You are on page 1of 11

Object 1

DirectorofReligiousAffairsvs.Bayot
Facts:RespondentischargedwithmalpracticeforhavingpublishedanadvertisementinSundayTribunalon
June13,1943whichreadsasfollows
Marriagelicensepromptlysecuredthruourassistanceandtheannoyanceofdelayorpublicityavoidedifdesired
andmarriagearrangedtowishesofparties.Consultationonanymatterfreeforthepoor.Everythingconfidential.
Legalassistanceservice
12Escolta,Manila
Room105,Tel.24160
Issue:Whetherornottheadvertisementisethical.
Held:Itisundeniablethattheadvertisementinquestionwasaflagrantviolationbytherespondentoftheethics
ofhisprofession,itbeingabrazensolicitationofbusinessfromthepublic.Section25ofRule127expressly
providesamongotherthingsthatthepracticeofsolicitingcasesatlawforthepurposeofgain,eitherpersonally
orthroughpaidagentsorbrokers,constitutesmalpractice.Itishighlyunethicalforanattorneytoadvertisehis
talentsorskillasamerchantadvertiseshiswares.Lawisaprofessionandatrade.Thelawyerdegradeshimself
andhisprofessionwhostoopstoandadoptsthepracticeofmerchantilismbyadvertisinghisservicesoroffering
themtothepublic.Asamemberofthebar,hedefilesthetempleofjusticewithmercenaryactivitiesasthe
moneychangersofolddefiledthetempleofJehovah.Themostworthyandeffectiveadvertisementpossible,
evenforayounglawyeristheestablishmentofawellmeritedreputationforprofessionalcapacityandfidelityto
trust.Thiscannotbeforcedbutmustbetheoutcomeofcharacterandconduct.(Canon27,CodeofEthics.)

JESUSMA.CUIvs.ANTONIOMA.CUI,ROMULOCUIG.R.NO.L18727AUGUST31,1964
FACTS:
HospicioisacharitableinstitutionestablishedbythespousesDonPedroCuiandDoaBenignaCui,now
deceased,"forthecareandsupport,freeofcharge,ofindigentinvalids,andincapacitatedandhelplesspersons."
Itacquiredcorporateexistencebylegislationandendowedwithextensivepropertiesbythesaidspousesthrough
aseriesofdonations,principallythedeedofdonation.Section2ofActNo.3239gavetheinitial
managementtothefoundersjointlyand,in caseoftheirincapacityordeath,to"suchpersonsastheymay
nominateordesignate,intheorderprescribedtothem."DonPedroCuidiedin1926,andhiswidow
continuedtoadministertheHospiciountilherdeathin1929.Thereupontheadministrationpassedto
MauricioCuiandDionisioJakosalemwhobothdied.Dr.TeodoroCui,onlysonofMauricioCui,becamethe
administrator.PlaintiffJesusMa.CuianddefendantAntonioMa.Cuiarebrothers,beingthesons
ofMarianoCui,oneofthenephewsofthespousesDonPedroCuiandDoaBenignaCui.On27February1960
thethenincumbentadministrator,Dr.TeodoroCui,resignedinfavorofAntonioMa.Cuipursuanttoa"convenio"
enteredintobetweenthemandembodiedinanotarialdocument.Thenextday,28February,AntonioMa.Cui
tookhisoathofoffice.JesusMa.Cui,however,hadnopriornoticeofeitherthe"convenio"orofhisbrother's
assumptionoftheposition.Dr.TeodoroCuidiedonAugust27,1960;onSept5,1960theplaintiff
wrotealettertothedefendantdemandingthattheofficebeturnedovertohim;andthedemandnothaving
beencompliedwiththeplaintifffiledthecomplaintinthiscase.RomuloCuilateronintervened,claimingaright
tothesameoffice,beingagrandsonofVicenteCui,anotheroneofthenephewsmentionedbythefoundersofthe
Hospiciointheirdeedofdonation.
AsbetweenJesusandAntoniothemainissueturnsupontheirrespectivequalificationsto
thepositionofadministrator.Jesusistheolderofthetwoandthereforeunderequalcircumstanceswouldbe
preferredpursuanttosection2ofthedeedofdonation.However,beforethetestofagemaybe,appliedthedeed
givespreferencetotheone,amongthelegitimatedescendantsofthenephewsthereinnamed,"queposeatitulo
deabogado,omedico,oingenierocivil,ofarmaceutico,oafaltadeestostituloselquepaguealestadomayor
impuestoocontribucion."Thespecificpointindisputeisthemeaningoftheterm"titulodeabogado."Jesus
Ma.CuiholdsthedegreeofBachelorofLawsfromtheUniversityofSantoTomas(Class1926)butisnota
memberoftheBar,nothavingpassedtheexaminationstoqualifyhimasone.AntonioMa.Cui,ontheother
hand,isamemberoftheBarandalthoughdisbarredbythisCourt,hewasreinstatedbyresolutionpromulgated
on10February1960,abouttwoweeksbeforeheassumedthepositionofadministratoroftheHospiciodeBarili.

