You are on page 1of 49


285 SCRA 59 – Legal Ethics – Lawyer’s Oath
In 1991, a neophyte died during the initiation rites of Lex Talionis Fraternitas in the San
Beda College of Law. Arthur Cuevas Jr was one of the persons charged (with murder)
for the death of the neophyte. He pleaded guilty and was later convicted to the lesser
crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. Thereafter, Cuevas was granted
probation and he continued taking up law. In 1995, he was discharged from probation.
In 1996, the Supreme Court allowed Cuevas to take the bar on the condition that in
case he will pass, his oath taking will have to be approved by the Supreme Court first.
Cuevas did pass the 1996 bar exams and in 1997, he filed a petition before the
Supreme Court asking the latter to allow him to take the Lawyer’s Oath.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cuevas may be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court is duty bound to prevent the entry of undeserving
aspirants, as well as to exclude those who have been admitted but have become a
disgrace to the profession. Cuevas’ participation in the senseless killing of the neophyte
is highly reprehensible however, the Supreme Court is willing to give him a chance
considering that Cuevas has received various certifications regarding his good behavior
while on probation.
The Supreme Court also stressed that the lawyer’s oath is not a mere formality recited
for a few minutes in the glare of flashing cameras and before the presence of select
witnesses. As a lawyer, Cuevas shall be expected to abide by the oath strictly and to
conduct himself beyond reproach at all times. As a lawyer he will now be in a better
position to render legal and other services to the more unfortunate members of society.

MARILOU SEBASTIAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS, respondent.
For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of his
oath as lawyer, respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment.
The facts of this administrative case, as found by the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), [1] in its Report, are as follows:
Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) alleged that sometime in November, 1992, she was
referred to the respondent who promised to process all necessary documents required
for complainants trip to the USA for a fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos

On December 1, 1992 the complainant made a partial payment of the required fee in
the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), which was received by Ester
Calis, wife of the respondent for which a receipt was issued.
From the period of January 1993 to May 1994 complainant had several conferences
with the respondent regarding the processing of her travel documents. To facilitate the
processing, respondent demanded an additional amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos
(P65,000.00) and prevailed upon complainant to resign from her job as stenographer
with the Commission on Human Rights.
On June 20, 1994, to expedite the processing of her travel documents complainant
issued Planters Development Bank Check No. 12026524 in the amount of Sixty Five
Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) in favor of Atty. D. Calis who issued a receipt. After
receipt of said amount, respondent furnished the complainant copies of Supplemental
to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Of. 156) and a list of questions which would be
asked during interviews.
When complainant inquired about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the former that she
will be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer, employed as
sales manager of Matiao Marketing, Inc. the complainant was furnished documents to
support her assumed identity.
Realizing that she will be travelling with spurious documents, the complainant
demanded the return of her money, however she was assured by respondent that there
was nothing to worry about for he has been engaged in the business for quite
sometime; with the promise that her money will be refunded if something goes wrong.
Weeks before her departure respondent demanded for the payment of the required fee
which was paid by complainant, but the corresponding receipt was not given to her.
When complainant demanded for her passport, respondent assured the complainant
that it will be given to her on her departure which was scheduled on September 6,
1994. On said date complainant was given her passport and visa issued in the name
of Lizette P. Ferrer. Complainant left together with Jennyfer Belo and a certain Maribel
who were also recruits of the respondent.
Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant together with Jennyfer
Belo and Maribel were apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials for carrying
spurious travel documents; Complainant contacted the respondent through overseas
telephone call and informed him of by her predicament. From September 6 to 9, 1994,
complainant was detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore.
On September 9, 1994 the complainant was deported back to the Philippines and
respondent fetched her from the airport and brought her to his residence at 872-A Tres
Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Respondent took complainants passport with a
promise that he will secure new travel documents for complainant. Since complainant


opted not to pursue with her travel, she demanded for the return of her money in the
amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).

provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

On June 4, 1996, June 18 and July 5, 1996 respondent made partial refunds of
P15,000.00; P6,000.00; and P5,000.00.

that ATTY.
DOROTHEO CALIS be SUSPENDED as a member of the bar until he fully refunds the
fees paid to him by complainant and comply with the order of the Commission on Bar
Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court. [4]

On December 19, 1996 the complainant through counsel, sent a demand letter to
respondent for the refund of a remaining balance of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand
Pesos (P114,000.00) which was ignored by the respondent.
Sometime in March 1997 the complainant went to see the respondent, however his
wife informed her that the respondent was in Cebu attending to business matters.
In May 1997 the complainant again tried to see the respondent however she found out
that the respondent had transferred to an unknown residence apparently with intentions
to evade responsibility.
Attached to the complaint are the photocopies of receipts for the amount paid by
complainant, applications for U.S.A. Visa, questions and answers asked during
interviews; receipts acknowledging partial refunds of fees paid by the complainant
together with demand letter for the remaining balance of One Hundred Fourteen
Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00); which was received by the respondent.[2]
Despite several notices sent to the respondent requiring an answer to or comment
on the complaint, there was no response. Respondent likewise failed to attend the
scheduled hearings of the case. No appearance whatsoever was made by the
respondent.[3] As a result of the inexplicable failure, if not obdurate refusal of the
respondent to comply with the orders of the Commission, the investigation against him
proceeded ex parte.
On September 24, 1998, the Commission on Bar Discipline issued its Report on
the case, finding that:
It appears that the services of the respondent was engaged for the purpose of securing
a visa for a U.S.A. travel of complainant. There was no mention of job placement or
employment abroad, hence it is not correct to say that the respondent engaged in illegal
The alleged proposal of the respondent to secure the U.S.A. visa for the complainant
under an assumed name was accepted by the complainant which negates deceit on
the part of the respondent. Noted likewise is the partial refunds made by the respondent
of the fees paid by the complainant. However, the transfer of residence without a
forwarding address indicates his attempt to escape responsibility.
In the light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
for violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which

Pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, this administrative case
was elevated to the IBP Board of Governors for review. The Board in a
Resolution[5] dated December 4, 1998 resolved to adopt and approve with amendment
the recommendation of the Commission. The Resolution of the Board states:
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the aboveentitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decisions as Annex A; and, finding
the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws
and rules, with an amendment that Respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis
be DISBARRED for having been found guilty of Gross Misconduct for engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
We are now called upon to evaluate, for final action, the IBP recommendation
contained in its Resolution dated December 4, 1998, with its supporting report.
After examination and careful consideration of the records in this case, we find
the resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP in order. We agree with the
finding of the Commission that the charge of illegal recruitment was not established
because complainant failed to substantiate her allegation on the matter. In fact she did
not mention any particular job or employment promised to her by the respondent. The
only service of the respondent mentioned by the complainant was that of securing a
visa for the United States.
We likewise concur with the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution, that herein
respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that he could
give her visa and travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing untoward
would happen; that he guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund
her the fees and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong. All for material
Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and
dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A
lawyers relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good
faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is
not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep
inviolable.[6] The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person
of good moral character.[7] This requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the


practice of law.[8] We have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a lawyer,
whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt
as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. [9]


It is dismaying to note how respondent so cavalierly jeopardized the life and liberty
of complainant when he made her travel with spurious documents. How often have
victims of unscrupulous travel agents and illegal recruiters been imprisoned in foreign
lands because they were provided fake travel documents? Respondent totally
disregarded the personal safety of the complainant when he sent her abroad on false
assurances. Not only are respondents acts illegal, they are also detestable from the
moral point of view. His utter lack of moral qualms and scruples is a real threat to the
Bar and the administration of justice.


The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those
who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by
law for the conferment of such privilege. [10] We must stress that membership in the bar
is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only
during good behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained
and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be heard. [11]
Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the
orders of the IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are
contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in
removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical,
unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant.
Lastly, the grant in favor of the complainant for the recovery of the P114,000.00
she paid the respondent is in order.[12] Respondent not only unjustifiably refused to
return the complainants money upon demand, but he stubbornly persisted in holding
on to it, unmindful of the hardship and humiliation suffered by the complainant.
WHEREFORE, respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby DISBARRED and his name
is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be
FURNISHED to the IBP and the Bar Confidant to be spread on the personal records of
respondent. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay to the complainant immediately the
amount of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand (P114,000.00) Pesos representing the
amount he collected from her.
Legal Ethics – Practice of Law
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on
Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
Monsod’s appointment was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does
not qualify for he failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the
chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least
ten years.


Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.
Immediately after passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one year.
Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and held
various positions in various foreign corporations.
In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local
corporations until 1986.
In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What
constitutes practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyermanager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances.
The members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen,
know that in most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is
transacted in law offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do
both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves
spending more time doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in
trying cases. In the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig
engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills,
legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the
increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform at least some
legal services outside their specialty. By no means will most of this work involve
litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types — a litigator who
specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require the
lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client counseling,
advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation.

Respondent was suspended for bad practices in the exercise of his profession as a
lawyer for a period of five years from the November 9, 1949. The defendant admits this
suspension in `his written report filed on March 17, 1951, yet he continued to exercise
the profession within the period of suspension, November 9, 1949 to November 8,
On Feb 28 1950 the respondent file a claim in the case of Tan Tek vs Sy not as a lawyer
but as an agent. (For and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy) CFI decided in favor of Tan Tek,
subsequently Atty Felix David filed a motion for execution. In another civil case of the
CFI called Malayan Saw Mill, Inc vs Tolentino, defendant filed a brief for an order to
demolish homes.
“In order - says the appeal - to show That I did not Have the intention to disregard the
suspension of the Supreme Court, I did not With The Knowledge of Tan Tek Identified

Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:


Sy Even myself as the attorney for the Appelles But In Good Faith, I signed for and in
Behalf of the appellee Without Designating That I am Practicing as attorney-at-law.”
ISSUE: Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is tantamount to practice of law.
HELD: Yes. Neither can he allow his name to appear in such pleading by itself or as
part of firm name under the signature of another qualified lawyer because the signature
of an agent amounts to signing of a non-qualified senator or congressman, the office
of an attorney being originally an agency, and because he will, by such act, be
appearing in court or quasi-judicial or administrative body in violation of the
constitutional restriction. “He cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits

existence of facts to be established in accordance with the law of evidence and
procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court
but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the
determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore,
the law provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order
or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office
involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then
logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board
of scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case.
14 SCRA 109 – Legal Ethics – Practice of Law – Isolated Appearance

G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959.
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had
scheduled an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice
as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular,
members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific
and technical training are qualified to take the said examination. The petitioner
contends that one who has passed the bar examination sand is licensed by the
Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing is duly
qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent
Director’s holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is
in violation of the law.The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent
cases “ does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the
application of scientific and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual
practice so as to include engineers and other individuals who passed the examination
can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time
he is holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been questioned formally.

In 1959, Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in the municipality of Alaminos
in Laguna. In said case, the private offended party asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule
to prosecute said case. Apparently, Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna.
Villanueva the opposed the appearance of Fule as counsel for the offended party as
he said that according to the Rules of Court when an attorney had been appointed to
the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by
operation of law, he ceased to engage in private law practice.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ariston Fule is engaged in private law practice.
HELD: No. Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be
in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional
services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or
in consideration of his said services. In the case at bar, Fule is not being compensated
but rather he’s doing it for free for his friend who happened to be the offended party.
Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary
actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual
exercise. Further, the fact that the Secretary of Justice approved Fule’s appearance for
his friend should be given credence.

223 SCRA 378 – 42 SCAD 287 – Legal Ethics – Advertisement in the Legal Profession
– Practice of Law

Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the
Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the
prosecution of their applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement
of their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves
the interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to
Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford
the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The
Legal Clinic because of the latter’s advertisements which contain the following:

P560.00 for a valid marriage.


UN Ave. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. Such is highly reprehensible. Jesus alleged that during the marriage of Don Mariano and Dona Antonia. 521-7232. The services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings.. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals. which defendants have collected and will continue to collect to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. secured the transfer to themselves the said lotswithout any pecuniary consideration. litigation and family law. The Legal Clinic. INC. Antonio was then acting as the agent or administrator of the properties of DonMariano Cui. Declaration of Absence. fraudulently and with thedesire of enriching themselves unjustly at the expense of their father. and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Immigration Problems. the properties were placed under the administration of their dad. Inc. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals. Under Philippine jurisdiction however. VISA. but on learning of this fact she subsequently renounced her rights under the sale and returned her portion toDon Mariano Cui by executing a deed of resale in his favor on October 11. are “specialists” in various fields.Info on DIVORCE.that while the latter was 84 years of age. Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements. 522-2041. Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. is entitled to practice law. 521-7251. namely. has specialists in taxation and criminal law. 2312. HELD: Yes. dignified and objective information or statement of facts. secret marriage. & Special Retiree’s Visa. ANNULMENT. for the reason that when that sale was effected. defendants constructedthereon an apartment building of strong materials consisting of 14 doors. Victoria Bldg. bigamous marriage.000 and another building on the same parcels of land. THE LEGAL CLINIC. fair. Annulment of Marriage. without violating the ethics of his profession. Advertisement in a reputable law list Use of ordinary simple professional card Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization CUI vs CUI CUIVSCUIFACTS: Jesus and Antonio are the legitimate children of Don Mariano Cui and Doña Antonia Perales who died intestate in1939. such practice is not allowed. labor. and with the loan thus obtained. Please call: 521-0767. the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. counselors and attorneys. the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Manila nr. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing. 522-2041 8:30am – 6:00pm 7th Flr. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. but rather. Manila GUAM DIVORCE DON PARKINSON The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law. like doctors. Investment in the Phil. their parents acquired certain properties inthe City of Cebu. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Don Mariano Cui. medico-legal problems. Visa Ext. are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. 2. Call Marivic. 521-0767 It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. Lots Nos. Guam divorce. 7th Flr. honest. the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true. which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. whether such is allowed. UN Ave. A lawyer cannot. that in the deed of sale executed on March 8. Quota/Nonquota Res. 521-7232. US Embassy Tel. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. Antonio by means of deceit. whether or not its advertisement may be allowed. who. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. which buildings were leased to some Chinese commercial firms a monthly rental of P7.Jesus alleged that the sale should be invalidated so far as the portion of the property sold to Antonio Cui is concerned. THE LEGAL CLINIC. He said that he and his staff of lawyers. that defendants.. Victoria Bldg.600. Adoption.secured a loan of P130. 2313 and 2319. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. and of their brothers and co-heirs. the advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers. INC. valued at approximately P130. ABSENCE. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement: An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. 1946. Upon the death of their mother. 1. Rosario Cui appeared as one of the vendees. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. Further. can take care of it. As for its advertisement.000 from the Rehabilitation properties. 3.. And that besides.Jesus lays stress on the power of attorney Exhibit L which was executed by Don Mariano in favor of Antonio Cui on March 5 . 1946..

has always been encouraged by the courts. but of sound judicial discretion.” It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right. grossly disrespectful and derogatory. that such is insolent. however. Hence. who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. As a veteran lawyer.” He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is “the complainant. He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration. IN RE CUNANAN Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972. During the lifetime Don Mariano.” He also stated “that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind. 1950.1946. and so there is no need to fully explain the court’s denial. He further alleged that due to the minute resolution. the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for. section 2. In the case at bar. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted “to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him . his motion was denied. but this prohibition has already beenremoved.2. Eventually. The prohibition of the law is contained in article 1459 of the old Civil Code. as well as of the judiciary. This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide. and the independence of the bar. since this is a right that is declared for the first time. HELD: Yes. an agent may now buy property placed inhis hands for sale or administration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. It is true that a lawyer. in this case. the most they had was a mere expentancy. ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.” The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. . Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. the herein appellants could not claim any vested or acquired right in these properties. but also deaf and dumb. invoke now this practical and liberal provision of our new Civil Code even if the sale had taken place before its effectivity. and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. ISSUE : WON the sale of the property to Antonio was valid. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner. commonly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ 6 . has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. in an open and public hearing. we however believe that this question cannot now be raised or invoked. of the new Civil Code. his client was made to pay P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. HELD : YES. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. Almacen’s criticism is misplaced. . He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice. the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals’ opinion. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide “only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. They lost in said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution. IN RE ALMACEN 31 SCRA 562 – Legal Ethics – A Lawyer’s Right to Criticize the Courts Atty. both as an officer of the court and as a citizen. provided that the principal gives his consent thereto. contemptuous. new Civil Code).as heirs. While the new Code came intoeffect only on August 30. and.While under article 1459 of the old Civil Code an agent or administrator is disqualified from purchasing property in his handsfor sale or management. prosecutor and Judge. Under the provisions of article 1491. therefore. On Almacen’s attack against the Supreme Court. Almacen was suspended indefinitely. 1946. the same may be givenretroactive effect if no vested or acquired right is impaired (Article 2253. For one thing. wherein the former has constituted the latter as his "true and lawful attorney" to perform in his name and that of theintestate heirs of Doña Antonia Perales. Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though as he now argues that he chose not to. for.” Almacen was however unapologetic. We may.and particularly on March 8. he should have known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. the property in question was sold to Antonio Cui while he was already the agentor administrator of the properties of Don Mariano Cui.

