PER CURIAM; October 6, 1989
An inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the integrated bar of the Philippines.
The Supreme Court, en banc, exercising its power of supervision over the
Integrated Bar, resolvd to suspend the oathtaking of the IBP officers=elect
and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.

June 3, 1989, the election of the national officers of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was held at the Philippine International
Convention Center (PICC).
The newly elected officers were set to take their oath of office on
July 4, 1989, before the Supreme Court.
However, because of widespread reports about the intensive
electioneering and overspending by the candidates, the Supreme
Court resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect
to investigate.
the elections were led by the main candidates for the office of IBP
President, namely Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and
Violeta C. Drilon.
Among the allegations were the use of government planes, and
the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the
voting, all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws.
(“poured heart, soul, money and influence to win over the 120 IBP
Emil Jurado (Manila Standard) reported that there was rampant
vote-buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity as
well as by some lawyers of ACCRA, and that government positions
were promised to others by the office of the Labor Secretary.
There was also the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush
hotels where they were reportedly “wined and dined continuously,
womened, and subjected to endless haggling over the price of
their votes xxx which ranged from P15K to P20K, and on election
day, to as much as P50K.
In a resolution calling for investigations, the Court “called to mind
that a basic postulate of the IBP xxx is that the IBP shall be nonpolitical in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor
campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors
and of the House of Delegates and of the IBP officers.
Article I, Section 4 of IBP By-Laws emphasizes the “strictly
nonpolitical” character of the IBP:
SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. – the IBP is strictly non-political,
and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is
strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No
lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutory office in the government xxx shall be eligible

for election or appointment to any position in the IBP or
any chapter thereof.

Section 14 of By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to
IBP elections:
1. Distribution of election campaign material;
2. Distribution of campaign material other that a statement of
the biodata of candidate not more than one page of legal
3. Campaigning for or against any candidate, whle holding an
elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, prosecutor office in Gov’t;
4. Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of
candidates, as well as the advertisement thereof;
5. For purpose of influencing a member, by payment of dues or
other indebtedness of the member; giving of food, drink,
entertainment, transpo, any article of value; making a
promise or causing an expenditure to be made.
Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes the sanctions:
“Violation of the by-laws of the IBP shall be a ground for the
disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if elected,
without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon any erring
member xxx”

Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250K during his three
weeks of campaigning;
Atty. Nisce’s hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216K ++, not
including previous expenses for his campaign;
Atty . Drilon’s campaign rang up over P600K in hotel bills (Westin).

ISSUE: WON the candidates are guilty of massive electioneering,
inappropriate use of government resources, and vote-buying during the IBP
national elections

IBP elections should be as they are annulled.
The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for direct election by the House
Delegates of officers, IBP President, and exec. VP be repealed.
Former system of IBP President and Exec. VP elected by Board of
Governors from among themselves should be restored.
At the end of President’s 2-year term, the EVP shall automatically
succeed to the office of the president. The incoming board of
governors shall elect an EVP from among themselves.
It is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for
the national positions in the Integrated Bar conducted their
campaign preparatory to the elections violated Sec. 14 of the IBP
By-laws and made a travesty of the idea of a “strictly nonpolitical”