C o u r t
aquo decidedinfavoroftheplaintiff,saidthatthephrase"titulodeabogado,"takenalone,meansthatofa
fullfledgedlawyer,butthathasusedinthedeedofdonationandconsideringthefunctionorpurposeofthe
administrator,itshouldnotbegivenastrictinterpretationbutaliberalone,"andthereforemeansalawdegreeor
diplomaofBachelorofLaws.Thisrulingisassailedaserroneousbothbythedefendantandbytheintervenor.
ISSUE:WONtheplaintiffisnotentitled,asagainstthedefendant,totheofficeofadministrator.

(YES)

RATIO:
Whethertakenaloneorincontexttheterm"titulodeabogado"meansnotmerepossessionofthe
academicdegreeofBachelorofLawsbutmembershipintheBarafterdueadmissionthereto,qualifyingonefor
thepracticeoflaw.ABachelor'sdegreealone,conferredbyalawschooluponcompletionofcertainacademic
requirements,doesnotentitleitsholdertoexercisethelegalprofession.TheEnglishequivalentof"abogado"is
lawyerorattorneyatlaw.Thistermhasafixedandgeneralsignification,andhasreferencetothatclass
ofpersonswhoarebylicenseofficersofthecourts,empoweredtoappear,prosecuteanddefend,anduponwhom
peculiarduties,responsibilitiesandliabilitiesaredevolvedbylawasaconsequence.Inthisjurisdictionadmission
totheBarandtothepracticeoflawisundertheauthorityoftheSupremeCourt.AccordingtoRule138such
admissionrequirespassingtheBarexaminations,takingthelawyer'soathandreceivingacertificatefromthe
ClerkofCourt,thiscertificatebeinghislicensetopracticetheprofession.TheacademicdegreeofBachelorof
LawsinitselfhaslittletodowithadmissiontotheBar,exceptasevidenceofcompliancewiththerequirements
thatanapplicanttotheexaminationshas"successfullycompletedalltheprescribedcourses,inalawschoolor
university,officiallyapprovedbytheSecretaryofEducation."Forthispurpose,however,possessionofthedegree