The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. Section 24. Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when he was preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of majority. 972 is constitutional and valid. And if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty designed to enforce its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary. 2. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP. Furthermore. according to its author. the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration. It is obvious.Act of 1953. suspension.” In accordance with the said law. The right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial. In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved. IN RE VICENTE CHING Legal Profession – Admission to the Bar – Citizenship Requirement In 1998. The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino. Article III. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived. Under the 1935 Constitution. He eventually passed the bar but he was advised that he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen before he be allowed to take his oath. The Supreme Court in order to further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services. Held: RA No. therefore. Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional. merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. On this matter. he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the Constitution. “upon reaching the age of majority” is construed as within 7 years after reaching the age of majority (in his case 21 years old because he was born in 1964 while the 1935 Constitution was in place). the admission. of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP. Ching maintained that he has always considered himself as a Filipino. and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character. that he even served as a councilor in a municipality in La Union. Ching should have elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same. He is free to attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. the SolicitorGeneral recommended that the rule be relaxed due to the special circumstance of Ching. 7 . whose one parent is a foreigner. the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent. There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without. while other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing. HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. to admit to the Bar. that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. Hence. the admission. 972. suspension. a legitimate child. The Rules of Court only compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional freedom to associate. the Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission. those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation. or as other authorities may say. Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. that under prevailing jurisprudence. irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. acquires the foreign citizenship of the foreign parent. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues. however. After its approval. Nevertheless. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners. to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues. there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government. may require thet the cost of the regulatory program – the lawyers. that he is a certified public accountant – a profession reserved for Filipinos. Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis University in Baguio City. Apparently. ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. All lawyers are subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. Ching’s father was a Chinese citizen but his mother was a Filipino citizen. His parents were married before he was born in 1963. many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions. and that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admitted personally antagonistic. 972 has for its object. Issue: Whether or Not RA No. disbarment. suspension. IN RE EDILLON FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect. invoking the law in question.

All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and. Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino was previously involved with hazing which caused the death of Raul Camaligan a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites but he was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. The petitioner is then allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. RATIO: 8 . with rape. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify that he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. Rule 7. Thus rendering him unfit to practice law. It is not enough that he considered all his life that he is a Filipino. Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar. praying that this Court render judgment ordering the permanent removal of the respondent as lawyer and judge. Ching’s unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over. Narag’s spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that her husband courted one of his students. (It seems it can’t be extended any further). Atty. he was guilty of other misconduct. Unfortunately. Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct. • In view of his own findings as a result of his investigation. The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good moral character of all Bar members. The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. ROYONG VS OBLENA HELD: Atty. keeping in mind that such is of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned.ISSUE: Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity.03. Narag should be disbarred. thereafter. Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed and has become a responsible member of the community through sworn statements of individuals who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. As a lawyer. He was sentenced with ISSUE: Whether or not the illicit relation of the respondent with Josefina Royong and the adulterous cohabitation of respondent with Briccia Angeles warrants disbarment. he may be suspended or disbarred. that even if respondent did not commit the alleged rape. The rules for citizenship are in place. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. INTELLECTUAL and MORAL QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. Ching didn’t give any explanation why he belatedly chose to elect Filipino citizenship (but I guess it’s simply because he never thought he’s Chinese not until he applied to take the bar). jealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint out of spite. Further. The Solicitor General immediately conducted an investigation and found out that there was no rape. HELD: The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT. NARAG VS NARAG IN RE ARGOSINO FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant. The Supreme Court cannot agree with the recommendation of the Solicitor-General. Fourteen years had lapsed and it’s way beyond the allowable 7 year period. file the same with the nearest civil registry. 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment where he applied a probation thereafter which was approved and granted by the court. HELD: Ariston Oblena was disbarred. FACTS: Atty. he belatedly elected Filipino citizenship. The Supreme Court even noted that the period is originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. but a continuing qualification for all members. Narag claims that his wife was a possessive. HELD: No. the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to take the oath. nevertheless. Dominador Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony given against him and it was proved that his actions were of public knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering to his wife and children. that he is a professional and a public officer (was) serving this country. The court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was terminated. Ching’s special circumstances can’t be considered. (Canons 1&7. The Solicitor General made another complaint charging the respondent of falsely and deliberately alleging in his application for admission to the bar that he is a person of good moral character. ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyer’s oath office and admit him to the practice of law. Thus. Grossly immoral means 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. sign the Roll of Attorney’s and thereafter to practice the legal profession. later maintaining her as a mistress and having children by her. one must not only refrain from adulterous relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a belief that he is flouting those moral standards FACTS: • Complainant Josefina Royong charge the respondent Ariston Oblena. Code of Ethics for Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law. He filed for a petition to allow him to take the lawyer’s oath of office and to admit him to the practice of law averring that his probation was already terminated. a member of the bar and bench. the carnal knowledge between complainant and respondent seems to be consensual sex. of living adulterously with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations with the 18 year old Josefina Royong.

the respondent has. Incredibly. . Case 3: Cases involving Security Bank and Trust Co.S. But for the protectionof the parties and in the interest of justice. There is. 539).. The third banking institution which Joaquin T.In the case before us. practise. the requirement for appearances in regional trialcourts and higher courts is more stringent. CANTIMBUHAN vs CRUZ In the case ofCantimbuhan v. 1980 by Borromeo to one Samson K.may be avoided. 621) a law student was allowed torepresent the accused in a case pending before the City Court of Manila. as well as remedial laws. the ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. covered by TCT No. Courtof Appeals(80 SCRA 257):xxx xxx xxx. (U. Lao for P170.(126 SCRA 190) we decided a similar issue andallowed the appearance of two senior law students as friends of the complainantpetitionerCantimbuhan to prosecute the case before the sala of Judge Nicanor J. of theMunicipal Court of Parañaque. that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. v. Fornication. the plaintiff specifically stated that he had caused Mr. Case 1: Cases involving Traders Royal Bank (TRB). As the lower court has cited:So it has been held that. the complaint was verified by the party litigant himself. Bacansas. 6 Phil. 1978. The sale was made without the knowledge and consent of UCPB. this time giving as security a mortgage over a parcel of land owned by the Heirs of Vicente V. Cruz.000. should be construed liberally. was the Security Bank & Trust Company (SBTC). did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for admission to the bar. our law has allowed non-lawyers to appear for party litigants in places where dulyauthorized members of the bar are not available. dogmatically pontificating on errors supposedly committed by the courts. for some sixteen (16) years now. 59755 owned. We agree with the appelleethat the appellants are now estopped on this issue because they themselves prayed in thestipulation of facts that the findings of the geodetic engineer would be bases for the decisionof the court of first instance.SO ORDERED. Borromeo. indicating his awareness that Nuñes in not aregistered lawyer. did noq render him a person of good moral character. In theverification.J. Borromeo.In the past. and ostensibly come to possess some superficial awareness of a few substantive legal principles and procedural rules. Jr. and the fact that people who knew him sqemed to have acuuiesced to his utatus. RT-7634. (71 C. Cruz.but is verifiedby the party. certainly may justify positive action by the Court in protecting the prestige of the noble profession of the law. and procedure must be liberally construed so asto protect the rights and interests of the ties. or what he really is. 1978. pleadings. he got a loan from it in the sum of P45. in orderthat litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims. has nevertheless rendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer. As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An applicant for license to practice law is required to show good moral character.Cases in Legal EthicsBachelor of Laws 3A48 and that a possible denial of substantial justice. as distinguished from good reputation. Jr. Joaquin T. the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. much less any grave abuse of discretion. Case 2: Cases involving United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). This he secured by a real estate mortgage created over two parcels of land covered by TCT No. therefore. with a stipulation for its repurchase (pacto de retro) by him (Borromeo.00. The first bank that Joaquin T. IN RE JOAQUIN Facts: The respondent in this case. 59596 and TCT No. if committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as have proven in this case.The continued possession of a fair private and professional character or a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law for one who has been admitted. It is of no moment that his immoral state was discovered then or now as he is clearly not fit to remain a member of the bar. Borromeo obtained a second loan from TRB in the amount of P10. respectively. been instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts.Court procedures are often technical and may prove like shares to the ignorant or the unwary. Authority to mortgage these three lots was vested in him by a Special Power of Attorney executed by their respective owners. including the Supreme Court. The mortgage was constituted over a 122-square-meter commercial lot covered by TCT No. Bernabe(55 Phil. As we stated inPaulino v. 75680 in Borromeo's name. or from the opinion generally entertained of him. as the vendor). Respondent. Forrelatively simple litigation before municipal courts. the Rules still allow a more educated orcapable person to appear in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a lawyer. as to shock common sense of decency. On June 2. He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles.954. where a pleading isnotsigned by the attorney asrequired.00. (SBTC). On June 16.955)Rules of pleading. We see no error.WHEREFORE. therefore. Judge Cruz. due to legal technicalities.S. with nothing more than this smattering of learning. in thelower courts' findings that the house of the Torcinos encroached on the lot of VictorianoBulacan. Jr. added justification for the pleading to be admittedrather than dismissed. Borromeo (together with a certain Mercader) also borrowed money from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and executed a real estate mortgage to secure repayment thereof.The Torcinos try to impugn the results of the relocation survey. Borromeo engaged in running court battles. from 1978 to the present.. Nuñes to conduct thelitigation and to sign the complaint in Ms behalf..Similarly. This same lot was afterwards sold on August 7. is not a lawyer but has apparently read some law books. by Socorro BorromeoThakuria (his sister) and Teresita Winniefred Lavarino. the decision of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED. From it Borromeo had 9 . in the case ofLaput v.000. Borromeo appears to have dealt with was the Traders Royal Bank (TRB). Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly bearing on his profession. substantial rights have not been affectedand the defect may be disregarded as against a motion to strike... and its loss requires suspension or disbarment even though the statutes do not specify that as ground for disbarment.000.00.

argued that he is in fact representing Juan Sacquing but the same is with the permission of the SEC Commissioner. who later filed petition that she be placed in possession of the land.19. The petitioners question the ruling of the court. Cost against the petitioners. in his defense. Noriega alleged that Sison as a hearing officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission is not allowed to engage in the private practice of law. Petitioners question the validity of the CFI ruling that they will be held in contempt for refusing to vacate the land. and. willful disobedience of any lawful order of the court. NO on the third issue. Manuel Sison”. HELD: No. Such act of Sison in going out of his way to aid as counsel to a close family friend should not be allowed to be used as an instrument of harassment against him. Concepcion. Emmanuel R.000. The arguments of presented by Sison is well merited and backed by evidence.000. in the early stages of his appearance. 717). He is warned that a repetition of any of the offenses of which he is herein found guilty. In the third issue. that he provided legal services to Sacquing in view of close family friendship and for free. His isolated appearance for Sacquing does not constitute private practice of law. Sison. Borromeo is found and declared GUILTY of constructive contempt repeatedly committed over time. which on its face is valid and regular. It is a well known rule that a judgment. NORIEGA VS SISON 125 SCRA 293 – Legal Ethics – Isolated Practice of Law In 1981. notices were sent to “Atty. ISSUE: Whether or not the disbarment case should prosper. Manuel Sison” in the Manila JDRC where. or any similar or other offense against courts. violation of his oath as a lawyer. Summa Insurance Corp. consolidated in a single Promissory Note on May 31. but is merely ministerial and complementary duty of the court. 1979. the word or term “appearance” includes not only arguing a case before any such body but also filing a pleading in behalf of a client as “by simply filing a formal motion.126.00). immoral conduct. more so since Sison did not derive any pecuniary gain for his appearance because Sison and Sacquing were close family friends. as in the case of his obligations to Traders Royal Bank and UCPB. 10 . HELD: YES on first two issues. he always signed the minutes as “Atty. (3) (Possible Legal Ethics Issue) the term “appearance” would include only presence in courts. Hence. The allegations in the complaint do not warrant disbarment of the Sison. and in one instance. Noriega filed a disbarment case against Sison. judges or court employees. or corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney to a part to a case without FACTS: Petition for certiorari was filed seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan regarding a foreclosed parcel of land. RATIO: Claim of the petitioners as to the validity of the decision cannot be sustained for the reason that it is in a nature of collateral attack to judgment which on its face is valid and regular for a long time. Mr. was foreclosed due to non-payment of loan amount and its interest within the prescribed periods. Borromeo failed to discharge his contractual obligations. Again. that due to the “inept and careless work of the clerical staff of the JDRC”. yet Noriega alleged that Sison has created another identity under the name “Manuel Sison” in order for him to engage in private practice and represent one Juan Sacquing before a trial court in Manila. 47 Phil. There is no evidence that Sison has committed an act constituting deceit. that he never held himself out to the public as a practicing lawyer. he even made the necessary correction when the court staff wrote his name as Atty. can only be attacked in separate action brought principally for the purpose (Gomez vs. Petition was dismissed. Sison”. SBTC brought an action in the Cebu City RTC against Borromeo and Summa for collection. attorney to do so. Rivera later sold the property to Ms. being collateral for a loan to a Mr. he is hereby sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of TEN (10) DAYS in the City Jail of Cebu City and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1. Manuel Sison”. plea or answer”. that he never represented himself deliberately and intentionally as “Atty. Issue: RAMOS vs MANALAC Whether the respondent-accused is liable for constructive contempt? Held: Joaquin T. and to the end that he may ponder his serious errors and grave misconduct and learn due respect for the Courts and their authority. Lopez. will merit further and more serious sanctions. The said property. ISSUES: Whether or not: (1) The decision of the lower court (CFI) is valid. To secure payment thereof. The second issue was also not taken for the simple reason that the issuance of writ of possession in foreclosure proceedings is not an execution of judgment within the purview of Section 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.obtained five (5) loans in the aggregate sum of P189. Rivera. (2) Directing the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Felipa Lopez is valid. despite warnings and instructions given to him.00 on its liability thereunder. (Summa) issued a performance bond which set a limit of P200.

giving recognition as far as possible and practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar associations. There are certain statutory exceptions to the foregoing rule (section 326. that the integration of the Philippine Bar is “perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable. “to promulgate rules concerning x x x the admission to the practice of law. and after hearing the evidence. that the defendant was illegally interfering with his possession of the same. reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was the owner of said parcel of land. DECISION HELD: YES. Act No 190). Plaintiff-Appellee. Sec. administrator of the estate of Antonio Bueno. alleging that he was the owner of the same. 13 of the Constitution. by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution. J. 190). EVIDENCE. is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and delivery until some question is raised as to the verity of said acknowledgment and certificate. defendant answered said petition by a general denial. after due hearing. or (c) by a subscribing witness (section 324. POWERS AND DUTIES OF NOTARIES PUBLIC. Case No. (b) by evidence of the handwriting of the maker. LEONCIO BARCELON. has become an imperative means to raise the standards of the legal profession. The JOSE ANTILLON. judge. The action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Laguna on the 28th day of August. deceased. — The rule is well established that before private documents may be admitted in evidence their due execution and delivery must be proved (section 321. reached the conclusion that the petitioner (the defendant herein) was not entitled to have said parcel of land registered. JOHNSON. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration. the Honorable Pedro Concepcion. after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the arguments adduced in Adm. v. and “consistently with the views and counsel received from its [the Commission’s] Board of Consultants. improve the administration of justice. that the Court of Land Registration. that prior to the commencement of the present action the defendant had presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration (Cause No. act No.” The petition in Adm. that notwithstanding said decision of the Court of Land Registration the defendant herein continued molesting the plaintiff and interfering with his possession of said parcel of land. ordained the integration of the Bar of the Philippines effective January 16. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration of the Philippine Bar. deceased. Act No. ANTILLON VS BARCELON The present action relates to the possession and ownership of a certain piece or parcel of land which is particularly described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. Guevara Hixson for Appellant. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of said parcel of land. One of the very purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public is to authorize such documents to be given in evidence without further proof of their execution and delivery. Upon the issue thus presented. DISCUSSED. Defendant-Appellant.IN RE INTEGRATION Pedro FACTS: [T]he Commission on Bar Integration submitted its Report with the “earnest recommendation” — on the basis of the said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively. that the present plaintiff opposed the registration of said parcel of land. A public document duly acknowledged before a notary public. under Article VIII. 526 of the Court.” within the context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOCUMENT. On all issues. that Albino Villegas had acquired the title to said land by purchase from Petra Dionido 11 . 190). Courtney for Appellee. that said cause was brought on for hearing in the Court of land Registration and was finally decided. as well as the overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar” — that “(the) Honorable (Supreme) Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. J.” The Court is fully convinced. under his hand and seal with his certificate thereto attached. 8350) for the registration of said parcel of land in his name as administrator of the estate of Antonio Bueno. 1913. after hearing the evidence. Their due execution and delivery may be proved (a) by any one who saw the document executed. that he had purchased the same from Albino Villegas (Exhibit F). 1973. that said parcel of land belonged to the oppositor (the petitioner herein). [T]he Court. : RATIO: [T]he Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power. ISSUES: (1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar? SYLLABUS (2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional? (3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time? 1. Case No.