as a corollary of their obligation to: a.immoral or deceitful conduct. By Indicationg IBP Rizal 259060 in his pleadings. Justice Jose C.and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Duty to promote respect for law and legal processes. and to the other members of the Court. c. Chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee. CANON 10 – A Lawyer owes candor.nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. was apprised of a rumored leakage in the examination on the subject. -Respondent is engaged only in a limited practice of law. The decision is meant to impress upon participant the seriousness of their misconduct.Section 10 which provides that “default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the integrated bar. 2000 FACTS Petitioner’s Claim:             ISSUES -Llamas has not indicated proper PTR and IBP OR No and data in his pleadings. b. 2003. February 4.fairness nd goodfaith to the court. Disposition Because of his old age. respondent was only suspended from practice of law for one year or until he pays his dues. Bar Scandal. he merely indicates IBP Rizal 259060 as his PTS and IBP OR No for 3 years as shown in various court pleadings. January 20. was in 1991 --in the context of Rule 138 section 1 that only a duly admitted member of the bar “who is in good and regular stnding is entitled to practice law” and Rule 139-A. 8 may be the reason why the position of IBP president has attracted so much interest among the lawyers. Since he openly admitted that he was still engaged in the practice of law eventhough his practice is already limited he is still subject to the payment of IBP dues and failure to do so would warrant his suspension under Sec 10 of Rule 139-A.01-A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful.WON RA 7432 (Senior Citizen) exempts respondent from payment of his dues with the IBP. It is speculated that the IBP ticket to the Judicial and Bar Council as provided in Art.his principal occupation being a farmer -Being a senior citizen he is exempt from payment of taxes. Jr.and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys -respondent’s track record shows that he was once dismissed as Pasay City Judge. Obey and uphold the constitution and the laws.dishonest.01.nor consent to the doing of an court. On September 2003. Respondent’s Comment: -SC has already dismissed the case for his dismissal as well as the criminal case. VIII Sec. FACTS     On September 22. as certified by IBP pres.and he honestly believes that his dues with the IBP is covered by such exemption -in fact he does not exercise his rights to vote as an IBP member -he is willing to pay his dues should he be in fact not exempt from payment thereof 1. Rule 10. NO 2. RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS PER CURIAM. YES HELD          RA 7432 exempts him only from payment of taxes but not from payment of his association dues such as IBP dues.   IBP shrined in Sec.WON respondent is guilty of misleading the court of his standing with the IBP for using the same IBP OR number for at least six years. Abstain from activities aimed at defiance of law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. He can only engage in the practice of law by paying his dues and it doesn’t matter if his practice is limited. and was convicted of estafa. and to restore the non-political character of the IBP. the Court adopted the recommendation of Justice Vitug and resolved to nullify the examination in Mercantile . and he was in fact promoted as RTC Judge. recommending that the examination on the subject be nullified and that an investigation be conducted forthwith. 2004 NATURE: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. the day following the bar examination in Mercantile Law. 4” The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers. CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. -Llamas’ last payment of IBP dues. Vitug.A lawyer shall not do any falsehood. SANTOS V LLAMAS MENDOZA. He then reported to Chief Justice Hilario Davide. he is guilty of misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he has paid his dues to IBP Rizal Chapter and of violating Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.

The committee does not believe De Guzman did this out of love for the fraternity. was a criminal act of larceny. covers the bar examinations. De Guzman revealed that he faxed the test questions. Without any doubt. In turn. The petitions voiced out the support to nullifying the exam on the said subject and not to take another exam due to the emotional. Garvida faxed the test questions to Iñigo and Bugain. The Investigating Committee found that the leaked test questions in Mercantile Law were the questions which the examinee. and who faxed them to other persons. He is not entitled to receive any honorarium as examiner for that subject. 2003. Atty. Balgos’ legal assistant. Balgos should be reprimanded by the Court and make a written apology as a result of his negligence. Balgos is also negligent. 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. dishonest. Atty De Guzman’s act of downloading Balgos’ test questions in mercantile law from the latter’s computer. 2005 . he very well knows. Sunday. Certain brods should also be investigated. the Investigating committee does not believe that he acted alone. Besides theft. secretary of Atty. The culprit who stole or downloaded them from Atty. and promote respect for law and legal processes. Balgos claimed that the leaked test questions were prepared by him on his computer. namely. Iñigo passed a copy or copies to other Betan Guiapal who gave a copy to the MLQU-Beta Sigma’s Most Illustrious Brother.. not from the Office of Justice Vitug. The Court resolved also to create a Committee composed of three retired members of the Court that would conduct a thorough investigation of the incident subject of the September 23. Balgos proves conclusively that the leakage originated from his office. Balgos. Atty. Danilo De Guzman.            Law and to hold another exam on the said subject against which petitions were filed. De Guzman also committed an unlawful infraction of Balgos’ right to privacy of communication and to security of his papers and effects against unauthorized search and seizure— rights zealously protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. the source of the leaked test questions was Atty. May 9. CECILIO Y. He could have just used the typewriter considering his lack of adeptness with the computer. Alternative proposals were submitted to the Court. which provide: Rule 1.         He should be disbarred plus he ought to make a public apology and pay damages to the Supreme Court Atty. Balgos and Atienza knew of the password. who voluntarily confessed the deed to the Investigating Committee. with the help of his secretary Villasis to his frat brods in Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity. 2003 resolution. Palma. as well as Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar. The circumstances that the leaked test questions consisted entirely of test questions prepared by Atty.01 of Canon 1. LETTER OF ATTY. Atty. physical and financial burdens it will cause the barristers.       He is guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. without his knowledge and permission. was Atty. ISSUE: WON Danilo De Guzman should be disbarred HELD: YES. There must have been an ulterior material consideration for his breaking the law and tearing the shroud of secrecy that.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. De Guzman also violated rule 1. REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF IBP DUES CHICO-NAZARIO. The Court moved to nullify and to spread out the weight of the Mercantile Law among the remaining seven bar subjects. Garvida. Also. Balgos had prepared and submitted to Justice Jose Vitug. Ronald Collado who ordered the printing and distribution of 30 copies to the MLQU’s 30 bar candidates. obey the laws of the land. and Erwin Tan. JR. Arlan. He transgressed the very first canon of the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution. AREVALO. Balgos’ computer. Balgos’ computer without the latter’s knowledge and consent. His questions constituted 82% of the questions asked in the examination in Mercantile Law in the morning of September 21. Further examination of the others should be held to show accountability and also to find out how De Guzman was able to secure a copy of the Supreme Court’s CALR database without the court’s permission. 71 years old. proposed. It was theft of intellectual property. Atty. immoral or deceitful conduct. in some cases with slight changes which were not substantial and in other cases exactly as Atty.