itselfisnotindispensable:completionoftheprescribedcoursesmaybeshowninsomeotherway.Indeedthere
areinstances,particularlyundertheformerCodeofCivilProcedure,wherepersonswhohadnotgonethrough
anyformallegaleducationincollegewereallowedtotaketheBarexaminationsandtoqualifyaslawyers.
(Section14ofthatcoderequiredpossessionof"thenecessaryqualificationsoflearningability.")Yetcertainlyit
wouldbeincorrecttosaythatsuchpersonsdonotpossessthe"titulodeabogado"becausetheylacktheacademic
degreeofBachelorofLawsfromsomelawschooloruniversity.ThefoundersoftheHospiciodeSanJosede
Barilimusthaveestablishedtheforegoingtestadvisely,andprovidedinthedeedofdonationthatifnotalawyer,
theadministratorshouldbeadoctororacivilengineerorapharmacist,inthatorder;orfailingallthese,should
betheonewhopaysthehighesttaxesamongthoseotherwisequalified.
Alawyer,firstofall,becauseunderActNo.3239themanagersortrusteesoftheHospicioshall"make
regulationsforthegovernmentofsaidinstitution;shall"prescribetheconditionssubjecttowhichinvalidsand
incapacitatedanddestitutepersonsmaybeadmittedtotheinstitute";shallseetoitthattherulesandconditions
promulgatedforadmissionarenotinconflictwiththeprovisionsoftheAct;andshalladministerpropertiesof
considerablevalueforallofwhichwork,itistobepresumed,aworkingknowledgeofthelawandalicenseto
practicetheprofessionwouldbeadistinctasset.Underthisparticularcriterionweholdthattheplaintiffisnot
entitled,asagainstthedefendant,totheofficeofadministrator.Asfarasmoralcharacterisconcerned,the
standardrequiredofoneseekingreinstatementtotheofficeofattorneycannotbelessexactingthanthatimplied
inparagraph3ofthedeedofdonationasarequisitefortheofficewhichisdisputedinthiscase.Whenthe
defendantwasrestoredtotherolloflawyerstherestrictionsanddisabilitiesresultingfromhisprevious
disbarmentwerewipedout.FortheclaimofintervenerandappellantRomuloCui.Thispartyisalsoalawyer,
grandsonofVicenteCui,oneofthenephewsofthefoundersoftheHospiciomentionedbytheminthedeedof
donation.Heisfurther,inthelineofsuccession,thandefendantAntonioMa.Cui,whoisasonofMarianoCui,
anotheroneofthesaidnephews.BesidesbeinganearerdescendantthanRomuloCui,AntonioMa.Cuiisolder
thanheandthereforeispreferredwhenthecircumstancesareotherwiseequal.Theintervenorcontendsthatthe
intentionofthefounderswastoconfertheadministrationbylineandsuccessivelytothedescendantsofthe
nephewsnamedinthedeed,intheordertheyarenamed.Thus,heargues,sincethelastadministratorwasDr.
TeodoroCui,whobelongedtotheMauricioCuiline,thenextadministratormustcomefromthelineofVicente
Cui,towhomtheintervenorbelongs.Thisinterpretation,however,isnotjustifiedbythetermsofthedeedof
donation.

FactsoftheCase:
SophiaAlawiisasalesrepresentativeofEBVillarosa&Partners,Co.Ltd.OfDavaoCity,while
AshariAlauyaisanincumbentexecutiveclerkofcourtof4thJudicialShariaDistrictinMarawiCity.
AlawiandAlauyawereclassmatesandfriends.ThroughAlawisagency,acontractwasexecutedfor
thepurchaseoninstalmentsbyAlauyaofoneofthehousingunitsbelongingtotheabovementionedfirm.
Thereafter,ahousingloanwasgrantedtoAlauyabytheNationalHOMEMORTGAGE FinanceCorporation
(NHMFC).OnDecember15,1995,AlauyaaddressedalettertothePresidentofVillarosaandCo.advising
theterminationofcontractwiththecompany,onthegroundthatAlauyasconsentwasvitiatedbygross
misrepresentation,deceit,fraud,dishonestyandabuseofconfidencebysalesagentwhichmakesthecontract
voidabinitio.
AlauyaalsowrotetoVicePresidentofCreditandCollectionGroupofNationalHOME
MORTGAGEFinanceCorp.(NHMFC)repudiatingasfraudulentandvoidhiscontractwithVillarosa&Co.
andaskingforacancellationofhishousingloan.
AlauyaalsowrotetoMs.CorazonOrdonez,HeadofFiscalManagementandBudgetOffice,andtothe
Chief,FinanceDivisionofSupremeCourttostopdeductionsfromhissalary.
AlawifiledonSCaverifiedcomplaintdatedJanuary25,1996,towhichsheappendedacopyoftheletter
andaccusedAlauyaof:

faith.

Imputationoflibellouschargeswithnosolidgroundsthroughmanifestignoranceandevidentbad

Causingundueinjury.

Unauthorizedenjoymentoffreepostage.

UsurpationofthetitleattorneywhichonlyregularmembersofthePhilippineBarmayuse.

AlauyathereafterclaimsthatAlawiwasonlyenviousofhimforbeinganExecutiveClerkofCourtbutalsoa
scionofaRoyalFamily.HealsoclaimedthatAlawifalsifiedhissignature.
Aswiththeuseofthetitleattorney,hejustifieditbyassertionthatitissynonymouswithCounsellors
atLaw.Hepreferredtouseattorneybecausecounsellorisoftenmistakenforcouncillor.