321. (Governor v. the civil law as well as by the law of nations. what is the advantage of having the execution and delivery of documents acknowledged before a notary public under his hand and seal? No question was presented during the trial of the cause as to the verity of the acknowledgment under the hand and seal of the notary public to said Exhibits E and F. Ocampo. The taking of the affidavits of mariners and masters of ships. From that decision the defendant appealed to this court and made several assignments of error.) Their due execution and delivery may be proved (a) by any one who saw the document executed. Act No. then.. In reply to that objection the attorney for the plaintiff pointed out that said exhibits were public documents duly acknowledged before a notary public. and rendered a judgment in favor aisle the plaintiff and against the defendant in accordance with that conclusion. the defendant objected to their admissibility upon the ground that they were impertinent immaterial and irrelevant. which are often necessary for transmission to points where the parties directly in interest are unable to appear in person. and costs. of great variety and importance. 1216. S. in protesting inland and foreign bills of exchange. the occasions in which the officials would be summoned from his ordinary duties to declare as a witness are numberless. Act No. at the time said exhibits were affray as proof. Greenleaf on Evidence. (Sec. (Ley del Notariado de 15 de febrero de 1889. His duties are.) To the foregoing rules with reference to the method of proving private documents an exception is made with reference to the method of proving public documents executed before and certified to. their protests.. 546. sec. Were there no exception for official statements. He is recognized as a necessary official in nearly all the civilized countries. 1. 190. The taking of depositions for actions pending in foreign or distant courts. and his official acts are received as evidence. supra.. when accompanied with his official seal of office and proper certificates of his official character if the act is to be used beyond his own county or State. The courts and legislatures have recognized the valid reason for such an exception. Indseth. together with a judgment for damages in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P54. The public officers are few in whose daily work something is not done in which testimony is not needed from official sources. administering the oath as to the correctness of accounts or statements of important documents. Also the authentication of transfer to property. Civil Code. 190. but in all others in which they are used as instruments of evidence. The rule is well established that before private documents may be admitted in evidence as proof. sec. Sumrall. not only in his own country. He is an officer known to the Law of Nations. In his first assignment of error he alleges that the lower court erred in admitting Exhibits E and F of the plaintiff.) There are certain statutory exceptions to the foregoing rule in this jurisdiction. requiring care and judgment.) 12 .(Exhibit E). that the two exhibits were no more than ordinary papers. In support of said assignment of error the appellant alleges that said documents had not been properly identified and that their due execution and delivery had not been proved.) . The litigation is unlimited in which testimony by officials is daily needed. 106 U. The attorney for the defendant then made a further objection that they had not been properly identified. (Sec. 2 Peters (U. hence his official acts receive credence. Townsley v. Ley del Notariado para las Islas Filipinas). (John’s American Notaries. Dec. 549. For these reasons. promissory notes. Said objection and exception present the questions: How may a document duly acknowledged under the hand and seal of a notary public be proved? Must the parties to said document be called as witnesses to prove its genuiness and authenticity? Must the witnesses to said document be called to show its execution and delivery? Must the notary public be summoned as a witness to prove the due acknowledgment of such document? Does not the certificate duly made under the hand and seal of the notary public make such document admissible in evidence without further proof of its execution and delivery? Is not a document acknowledged before a notary public under his hand and seal admissible in evidence as proof of its execution and delivery without additional proof of its identity and authenticity? Must the execution and delivery of documents acknowledged before a notary public under his hand and seal be proved the same as ordinary documents not so executed and delivered? If so. (Art. 7 Porter (Ala. a certain verity is accorded such documents. S. 722. The court admitted said documents. Governor v.) The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes they will discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity. 5. whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of each case may appear to require. In all such cases the notary’s certificate or jurat. Pierce v. (Kirksey v. 190. not only in his own. is received as prima facie evidence. and for many others. etc. A notary public is sometimes spoken of as a public officer. 7 Phil. 529. consisting for the most part. The work of administration of government and the interest of the public having business with official would alike suffer in consequence. often. but in all countries. sec. Pierce v. 170. etc. Gordon. Gochuico v. Gordon. (3 Wigmore on Evidence.) The notary public is recognized by the law merchant. 72. and. 1631. Act No. 326. therefore. supra. Indseth. 15 Ala. and the attorney for the defendant duly excepted. Bates. 324. hosts of officials would be found devoting the greater part of their time to attending as witnesses in court or delivering their depositions before an officer. 15. under the hand and seal of certain public officials. 31 Am. (Sec.. Rep.) All documents acknowledged by a notary public and certified to by him are considered public documents in this jurisdiction.) The functions of a notary public as a public or as a quasi-public officer has been recognized by the common law. or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker.) . John’s American Notaries. An examination of the evidence with reference to said Exhibits E and F shows that. sec.. which is not extended to private documents. their due execution and delivery must be proved. 1. or (c) by a subscribing witness.

that a document duly acknowledged before a notary public under his hand and seal. as such. acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law prevailing in the Philippine Islands. section 168. Any violation is tantamount to misconduct. Viray on the ground of gross and serious misconduct for notarizing documents when he was not commissioned to do so at the time the said documents were executed. Joel A. In answer. The appellant contends that the lower court committed an error in admitting Exhibit G (G-1). all of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity may be disbarred or suspended. and. being ex officio deputy of the Chief of the General Land Registration Office. . he first ascertained the authenticity of the signatures. Fish.The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal he thereby gives such a document the force of evidence. Nunga. Respondent alleged that from 1965 to date he was always commissioned as notary public."cralaw virtua1aw library Indeed. therefore. ARRIETA VS LLOSA FACTS: A disbarment case was filed against Atty. was fully authorized to identify said record. Llosa by Pike P. we believe. 2347. the inference is that his objection is based upon the ground that said exhibit had not been identified by the custodian of said document. wherein. in a later date. (John’s American Notaries.. Said exhibit is the record of the Court of Land Registration in an action in which the present defendant was the petitioner and the present plaintiff was the upsetter. the Supreme Court stressed the primary responsibility of lawyers as stated in Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution. So ordered. this being part of a lawyers professional responsibility and procedural lapse is not an excuse to cater to the convenience of clients. After issues were joined. is to authorize such documents to be given in evidence without further proof of their execution and delivery. "every instrument conveying or affecting real property situated in the Philippine Islands. HELD: YES. Respondent ordered SUSPENDED for six months from practice of law with a warning that another infraction will be dealt with more severely. the respondent sought to dismiss the disbarment case admitting to the fact the instant case is only a product of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some facts and is now convinced that everything is in order. Arrieta for allegedly notarizing a Deed of Absolute sale. But before affixing his notarial seal. Venancio M. also answers the contention of the appellant in his second assignment of error. By virtue of said Act. Northern Bank. in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents. is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and delivery. The report showed that respondent Viray notarized a deed of absolute sale when he was not duly commissioned as notary public as of that date. NUNGA VS VIRAY FACTS: Victor D. the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed. The designated Investigating Commissioner of the IBP recommended the dismissal of the instant case. 39 Ill. unless and until some question is raised as to the verity of said acknowledgment and certificate. What has been said with reference to the first assignment of error. with costs. together with the certificate of the acknowledgment or proof. the Supreme Court explained the importance of adherence to said law as part of the responsibility of a duly deputized authority to conduct such notarial process. According to respondent. with reference to the first assignment of error. Any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counsellor.) Section 331 of Act No. However. Citing Section 1 of Public Act No. A careful examination of the record shows that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the peaceable and quiet possession of the land in question. Bradley v. there was no year in his practice of law that he was not commissioned as notary public. (29 Cyc. the clerks of the courts of the respective provinces or districts are ex officio deputies of the Chief of the General Land Registration Office. 1076. 252. 416. 2103 also known as the Notarial law. one of the very purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public. 60 Ala. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the above recommendation and resolved to dismiss the instant case after finding no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment proceedings. He further explained 13 . being the custodian thereof. Such misconduct is a ground for disbarment as stated by the Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. vendors noted were already dead prior to its execution. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. respondent admitted having notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale. 415.. may. Harrington v. with his certificate thereto attached. With reference to the other assignments of error. Bowman v. we find nothing in the record which would justify a modification of the decision of the lower court based thereon. Therefore. 10 Mich. By section 18 of Act No. president of the Masantol Rural Bank filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. the clerk of the Court of First Instance. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines conducted an investigation. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. and determined the voluntariness of its execution. Wettig. dishonest. Furthermore. 190 provides that. be read in evidence in an action or proceeding without further proof. immoral or deceitful conduct.. which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27. . obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. A lawyer must also refrain from engaging in unlawful. Llosa be disbarred or suspended from practice of law. verified the identities of the signatories.) Our conclusions is. may identify records made up in the Courts of First Instance relating to the registration of land under the Torrens system. While the appellant does not say so. Due diligence is to be observed..

Santos. 2002. Chua. for various offenses amounting to malpractice. immoral or deceitful conduct. ISSUE: Whether or not the charges against Atty.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The authority granted with the CHR in their function is merely to investigate all forms of human rights violation. and (c) libel. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s act is a valid ground for disbarment. misrepresentation and unlawful advertisement. 2. gross misconduct. The Undersigned noted after going over the records of the case that although both parties were required to submit their respective memorand[a]. engaging in private practice. FLORES VS CHUA FLORES 306 VS. for allegedly violating the Notarial Law before his appointment as judge. Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case against him for engaging in private practice. Chua sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against him. only complainant complied with the order. When a notary public is a lawyer. and attending court hearings while filling up his DTR at the Commission as present at the same time. to wit: (a) Fraud through falsification and forgery of public document. a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. 3. WHEREFORE. immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of legal profession. Navarro. dishonest. the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. With the above constituting grounds for suspension of lawyers stated in Section 27. is revoked. The Code of Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful. In the absence of such approval. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Notarization is invested with public interest because it converts a private document into a public one. They cannot try and decide cases. 14 . files a disbarment case against respondent. the respondent is not allowed in private practice and proved to have falsified his attendance in the DTR while appearing in court at the same time without approved leave of absence. (III) A2002-133 authorizes CHR lawyers to engage in private practice (adopting the Civil Service Commission Resolution) subject to some conditions with indispensable requirement to secure approval from the CHR. Issuing unauthorized orders. Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a government employee. OIC of the Commission on Human Rights. CHR Resolution No. the CPR as well as the provisions of the laws of the Philippines. if any. As modified.that in the alleged documents. but MODIFIES the penalty recommended by the said Board of Governors. 3. to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society. HELD: Yes. the court ruled to modify the suspension of 1 year as sufficient sanction. ordered a bank to reinstate the bank account of the said complainant. and 4. Notarizing without commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws (the Notarial Law) and by making it appear that he is so authorized is a deliberate falsehood which violates the lawyer’s oath and of Rule 1. (b) foisting falsehood and fabricated public document to molest and harass parties. The respondent has been notarizing even before the CHR authorized his practice as a notary public. and to his clients. he would not have obtained a commission without the PTR.” Facts: The petitioner. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. SCRA CHUA 465 FACTS: The complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent Atty. A lawyer brings honor ISSUE: WON respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the following alleged acts: 1. to the courts. violation of his lawyer’s oath. making such documents admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof. to the bar. Attorney IV said commission on ground for grave misconduct. respondent ATTY. The respondent was found to have issued 2 orders awarding custody of a child to a complainant in the Commission. notarizing public documents. which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. Falsifying his Daily Time Records. a practicing lawyer and a notary public. The case was referred to the IBP and the investigating commissioner recommended suspension for 2 years which was modified by the IBP Board to 6 months. RULING: The court held on the following: 1. which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved. dishonest. YUMOL vs FERRER HELD: YES. he had PTR for that purpose and therefore. who retired on May 22. VENANCIO VIRAY is hereby BARRED from being commissioned as notary public for THREE (3) years and his present commission. and SUSPENDED from the practice of law also for THREE (3) years. 2. HECK vs JUDGE SANTOS Facts: This is a disbarment case against Judge Anthony E.

the case would be considered submitted without his evidence. on November 11. CITY FISCAL LUIS R. B. Judge Santos is thus.). notarized documents since January 1980. a member of the Philippine Bar. who pleaded that a last chance be given his client by postponing the hearing again for the last time to another date. 546 December 18. for unprofessional and unethical conduct. E. In his answer. failed to appear at the last date set for the reception of his evidence. when his commission as notary public expired. in spite of the many postponements given to him and the repeated warnings issued by the investigating fiscal that if he still failed to appear at the hearing. complainant.lawphil. id. Even respondent's own counsel. The complaint alleged that Santos subscribed and forwarded. deserved to enjoy the full measure of his wellearned retirement benefits. (3) That notwithstanding his lack of commission as notary public for the years 1961 and 1962. he would withdraw as his counsel (p. 1960. the action for disbarment will not prosper. after his commission as notary public had expired. xxx IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF DOMINADOR FLORES A. to expire on December 31. respondent. respondent notarized several documents (Exhs. (4) That respondent had not filed his monthly notarial reports and copies of the documents he had notarized or the years 1961 and 1962 with the notarial section of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. that he became a duly commissioned notary public. vs. it was only until January 9. in order to conceal the fact that he did not at the time have an appointment as notary public. considering that the complaint against respondent was filed twentyfour (24) years after the commission of the act complained of and that there was no private offended party who came forward and claimed to have been adversely affected by the documents so notarized. did not appear anymore at the last hearing set.: xxx xxx Respondent. Issue: Can a retired judge perform notarial duties without commission? Held: The retirement or resignation of a judge will not preclude the filing thereafter of an administrative charge against him for which he shall still be held answerable if found guilty. LOZADA. It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary and that an administrative complaint against a member of the BAR does not prescribe. on a nonregular basis. D. submitted the following findings and recommendation: (1) That respondent's commission as notary public for the city and province of Cebu expired on December 31. 153-155. as a retired judge. when in fact. The City Fiscal of Toledo City filed this case for disbarment against Dominador E.C. the respondent admitted having notarized some documents in 1961 and 1962 but claimed that his commission. and that if his client would still fail to appear at the latter date.on April 11.n. as he in fact failed to appear thereat (pp. or some twenty years ago. for notarizing certain documents during the years 1961 and 1962. The case was referred to the Solicitor General who. C. No. 1962. The complaint further alleged that Judge Santos failed to forward his Notarial Register after the expiration of his commission in December 1989.s. more specifically.netRespondent's complete lack of 15 . nor deny the accuracy of such. obviously knowing that his own client would not appear. FLORES. CASTRO. However. which expired on December 31. 1989.). found guilty of notarizing documents without the requisite notarial commission and is ordered to pay the fine of P5. 1967 IN THE MATTER OF THE DISBARMENT OF DOMINADOR E. as required by the Notarial Law. (2) That respondent had not been commissioned as notary public for the city and province of Cebu for the year 1961 and 1962. F.lawphil. Respondent. He merely answered that there was no proper recording of the commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro nor of the submitted Notarized Documents/Notarial Register. 1984. G). which documents became the basis of the cancellation by the city tax assessor of the tax declarations of the properties involved in said documents in the names of the former owners and their transfer to the new owners. The respondent did not object to the complaint’s evidence neither did he claim that he was commissioned as notary public for the years 1980-1983. The complaint further alleges that the respondent deliberately omitted to submit to the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Cebu certified copies of the entries in his notarial register as well as of the documents acknowledged before him. nor had he surrendered his notarial register to said office for the year 1960. 1960. 000. was renewed in 1961. Flores. 1965.00. J. 150.