because the complainant was seeing other men at the time they were having an affair. HELD: No. ISSUES: WON Petitioner’s inactivity in the practice of law that is. Failure to abide by any of them entails the loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants. failure to do so will merit suspension from the practice of law.    The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP The Code of Professional Responsibility: “Rule 1. respondent had started to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form of support. By this time however.A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. Respondent courted complainant and promised to marry her while representing himself to be single. Membership in the bar is a privilege (as opposed to a property right) burdened with conditions. Castillo guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law.NATURE: Bar Matter in the Supreme Court. respondent was preparing for the bar examinations which he passed. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. he never represented himself as single since it was known in the NBI that he was already married and with children. when he was in the Civil Service and when working abroad. FACTS   Petitioner. the child borne by complainant is not his. Also. complainant gave birth to a baby girl. WON respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct. On December 09. ZAGUIRRE V CASTILLO PER CURIAM. FACTS      Complainant and respondent met while working in the NBI. what transpired between them was nothing but mutual lust and desire.035 in IBP dues for the years 1977-2005 After admittance to the Philippine Bar in 1961. petitioner’s request for exemption from payment of IBP dues for the years 1977-2005 is Denied within 10 days from receipt of this decision.      It was only around the first week of May 1997 that complainant first learned that respondent was already married when his wife went to her office and confronted her about her relationship with respondent. he was admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar. 1997 but explains that he only did so to save complainant from embarrassment. dishonest. Arevalo. Soon they had an intimate relationship that started sometime in 1996 and lasted until 1997. Request for Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues. . complainant is almost 10 years older than him and knew beforehand that he is already married. entitles him to exemption from payment of IBP dues. admitting his relationship with the complainant and recognizing the unborn child she was carrying as his. and worked in. On September 10. executed an affidavit. is being assessed P12. ISSUES 1. Atty. immoral or deceitful conduct. 1997. then migrated to. This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the SC. MARCH 6. NO 3.. WON the respondent should be disbarred. This is toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession to which they themselves belong. Aletha Jessa.       The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire law population.01 . Jr. he became part of the Phil Civil Service from 1962 to 1986. 1997. Disposition Wherefore. He admits that he signed the affidavit dated September 10. one of which is the payment of membership dues. RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:         that he never courted the complainant.. the US from 1986 to his retirement in 2003. On May 10. WON it is relevant to this case if the complainant knew he was married. NO HELD 1. he did not know at the time that complainant was seeing other men. 1997. Cecilio Y. 2003 NATURE: Petition for Disbarment on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct (Adulterous Relationship). During their affair. YES 2.