Issue:

WhetherornotAlauyaisguiltyoflibellouschargeswithoutsolidgroundsthroughbadfaith.

WhetherornotAlauyaisentitledtousetheappellationattorney.

CourtRuling:
TheCodeofConductandEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsandEmployees(R.A.6713)

enunciatestheStatepolicyofpromotingahighstandardofethicsandutmostresponsibilityinthepublic
service.Publicofficialsandemployeesmustatalltimesrespecttherightsofothersandrefrainfromdoing
actscontrarytolaw,goodmorals,goodcustoms,publicpolicy,publicorder,publicsafetyandpublic
interest.
Theconductofbehaviourofeveryofficialandemployeeofanagencyinvolvedinadministrationof
justicefrompresidingjudgetothemostjuniorclerk,shouldbecircumscribedwithheavyburdenofresponsibility.
Hemustactwithjustice,giveeveryonehisdue,andobservehonestyandgoodfaith.
AstoAlauyasusurpationofthetitleattorney,theCourthasdeclaredthatpersonswhopassed
theShariaBararenotfullfledgemembersofthePhilippinebar.Hisdisinclinationtousethetitle
counsellordoesnotwarranthisuseofthetitleattorney.

InInreMeling,theCourtsaidthatthetitleattorneyisreservedonlytothose,who,havingobtained
thenecessarydegreeinthestudyoflawandsuccessfullytakentheBarExaminations,havebeenadmitted
totheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesandremainmembersthereofingoodstanding,anditistheywho
areauthorizedtopracticelawinthisjurisdiction.
INRECUNANAN(CASEDIGEST)
Standard
INRECUNANAN
94PHIL.534

FACTS:
CongresspassedRep.ActNo.972,orwhatisknownastheBarFlunkersAct,in1952.Thetitleofthelawwas,
AnActtoFixthePassingMarksforBarExaminationsfrom1946uptoandincluding1955.
Section1providedthefollowingpassingmarks:
1946195170%
1952.71%
1953..72%
1954..73%
1955..74%
Providedhowever,thattheexamineeshallhavenogradelowerthan50%.
Section2oftheActprovidedthatAbarcandidatewhoobtainedagradeof75%inanysubjectshallbedeemed
tohavealreadypassedthatsubjectandthegrade/gradesshallbeincludedinthecomputationofthegeneral
averageinsubsequentbarexaminations.
ISSUE:
Whetherofnot,R.A.No.972isconstitutional.
RULING:
Section2wasdeclaredunconstitutionalduetothefataldefectofnotbeingembracedinthetitleoftheAct.As
peritstitle,theActshouldaffectonlythebarflunkersof1946to1955Barexaminations.Section2establishesa