It is to state the obvious that the evidence conclusively establishes the misconduct imputed to the respondent. ATTY. Thus. It is evident from the foregoing that when respondent notarized the aforementioned documents. Heherson Alnor G. He is further. Against the evidence presented by complainant.. but not once did he show up. Although the respondent was thereafter given time within which to file a memorandum in lieu of oral argument. 2 His excuse. SIMPLICIANO [A. he was not commissioned as notary public. respondent Atty. HEHERSON ALNOR G. which was in violation of the Notarial Law. he so fervently prays.C. ordered to surrender his lawyer's certificate of title to the Clerk of Court within ten days from the date this judgment becomes final. and even expressed mock surprise "why it had been reported that he had none. the respondent did not even attempt to present any. Several times the investigation was postponed to afford the respondent an opportunity to appear and be heard in his defense. "for one reason or another . justice should be tempered with. among other things. and four deeds of absolute sale — all involving unregistered lands. The six documents referred to in the Solicitor General's report are an extrajudicial partition of an estate. 16 . respondent did not even attempt to present any evidence. As the Solicitor General aptly observes. 1966.. Nor did he manifested desire to present evidence before this Court when required. we find that sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the respondent Dominador E. said respondent be removed from the practice of law.itcalf The respondent presented these documents to the city assessor of Toledo. The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefore as “reprehensible.interest and indifference in presenting him defense to the charges and evidence against him in this case can only mean that he has no strong and valid defense to present herein. 6492. His lack of interest and indifference in presenting his defense to the charge and the evidence against him can only mean he has no strong and valid defense to offer. ACCORDINGLY. can hardly be reconciled with his first answer in which he stoutly denied having no commission to act as a notary public for the years 1961 and 1962. and for this reason. For the foregoing reasons." The respondent's reprehensible conduct. he finally filed his answer on March 15. On this date neither the Solicitor General nor the respondent appeared. Simpliciano is not a duly commissioned Notary Public for and in Quezon City for the year 2002. Navarro gave respondent a last chance to file his answer. which transfers thus impaired the integrity of the documents and caused disturbance of and prejudice to the property rights of the parties thereto. ZORETA vs. another chance to make a living and prove his worth as a good member of the bar". November 18. On November 22." This facile resort to contradictory denials cannot be regarded as anything better than trifling with this Court. constituting as it does not only malpractice but also the commission. without the criminal falsification of these documents by the respondent. Conclusively. in which he stated. 1966.. the city assessor would not have made the corresponding transfers of the tax declarations of the properties. and to render such orders that will give herein poor respondent. and violation of the lawyer's oath. and it was on the strength of the former's representation that he had authority to ratify the instruments that the latter accepted the documents for registration and cancelled the tax declarations in the name of the former owners of the properties involved. and makes the respondent undeserving of the mercy which. a deed of sale with a right of repurchase. that "he admits his negligence in not renewing his commission as notary public. the respondent never submitted any. ISSUE: What is the significance of the commission? RULING: The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. which was again unheeded. which was granted.. respondent was unable to rebut complainant’s evidence that he was not so commissioned for the year in question. 2004] FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. of the crime of falsification of public document. Flores in this administrative case on the grounds of malpractice. pursuant to section 5 of Rule 139. Instead he now offers the unacceptable excuse that in the past the preparation of "his petition for renewal of his commission" was attended to by a friend who. Hearing Commissioner Lydia A. and of notarizing documents without previous authority". His counsel filed an ex-parte motion for extension to file answer. The ease was set for hearing on May 4. Simpliciano for allegedly notarizing several documents during the year 2002 after his commission as notary public had expired.failed to comply with [the respondent's] last request. Still. 1965 we required the respondent to answer the above-quoted report of the Solicitor General. Flores is disbarred from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. After several extensions of time granted to him. in six separate and distinct occasions. and prays this Court "to temper justice with mercy. contained in his answer to the complaint of the Solicitor General. for having notarized the 590 documents after the expiration of his commission as notary public without having renewed said commission amounting to gross misconduct as a member of the legal profession. justifies his disbarment. gross misconduct in office as attorney. He did not even attend the investigation conducted by the provincial fiscal of Cebu to whom the Solicitor General endorsed this case. who has no derogatory record so far.1 Against the evidence presented by the complainant. No. to file an answer to the formal complaint lodged by the Solicitor General. ZORETA VS SIMPLICIANO MELANIO L. the respondent Dominador E. but no answer was forthcoming. it is respectfully recommended that after appropriate proceeding.

indulging in deliberate falsehood. MONTOYA: How many square meters did you sell to Herminia Feliciano? WITNESS [Marciano Joson]: 50 square meters. In his complaint. the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. report and recommendation. Montoya and Rolando Alfredo V. WITNESS: I saw that instead of the 50 square meters which was agreed upon by us. for all legal intents and purposes. For one. GLORIA M. Bulacan? 1. more specifically. respondent had made it appear in the deed of sale that complainant-vendor sold 150 square meters of his unregistered land in Pulilan. Then. The Court required respondent Baltazar to file an answer and this she did. MONTOYA: In this administrative case for disbarment instituted by Marciano Joson. complainant's testimony is insufficient to show the existence of a mistake or imperfection in the writing or that the deed of sale failed to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. and even disbarment. in view of the parole evidence rule. Viray. is not competent. The complaint and answer were then referred to the Office of the Solicitor General on 29 August 1963 for investigation. she was no longer authorized to do so since her notarial commission had expired on 31 December 1956 and was renewed by her only on 17 September 1957.: ATTY. which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1. instead of only 50 square meters which was the real agreement of the parties. xxx xxx xxx FELICIANO. dishonest.constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of public documents. Atty. The Solicitor General submitted his report and recommendation dated 28 March 1990. Baltazar.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law. performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws. In the case of Nunga v.” For such reprehensible conduct. but: What did you find in the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Malolos. The only evidence submitted by complainant was his own testimony given at a hearing called by the Solicitor General — ATTY. JOSON. revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from acting as such. is charged with violation of the Revised Penal Code and grave malpractice as a lawyer. to vary the terms of the written agreement of the parties with respect to the area of land sold therein. Tereso Ma. Granados for respondent. complainant. now Gloria Baltazar-Aguirre. Bulacan. and 2. BALTAZAR. the Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so. which the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes. respondent Atty. Gloria M. 2 17 . respondent. By itself. the Notarial Law. at the time respondent Baltazar notarized the deed of sale. J. immoral or deceitful conduct. it was 150 square meters. JOSON VS BALTAZAR MARCIANO vs. Gloria Baltazar-Aguirre notarized a deed of sale executed by complainant in favor of one Herminia Feliciano. WITNESS: Yes. sir. he is. Marciano Joson alleged that on 10 July 1957. INVESTIGATOR: Is that sale in writing? F. Montoya for complainant. ATTY. The Solicitor General found that the first charge of malpractice against respondent Baltazar had not been substantiated. too.1 Such testimony. of course.

respondent Baltazar did not deny that her commission as notary public had expired by the time she notarized the deed of sale. at a time when his commission as notary public had expired. It appears to the Court that the respondent considered the requirements for appointment or renewed appointment of a notary public as a casual formality. GRANADOS: Who else. Flores. Dominador E. 10 Courts. administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. GRANADOS: And you found that it conformed to all that was agreed upon between you and your vendee? WITNESS: Yes. It was also brought out that complainant had discussed with his vendee the possibility of return of the land to complainant upon refund by the latter of the purchase price thereof. thus indicating. sir. maintained that she had applied for renewal of her commission prior to its expiration in 1956. be approved upon the filing of her petition for renewal of her commission. all involving unregistered land. a deed of sale with right of repurchase and four (4) deeds of absolute sale." 5 In respect of the second charge.1âwphi1 In In the Matter of the Disbarment of Dominador E. did you read it? WITNESS [Marciano Joson]: Yes. that complainant's claim about the deed of sale not reflecting the true intent of the parties in respect of the area sold. that the court employee in charge of renewing her commission had prepared the necessary documentation with respondent signing the oath of office and commission in advance and that she had left an amount of money to cover the fees and services of that employee who was supposed to deliver to her the renewed commission. complainant admitted in his testimony that he had read the deed of sale and had seen that the area of the land sold was set out as 150 square meters but had not protested about it: ATTY. Flores: City Fiscal R. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one. she had become aware before notarizing the deed of sale that her petition for renewal of her notarial commission had not been filed. The Court characterized his conduct as "reprehensible". if you know. moreover. sir. ATTY. made admissions during the hearing before the Office of the Solicitor General that he had signed the deed of sale voluntarily having seen "that the document was prepared correctly ("Mahusay ang pagkakita ko sa paggawa ng dokumento"). Lozada v. GRANADOS: Now. ATTY.Moreover. WITNESS: Yes. By respondent's own testimony. in six separate and distinct occasions. GRANADOS: And she also expressed her conformity to all that was stated in Exhibit A? ATTY. 9and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. of the crime of falsification of public documents. "constituting as it does not only malpractice but also the commission. respondent Baltazar's conduct must be similarly characterized as malpractice and falsification of a public document. she applied anew for renewal of her commission and was in fact re-commissioned as notary public on 7 September 1957. [which] justifies his disbarment 8 and disbarred him. was merely "a scheme designed to nullify the sale to enable the complainant to eventually recover the property sold. Respondent in her defense. and that when she learned in August 1956 that her petition for renewal had not been filed. 6 The Court is. 18 . 4 Under the foregoing case. 3 Complainant had. as the Solicitor General pointed out. sir. as a matter of course. ATTY. 7respondent attorney notarized six (6) documents consisting of an extrajudicial partition of an estate. however. after the deed of sale Exhibit A was prepared. that respondent forgot about the matter and in good faith continued to act as notary public in the honest belief that her commission had been renewed with the filing of the petition which she considered a routine formality. unable to accept her plea of good faith simply on the basis of her claimed belief that her commission would. since she did not bother to ascertain whether her commission had in fact been renewed before acting as such. read Exhibit A before it was executed by you? WITNESS: My wife. therefore.

Following payment of the contract price in full. Block 27. to appear and acknowledge before him the due and voluntary execution thereof. In one of the transactions adverted to. and considering the circumstances of this case.11 Since only one instance of unauthorized notarization is here involved. A.a. TCT No. for short). ATTY. complainant. [4] like other signed hundreds of deeds (of sale) over other documents for our behalf of the President [of Fil-Estate] with buyers [she] had never (even) met. and its annexes.068.C. Promulgated: August 23. a practice not only violative of the Notarial Law. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ.: Under consideration is this complaint[1] for disbarment filed by Tan Tiong Bio. it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally. 2003. Meralco Avenue. but detrimental to his interests and those similarly situated as well. Dominador E. In connection with the estafa charge. 6634 Present: PUNO. a.a.J. signatory (for FEGDI as vendor) to Deed 1108. Chairperson. Complainant. 1108[2] (Deed 1108. according to complainant. sometime in 1995. Inc. rather than repeated acts as in City Fiscal R. . Henry Tan. as vendee. impelled him to file a case for estafawith the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City. No. so complainant claims. employed as corporate counsel for FEPI and appointed/reappointed from 1996 to 2001 as notary public for Quezon City [3]. JJ. complainant repeatedly asked for but was not able to secure a certificate of title for the same or a refund of his payment. T427206 nor during the execution of Deed 1108. executed a counter-affidavit therein stating that she had not personally met nor transacted with the complainant either with respect to the negotiations for the sale of the land covered by TCT No. 968702 in complainants name was delivered to him with the corresponding completed deed of sale. Bondocs foregoing statements that complainant initiated the present disbarment case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). ACCORDINGLY. in violation of the Notarial Law and the lawyers oath. HENRY TAN.k. T-427206. it being his posture that respondent Gonzales notarized Deed 1108 without requiring him. Renato L. Respondent Renato L. Bondoc. RENATO L..523. The rebuff.k. 2007 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION GARCIA. including miscellaneous expenses. Bondoc. [5] It is on the basis of Ms. and not in each others presence. Several years following his payment of the amount of P2. Flores. was made to sign and execute Deed of Sale No. Gonzales. Phase 3 (or Lot10). or Ms.Notarization is not an empty routine. 19 .versus - CORONA. FEPI has its office at Renaissance Towers. representing the full purchase price for Lot 10 and after he had signed a deed with the space for the title number and technical description left in blank. the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent Atty. Copies of this Resolution shall be furnished to the courts and the Bar Confidant and spread on the personal record of respondent. Bondoc admitted that she and the complainant did sign the said deed of sale. he made another Southwoods purchase covering Lot 10. Ms. to the contrary. TAN TIONG BIO a. Lozada v. (FEGDI) and Fil-Estate Properties. that Ms. Pasig City. complainant purchased several parcels of land at the Manila Southwoods Residential Estates (Southwoods. Gonzales for allegedly notarizing a conveying deed outside the territory covered by his notarial commission and without requiring the personal presence before him of the signatories to the deed before notarizing the same. and GARCIA. Baltazar-Aguirre from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months commencing from receipt of this Resolution. J. hereinafter) covering a lot described in and covered by the vendors Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. As complainant would allege in his Complaint Affidavit dated November 17. Cavite owned/operated by Fil-Estate Golf and Development. a mix residentialcommercial complex situated in Carmona. was the notarizing officer of Deed 1108 on which the name and signature of Alice OdchigueBondoc (Bondoc) appear as the vendors authorized representative. GONZALES. As records reveal. (FEPI). Inc. against Atty. C. Gloria M. but at different times and in different places. the Court considers that suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months would be an adequate administrative penalty. however. AZCUNA. Complainant would add. Respondent.

1996 to September 30. and that the parties admit that Atty. to wit: [T]he Deed of Absolute Sale No. Investigating Commissioner Doroteo B. Nevertheless. Bondoc that they have not personally met. as in fact. at the Renaissance Tower. At the preliminary conference before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission). Being a notarized document. 367. what I do know is that I have personally met both complainant and Atty. 2001. but at different times. Because of the hundreds of documents I have notarized. however. the Notarial Law is silent as to whether or not the parties to a conveying instrument must be present before the notary public at the same time when they acknowledge its due execution. Ms. 2004. the parties need not necessarily sign and acknowledge their acts in one anothers presence. There can be quibbling. complainant and respondent entered into the following stipulation of facts. xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. We agree.) After due hearings.. his notarial 20 . Henry Tan and Atty. he alleged as follows: 10. To us and to the Investigating Commissioner. 11.[9] when a notary certifies to the due execution and delivery of the document under his hand and seal. Ramos. as I am not required to do so. within which period Deed 1108 was notarized. De Rosales v. that the respondent breached the injunction against notarizing a document in a place outside ones commission. 74. xxxxxxxxx 15. Bondoc appeared before me and signed. [8] Absent convincing evidence to the contrary. as approved by the IBP Director for Bar Discipline. with like effect. Thus. in his Verified Answer. Instead. complainant fails to cite any law or rule which obliges a notary public to require the parties to the instrument to simultaneously appear before him. The fact that the signatories to the Deed signed and acknowledged the same on different occasions is of no moment. Thus. As it were. book no. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc and Henry Tan Tan were not present at the same time when the subject document was notarized xxx (Underscoring added. complainant cannot dispute that both signatories to the Deed of Absolute Sale personally appeared before me . indeed appeared before him and attested to the contents and the truth of what are stated in the deed. which. the document thus notarized is converted into a public document. page no. Aguila submitted his REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dated August 27. I do not recall with absolute certainty the details of the notarization ceremony of the Deed of Absolute Sale in question. has not appeared together with the buyers before the notarizing officer. but recommended the dismissal of the complaint insofar as it charges the respondent for notarizing a document without the personal appearance before him of the party-signatories thereto. That is all that is required by law. However. I require the personal appearance of all parties who seek to have deeds of sale notarized. both complainant and Atty. respondent acknowledged that from February 1. vis--vis Deed 1108. while complainant initiated the disbarment charge only in November 2003. as representative of the seller. As we said in Vda.[6] was less than categorical on the matter of whether or not complainant and Ms. that respondent admits that his notarial appointment covers Quezon City and that the subject document was notarized in Pasig City. Bondoc. and certainly does not constitute misconduct on my part. arguing that the transaction in question took place in 2001. [7] The respondent parlays in his answer the idea of laches. specifically. complainant failed to substantiate with competent proof his allegations that respondent performed the notarial procedure on Deed 1108 without his (complainant) being present to acknowledge the due execution thereof. However. series of 2001 of his notarial register. In the report. Bondocs declaration that she had not met or dealt directly with Southwoods buyers does not necessarily prove that such buyers and FEPIs representatives in the purchase did not in fact appear before the notary public to acknowledge the fact of contract execution before him. 8. albeit at different times. As a matter of practice. I cannot be faulted for such. Alice Odchigue-Bondoc as authorized signatory of the seller. Deed 1108 and the solemnities attending its execution are disputably presumed to be regular. delving on the second part of the recommendation. was forwarded to the Court. 1108 was duly executed by Mr. there is none. Based on the admissions of both the complainant and Atty. If at all. Bondoc in her counter-affidavit before the prosecutors office is not the clear and convincing evidence required to overturn the presumption of regularity. that she. that the subject document was notarized by respondent as document no. Bondoc and notarized documents which they had acknowledged. the Commission recommended that respondent be adjudged liable and penalized for violating the rule proscribing one from acting as a notary outside the area covered by his commission. Bondocs declaration simply means that she has not personally met the buyers. As reported by the Investigating Commissioner. Ms. As aptly found by the Investigating Commissioner. even if I did not require complainant and Atty. the certification in Deed 1108 that the vendor and the vendee personally appeared before the respondent to acknowledge the same must be upheld. it appears that in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale in question. or. The only basis for the charge of professional misconduct against me is that I allowed the signatories to acknowledge their signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale at different times. [10] the declaration of Ms. Bondoc to personally appear before me at the same time.Respondent.