but grossly immoral. In fact. Disposition Court finds respondent GUILTY of Gross Immoral Conduct and ordered to suffer INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from the practice of law. Nevertheless.03 . Aspiras: “In a disbarment proceeding. it cannot be said that it is unknown to him that an applicant for admission to membership in the bar must show that he is possessed of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession.  Clearly therefore. flagrant. a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. the Court deems it more appropriate under the circumstances that indefinite suspension should be meted out than disbarment.A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.” The Court is not convinced. even if it pertains to his private activities.” “Rule 7. The suspension shall last until such time that respondent is able to show. and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. such conduct must not only be immoral. the Court does not perceive this fact as an indication of respondent’s effort to mend his ways or that he recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble profession of law. In Mortel vs. Thus.” Immoral conduct has been defined as: “xxx that conduct which is so willful. As of now.   That complainant entered into a relationship with him knowing full well his marital status does not absolve him of gross immorality for what is in question in a case like this is respondent’s fitness to be a member of the legal profession. to protect the public and the courts.” Complainant he seeks understanding from the Court. the attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable. amoral attitude of the respondent. it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. probity or good demeanor. Records show that from the time he took his oath in 1997.           “CANON 7 . Furthermore. that he had instilled in himself a firm conviction of maintaining moral integrity and uprightness required of every member of the profession. nor should he. unbecoming a member of a noble profession. That is. but its continued possession is essential to maintain one’s good standing in the profession. he has severed his ties with complainant and now lives with his wife and children in Mindoro. as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character. a requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser punishment could be given. pointing out that “men by nature are polygamous.     3. QUE V REVILLA FACTS: .” Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer. respondent violated the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly. to the full satisfaction of the Court.A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. More specifically. tantamount to selfstultification.” The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent was preparing to take the bar examinations. As consistently held by this Court. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct. Moreover. This Court has repeatedly held: “as officers of the court. but one to purge the law profession of unworthy members. It is not dependent whether or not the other party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with him. honesty.        2. or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. and that what happened between them was “nothing but mutual lust and desire. it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant. whether in public or private life. it is appalled at the reprehensible.

we hereby AFFIRM Resolution No. WHEREFORE. Rules 10. It is alleged that he did this to overturn the decision against his clients. He used the procedural rules to thwart and obstruct the speedy and efficient administration of justice. CAMACHO V PANGULAYAN VITUG. 2000 NATURE: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Revilla also filed two petitions for annulment of title. among other things.01 a lawyer shall not do any falsehood. AMACC while the case was pending. that 4 of the students had acknowledged their guilt and agreed to terminate all proceedings apparently.04. 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. premises considered.” respondent violated professional ethics and disregarded a duty owing to his colleague the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution suspending Pangulayan for 6 months and dismissed the case against the other respondents since they took no part in it the court concurred with IBP’s findings but reduced the suspension to 3 months . It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. a petition for annulment of judgment and later on a petition for declaratory relief in a different court in order to further delay the execution of the judgment against his clients.01. He also brought up certain falsities in his motions for reconsideration Issue: should he be disbarred? Held: Yes. Revilla lost in an unlawful detainer case and he repeatedly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC and RTC in the cases even when knew that these courts had jurisdiction. However. Rule 19. but should only deal with his counsel. much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him. He is also guilty of violating rule 10. Canon 8. His repeated attempts to go beyond legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interest of his clients are uncalled for measures to avoid the enforcement of the final judgment of the trial courts.       this action violates Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics which states: “A lawyer should not in anyway communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel. the Pangulayan Law Offices filed a Manifestation stating. allegedly published certain objectionable features the Student Disciplinary Tribunal found them guilty and the students were expelled the 9 students appealed but were denied by the AMACC President giving rise to a civil case calling for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Camacho as their counsel and Pangulayan and associates representing the defendant.         A lawyer is not at liberty to maintain an action through means inconsistent with truth and honor.03 of the CPR that makes it obligatory for a lawyer to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. He committed willful. Rules 12. Among other things. we modify the penalty the IBP imposed. 2005 and Resolution No. nor consent to the doing of any in court.02 and 12. Pangulayan procured and effected the re-admission agreements through negotiations with said students and their parents without communicating with Camacho ISSUE: WON Pangulayan is guilty of disregarding professional ethics HELD: YES. Revilla of violating certain provisions of the CPR. He concealed the truth from the court. Canon 12. Anastacio Revilla. Canon 10. all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE. Violation of the Code of Professional Ethics FACTS       9 students from the AMA Computer College (AMACC). and deliberate falsehood in the pleadings filed with the lower courts.01 and 10. is found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath. Jr. His duties to his clients yield to his duty to the court. 2008 of the Board of Governors of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline insofar as respondent Atty. He must not encourage multiplicity of suits or engage in forum shopping. letters of apology and readmission agreements were separately executed by and/or in behalf of the students by their parents following this. and Sections 20(d).03. XVII-2005-164 dated December 17. He neglected to file the proper remedy when it became available. XVII-2008-657 dated December 11. He violated rule 10. March 22. and hold that the respondent should be DISBARRED from the practice of law.    Que accused Atty. nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be mislead by an artifice.

. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. To allow lawyers to advertise their talents/skill is a commercialization of the practice of law (degrading the profession in the public’s estimation). complainant presented substantial evidence (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondent’s office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as profitedfrom referrals’ suits. WHEREFORE.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and section 27. Through Labiano’s actions. encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause. Rule 2. either personally or through paid agents or br okers.03. Such actuation constitutes malpractice. With regard to Canon 3.03. 000.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1. personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry and champerty. a lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited. This rule proscribes “ambulance chasing” (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney. Hence.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1. LINSANGAN vs.02 and 16. the practice of law is a profession and not a business. Violation of anti-solicitation statues warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining employment. shall not for any corrupt motive or interest. 8. and Rule 1. Thus. a ground for disbarment. In relation to Rule 1. he persistently called them and sent them text messages.03. integrity and effectiveness of the profession. lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for purpose of gain. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. 2. the Court adheres to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession. respondent’s law practice was benefited. denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card. either personally or through an agent. Issue: Whether or not Tolentino’s actions warrant disbarment. lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.03. The case against the other respondents is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. Rule 2. For this reason. respondent Atty. lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. To support his allegations. with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano. TOLENTINO Facts:       A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Respondent.                  In the case at bar. Canon 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner com patible with the independence. Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. As a final note regarding the calling card presented as evidence by Linsangan. in his defense.03: A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business Atty.     Rule 2. Complainant also attached “respondent’s” calling card. which proscribes “ambulance chasing” (involving solicitation personally or through an agent/broker) as a measure to protect community from barratry and champertry. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his services Held: Yes.03 of the CPR which provides that lawyer. Complaint alleged that respondent. complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead. respondent clearly solicited employmentvi olating Rule 2.03. lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct. convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. To induce them to hire his services. Any act of solicitations constitutes malpractice which calls for the exercise of the Court’sdisciplinary powers. in exchange for a loan of P50. Luis Meinrado C. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that respondent could produce a more favorable result. Based on the foregoing. Thus in this jurisdiction. With regard to Rule 2.00. W/N Atty.

Javellana’s mere house detention allows him to continue practice law. private respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to be held as detention prisoner in said residence. upon prior written permission of the trial court for a lawful purpose. respondent Atty. he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. Javellana as prisoner in his residence. 1997.  On April 7. including Avelino T. At that time. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers. is not Atty. . Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation. when Atty. while in detention. when a person indicted for an offense is arrested.03.02 and 16. unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. effective immediately. sufficient reason was shown why Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. Javellana considered an escapee or a fugitive of justice for which warrant for his arrest should forthwith be issued?" Issue: Whether or not Atty. Guingoyon filed with the Supreme Court a motion seeking clarification on the following questions: " (1) Does the resolution of this Honorable Court dated July 30.” The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. except. He went about his normal activities as if he were a free man. during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. and shall not be allowed to go out of the jail for any reason or guise. (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected. Javellana from appearing as counsel refer only to Criminal Case No. he ceased to be the personal custodian of accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the custodian under the same undertaking. However. Antique. Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase “with financial assistance. The SC stated that the trial court’s order specifically provided for Javallana’s detention at the residence of Atty. Atty. G. Deogracias Del Rosario the custody of private respondent Javellana with the obligation “to hold and detain” him in Atty. WHEREFORE.R. 1990. No. All accused in Criminal Cases Nos. del Rosario was appointed judge. Hence. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him. By such arrest. since he has not been convicted and a trial has not begun? Held: NO          Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of criminal cases against him. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Antique RTC. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. Senior State Prosecutor Henrick F. 2. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. 2000 This case stems from denial by the SC of the People’s motion seeking reconsideration of our August 13. (d) telephone number and (e) special branch of law practiced. Del Rosario’s residence in his official capacity as the clerk of court of the regional trial court. The trial court gave Atty. PEOPLE VS HON MACEDA Pardo. 3350-3355. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. Pacificador are ordered detained at the Provincial Jail of Antique. It was however found that the order was not strictly complied with because Javellana was not detained in the residence of Atty. 89591-96 Facts:       Jan. prohibiting Atty. Del Rosario. 1990 decision holding that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of August 8. or hold office. Deogracias del Rosario. 4262? (2) Is Atty. 3350-3355. San Jose. (c) address. elective or appointive. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.      Professional calling cards may only contain the following details: (a) lawyer’s name. 1989 order of the trial court is hereby SET ASIDE. As a matter of law. 8. thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. the August 8.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27. J. Javellana and Arturo F. Javellana? and (3) Since it appears that Atty. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserves no place in the legal profession WHEREFORE. Del Rosario. now (Judge) Deogracias del Rosario still the custodian of Atty.03. he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. 24. including engaging in the practice of law. (now Judge) del Rosario never really held and detained Atty. 1989 giving custody over private respondent Avelino T.