permanentsystemforanindefinitetime.Itwasalsostruckdownforallowingpartialpassing,thusfailingtotake
accountofthefactthatlawsandjurisprudencearenotstationary.
AstoSection1,theportionfor19461951wasdeclaredunconstitutional,whilethatfor1953to1955was
declaredinforceandeffect.Theportionthatwasstrickendownwasbasedunderthefollowingreasons:
1. Thelawitselfadmitsthatthecandidatesforadmissionwhoflunkedthebarfrom1946to1952had
inadequatepreparationduetothefactthatthiswasveryclosetotheendofWorldWarII;
2. Thelawis,ineffect,ajudgmentrevokingtheresolutionofthecourtonthepetitionsofthesaid
candidates;
3. ThelawisanencroachmentontheCourtsprimaryprerogativetodeterminewhomaybeadmittedto
practiceoflawand,therefore,inexcessoflegislativepowertorepeal,alterandsupplementtheRulesof
Court.TheruleslaiddownbyCongressunderthispowerareonlyminimumnorms,notdesignedto
substitutethejudgmentofthecourtonwhocanpracticelaw;and
4. Thepretendedclassificationisarbitraryandamountstoclasslegislation.
Astotheportiondeclaredinforceandeffect,theCourtcouldnotmusterenoughvotestodeclareitvoid.
Moreover,thelawwaspassedin1952,totakeeffectin1953.Hence,itwillnotrevokeexistingSupremeCourt
resolutionsdenyingadmissiontothebarofanpetitioner.Thesamemayalsorationallyfallwithinthepowerto
Congresstoalter,supplementormodifyrulesofadmissiontothepracticeoflaw.
CASEDIGEST
PHILIPPINELAWYER'SASSOCIATIONvs.CELEDONIOAGRAVA
G.R.No.L12426.February16,1959.
FACTS:
Onmay27,1957,respondentDirectorissuedacircularannouncingthathehadscheduledanexaminationforthe
purposeofdeterminingwhoarequalifiedtopracticeaspatentattorneysbeforethePhilippinesPatentOffice.
Accordingtothecircular,membersofthePhilippineBar,engineersandotherpersonswithsufficientscientific
and technical training are qualified to take thesaid examination. The petitioner contends that one who has
passedthebarexaminationsandislicensedbytheSupremeCourttopracticelawinthePhilippinesandwhoisin
goodstandingisdulyqualifiedtopracticebeforethePhilippinesPatentOfficeandthattherespondentDirectors
holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.The
respondent,inreply,maintainstheprosecutionofpatentcasesdoesnotinvolveentirelyorpurelythepracticeof
lawbutincludestheapplicationofscientificandtechnicalknowledgeandtrainingasamatterofactualpractice
soastoincludeengineersandotherindividualswhopassedtheexaminationcanpracticebeforethePatentoffice.
Furthermore,hestressedthatforthelongtimeheisholdingtests,thisisthefirsttimethathisrighthasbeen
questionedformally.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent
application,etc.,constitutesorisincludedinthepracticeoflaw.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the
representationofapplicants,oppositors,andotherpersons,andtheprosecutionoftheirapplicationsforpatent,
theiroppositionthereto,ortheenforcementoftheirrightsinpatentcases.Moreover,thepracticebeforethe
patent Office involves the interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the
existenceoffactstobeestablishedinaccordancewiththelawofevidenceandprocedure.Thepracticeoflawis
notlimitedtotheconductofcasesorlitigationincourtbutalsoembracesallothermattersconnectedwiththe
lawandanyworkinvolvingthedeterminationbythelegalmindofthelegaleffectsoffactsandconditions.
Furthermore,thelawprovidesthatanypartymayappealtotheSupremeCourtfromanyfinalorderordecision
ofthedirector.Thus,ifthetransactionsofbusinessinthePatentOfficeinvolvedexclusivelyormostlytechnical
andscientificknowledgeandtraining,thenlogically,theappealshouldbetakennottoacourtorjudicialbody,
butrathertoaboardofscientists,engineersortechnicalmen,whichisnotthecase.

CASEDIGEST
RENATOCAYETANOvs.CHRISTIANMONSOD
G.R.No.100113.September3,1991.

FACTS:
MonsodwasnominatedbyPresidentAquinoasChairmanoftheComelec.TheCommissiononAppointments
confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's alleged lack of the required
qualification of 10 year law practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition.The 1987 constitution
providesinSection1,ArticleIXC:ThereshallbeaCommissiononElectionscomposedofaChairmanandsix
CommissionerswhoshallbenaturalborncitizensofthePhilippinesand,atthetimeoftheirappointment,atleast
thirtyfiveyearsofage,holdersofacollegedegree,andmustnothavebeencandidatesforanyelectiveposition
intheimmediatelyprecedingelections.However,amajoritythereof,includingtheChairman,shallbemembersof
thePhilippineBarwhohavebeenengagedinthepracticeoflawforatleasttenyears.