respondent. It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an empty. the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. and let the Office of the Bar Confidant be notified of this Decision which is hereby ordered duly recorded in the personal files of the respondent. Renato L. which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. Atty. Galicinao collected from Maddela an amount equivalent to one-half of the face valueof the checks she received as benefit from the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land. Galicinao went to Maddela'soffice and took the latter’s cash gift check amounting to Five Thousand Pesos (P 5. [18] Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so. notarized in Pasig City. such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Then. ATTY. MADDELA v. While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident. Viray [13] is very much apropos: seriously affects the standing and character of a respondent as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar. effective upon receipt of a copy of this Decision. Rosalie DallongGalicinao (Atty. respondents act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission. performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws. While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity in the violation involved. merit disbarment. WHEREFORE. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest. dishonest.[15] In Zoreta v. respondent cannot escape from disciplinary action in his capacity as member of the bar and as a notary public. 21 . Maddela (Maddela) against Atty.000. 31 January 2005.[17] Needless to stress. grave misconduct and slander”. respondent cannot plausibly seek refuge in the complainants alleged delay in filing the instant complaint for disbarment.Maddela averred that she loaned an amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40. FIRST DIVISION (Davide. since part of the loan remained unpaid.Galicinao. He cannot. Atty. This most severe form of disciplinary sanction ought to be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that The IBP Report recommended the revocation of respondents commission as a notary public (in any jurisdiction). CJ. Galicinao 'uttered unsavory and humiliating words' against her. routinary act. by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not. To be sure. and guided by Zoreta. For all legal intents and purposes. His proven transgression does not. 6491.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.) A disbarment case was filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by h ereincomplainant Benilda M. for all legal intents and purposes. has indulged in deliberate falsehood. a penalty higher than that recommended by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline ought to be imposed. In November 2001. we have held that an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe. ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO A. the Notarial Law.[11] Deed 1108 was. Simpliciano. if still existing.commission then issued was for Quezon City. meaningless. the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public are treated with a formality definitely more than casual. time and again. immoral or deceitful conduct. We have. partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. Onother occasions. SO ORDERED. Atty. he admitted having notarized hundreds of documents in Pasig City. Galicinao) for“acts unbecoming a public servant and a lawyer. Far from it. [14] Hence. A one-month suspension from the practice of law for violation of Canon 1[19] and Rule 1. what the Court said in Nunga v. more specifically. Considering the circumstances and the extent of respondents willful malfeasance. BENILDA M.[16] Indeed. respondent Atty. By such malpractice as a notary public. by performing through the years notarial acts in Pasig City where he is not so authorized. No. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1. which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. where he used to hold office. such as temporary suspension. Gonzales is PERMANENTLY BARRED from being commissioned as Notary Public. he is. as urged by the complainant. He is furthermore SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. through the Office of the Court Administrator.000) in her absence and without her knowledge. or by the complainants motivation to do so. invoke the complainants ill-motive in filing said complaint. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty. The practice of law is so delicately affected by public interest that it is both a right and a duty of the State to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote public welfare. Simpliciano as well as his permanent disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for notarizing several documents after his commission as notary public had already expired. indulging in deliberate falsehood. [12] during the period that his notarial commission was only for and within Quezon City. could accomplish the end desired. however. J . held that the Courts disciplinary authority cannot be defeated or frustrated by a mere delay in filing the complaint. and that he henceforth be disqualified from being commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year.01[20] of the Code of Professional Responsibility is also recommended for the respondent. To compound matters.[21] the Court meted the penalty of two (2) years suspension from law practice on Atty. which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.00) from Atty. as a means to defeat the present charge. There. For one. respondent likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. however. too.C.

However. through the affidavit of acertain Mr. Galicinao was able to prove that she was not the creditor of theMaddela and that Atty. Tuanda. Thepenalty that should be meted to her should. Galicinao should be disciplined for having notarized documents outside of hernotarial commission HELD:Notari zation is invested with s u b s t a n t i v e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s u c h t h a t o n l y t h o s e who are qualified may act as notaries public. the Board of Governors of the IBP issued Resolution No. she could not be disciplinarily dealt with as a lawyer. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified orauthorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public. Galicinao’s husband. PEOPLE VS TUANDA FACTS: Respondent Fe T.Maddela's refusal to part with the amount angered Atty. meaningless. Atty.On 16 April 2004. Viray .C. Whether the respondent derivedprofit from her act of notarizing outside the area of her authority is of no moment. asks this Court to lift the suspension from the practice of law imposed upon her by a decision of the Court of Appeals. Maddela claimed that although Atty. The penalty of fine would be a sufficient sanction. dismissing theadministrative complaint against Atty. however. Rilloraza. Maddela. Galicinao. she will be suspend ed for six (6) months for the acts of notarizing outside the area of her notarial commission and obtaining the JDF checks of the complainantfrom the cash clerk in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. she reasoned that she did such for her relatives and she did not derive any income from the transactions . alleged that Atty. Fe Tuanda received from one Herminia A. The fact remains that shenotarized outside the area of her commission. Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala submitted her report andrecommendation.Thus. 27-2001. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a privatedocument into a public document. not covered by their agreement. Galicinao was not yet a lawyer. In 2004. 2011-2012 On 10 December 2002. 155. she was issued anotarial commission and even notarized certain documents outside of her commission. In 1983.000). a member of the Philippine Bar. It is invested with substantive public interest. therefore. and banged her fist on top of the Maddela's table. be as a notary public before she was admitted to theBar. 366 Phil. Galiciano. 031060.P a g e | 27 Legal Ethics Case DigestJudge Philip Aguinaldo3AA. Marquez several 22 .Galicinao continued to claim the higher allowable deductions as a married individual despite the death of her husband. We have declared on several occasions. not a JDF check and. Considering.To further support her bid for the disbarment of Atty. and the administrativeoffices in general. causing theglass top of the table to break. 4758. reasoning that it was a cash gift. Galicinao is also guilty of notarizing documents outside the area of her commission. routinary act. Galicinao with respect to the charge of violating a Supreme CourtCircular for collecting a loan for which she acted as a guarantor. and imposing upon the respondent thepenalty of reprimand for her act of notarizing documents outside the area where she was commissioned as anotary public. The said ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court with a modification as to the penalty. She stated that Atty. 160 [1999]). such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. No. that her misconduct as a notary public was committed while she was not yet a lawyer. Galicinao did not claim her husband's salary and avail herself of the higher allowabletax deductions even after his death. Atty. A. XVI-2004-227 in CBDNo. we are not satisfied with respondent's explanation that she notarized documents outside of the area of her notarial commission as a favor to her relatives and for free.Maddela likewise alleged that despite the death of Atty. Galicinaocontinued to receive and encash for at least (3) three months checks corresponding to her husband's salariesas Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Office of the Clerk of Court of Nueva Vizcaya. Maddelarefused.Y. prompting the latter to raise her voice. making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof ( Nunga v. annulling and setting aside Commissioner Maala's recomm endatio n. the courts. the respondent went again to the office of the complainant and demandedone-half of the value of the check repres enting a cash gift of Five Thousand Pesos (P 5.utter 'unsavory remarks' against Maddela. therefore. A. that notarization is not an empty. Atty. Galiciano denied the allegations but with respect to the documents that she notarized outsideof her notarial commission. Maddela even pointed out that Atty.

But the Supreme Court did say that it is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is “grossly immoral conduct” or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. Arciga then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on gross immoral conduct. he stopped communicating with Arciga. ISSUE: Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred.pieces of jewelry with a total value of P36. The two then went to Arciga’s hometown to tell the latter’s parent about the pregnancy. malpractice. on the ground that the offense involves moral turpitude. Facts. when Maniwang was still a law student. — The Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding section. They also made Arciga’s parents believe that they were already married but they would have to have the church wedding in abeyance until Maniwang passes the bar exams. But after his oath taking. These checks were dishonored by the drawee bank. or other gross misconduct in such office. Respondent shall remain suspended from the practice of law until further orders from this Court. (Italics supplied)  Sec. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court and imposed further suspension against Tuanda in the practice of law. that he did promise to marry Arciga many times. instead of returning the unsold pieces of jewelry worth P26. HELD: No. wherein she was acquitted of estafa but was found guilty of violation of BP 22 (The Anti-Bouncing Check Law). and other cases therein cited. respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not the suspension of Atty. that he broke those promises because of Arciga’s shady past because apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even before her son with Maniwang was born. Maniwang passed the bar. constitutes malpractice. then a medical technology student. Arciga located his whereabouts and there she found out that Maniwang married another woman. grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as “that conduct which is willful. or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.250. Traders Royal Bank." ACCORDINGLY. Alfredo Cargo and his wife is having an affair and that his wife even left their conjugal home to live and rent in a place paid by the respondent. Tuanda made no effort to settle her obligation. Marquez)and she is not guilty of the offense charged. Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arciga’s child. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court of any deceit. The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interest of parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interest of the community at large. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that "the offense [of] which she is found guilty involved moral turpitude. the Court Resolved to DENY the Motion to Lift Order of Suspension. Arguing further that she intends no damage to the plaintiff-appellee (Herminia A. Criminal cases were filed. Tuanda be lifted. Alleging further that Atty. and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community”. injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. The crimes of which respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to "obey the laws of the land. Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of dishonor. Putting valueless commercial papers in circulation. Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provide as follows:  Sec. In 1975. vs. Arciga confronted Maniwang’s wife and this irked Maniwang so he inflicted physical injuries upon Arciga. either personally or through paid agents or brokers. complainant. BP 22 violation is a serious criminal offense which deleteriously affects public interest and public order. HELD: NO. Arciga got pregnant. In 1984. or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce. he had a relationship with Arciga.000 for sale on commission basis. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense. multiplied a thousand fold. Maniwang secured a copy of his birth certificate in preparation of securing a marriage license. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice. or shameless. and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises. In 1973. Complainant filed a disbarment case towards respondent claiming immorality. 28. Attorneys renewed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. for insufficiency of funds. she issued 3 checks. 23 .ALFREDO CARGO. They started having a sexual relationship in 1971. ARCIGA vs MANIWANG In 1970. Herein. 27. Tuanda is now appealing to the Supreme Court for her suspension to be lifted arguing that her suspension was a penalty so harsh on top of the fines imposed to her in violation of the aforementioned law. Maniwang’s refusal to marry Arciga was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment (though not much discussion was provided by the ponente as to why). The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwang’s case is different from the cases of Mortel vs Aspiras and Almirez vs Lopez. TOLOSA vs CARGO JOSE TOLOSA. flagrant.

Jr. ATTY. 19 SCRA 439 [1967] ). complainant. Jr.000 as investment of which a return of 10% daily interest plus repayment of principal after two months were promised. The Supreme Court ruled to SUSPEND INDEFINITELY the respondent having been found engaging in unlawful. respondent Facts. SALUDARES. Prudencio S. Amante. Puno. While it is true that there was no attorneyclient relationship between respondent and complainant. The investigation of the office of the Solicitor General showed the respondent submitting falsified documents claiming the complainant's loan of P 20. As a result a complaint was filed against Saludares for unbecoming an officer of the court and for violation of respondent's oath of office. Issue. showing him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him (Lizaso vs. Saludares from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months from notice. Alfredo Cargo and REPRIMAND him of conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and an officer of the court. thereby degrading not only his person but his profession as well. but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties. G. Ruling. 198 SCRA 1 [1991] ). This dishonest conduct was compounded by respondent's act of interjecting paltry excuses for his unwarranted refusal to pay a valid and just debt. Issue. respondent had no intention to honor and/or pay his just debt which is a conduct of unbecoming. it is well-settled that an attorney may be removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession. respondent. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the Solicitor General in not finding the respondent guilty of immorality due to lack of sufficient evidence.Several issues were also raised alleging immorality and altercations between the complainant and the respondent. WON Atty. The Court ordered the Suspension of Attorney Prudencio S. LIZASO vs AMANTE Ruling: SHIRLEY CUYUGAN LIZASO.000 now in contest was just a repayment thereof. Facts: Respondent borrowed P1.ATTY. CONSTANTINO vs SALUDARES LUIS vs. dishonest and immoral conduct citing Rule 191 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.000. It is clear to the Court that the conduct of respondent Saludares in failing to honor his just debt to complainant's son constituted dishonest and immoral conduct. the court ruled further to WARN Atty.00 from complainant's son Luis. SERGIO AMANTE. However. failed to appear at the appointed place of the payment because he was out of the country. it is not enough that he denies the charges against him.000 to him and that the amount of P 5. Gen for investigation who rendered a report that Saludares be charged with violation of Section 27. The facts and evidence obtaining in this case indubitably establish respondent's failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer's oath. Sergio Amante of P 5. with the warning that a repetition of the same or any other misconduct will be dealt with more severely. G. Constantino against Atty. Case filed by complainant Luis G. he must meet the issues and overcome the evidence for the relator and show proof that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity which is at all times expected of him (Quingwa vs. Complainant entrusted Att. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines and his Lawyer's Oath and that he be suspended for 1 year from the practice of law. reasoned out that he was unable to pay because Luis. Saludares in reply. Grounds for ruling: It has been held that when a lawyer's integrity is challenged by evidence. the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics and that from the very beginning. vs. The complaint was forwarded to Sol. Jr. PRUDENCIO CONSTANTINO. complainant. Ruling. Respondent failed to do so after several attempts of the complainant to recover the same. Saludares 24 . WON Atty Sergio Amante be suspended or disbarred from the practice of law. but failed to pay as promised and he unjustifiably refused and still refuses to pay despite repeated demands from the complainant and his wife after the son has left the country. for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for the non-payment of a loan from complainant's son Luis Constantino. Alfredo Cargo be disbarred.

lawyer and medical doctor Nicolas. a corporation engaged in overseas maritime employment filed a complaint against its Legal and Claims Manager. let copies of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator. Similarly. when he resigned in 2008. respondent’s acts of misappropriation constitute dishonesty. the Court cannot concur with the IBP’s recommendation regarding the return of the settlement money respondent received from complainant. The IBP Board recommended that he suspended from the practice of law for two years. It is fundamental that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and ascribes to a lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good faith[1]. Instead of giving the checks to the seafarers. dishonest.03. the IBP Investigating Commissioner correctly found that complainant had duly proven its charges against respondent.00 issued to Delgado) deposited to an unauthorized bank account. This is the standard laid down by Rules 16.” This. honesty.00. Rule 16.01 and 16. Reyes. respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice of law. Anent the proper penalty for respondent’s acts. dishonest. immoral. respondent Nicolas C. respondent’s conduct of misappropriating complainant’s money has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession. CF sharp required him to sign promissory notes in order for him to reimburse certain amount not yet accounted by him.936. Nicolas deposited the same in an account at International Exchange Bank. He averred that the seafarers claims had long been settled. and dishonorable to the legal profession. under Account No.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.650. Rodelio. With respect to Rodelio. it also reveals a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law[6]. it issued checks for P524.01 and 16.000.01. It is well-settled that “when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose. and integrity of the legal profession[10]. the Court deems it proper to modify the penalty recommended by the IBP. except as to: (a) the recommended penalty to be imposed upon respondent.013. v. As a member of the Bar. which read: CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. these through checks not issued by the company.03. that it was not specifically prayed for in the latter’s administrative complaint and that the civil liability of respondent therefor may already be the subject of existing cases involving the same parties. 003-10-06902-1. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. only to have such checks (except for the check in the amount of P145. unlawful. he could not have encashed them as they were made payable to particular payees.20. and grossly immoral acts[9]. Due to failure of Nicolas to answer. Mijares III[7]. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and guidance. and the fact that complainant gave a wrong address. in Freeman v.00.303. considering. among others. In Arellano University. COSMOS vs LOBU 25 .40 to settle the claims of Bernardo. The Court’s ruling: After a judicious perusal of the records. P145. on various occasions. In his belated Verified Answer.01. the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. disgraceful. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client[2]. SO ORDERED.00 and P296. or deceitful conduct.” Such malfeasance is not only unacceptable. As already discussed.00 instead of P652.20. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics[3]. Inc. as in this case. 808. Canon 1 and Rules 16. According to the company.CF SHARP vs TORRES CF Sharp Crew Management. and betrayal of his client’s interests which he is duty-bound to protect[5]. Nicolas only gave the amount of P216. he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name ordered STRICKEN OFF from the roll of attorneys. Canon 1 of the CPR which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same[11]. Quezon City Branch. Likewise. He has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful. the Court disbarred the lawyer for misappropriating his client’s money intended for securing a certificate of title on the latter’s behalf. Rule 16. respondent failed to do. P652. And if he does not use the money for the intended purpose. he is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed in him by the public in the fidelity. Further. In this case.[8] the same penalty was imposed upon the lawyer who misappropriated the insurance proceeds of her client’s deceased husband. the Court imposed upon them the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice of law. the IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended that he be suspended for one year. Torres is found guilty of violating Rule 1. particularly International Exchange Bank. They are contrary to the mandate of Rule 1. the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client[4]. In the foregoing light. who was tasked by the company to oversee the management and administration of legal cases and medical-related claims filed by seafarers against its various principals. In particular. WHEREFORE. abuse of trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant. in exchange for clearance documents.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. Jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers misappropriated their clients’ money. Nicolas alleged that his failure to answer on time was due to the fact he was arrested for non-bailable charges filed by complainant against him. P97.650. the Court concurs with the findings of the IBP in its report and recommendation. it has been held that a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Joseph and Edmundo. and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public. complainant had exposed respondent’s modus operandi of repeatedly requesting the issuance of checks purportedly for the purpose of settling seafarers’ claims against the complainant’s various principals. Canon 16 of the CPR.00 and P8. Banawe. In view of the foregoing. Accordingly. Clearly. and (b) the monetary award in favor of the complainant.100. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent’s record in this Court as attorney. x x x.013.