Those persons being ignorant would believe him and so would commit crimes. 1963. GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE. 1962 and February 18. Samar. Inspite of diligent efforts exerted by the Court to subpoena the complainant. 1963 and on March 1. 1963 he was present in his office although according to the testimony of Judge Miguel Avestruz he was before his Court on December 15. Rita.. We. ISSUE: Whether or not Felicisimo Malinao’s acts constitute illegal practice of law. therefore.  Before that. Zumarraga. He competes with attorneys but does not pay anything. We find no alternative than to separate him from the service. it is quite obvious that the offense committed by respondent is grave. He makes it his means of livelihood as he collects fees from his clients. Again according to Judge Juanito Reyes the respondent appeared in his Court on June 17. et al. — MR. The respondent did not offer any plausible explanation for this irregularity. he made it appear that on December 15. WHEREFORE. Samar charging as follows: ILLEGALLY APPEARING IN COURT. declared that the respondent appeared as counsel in civil case.ZETA V MALINAO A. Julio Zeta. In fact he has cases in the municipal court in this town involving himself and his men. Respondent averred that his participation for defendants' cause was gratuitous as they could not engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of one in the locality. 1978 FACTS:            Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao court interpreter of the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan.M. 1962 as well as on February 18. Samar. 1970. In the premises. . Even he has been out practicing in the municipal courts sometimes he would fill his time record as present. CRIME OF FALSIFICATION. 1970. Mr. February 18. Malinao we are sure has not secured that permission because he should not be allowed to practice as he is not an attorney. Samar the same had failed because the said Julio Zeta appears to be a fictitious person. hence it warrants a more drastic sanction than that of reprimand recommended by Judge Zosa. Comparing the dates when the respondent appeared before the aforementioned Municipal Courts with his daily time records. apart from appearing as counsel in various municipal courts without prior permission of his superiors in violation of civil service rules and regulations. Tan. et al. 1963. 1963. especially in his barrio to grab land rob or coerce. HELD: Yes. 1969. Malinao has been appearing in the municipal court of this town for parties like attorney when he is not an attorney. 1962. declared that according to his docket books the respondent appeared as counsel for Vicente Baculanlan in criminal case for grave threats and in criminal case for the same accused and Romulo Villagracia for illegal possession of firearm on August 5. Balajadia Facts:  Respondent Balajadia was charged for contempt by the petitioners. — Being employed in the Court of First Instance he would instigate persons. nevertheless the Court proceeded to investigate the case against him by calling several Judges. The respondent again made it appear in his daily time record that he was present with an undertime of five hours. 1970 in the same case. Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. No. for forcible entry on December 15. the respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioners with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City. who is said to be a resident of Zumarraga. with the admonition that he desist from appearing in any court or investigative body wherein Only members of the bar are allowed to practice. Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram. January 26.  Tan vs. furthermore.      It is clear to Us that respondent. Judge Juanito Reyes declared that on March 27. respondent Felicisimo Malinao is hereby ordered dismissed from his position as interpreter in the Court of First Instance. — Information has it that he is unfaithfully filing his time record in the CFI. adopt the above findings of fact of the Investigator. falsified his time record of service by making it appear therein that he was present in his office on occasions when in fact he was in the municipal courts appearing as counsel. without being a member of the bar. Western Samar with prejudice to reemployment in the judicial branch of the government. constitutes illegal practice of law. VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND CIVIL SERVICE LAW. the respondent appeared as counsel for the defendant in civil case entitled Restituto Centino versus Jesus Tizon for forcible entry and again on June 17. CFI. P-220 December 20. 1960 and on September 17. entitled Felix Versoza versus Victor Payao.WE have reliable information it is prohibited for a civil service employee to engage in private practice any profession or business without permission from the Department Head. which. He incite them telling them not to be afraid as he is a court employee and has influence over the judges.