ISSUE:
1.WhetherornotMonsodhasbeenengagedinthepracticeoflawfor10years.
2.WhetherornottheCommissiononAppointmentscommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninconfirmingMonsods
appointment.
HELD:
1.YES.Thepracticeoflawisnotlimitedtotheconductofcasesorlitigationincourt.Itembracesthepreparation
ofpleadingsandotherpapersincidenttoactionsandspecialproceedings,themanagementofsuchactionsand
proceedingsonbehalfofclients,andotherworkswheretheworkdoneinvolvesthedeterminationofthetrained
legalmindofthelegaleffectoffactsandconditions(PLAvs.Agrava.)Therecordsofthe1986constitutional
commissionshowthattheinterpretationofthetermpracticeoflawwasliberalastoconsiderlawyersemployed
intheCommissionofAuditasengagedinthepracticeoflawprovidedthattheyusetheirlegalknowledgeor
talentintheirrespectivework.ThecourtalsocitedanarticleintheJanuary11,1989issueoftheBusinessStar,
thatlawyersnowadayshavetheirownspecializedfieldssuchastaxlawyers,prosecutors,etc.,thatbecauseofthe
demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works or functions to meet them. These days, for
example,mostcorporationlawyersareinvolvedinmanagementpolicy formulation.Therefore,Monsod,who
passedthebarin1960,workedwiththeWorldBankGroupfrom19631970,thenworkedforaninvestment
banktill1986,becamememberoftheCONCOMin1986,andalsobecameamemberoftheDavideCommission
in1990,canbeconsideredtohavebeenengagedinthepracticeoflawaslawyereconomist,lawyermanager,
lawyerentrepreneur,etc.
2. NO.ThepoweroftheCOAtogiveconsenttothenominationoftheComelecChairmanbythepresident
ismandatedbytheconstitution.Thepowerofappointmentisessentiallywithinthediscretionofwhomit
issovestedsubjecttotheonlyconditionthattheappointeeshouldpossessthequalificationrequiredby
law.Fromtheevidence,thereisnooccasionfortheSCtoexerciseitscorrectivepowersincethereisno
suchgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheCA.
3.
DIGEST:LegalProfessionCase23
LEGALPROFESSIONCASE23
ROYONGVS.OBLENA
ACNo.376April30,1963

EnBanc,Barrera
FACTS:
ComplainantJosefinaRoyongchargetherespondentAristonOblena,amemberofthebarandbench,with
rape.TheSolicitorGeneralimmediatelyconductedaninvestigationandfoundoutthattherewasnorape,the
carnalknowledgebetweencomplainantandrespondentseemstobeconsensualsex.
Inviewofhisownfindingsasaresultofhisinvestigation,thatevenifrespondentdidnotcommitthealleged
rape,nevertheless,hewasguiltyofothermisconduct.TheSolicitorGeneralmadeanothercomplaintchargingthe
respondentoffalselyanddeliberatelyalleginginhisapplicationforadmissiontothebarthatheisapersonof
goodmoralcharacter,oflivingadulterouslywithBricciaAngelesatthesametimemaintainingillicitrelations
withthe18yearoldJosefinaRoyong.Thusrenderinghimunfittopracticelaw,prayingthatthisCourtrender
judgmentorderingthepermanentremovaloftherespondentaslawyerandjudge.
ISSUE:
WhetherornottheillicitrelationoftherespondentwithJosefinaRoyongandtheadulterouscohabitationof
respondentwithBricciaAngeleswarrantsdisbarment.
HELD:
AristonOblenawasdisbarred.
RATIO:
Thecontinuedpossessionofafairprivateandprofessionalcharacteroragoodmoralcharacterisarequisite
conditionfortherightfulcontinuanceinthepracticeoflawforonewhohasbeenadmitted,anditslossrequires
suspensionordisbarmenteventhoughthestatutesdonotspecifythatasgroundfordisbarment.
Respondent'sconductthoughunrelatedtohisofficeandinnowaydirectlybearingonhisprofession,has
neverthelessrenderedhimunfitandunworthyoftheprivilegesofalawyer.
Fornication,ifcommittedundersuchscandalousorrevoltingcircumstancesashaveproveninthiscase,asto
shockcommonsenseofdecency,certainlymayjustifypositiveactionbytheCourtinprotectingtheprestigeofthe
nobleprofessionofthelaw.
AsformerChiefJusticeMoranobserved:Anapplicantforlicensetopracticelawisrequiredtoshowgoodmoral
character,orwhathereallyis,asdistinguishedfromgoodreputation,orfromtheopiniongenerallyentertained
ofhim,theestimateinwhichheisheldbythepublicintheplacewhereheisknown.
Respondent,therefore,didnotpossessagoodmoralcharacteratthetimeheappliedforadmissiontothebar.He
livedanadulterouslifewithBricciaAngeles,andthefactthatpeoplewhoknewhimsqemedtohaveacuuiesced
tohisutatus,didnoqrenderhimapersonofgoodmoralcharacter.Itisofnomomentthathisimmoralstatewas
discoveredthenornowasheisclearlynotfittoremainamemberofthebar.
DOCKETNO./CASENO.:A.C.No.244