petitioner Labor Union filed a second motion to dismiss complaint. On Jan 16. He ought to remember that his obligation as an officer of the court. If he fails to keep that admonition in mind. then he puts into serious question his good standing in the bar. the following were elected by the House of Delegates (composed of 120 chapter presidents or their alternates) and proclaimed as officers: NAME POSITION Atty. There was a replevin suit by the same vendee in bad faith. Violeta Drilon President Atty. Lo Bu appealed by certiorari but the Court denied this petition in its resolution dated July 17. there was a replevin suit by Lo Bu in the Court of First Instance (CFI) Manila covering the same properties. no less than the dignity of the profession. Renato F. House of Delegates Atty. decision was elevated to the Court of Appeals. 1973. Justiniano Cortes Governor & Vice-President for Northern Luzon Atty. 1989 at the Philippine International Convention Center (or PICC). 1973. After several attempts to settle a pending unfair labor practice case proved unsuccessful. For even such case. in its order dated Feb 23. House of Delegates Atty. 1993. Ciriaco Atienza Governor & Vice-President for Central Luzon Atty. Bella Tiro Executive Vice-President Atty. requires that should not act like an errand-boy at the beck and call of his client. levying on the personal properties of the Cosmos Foundry Shop or the New Century Foundry Shop for the purpose of conducting the public auction sale. Issues: (1) Whether or not petitioner Labor union has made out a case for certiorari and prohibition.Facts: After Cosmos Foundry Shop was burned . The CIR. What is worse. Upon receipt of order from the Court denying certiorari. petitioner CFSWU obtained from the Court of Industrial Relations the third alias writ of execution for the satisfaction and enforcement of the judgment in its favor. 1973. asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). Oscar Badelles Sergeant at Arms. Held: Writ of certiorari is granted and the order of Respondent CA reinstating appeal is nullified and set aside. except that of dismissing it. House of Delegates Atty. Ong Ting established Century Foundry Shop where he and his family resided in the premises. Ronquillo Secretary. Courts should dismiss a suit which has all the earmarks of a subterfuge that was resorted to for the purpose of frustrating the execution of a judgment in an unfair labor controversy. including equipment and rights in the New Century Foundry Shop to his compadre Lo Bu. writ was served January 17 and 18. Teodoro Quicoy Treasurer. denied his motion. (2) Whether or not counsel Atty Busmente performed his obligation as an officer of the court while sustaining the dignity of the profession while acting as counsel for Lo Bu. Mario Jalandoni Governor & Vice-President for Metro Manila 26 . House of Delegates Atty.000. Salvador Lao Chairman. Rule that certiorari will not be granted where petitioners have plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law will not be enforced where it would result in further delay in satisfaction of judgment that ought to have been enforced years ago. private respondent Lo Bu certainly cannot plead ignorance . Respondent Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall writ of execution. respondent CA being perpetually restrained from taking any further action in such appeal. He was a prinicipal in the nefarious scheme to frustrate the award in favor of the petitioner labor union. A legal counsel is expected to defend a client’s cause but not at the expense of truth and in defiance of the clear purpose of labor laws. Ong Ting sold all his business. It is about time that a halt be called to the schemes utilized by respondent Lo Bu in his far-fromcommendable efforts to defeat labor’s just claim. The writ of prohibition is likewise granted. as he himself was the petitioner in the certiorari proceedings before this Court. So likewise was the motion for reconsideration. ready and eager to do his every bidding. After the complaint was dismissed by the lower court. Thereafter. for Php20. Lo Bu. IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. PER CURIAM: In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter "IBP") held on June 3. Atty Busmente had not exculpated himself. which was dismissed by the CFI Manila. In the meanwhile.

appropriate approaches to the problem of confirming and strengthening adherence to the fundamental principles of the IBP. Drilon. Jurado mentioned the resentment of Atty. giving aid and comfort to her (Atty. Regala and Abello Law Office) where Mrs. the Court. July 8. For Justice Puno took it upon himself to device safeguards to prevent tampering with. as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA (Angara. national. and. 1989) which was conducted by the "IBP Comelec." the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they were reportedly "wined and dined continuously. led by the main protagonists for the office of president of the association. the alleged use of government planes. June 17. namely. Cruz. and marking of. Mr. or chapter. the Labor Secretary) campaigning for her. Sigma Rho Fraternity (Secretary Drilon's fraternity). Sunday. Drilon's rivals who felt at a disadvantage because Atty. What the Court viewed with considerable concern was the reported electioneering and extravagance that characterized the campaign conducted by the three candidates for president of the IBP. Jose Aguilar Grapilon Governor & Vice-President for Southern Luzon Atty. and the editorial. Jurado's informants alleged that there was rampant vote-buying by some members of the U. in an article. Drilon. the principal officers and Chairman of the House of Delegates to appear before it on Tuesday. exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar. The Supreme Court en banc. June 20. is that the IBP shall be non-political 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. THE COURT'S DECISION TO INVESTIGATE. Locsin in his column and editorial substantially re-echoed Mauricio's reports with some embellishments. the ballots." II. Drilon is employed." headed by Justice Reynato Puno of the Court of Appeals. Luis Mauricio. Nereo Paculdo and Ramon Nisce who reportedly "poured heart. and the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting. Attorneys Nereo Paculdo.m. However. 1989). entitled 'Wrong Forum" of the Daily Globe (June 8. MEDIA ACCOUNT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. and Violeta C. notably Chinese Filipinos. delegates and governors would be chosen on the basis of professional merit and willingness and ability to serve. June 20. 1989. appreciated to P50. Emil Jurado. heavily stressed at the time of its organization and commencement of existence. or regional. Ricardo Teruel Governor & Vice-President for Western Visayas Atty." It should be stated at the outset that the election process itself (i. resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.1989). In that resolution the Court "call[ed] to mind that a basic postulate of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The fundamental assumption was that officers. especially conciliators and employers.P. in his column "IBP Group Questions Drilon Election" (Manila Standard. and she had the added advantage of having regional directors and labor arbiters of the Department of Labor and Employment (who had been granted leaves of absence by her husband. Drilon allegedly used PNB helicopters to visit far-flung IBP chapters on the pretext of distributing Bigay Puso donations. the voting and the canvassing of votes on June 3. all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities.000 to P20. 1989). soul. in its en banc resolution dated June 15. were unanimously critical of the "vote-buying and pressure tactics" allegedly employed in the campaign by the three principal candidates: Attys. in addition. Mr. 1989). 1989. Drilon's) candidacy. and of the IBP officers. Concepcion. some twelve to twenty votes which were believed crucial. and that government positions were promised to others by the office of the Labor Secretary. Mauricio in his column wrote about the same matters and. directed the outgoing and incoming members of the IBP Board of Governors. womened and subjected to endless haggling over the price of their votes x x x" which allegedly "ranged from Pl5. Mr. I. was unanimously adjudged by the participants and observers to be above board. money and influence to win over the 120 IBP delegates. Responding to the critical reports. Teodoro Almine Governor & Vice-President for Bicolandia Atty. Gladys Tiongco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern Mindanao Atty.Atty. at 2:00 o'clock p. Simeon Datumanong Governor & Vice-President for Western Mindanao The newly-elected officers were set to take the their oath of office on July 4. entitled "Pam-Pam" (The Philippines Free Press. on the day of the election.000..1989. June 10. 1989) and "The Disintegrating Bar" (Malaya. and Teodoro Locsin Jr. Mr.disturbed by the widespread reports received by some members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in the columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates. Ramon Nisce. and there to inform the Court on the veracity of the aforementioned reports and to recommend.e." 27 .000." In his second column. Porfirio Siyangco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern Visayas Atty. for the consideration of the Court. mentioned "talk of personnel of the Department of Labor. in two successive columns: "The Invertebrated Bar" (Malaya. before the Supreme Court en banc. Violeta C. Mauricio mentioned "how a top official of the judiciary allegedly involved himself in IBP politics on election day by closeting himself with campaigners as they plotted their election strategy in a room of the PICC (the Philippine International Convention Center where the convention/election were held) during a recess x x x.

and Carolina C. — The following acts and practices relative to election are prohibited. Officials of the Labor Department were also called to enable the Court to ascertain the truth of the reports that labor officials openly campaigned or worked for the election of Atty. the Hyatt. agency or instrumentality thereof. Governor. including vote-buying. Atty. and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. there is a widespread belief. quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision. after deliberating thereon. Reyes. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. Messrs. Emilio A. 28 . Narvasa. thus: "SEC. III.L. The managers of three five-star hotels the Philippine Plaza. and the Court. 14. or combinations of candidates. (d) Formation of tickets. on election day. Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The newspaper columnists. whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the Integrated Bar or by any other member. Drilon. (1) payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member. or causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the elections. Thereafter. acted as the committee's Recording Secretary.The resolution went on to say that the "Court is deeply disturbed to note that in connection with the election of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates. (c) Campaigning for or against any candidate. (2) giving of food. and the outgoing and in coming IBP officers on the other. Jose B. (e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote. Non-political Bar. but whom they. as well as the advertisement thereof. refused to identify. The meeting between the Court en banc on the one hand. and analyzing and assessing evidence given by such persons as were perceived to have direct and personal knowledge of the relevant facts. Jesus Bigornia and Emil Jurado were subpoenaed to determine the nature of their sources of information relative to the IBP elections. (b) Distribution. or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. and the Holiday Inn where the three protagonists (Drilon. and Associate Justices Teodoro R. Abraham F. No lawyer holding an elective." The venerable retired Supreme Court Justice and IBP President Emeritus. of election campaign material. invoking the Press Freedom Law. The Committee has since submitted its Report after receiving. The Clerk of Court. Luis Mauricio. directly or indirectly. officer or employee of the Integrated Bar. Gancayco. phone calls and personal interviews with persons who claimed to have knowledge of the facts. to conduct the inquiry. of election campaign material other than a statement of the biodata of a candidate on not more than one page of a legal-size sheet of paper. Daniel Martinez. The Philippine Airlines officials were called to testify on the charge that some candidates gave free air fares to delegates to the convention. 4. The officer of the Philippine National Bank and the Air Transport Office were called to enlighten the Court on the charge that an IBP presidential candidate and the members of her slate used PNB planes to ferry them to distant places in their campaign to win the votes of delegates. on letters. direct or indirect. attended the dialogue. Article I. judicial. Sarmiento. that there was extensive and intensive campaigning by candidates for IBP positions as well as expenditure of considerable sums of money by candidates. while holding an elective. Padilla. A total of forty-nine (49) witnesses appeared and testified in response to subpoenas issued by the Court to shed light on the conduct of the elections. by himself or through another person: (a) Distribution. quasijudicial. The Court en banc formed a committee and designated Senior Associate Justice Andres R. Griño-Aquino. was an informal one. single slates. A Delegate. to give counsel and advice. "' Section 14 of the same By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to IBP elections: SEC. has Resolved to accept and adopt the same. quasi-judicial. or an officer or employee of any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial. they said. Nisce and Paculdo) allegedly set up their respective headquarters and where they billeted their supporters were summoned. as Chairman. Their stories were based. except on election day. or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES UNDER IBP BY-LAWS. upon invitation of the Court. drink. based on reports carried by media and transmitted as well by word of mouth. as members. in any form or manner. or to vote for or against a candidate. — The Integrated Bar is strictly nonpolitical. judicial. the Court resolved to conduct a formal inquiry to determine whether the prohibited acts and activities enumerated in the IBP By-Laws were committed before and during the 1989 elections of IBP's national officers.

s. Renato F. Perez. He submitted photocopies of his nomination forms which read: "Nomination Form I Join in Nominating as National President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ______________ _______________ Chapter Signature" Among those who signed the nomination forms were: Onofre P. 100-1 04). they attended the Bench and Bar dialogues held in Cotabato in April 1989 (t. pp.s. p. July 13. Neil. Flores.1989. Daniel C.. or any similar consideration to any person. She said that she was informed by Atty.n. Unfortunately. 82-86).n. Oscar B. p. Amor L. Jr. Icaonapo Jr. 41. Atty. Buban. Diosdado B. July 13. Romeo V. Jose P.. or (3) making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made. 1989. Romeo T. July 3. Nisce and Paculdo began travelling around the country to solicit the votes of delegates as early as April 1989. Salun-at. Fernandez..entertainment. Violeta Drilon. transportation or any article of value. without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated Bar.n. Sixto Marella. Roem J. 86).s. Jr. Contreras. Sansano Dionisio E. Upon the invitation of IBP President. Leo C.s. Teruel Rodrigo R. Jose N.n. despite those formal commitments. Julius Z. t.s. and Manuel S. 1 989. The records of the Philippine National Bank (Exhibit C-1-Crudo and Exhibit C-2-Crudo) show that Secretary Fulgencio S.s. Bernardo. he said. pp. (t. Undersecretary Antonio Tria.. Oscar C. (2) Use of PNB plane in the campaign. Macaraeg.s. 116118). June 29... Villarin.n. Factoran. Gladys Tiongco. t. Atlee T. Mendoza. Confesor R. Pampanga.n. soliciting their votes. Jr. of the Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) borrowed a plane from the Philippine National Bank for his Bicol CORD (Cabinet Officers for Regional Development) Assistant. Arturo Tusi (Tiu).. and securing their written endorsements. June 29.. He personally hand-carried nomination forms and requested the chapter presidents and delegates to fill up and sign the forms to formalize their commitment to his nomination for IBP President. or remunerated" (t. Drilon admitted that she "hitched" a ride on a PNB plane.. is that. Viray. Agunos. in Tagaytay City. Reloj.. the officers of candidate the House of Delegates and Board of Governors.n. Abelardo Fermin. and Amy Wong. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms at the Hyatt Hotel based on the commitments he had obtained (t. Atienza. Bala. Arsenio C. At the formal investigation which was conducted by the investigating committee.. Atty. Nalapo Romualdo A. Wycoco. RAMON M. Clarin. Arbolado Democrito M. the rest of the passengers were IBP candidates. Ronquillo. pressured.s. Emesto A. July 3. 123). Paulino G. pp. Medialdea.s. Pamintuan.s. Quirico Ernesto S. Posadas. executive vice-president. Din Jr.. Atty. Jr. 82-85).n.1989. Jr. He obtained forty (40) commitments. June 29. 1989. Cesar C.. Tejada. 8695. Viola. Cabanas. Except for Tony Tria. The reason. NISCE 29 . Ricardo B. Candido P. 113. Tiu about the availability of a PNB plane (t. July 10. p." Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations of the above rules: (d) Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission of any of the prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14 prohibited Acts and Practices relative to elections) of the by-laws of the Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if elected.. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking the help of IBP chapter officers. The plane manifest (Exh. Exhibit "M-4-Nisce. 47) where they announced their candidacies and met the chapter presidents. intimidated. Quirico L. Amores.n.. 1989. some of those who had committed their votes to him were "manipulated. Atty. July 4. p. the following violations were established: (1) Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the candidates for president. pp. The three candidates for IBP President Drilon.n. he obtained only 14 votes in the election (t. Gloria C.1989. He started campaigning and distributing the nomination forms in March 1989 after the chapter elections which determined the membership of the House of Delegates composed of the 120 chapter presidents (t. 1989. Conizado V. offered or promised to any person.n. Assistant Secretary for Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Tony Tria. Jose S. Jr. June 29. Ibarra.. Antonio G. pp. Villalon.. Leon Garcia. Jr. and in Baguio City (during the conference of chapter presidents of Northern Luzon (t. Ceferino C. June 29.1989. Augurio C.s. 4).. Pefianco. Jr. Feliciano F.. p. Diosdado Z. C-2-Crudo) listed Atty." t. Balbin. Person. p. Jose M.