grave misconduct. while the evidence on record failed to prove respondent’s deliberate intent to misrepresent himself as an attorney and act as such without authority. In reply to the charge of violation of law.  However. admitted the mistake of copying Atty.affidavit conforms to the documentary evidence on record and the allegation was indeed a result of inadvertence and doesn¶t establish intent to make him liable for indirect contempt  Respondent has satisfactorily shown that the allegation that he is a practicing lawyer was the result of inadvertence and cannot. The Court allowed respondent to take the oath. certifications issued by the OBC and the IBP showed that the respondent was admitted to the Bar. establish intent as to make him liable for indirect contempt. violation of law. June 10.  In the cases where we found a party liable for the unauthorized practice of law. However. Paterno Aquino prepared the complaint-affidavit patterned after Atty. complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar on the ground of unauthorized practice of law. George Bunan before the Municipal Board of Canvassers. by itself. Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate. Aquino¶s complaint-affidavit and instead of stating that Respondent Balajadia is a businessman. complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel George Bunan without the latter engaging respondent’s services. On July 17. In the complainant’s reply to the respondent’s comments. The OBC also believes that respondent’s unauthorized practice of law is a ground to deny his admission to the practice of law. complainant claims that the respondent is a municipal government employee and as such. Consequently. not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law.  WHEREFORE.” He also admitted signing the pleading. 2001. the respondent asserted that he is a ³practicing lawyer´ based in Baguio City. He further claims that the complaint is politically charged since the complainant is the daughter of the losing candidate for mayor of Mandaon. She also claims that he signed the pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice. and grave misrepresentation. violation of law and grave misrepresentation FACTS              On May 21.[13] manifesting before the court that he will practice law despite being previously denied admission to the bar. he is hereby warned to be more careful and circumspect in his future actions. Aquino¶s secretary. . HELD: NO  The affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the mistake in drafting the complaint. but did not allow him to sign the Roll of Attorneys. The OBC found that the respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC as counsel for Bunan. Masbate. no evidence was presented to show that respondent acted as an attorney or that he intended to practice law. On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation. one day before respondent Edwin Rana participated the oath-taking of successful bar examinees as member of the Philippine bar. as seen in the minutes of the MBEC proceedings. Issue: Whether not the respondent is liable for direct contempt. 2003 NATURE: Administrative matter on unauthorized practice of law. On the charge of violation of law. Respondent claims though George Bunan sought his specific assistance. the petition is DISMISSED. he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt considering his lack of intent to illegally practice law. the party was guilty of some overt act like signing court pleadings on behalf of his client. The complainant charges him with unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct since she claims that he already appeared as counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate of Mandaon. Aquino¶s affidavit. Masbate. he claims that he already resigned from the said government post May 11. the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confident (OBC). Emily Estipona-Hao filed a petition for proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor wherein the respondent signed as counsel for her. he was erroneously referred to as a practicing lawyer. she further alleges that on May 19.[14] or deliberately attempting to practice law and holding out himself as an attorney through circulars with full knowledge that he is not licensed to do so. grave misconduct. In his complaint-affidavit. Atty. he is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body.  Liza Laconsay.Mayor as counsel for the said candidate. AGUIRRE V RANA CARPIO.  In the case at bar.  Respondent asserted that the allegation that he was a practicing lawyer is an honest mistake. 2001.[12] appearing before court hearings as an attorney. “he decided to assist and advice Bunan.  He claims that the secretary of Atty. but not as a lawyer.