Object 2

DATE:March29,1963
SUBJECT:IntheMatterofthePetitionforDisbarmentofTelesforoA.Diao
PETITIONER:SeverinoG.Martinez

FACTS:
TelesforoA.DiaopassedtheBarExaminationsin1953.Twoyearsafter,SeverinoMartinezchargedhim(Diao)of
misrepresentationintheapplicationoftheexaminationsbecasueDiaofailedtomeettheacademicprerequisites.
Diaodidnotcompletesecondaryeducation(highschool)anddidnotattendQuisumbingCollegenorobtainedan

AssociateinArtsdegreefromthesaidinstitution.
DiaoadmittedthechargebutclaimedthathelefthighschoolinhisthirdyearbecauseheservedintheU.S.
Army.HepassedtheGeneralClassificationTest,whichwassaidtobeanequivalenttoahighschooldiploma.

ISSUE:
WhetherornotDiaoshouldcontinuetopracticelaw?

HELD:
NO.
Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false
representations,hewasallowedtotakeit,luckilypassedit,andwasthereafteradmittedtotheBar.Suchadmission
having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar
examinationsisimmaterial.Passingsuchexaminationsisnottheonlyqualificationtobecomeanattorneyatlaw;
takingtheprescribedcoursesoflegalstudyintheregularmannerisequallyessential..
INRE:VICTORIOD.LANUEVO
A.M.No.1162August29,1975
Facts:
ThisisadisbarmentmatterwithregardstoAttorneyVictorioLanuevo,theBarConfidantforthe1971Bar
Examinations.SupremeCourtreceivedaconfidentialletterthatspeaksoftheexamnotebooksofaexaminee
namedRamonGalangwhohasbeenreevaluatedandrecorrectedsuchthathehurdledtheBarExamsandwas
admittedtotheBar.
LanuevoadmittedhavingbroughtthefiveexaminationnotebooksofRamonE.Galangbacktotherespective
examinersforreevalutionorrechecking.Thefiveexaminersadmittedhavingreevaluatedorrecheckedthe
notebooktohimbytheBarConfidant,statingthathehastheauthoritytodothesameandthattheexaminee
concernedfailedonlyinhisparticularsubjectandwasontheborderlineofpassing.RamonGalangwasableto
passthe1971barexambecauseofLanuevosmovebuttheexamresultsbearsthathefailedin5subjectsnamely
in(Political,Civil,Mercantile,Criminal&Remedial).
Galangontheotherhand,deniedofhavingchargedofSlightPhysicalInjuriesonEufrosinodeVera,alawstudent
ofMLQU.
ThefiveexaminerswereledbyLanuevotobelievethatitistheBarCommitteesregularactivitythatwhenan
examineehasfailedinonesubjectalone,theresthepassed,theexaminerinthatsubjectwhichheflunkedwill
reviewhisexamnotebook.
Afterwards,Lanuevogainedpossessionoffewproperties,includingthatofahouseinBFHomes,whichwas
neverdeclaredinhisdeclarationofassetsandliabilities.
Issue:
WONLanuevowasguiltyofdefraudingtheexaminerssuchthatGalangpassedtheBar?YES
Held:
Itwasplain,simpleandunmitigateddeceptionthatcharacterizedrespondentLanuevoswellstudiedandwell
calculatedmovesinsuccessivelyrepresentingseparatelytoeachofthefiveexaminersconcernedtotheeffectthat
theexamineefailedonlyinhisparticularsubjectand/orwasontheborderlineofpassing.Torepeat,thebefore
theunauthorizedreevaluationsweremade,Galangfailedinthefive(5)majorsubjectsandintwo(2)minor
subjectswhichundernocircumstancesorstandardcoulditbehonestlyclaimedthattheexamineefailedonly
inone,orhewasontheborderlineofpassing.
TheBarConfidanthasabsolutelynothingtodointhereevaluationorreconsiderationofthegradesofexaminees
whofailtomakethepassingmarkbeforeoraftertheirnotebooksaresubmittedtoitbytheExaminers.TheBar
Confidanthasnobusinessevaluatingtheanswersoftheexamineesandcannotassumethefunctionsofpassing