Joelito Barrera (Western Visayas). Almine. Those listed as guests of Atty. admitted having formed their own slates for the election of IBP national officers on June 3. 549). Cortez (Northern Luzon). (Exh. Violeta C. Tolomeo Ligutan Judge Alfonso Combong. Alberto Trinidad. Francisco Felizmenio Marvel Clavecilla." Badelles won as sergeantat-arms. Dennis Rendon. Jr. Paculdo. Jr. Balbin Jr. Linda Lim of Zamboanga. Anonat (Western Mindanao). Fernandez. Llosa.000) from Iligan City to Manila and back. Diosdado Peralta. Gladys Tiongco (Eastern Mindanao). As Assistant Secretary Tria is his fraternity brother. Baldomero Estenzo (Eastern Visayas). (3) Formation of tickets and single slates. entertainment to delegates. He went to the DENR allegedly to follow up some papers for a client. p.s. Daet and Legaspi. His request was granted. Jr. together with the Drilon group. The three suites were to be occupied by himself. Teodorico C.s. as Secretary of the House of Delegates (t. Atilano. Roem Arbolado. not in Nisce's ticket. Grapilon. Jr. The three candidates. Bruno Flores. Democrito Perez. Nisce. Simeon Datumanong (Western Mindanao) (Exhibit M-1Nisce).1989. Nisce admitted having bought plane tickets for some delegates to the convention. 95-96). and he Badelles did not want to be committed (t. Teruel (Western Visayas). 77-79. he asked if he. While at the DENR.1989. Marciano Neri. Cesar G.s. pp. Tordilla. but in that of Drilon.. Serapio Cribe Juanita Subia. Gladys Tiongco. Fred Cledera Vicente Tordilla. testified that sometime in May 1989 he failed to obtain booking from the Philippine Airlines for the projected trip of his group to Bicol. (Eastern Mindanao) (Exhibit M-Nisce). Drilon for President. Leo C.s. food. 161). Nisce paid for the plane tickets of Vicente Real. he learned that Assistant Secretary Tria was going on an official business in Bicol for Secretary Fulgencio Factoran and that he would be taking a PNB plane. Records of the Philippine Airlines showed that Atty. Teodorico J.. failed to get a written commitment from him because Atty. and for Governors: Justiniano P. Ramon N. Antonio Bisnar. Atty. Amy Wong. he would be committed to Nisce.. The Drilon company talked with the IBP chapter presidents in Daet. Nisce and Drilon. Adaza. Tiu. Judge Ceferino Chan.n. Vicente Real. Petronilo A. Jose S. Sansano Benjamin B. pp. The Drilon ticket consisted of. Siyangco (Eastern Visayas). Vicente P.Calica). Restituto Villanueva. Naga. Ramon Roco. Joel A. Antonio 30 . which served as his headquarters. because if he did. Acong Atienza (Central Luzon). Jesus T. Formilleza. (4) Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and alternates. Atty. Luis C. 1989. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24 regular rooms and three suites at the Holiday Inn. Oscar C. Buban. Guerrero A. Nalapo Renato F. Romeo Fortes (Exh. only one of Nisce's candidates won: Renato Ronquillo of Manila 4.000 for the hotel bills of his delegates at the Holiday Inn. Arturo Tiu for Executive Vice President. and Tiu. where a room cost P990 per day with breakfast. Teodoro Almine (Bicolandia). and Ceferino Cabanas (Exh. Benedicto Balajadia.n. Guerrero Adaza. and Legaspi. Bernardino.n. Tria confirmed the use of a PNB plane by Atty.. In Legaspi the Drilon group had lunch with Atty. Atty. Salvador Lao for Chairman of the House of Delegates. July 3. Porfirio Siyangco. D-2Calica). for Executive Vice-President. and Atty. Eufronio Maristela. (5) Giving free hotel accommodations. D-3. and asked for their support (t. Fernandez (Central Luzon). Mario Jalandoni. and. Badelles. 1989. however. Mario C. pp. NEREO PACULDO Atty. William Llanes. Nisce also sent a plane ticket to Atty. Jesus Castro. D-1-Calica). Bella D. Nisce's line-up listed himself and Confessor B. DENR Secretary Factoran instructed him to go to Bicol to monitor certain regional development projects there and to survey the effect of the typhoon that hit the region in the middle of May. On the same day. Ricardo Caliwag. Their purpose in going to Bicol was to assess their chances in the IBP elections.. Gloria C. the officers of the Capitol Bar Association.V. Jr. Kenneth Siruelo Bella Tiro. but he Badelles said that he did not use them. Assistant Secretary Tria. and another ticket to Mrs.. Ricardo Teruel. Atty.. Jalandoni (Greater Manila). The 24 rooms were to be occupied by his staff (mostly ladies) and the IBP delegates. Jose Buban of Leyte (Exh. Tiu. who was his candidate. Teodoro Quicoy Manito Lucero. Drilon and her group. Rudy Gumban. Mario Valderrama. Cesar Batica (Exh. Delsanto Resuello (Exh. Tiro. Viola. Medialdea assured him (Nisce) "sigurado na 'yan. took off at the Domestic Airport bound for Naga. D-1-Calica).. an IBP chapter president (t. He recalled that on May 23. Albacite and Oscar V. h'wag mo nang papirmahin. Assistant Secretary Antonio S. Jr. Candido P. He paid P150. Mario Jalandoni. July 10. (Bicolandia). Paculdo at the Holiday Inn were: Emesto C. He mentioned Oscar Badelles to whom he gave four round-trip tickets (worth about P10.Atty. Ronquillo. Julian Ocampo. Shirley Moises.. Agunos. 1989. for Governors: Basil Rupisan (Northern 'Luzon). Ricardo B. In spite of his efforts and expense. could hitch a ride on the plane to Bicol. D-2-Calica). Jose Grapilon (Southern Tagalog). (a) ATTY. Jr. Jesus S. Perez.n. July 10. July 4. drinks. Porfirio P. Antonio L. 54-69). together with the Drilon group which included Attorneys Drilon. Oscar C. D-3Calica). Medialdea. Amy Wong (Metro Manila). Almine. Paculdo's slate consisted of — himself for President. Badelles was a voting delegate. Badelles admitted that Nisce sent him three airplane tickets. Amador Capiral. Jr. who ran for the position of IBP executive vice-president in the Drilon ticket. a fraternity brother (meaning that Tiu belongs to the Sigma Rho fraternity) went to the DENR office and requested the Secretary (Factoran) if he (Tiu) could be allowed to hitch a ride on the plane. de la Cruz (Southern Luzon).

000 (e) Danny Deen 20. Drilon and the members of her slate. Mr. This time." her husband being a sigma rhoan. Victoria A. College of Law (t.s.n. He made the reservation through Atty. food. The total sum of P227. July 5. Renato Callanta. Lourdes Juco. According to Ms. He admitted being sympathetic to the candidacy of Atty. Manuel Yuson. Francisco Roxas. June 28. Ben Lim. with an unpaid balance of P302.n. pp. Carpio assisted Atty. Callanta had billeted her delegates at the Philippine Plaza. members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity). Oscar Badelles.P.89 was paid to Holiday Inn for the use of the rooms. Joven Zach. Araneta. She suggested that he obtain a group (or discounted) rate. Atilano.782. t.000 (g) Alfonso Reyno 20. 1989. by soliciting the votes of delegates he knew. a classmate of his in the U. Pena. Romy Fortes. Sixto Marella. Victoria C. Radon Macalalag. 5 of which were suites. Silao Caingat. Callanta admitted that he signed the contract for 40 rooms at the Philippine Plaza. Atty. Callanta. Benedicto turned out to be the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Philippine Plaza banquet and conventions manager. 7678) during the legal aid seminar and the IBP convention. pp. Leopoldo A.s." Mrs. 1989. Cesilo A. VIOLETA C. Callanta at the Philippine Plaza: Violeta Drilon. Aimee Wong. Loanzon. Atty. Callanta who would make the arrangements with her. Drilon alleged that she did not know that Atty. (h) Cosme Rossel 15. Antonio Carpio. Tiu.s. a sales manager of the Philippine Plaza. They consider Atty. Callanta still has an outstanding account of P232. But she did ask for a room where she could rest during the convention. RAMON NISCE. July 6. Amores. Callanta explained that the above listed persons have been contributing money every time the IBP embarks on a project.411. Mariano Benedicto who first came to book rooms for the IBP delegates. 31 . Callanta signed with the Philippine Plaza was made in the name of the "IBP c/o Atty. Drilon as a "sigma rho sister. 63-68).114. Callanta to whom he paid P20. Villanueva. Joselito Barrera. Verciles. Villanueva. pp. Gallardo. they contributed so that their partners or associates could attend the legal aid seminar and the IBP convention too. Batica. Renato Callanta. 22. Callanta. Holiday Inn's credit manager. Manuel Pecson. Callanta. Bernardo. Sylvio Casuncad Espina. Gil Batula Array Corot.000 to Callanta for rooms at the Philippine Plaza so that some members of his law firm could campaign for the Drilon group (t. pp. D.53 was paid by Atty. Simeon Datumanong. Per Attorney Daniel Martinez's last telephone conversation with Ms.300 (t. Atty. Most of the members of his law firm are fraternity brothers of Secretary Drilon (meaning. 30-34). Victoria Borra.000 (c) Toto Ferrer (Carpio Law Office) 10. Acong Atienza.s. Tiburcio Edano James Tan. the contract that Atty. Atty.n. Luis Formilleza. recalled that it was Mr. Linda Lim. which was used as the Secretariat. also a Sigma Rhoan. She admitted. Gloria Paculdo. Paculdo booked 52 (not 24) rooms. He gave her the name of Atty. July 3.s. Julius Neri.n. Judge Jaime Hamoy. Nestor Atienza. Guerrero. Puerto. Atty. 1 989. Antonio Acyatan.n. Albacite his former teacher (but the latter was already committed to Nisce).30. including the presidential suite. gave P25.000 (b) Antonio Carpio 20. Ildefonso C.000 Atty. booked 40 rooms. Felix Macalag Mariano Benedicto. She allegedly did not also know in whose name the room she occupied was registered.65 at Philippine Plaza. Atty.n. Danilo Deen. The total sum of P316. two of whom Jose Grapilon and Simeon Datumanong — are Sigma Rhoans.s.000 (t. Drilon in her campaign during the convention. Jesse Pimentel. 3-4) Noel de Guzman. and Atty. Judge Jesus Carbon. Resuello. Drilon were billeted at the Philippine Plaza Hotel where her campaign manager. (c) ATTY.197. testified that Atty.1989.1989. The following were listed as having occupied the rooms reserved by Atty. The group bookings were made by Atty. Atty. (b) ATTY. He made a downpayment of P123.1989).000 (d) Jay Castro 10. Carlos Egay. Angelita Gacutan. 39). Adaza. Judge Carlito Eisma. Nilo Pena admitted that the Quasha Law Office of which he is a senior partner. Consulto Ador Lao. DRILON The delegates and supporters of Atty.000. Gil Palma. C. Vicente Real. pp. reserved a room for the members of his own firm who attended the legal aid seminar and the convention. Araneta. that she paid for her hotel room and meals to Atty. Loanzon (t. Callanta for the rooms. Teodoro Palma. 29. His "working sheet' showed that the following persons contributed for that down payment: (a) Nilo Pena (Quasha Law Office) P 25. July 6. July 4.000 (f) Angangco Tan (Angara Law Office) 10. like Atty.Santos. Jesus Anonat. the wife of Nereo Paculdo (t. and beverages consumed by the Drilon group. and Benjamin Padon. through Atty. Delsanto. Dimakuta Corot Romeo Fortes Irving Petilla. however.

Violeta Drilon In violation of the prohibition against "campaigning for or against a candidate while holding an elective. A.110 during the 2-day IBP convention/election.n. Nisce's bill amounted to P216. credit manager. When asked about the significance of Sigma Rho. Department of Labor and Employment. April. though. 39). Assistant Secretary. IBP BY-Laws). p. Ms. the collections increased by P100. the Quasha and the ACCRA lawyers met to plot their moves. Lourdes Santos. June 28. The hotel guests of Atty.1989. 14[e]. pp. and Boy Reyno.413.n. but she has no way of ascertaining whether it was a candidate who paid the delinquent dues of another. 1989. He stayed at the Philippine Plaza with the Drilon group admittedly to give "some moral assistance" to Atty. Icampo. or prosecutory office in the Government' (Sec. Atty. Carpio noted that there were more campaign materials distributed at the convention site this year than in previous years. Filomeno Balinas. Israel Damasco. Asuncion. 14[c]. Sison. Atty.1989. Ibarra. Metro Manila). (6) Campaigning by labor officials for Atty.s. 58) on April 20. 1989. testified that she has heard of candidates paying the IBP dues of lawyers who promised to vote for or support them. Ernesto Sabulan. and P37. The election was more heated and expensive (t. Mariano E. the incumbent President of the IBP Rizal Chapter. the suite listed in the name of Assistant Secretary Benedicto toted up a bill of P23. July 6.s. Romualdo Din. It was in these rooms where the supporters of the Drilon group. 25). listed in the names of Mrs.n.875 (t. Atty. and a candidate for chairman of the House of Delegates on Nisce's ticket." as wen as. 142-145). Benjamin Bernardino. Batula. quasi-judicial. the lists of his slate. (7) Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number (Sec. or a total of P57. Eltanal. respectively of the Hyatt. Benedicto II. Abelardo Fermin. (candidate for Governor. Tony Carpio. Ronquillo. Carpio. Atty. Asuncion. or to vote for or against a candidate (Sec. They assessed the progress of the campaign. testified that he took a leave of absence from his office to attend the IBP convention. Benedicto.632. Serrano Balot. 1989.000 to P20. Drilon when her spirits were low. R. Milagros Ocampo. Attys. Ruperto. Room 114. He made a downpayment of P20. Amy Wong.425 to Pl.000 over that of last year (a non-election year from Pl. Daniel Macaraeg. Onofre Tejada. p. Antonio Nalapo. May during any election year. because the receipts are issued in the name of the member for whom payment is made (t. Viray.. and Mr. C. and measured the strengths and weaknesses of the other groups The group had sessions as early as the later part of May.45. 14[a]. 32 . Nisce were: Gloria Agunos Dennis Habanel B. Eastern Mindanao) and Amy Wong (10) Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote. p. 14[b]. Drilon and Nisce similarly distributed their tickets and bio-data.000. July 3.n. Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute his campaign materials on the convention floor. A total of 113 phone calls (amounting to Pl. Cecile Flores. F-Jacinto G-Ocampo). Zoilo Aguinaldo. Violeta Drilon. Joel Llosa. Ramon Jacinto. He talked to her immediate circle which included Art Tiu. Nisce. the sales department manager. was Room 112. the significance there is that the husband is my brother in the Sigma Rho. 14[e]. Secretary Benedicto explained: "More than the husband of Mrs. (9) Causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the election (Sec. Gladys Tiongco (candidate for Governor. June 28. pp.s. Paculdo cost from P15." He cheered up Mrs. Quiaoit. Ms. Augurio Pamintuan.127.000 (t. They were printed by his own printing shop.s.74 (t. IBP By-Laws).n.356) were recorded as emanating from his room. 1989. testified that Atty.45 on May 10. On the convention floor on the day of the election. John E. Victor Lazatin. IBP BY-Laws). Grapilon. through his brother-in-law. IBP By-Laws).524. Reynaldo Cortes. This year. that there is an upsurge of payments in March. 24-28). judicial. IBP Treasurer. Exhibits E-Flores. Dominador Carillo. testified that campaign materials were distributed during the convention by girls and by lawyers. Teresita C. IBP By-Laws).Atty. June 28.632. Drilon being my boss.n. These two rooms served as the "action center' or "war room" where campaign strategies were discussed before and during the convention. Drilon. The campaign materials of Atty. Guzman. Drilon (t.s. She has noticed. Q. 1989. Opposite Room 114. Elmer Datuin. Atty. Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms for those who committed themselves to his candidacy. June 28. Clarin. entered into a contract with the Hyatt Hotel for a total of 29 rooms plus one (1) seventh-floor room. I. (8) Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more than one page of legal size sheet of paper (Sec. Pilotin Reymundo P. Callanta. Yusop Pangadapun. Candido Balbin. He did so because he is a member of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. Nilo Pena. Ricardo Paras. pp.s. As earlier mentioned. He saw members of the ACCRA law firm campaigning for Atty. and reservation manager. also a suite. 57-58. Paculdo caused to be distributed his bio-data and copies of a leaflet entitled "My Quest. Art. like Attys. Atty.

