect.O :Rule %,6, sec. %(, Rules of Court;. ., concur.

I..,4* Fhether or not Republic Act No. '6, is constitutional.

H4#>* The public interest de"ands of le!al profession ade1uate preparation and efficiency, precisely "ore so as le!al proble" evolved by the ti"es beco"e "ore difficult. An ade1uate le!al preparation is one of the vital re1uisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and "aintained fir"ly. To the le!al profession is entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties.

To approve officially of those inade1uately prepared individuals to dedicate the"selves to such a delicate "ission is to create a serious social dan!er. Moreover, the state"ent that there was an insufficiency of le!al readin! "aterials is !rossly e7a!!erated.

Believin! the"selves as fully 1ualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by this court, and feelin! conscious of havin! been discri"inated a!ainst, unsuccessful candidates who obtained avera!es of a few percenta!e lower than those ad"itted to the Bar a!itated in Con!ress for, and secured in %'.% the passa!e of #enate Bill No. %, which, a"on! others, reduced the passin! !eneral avera!e in bar e7a"inations to 6- per cent effective since %'(/.

There is no e7press provision in the Constitution which indicates an intent that this traditional power of the 9udicial depart"ent should in any "anner be sub9ect to le!islative control. Perhaps the do"inant thou!ht of the fra"ers of our constitution was to "a8e the three !reat depart"ents of !overn"ent separate and independent of one another. The idea that the +e!islature "i!ht e"barrass the 9udicial depart"ent by prescribin! inade1uate 1ualifications for attorneys at law is inconsistent with the do"inant purpose of "a8in! the 9udicial independent of the le!islative depart"ent, and such a purpose should not be inferred in the absence of e7press constitutional provisions.

The court e7pressed their unfavorable opinion about the bill passed by the #enate. An $une ,%, %'.&, the President allowed R.A. '6, to beco"e a law without his si!nature. After its approval, "any unsuccessful bar candidates appealed and re1uested for the re e7a"ination of their !rades.

Ad"ission to the practice of law is the e7ercise of a 9udicial function, and is an inherent power of the court. An this "atter there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the 9udicial and le!islative depart"ents of the !overn"ent. The portion of article % of Republic Act No. '6, referrin! to the e7a"inations of %'(/ to %'.,, and :b; all of article , of said law are unconstitutional and, therefore, void and without force and effect.

<or lac8 of unani"ity in the ei!ht $ustices, that part of article % which refers to the e7a"inations subse1uent to the approval of the law, that is fro" %'.& to %'.. inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, in confor"ity with section %-, article B33 of the Constitution.

The petitions of candidates who failed fro" %'(/ to %'.& are denied. All candidates of obtained a !eneral avera!e of 6%.. without a !rade .-P below any sub9ect in the %'.& bar e7a"inations, are considered havin! passed.