upontheappraisalmadebytheExaminersconcerned.HeisnottheoverallExaminer.Hecannotpresumeto
knowbetterthantheexaminer.
ASTOGALANGSCRIMCASE:TheconcealmentofanattorneyinhisapplicationtotaketheBarexaminationsof
thefactthathehadbeenchargedwith,orindictedfor,anallegedcrime,isagroundforrevocationofhislicense
topracticelawiswellsettled.Thepracticeofthelawisnotanabsoluterighttobegrantedeveryonewho
demandsit,butisaprivilegetobeextendedorwithheldintheexerciseofsounddiscretion.Thestandardsofthe
legalprofessionarenotsatisfiedbyconductwhichmerelyenablesonetoescapethepenaltiesofthecriminallaw.
UnderthecircumstancesinwhichrespondentRamonE.Galang,aliasRomanE.Galang,wasallowedtotakethe
BarexaminationsandthehighlyirregularmannerinwhichhepassedtheBar,WEhavenootheralternativebut
toorderthesurrenderofhisattorneyscertificateandthestrikingoutofhisnamefromtheRollofAttorneys.
DECISION:Lanuevodisbarred,GalangstrickenfromtheRollofAttorneys.

InRe:Argosino,270SCRA26
18Jul
FACTS:
AlCaparrosArgosinohadpassedthebarexaminationsbutwasdeniedoftakingtheLawyersOathandtosignthe
RollsofAttorneysduetohisconvictionofrecklessimprudenceresultinginhomicidefromahazingincident.
Laterinhissentence,hewasgrantedprobationbythecourt.HefiledapetitiontotheSupremeCourtpraying
thathebeallowedtotaketheLawyersOathandsigntheRollsofAttorneys.Asaproofoftherequiredgood
moralcharacterhenowpossess,hepresentednolessthanfifteen(15)certificationsamongothersfrom:two(2)
senators,five(5)trialcourtjudges,andsix(6)membersofreligiousorder.Inaddition,he,togetherwiththe
otherswhowereconvicted,organizedascholarshipfoundationinhonoroftheirhazingvictim.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotMr.ArgosinoshouldbeallowedtotaketheLawyersOath,signtheRollsofAttorneys,and
practicelaw.
HELD:
YES.Petitiongranted.
RATIO:
GiventhefactthatMr.Argosinohadexhibitedcompetentproofthathepossessedtherequiredgoodmoral
characterasrequiredbeforetakingtheLawyersOathandtosigntheRollsofAttorneys,theSupremeCourt
consideredthepremisesthatheisnotinherentlyinbadmoralfiber.Ingivingthebenefitofthedoubt,Mr.
ArgosinowasfinallyremindedthattheLawyersOathisnotmerelyaceremonyorformalitybeforethepracticeof
law,andthatthecommunityassistancehehadstartedisexpectedtocontinueinservingthemoreunfortunate
membersofthesociety.

AguirreVs.Rana
RespondentEdwinL.Ranawasamongthosewhopassedthe2000BarExaminations.OnMay21,2001,oneday
beforethescheduledmassoathtakingofthesuccessfulbarexamineesasmembersofthePhilippineBar,
complainantDonnaMaeAguirrefiledagainstrespondentapetitionforDenialofAdmissiontotheBar.
Complainantchargedrespondentwithunauthorizedpracticeoflaw,gravemisconduct,violationoflawandgrave
misrepresentation.
TheOfficeoftheBarConfidantfoundthattherespondentindeedappearedbeforetheMunicipalBoardof
ElectionCanvassersascounselforBunanintheMay2001elections.
SupremeCourtagreewiththefindingsandconclusionsoftheOBCthatrespondentengagedintheunauthorized

practiceoflawanddoesnotdeserveadmissionadmissiontothePhilippineBar.True,respondentherepassedthe
2000BarExaminationsandtookthelawyer'soath.HoweveritisthesigningintheRollofAttorneysthatfinally
makesoneafullfledgedlawyer.
Wherefore,respondentEdwinL.RanaisDENIEDadmissiontothePhilippineBar.