Respondent’s claim that the attorney’s fee pertains only to the recovery of complainant’s savings deposit from Planter’s Development Bank cannot be sustained. Rogelio P. and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. Lijauco and to submit to this Court proof of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom. Rana as his counsel to represent him” before the MBEC and similar bodies.000.01. It is clear that he engaged in the practice of law. He also signed the pleading as his lawyer. It was also alleged that he only appeared as counsel for the petitioner for the recovery of the bank deposit and did not appear in the hearing of the Writ of Possession of the lot in Laguna. Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate. he should undertake the task with zeal. Edwin L. GEORGE T. While there was no misrepresentation. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. The IBP-Commission on Discipline found his acts violative of the Code of Professional responsibility. including honesty. By openly admitting he divided the Php 70. for it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys which makes one a full-fledged lawyer. TERRADO Facts:      The present was complaint was prompted by the alleged inability of the respondent lawyer to “meet his end of the bargain” after collecting excessive lawyer’s fees. He is further ordered to RETURN. ROGELIO P. Held:        The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Commission on discipline that he violated the Code of Professional responsibility specifically Canon 9. BUNAN. PLUS BUILDERS. it was found that he was involved in the release of the foreclosed Laguna lot because he was the one who made the Compromise Agreement in favor of the client. ANASACIO REVILLA Facts: INC. Emily Estipona-Hao also wrote to the MBEC that the respondent will be the legal counsel for her party. evidence shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies.02. . lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality. integrity and fair dealing. As for the charge of violation of law. He was the counsel of the petitioner who gave him P 70. the sum of P70.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Respondent is denied admission to the Philippine Bar LUZVIMINDA C. Issue: Whether or not he indeed violated the Code of Professional responsibility. 9. 18. LIJAUCO vs. and EDGARDO GARCIA vs.2. In the first paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated that he was the “(U)ndersigned Counsel for. the respondent claims that the amount he collected was only for the recovery of deposit and not for the recovery of the foreclosed lot. Disposition. On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation.02.02 and 20.            Records show that he indeed appeared as lawyer for Bunan. care and utmost devotion. Atty.   Upon investigation. He claimed further that the amount was not excessive for it was the referral fees for two other individuals who were non-lawyers.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In his denial. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice.000. It is also irrelevant the respondent has already passed the bar and taken his oath. it is clear that the respondent has already resigned from the said position before appearing as counsel.00 to other individuals as commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9. All these happened before he took his lawyer’s oath. ATTY. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1. Indeed.ISSUE WON the respondent should be denied admission to the Philippine Bar HELD: Yes. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorneyclient relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause.” Bunan himself also wrote to the MBEC that he had “authorized Atty. within thirty (30) days from notice.000 from the Planter’s Bank and the release of the petitioner’s foreclosed lot in Laguna as well. The respondent also signed the pleading as their lawyer. WHEREFORE. Records show that he acted as complainant’s counsel in the drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter and the bank relative to LRC Case No.000 for the recovery of P 180. Atty. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case. B-2610. respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice law.

Among these machinations and strategies include his involvement in the unauthorized practice of law by allowing a group of nonlawyers to submit a pleading collectively representing themselves as law partners in KDC Legal Services. that his course of legal action was obviously a stratagem to delay unduly the execution of the provincial adjudicator's Decision.” 'Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. Anastacio E. Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 9. Inc. The Canon states that "— A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law0. and Associates and solicited fees for such. however. The lawyer's duty to prevent. WHEREFORE. The records show. Jr. or at the very least not to assist in. the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely . the silence or failure of respondent to challenge the allegation that he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law may be deemed an admission of the truth of the accusation. respondent claims good faith in pursuing the cause of his clients. The respondent contends that he only did such in good faith to exert utmost efforts to defend his clients. violation the Code of Professional Responsibility. This prompted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline to review the matter and eventuall yfound the respondent guilt of unlawful practice of law because he was not able to deny that the allegations were true. The respondent allegedly resorted to unlawful strategies and machinations after the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite rendered a decision against the tenants regarding ownership of the subject properties. no matter how guilty he may appear to be. Revilla. is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law. Law Officers.' In the present case.     The respondent herein is the counsel of the tenants/ farmers in cases regarding the properties owned by the petitioners Plus Builders. Held: YES        He indeed violated Canon 9. effective upon his receipt of this Decision.