149).411. Another Nisce candidate. p. and Nisce. urged him to withdraw his candidacy for chairman of the House of Delegates and to run as vicechairman in Violy Drilon's slate. pp. withdrew from the race and refused to be nominated (t. food. but he declined (t. Pampanga. 43-54).74. The setting up of campaign headquarters by the three principal candidates (Drilon.n.s. 137. showed that her campaign rang up over P600. approached him to convince him to vote for Atty. Eltanal and Atty. Llosa also revealed that before he left for Manila on May 31. He mentioned Ciony de la Cerna. Joel A. Mountain Province and Bulacan) (t. From all the foregoing. Attys.1989.000 in hotel bills. a businessman. Paculdo. When Nisce confronted Magsino about the alleged offer. July 4. who allegedly campaigned in La Union (t.000 to defray the expenses of his trips to the provinces (Bicol provinces. Nalapo an IBP candidate who also withdrew. Bernardino disclosed that his cousin.1989.n. at the Philippine Plaza. July 3. He knew about this because a week before the elections. Tordilla who was Nisce's candidate for Governor became Paculdo's candidate instead (t.1989. the latter denied that there was such an offer. recalled that in the third week of May 1989.p. 1989. Nisce's hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216. He did not receive any plane tickets from Atty.Atty. Paculdo also tried to enlist her support during the chapter presidents' meeting to choose their nominee for governor for the Northern Luzon region (t. He spent about P100. representatives of Atty.n. SUMMARY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CANDIDATES Atty. Llosa. Drilon went to Dumaguete City to campaign.s.53 for the rooms.127. 1989.n. Atty. however. the Holiday Inn and The Hyatt the better for them to corral and entertain the delegates billeted therein. Atty. But he declined the offer because he was already committed to Atty.s.1989. Atty. He testified that when he arrived at the Manila Domestic Airport he was met by an assistant regional director of the DOLE who offered to bring him to the Philippine Plaza. Julve the Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Labor in Dumaguete City. The Capitol Bar Association is a voluntary bar association composed of Quezon City lawyers. the island hopping to solicit the votes of the chapter presidents who comprise the 120-member 33 . and beverage consumed by Atty. Callanta paid P316.n. The records of the Philippine Plaza Hotel.s. June 29.s. Henry Dy. Drilon.1989. Romeo Capulong. pp. 104). Nisce. who had earlier committed his vote to Nisce changed his mind when he was offered a judgeship (This statement. "I am not campaigning. Marcial Magsino. These two. 104). Ruperto) had earlier bought their own tickets for Manila (t. This does not include the expenses for his campaign which began several months before the June 3rd election. is admittedly hearsay).n. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250. He mentioned Atty. Drilon. p.n. June 29. Abra. he said.000. During the legal aid seminar. Nisce's informant was Antonio G. Agunos') vote and invited her to stay at the Philippine Plaza where a room would be available for her.s. Drilon's supporters. Atty. Drilon solicited her (Atty. pp. June 29.197.111) Atty. Gloria Agunos personnel director of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel in Baguio and president of the Baguio-Benguet IBP Chapter. Atty. headquarters of Atty. 101-104). Nisce and Paculdo) in five-star hotels: The Philippine Plaza.1989. accompanied by Atty. Nisce's supporter and candidate for governor of the Western Visayas. he already knew that the three candidates had their headquarters in separate hotels: Paculdo. together with two labor officers of Region 1. p.n. Atty." Nisce said that the presidents of several IBP chapters informed him that labor officials were campaigning for Mrs. He declined the invitation (t. but he declined the offer. she met Atty. Atty. Nisce because he and his two companions (Atty. June 29. July 4. Drilon invited him to transfer to the Philippine Plaza where a room had been reserved for him. Mansala Atty.n. but my wife is a candidate. Drilon's camp. June 29. Atty. 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 on June 3. FINDINGS. Drilon (t. But Llosa told Dy that he was already committed to Nisce. 101). 9-14). Court Administrator Tiro went around saying.s. 109-110). offered to give him two PAL tickets and accommodations at the Philippine Plaza (t.s. Llosa said that while he was still in Dumaguete City. Filomeno Balbin and Atty. July 13. Nisce testified that a Manila Chapter 4 delegate. pp. 102-106). 1989. but still left an unpaid bill of P302.000 during his three weeks of campaigning. Vicente P. the Capitol Bar Association (of which he was the chapter president) contributed about P150. July 4.30 at convention's end. 1989.n.s. pp. expressed his disappointment over the IBP elections because some delegates flip-flopped from one camp to another. Of this amount.1989. Rodil Montebon of the ACCRA Law Office. at the Holiday Inn. at the Hyatt. Atty. 1989. pp. and his purchases of airplane tickets for some delegates. Nisce recalled that during the Bench and Bar Dialogue in Cotabato City. violated Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a "strictly non-political" Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws. Cesar Viola.s. after the Tripartite meet of the Department of Labor & Employment at the Green Valley Country Club in Baguio City.

Art. modify or repeal the By-Laws of the IBP under Section 77. 4. 3. the Executive Vice-President shall automatically succeed to the office of president. engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their observance. 287) should be as it is hereby restored.000 to P20. the giving of pre-paid plane tickets and hotel accommodations to delegates (and some families who accompanied them) in exchange for their support. the procurement of written commitments and the distribution of nomination forms to be filled up by the delegates. denials and outright prevarications that tainted the statements of the witnesses. in the selection of nominees for appointment to vacant positions in the judiciary. the giving of assistance by the Undersecretary of Labor to Mrs. To impress upon the participants in that electoral exercise the seriousness of the misconduct which attended it and the stern disapproval with which it is viewed by this Court. including tome of the candidates. may be the reason why the position of IBP president has attracted so much interest among the lawyers. whereupon. either Drilon. this Court being empowered to amend. 2. expensive electioneering for the top positions in the organization which. and to restore the nonpolitical character of the IBP and reduce. as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws.02. At the end of the President's two-year term. Canon 1.000. the Court hereby ORDERS: The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the ByLaws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers. or supporting. 5. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by the House of Delegates (approved by this Court in its resolution of July 9. One who has served as president may not run for election as Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election until after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) regions shall have been completed. CONCLUSIONS. Art. The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession.1989 should be as they are hereby annulled. The subsequent investigation conducted by this Committee has revealed that those parties had been less than candid with the Court and seem to have conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold vital information from it to conceal the irregularities committed during the campaign. Drilon and her group. The position of Executive Vice-President shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as follows: 34 .House of Delegates that elects the national officers and regional governors. Art. if not entirely eliminate. be repealed. the pirating of some candidates by inducing them to "hop" or "flipflop" from one ticket to another for some rumored consideration. Code of Professional Responsibility). the use of a PNB plane by Drilon and some members of her ticket to enable them to "assess their chances" among the chapter presidents in the Bicol provinces. as the recently concluded elections revealed. It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the provision in the 1987 Constitution (See. The IBP elections held on June3. who are supposed to be millions of the law. The much coveted "power" erroneously perceived to be inherent in that office might have caused the corruption of the IBP elections. the rotation shall begin anew. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-President elected by the Board of Governors (composed of the governors of the nine [91 IBP regions) from among themselves (as provided in Sec. spawned unethical practices which seriously diminished the stature of the IBP as an association of the practitioners of a noble and honored profession. the employment of uniformed girls (by Paculdo) and lawyers (by Drilon) to distribute their campaign materials on the convention floor on the day of the election. slates. The right of automatic succession by the Executive Vice-President to the presidency upon the expiration of their two-year term (which was abolished by this Court's resolution dated July 9. and (c) the executive vice-president. certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public's esteem. or line-ups of candidates for the other elective positions aligned with. The incoming board of governors shall then elect an Executive Vice-President from among themselves. the reservation of rooms for delegates in three big hotels. Paculdo or Nisce. (a) the officers of the House of Delegates. The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the evasions.1985 in Bar Matter No. 47. at the expense of the presidential candidates. the duty to "promote respect for law and legal processes" and to abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1. during the initial hearing conducted by it before its fact-finding committee was created. 1985 in Bar Matter No. VII. the formation of tickets. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another. VIII) providing for a Judicial and Bar Council composed of seven (7) members among whom is "a representative of the Integrated Bar. Original IBP By-Laws) should be restored. the use of labor arbiters to meet delegates at the airport and escort them to the Philippine Plaza Hotel." tasked to participate 1. all these practices made a political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole election process. 287) of the following national officers: (b) the IBP president. XI of said By-Laws. Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves. 8. the printing and distribution of tickets and bio-data of the candidates which in the case of Paculdo admittedly cost him some P15.

(6). Vice-Chairman. as much as practicable. In these special elections. 8. 287) that are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified. the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region. Treasurer.Section 47. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court where the SC ruled that the petition of the Perez spouses are without merit. Section 37. the Board of Governors shall meet at the IBP Central Office in Manila to elect from among themselves the IBP national president and executive vice-president. the Supreme Court ordered petitioners to pay the cost of the suit but said cost should be paid by their counsels. on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from that region only. are ineligible and may not present themselves as candidate for any position. Subsequently. National Officers. The sheriff was to conduct a public sale of a property owned by Damaso worth P300k. Judge Lantin." as well as those identified in this Resolution as connected with any of the irregularities attendant upon that election. (b). what is not tolerated is a lawyer’s 35 . after the promulgation of the Court's resolution in this case. Hermoso won and a writ of execution was issued in his favor. HELD: No. issuing judge. COBB PEREZ vs LANTIN A civil case was filed by Ricardo Hermoso against Damaso Perez for the latter’s failure to pay a debt of P17k. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different Chapters in the region. (5). This was opposed by Damaso as he claimed the amount of said property was more than the amount of the debt. Section 33(b). Section 39. Article V hereby is amended by addingthe following provision as part of the first paragraph: No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general membership shall be held prior to any election in an election year. 6. Secretary-Treasurer and Sergeant-at. (4). 12. Section 39. Pending such special elections. A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended. (a). a quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be condemned. respectively. Damaso and his wife filed five more petitions for injunction trying to enjoin the public sale. . Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows: SO ORDERED. (3). Composition of the Board. is hereby amended as follows: (b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. In said decision. and Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the House of Delegates. Section33(a). a caretaker board shall be appointed by the Court to administer the affairs of the IBP. found merit on this hence he amended his earlier decision and so he issued a second writ this time directing the sheriff to conduct a public sale on Damaso’s 210 shares of stock approximately worth P17k. Art. The Court makes clear that the dispositions here made are without prejudice to its adoption in due time of such further and other measures as are warranted in the premises. 13. — The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule. Section 37. Nomination and election of the Governors at least one (1) month before the national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their region. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of Chairman. of the House of Delegates.Arms of the House of Delegates is hereby repealed 11. it was because petitioners’ counsel happened to be more assertive . The governors shall be ex oficio Vice-President for their respective regions. 9.1989.' 7. that their numerous petitions for injunction are contemplated for delay. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in the nine (9) IBP regions within three (3) months. the candidates in the election of the national officers held on June 3. — The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice-President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors. IBP By-Laws. The Secretary. The counsels now appeal said decision by the Supreme Court as they claimed that such decision reflected adversely against their professionalism. on a rotation basis.” ISSUE: Whether or not the counsels for the Spouses Perez are excused. Article V is hereby amended as follows: Section 39. and (7) of Article VI should be as they are hereby deleted. There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board. 1985 (Bar Matter No. particularly identified in Sub-Head 3 of this Resolution entitled "Formation of Tickets and Single Slates. Within thirty (30) days thereafter. V. 10. (2). that “If there was delay. . (1). All other provisions of the By-Laws including its amendment by the Resolution en banc of this Court of July 9.

A g o t h r i c e a t t e m p t e d t o o b t a i n w r i t o f p r e l i m i n a r y injunction to restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ ofexecution.1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibitionto enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of possession.” Both counsel fell short of what was expected of them. Rule 1. Agos filed a similar petition with the CA whichalso dismissed thepetition. its primacy is indisputable.1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit againstAgo in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries. In the same manner. DE YSASI VS NLRC Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. rather than traverse the incontrovertible. SC ffirm eddismissal. D e s p i t e t h e p e n d e n c y i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t o f t h e compl aint for the annulment of the sheriff’s sale. A l a w y e r m u s t r e s i s t t h e w h i m s a n d caprice s of his client. by his father. Ago moved tostop the auction..1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale. there must be a. end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit. Luison..1961 – SC affirmed the judgment. the labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction. He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise.Forgetting his sacred m ission as a sworn public servantand his exalted position as an officer of the court. in making its decision.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that “(a) lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid. In November 1982. ISSUE W O N t h e A g o s ’ l a w y e r . If he finds his client’s cause asdefens el ess.P e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f Appe als FACTS . His father invoked that his son actually abandoned his work. A lawyer’s oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client. avirtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation insteado f a t r u e e x p o n e n t o f t h e p r i m a c y o f t r u t h a n d m o r a l justice. for.It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on them erit or lack of his case. He was confined and while he’s nursing from his infections he was terminated. De Ysasi III is employed in the hacienda as the farm administrator. To constitute abandonment. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client. Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition. July 30. noted that the lawyers for both camps failed to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts. on the merit or lack of merit of his case. CASTANEDA V AGO CASTRO.the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty.L u i s o n h a s a l l o w e d h i m s e l f t o b e c o m e a n i n s t i g a t o r o f c o n t r o v e r s y a n d a p r e d a t o r o f c o n f l i c t i n s t e a d o f a m ediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise. and b.1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment renderedagainst him in the replevin suit saying it was his personalobligation and that his wife ½ share in their conjugal housecould not legally be reached by the levy m ade. This case may have never reached the courts had there been an earnest effort by the lawyers to have both parties find an off court settlement but records show that no such effort was made. as in the case at bar. De Ysasi III underwent surgery and so he missed work. levy was made on Ago’shouse and lots. with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Atty. 1975(glaisa po) NATURE . what the SC does not and cannot countenanceis a lawyer’s insistence d espite the patent futility of hisclient’s position.insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position. without due process. the copious records of the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same. He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise counsel in every phase of life.have misused legal rem edies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. CFI of QCissued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castanedathe Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering thefinal deed of sale. must now enjoy them. long denied the fruits oftheir victory in the replevin suit. ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. If he finds that his client’s cause is defenseless. CA dismissed the petition. CFI issuedwrit of possession to the properties. SCdismissed it. HELD: No. despite their avowed duties as officers of the court.-1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson.A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor andhonesty his client’s cause must be encouraged and is to becommended. his motions were denied.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason. the battle on the matter of lifting andrestoring the restraining order continued. Ago’s motion denied. trial court issued writof execution. to theextended prejudice of the petitioners. The elder Ysasi owns a hacienda in Negros Occidental.” If he ever did so. rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation. No such intent was proven in this case. justicedem ands that the petitioners. preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering that the parties involved are father and son. Ago failed to redeem. sheriff advertised the sale. 36 . and temper his client’s propensity to litigate. then he is his duty to advice the latter toa c q u i e s c e a n d s u b m i t r a t h e r t h a n t r a v e r s e t h e i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e . e n c o u r a g e h i s c l i e n t s t o a v o i d controversy HELD . It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client.N o . The Supreme Court.1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda andHenson. or at least entertained the thought. ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law.Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibitionw i t h t h e C A w h i c h g a v e d u e c o u r s e t o t h e p e t i t i o n a n d granted preliminary injunction. De Ysasi III filed against his father for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. and temper his client’s propensity tolitigate.

38 of the Rules of Court exemplifies this rule. or unable to testify. and especially with his brother lawyers. That at the time he maid said declaration the declarant was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible. Toledo and Holgado (digest) Facts: Sisenando Holgado and Filomeno Morales had disputes about the occupation of certain land situated in the municipality of Pinamalayan. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. Sec. that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to his people. Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. the magnitude of the interests involved. who accompanied me to the house of Dalmacio Manlisic. that as a lawyer. This is called the Declaration Against interest or in the book of Agpalo. Sisenando Holgado died from the wounds received in the fight. he wouldn’t have made such a statement. there was nobody present.. ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit. Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements.38 Declaration against interest. The affidavit is considered hearsay because the one who made it was not presented in court under oath to testify on his written statement. Should the accused be acquitted? Ruling: 1. They also read in such a way as to ring with the truth. but as evidence to be taken into consideration in connection with the other proven facts.. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. he campaigned that he is a lawyer and a notary public. Exhibit 1 should have been received not as conclusive evidence of innocence. From there Sisenando Holgado was taken to the municipal building where he made a sworn authenticated statement before the municipal president. he can still practice law. The defense also relied upon the affidavit of Sisenando Holgado. that he is willing to serve the poor. Declarant was also aware of this fact and knows this to be true because otherwise. In order for a statement to be admissible (in this case made as an exhibit) it must comply the following requisites: That the declarant is dead or unable to testify. Sec. HELD: Yes. and That the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true. even for a young lawyer. This is the general rule. in which he declared that only he and Filomeno Morales fought and that there was nobody else around. 3. is unprofessional. and are intolerable. 37 . When he won. 2. On the morning of June 15. People of the Philippines v. against the interest of the declarant. Her testimony was partially corroborated by that of the witness Justina Llave. Isable advising the latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board member. Sisenando Holgado was also seriously wounded but was able to proceed to a neighboring house. that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale. On the other hand. which was identified by the municipal president of Pinamalayan. Issue: 1. When Sisenando Holgado declared "When we fought. and all other like self-laudation. he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague. and there was other evidence indicative of the truthfulness of the statement. Yes. whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. For the prosecution was presented the witness Justina Villanueva. except in rare cases where ties of blood. the theory for the defense was that Toledo was in another place when the fight between Morales and Holgado occurred and that his only participation was on meeting Holgado. or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations. The exhibit is admissible as evidence the reason being that it is one of the accepted exceptions of the hearsay rule. but must be the outcome of character and conduct. When Sisenando Holgado declared "I met one of my workers named Eugenio Toledo. In the case it bar. 4. relationship or trust make it his duty to do so. Exhibit 1. the accused man should not be permitted to go to prison." it was at the end of just such a rambling statement as a wounded man would be expected to make. may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons. the dead man’s statute. The disputable point is whether the accused Eugenio Toledo intervened in the quarrel and dealt a mortal blow to Filomeno Morales. This cannot be forced. he can help clients collect debts. it is clear as day that the declarant made the statement before the municipal president before he died and that it was clearly against his interest because it had the effect of exonerating Eugenio Toledo from liability. and they agreed to fight. Here the declarant is deceased and his statements were made under oath. IN RE TAGORDA In 1928.The declaration made by a person deceased.. who was his landlord or master. the son of Sisenando Holgado. defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling. etc. the querida of Filomeno Morales. constitutes malpractice.1. But regarding the supporting question. if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant’s own interest. 1927. the importance of the lawyer’s position. the two men happened to meet.merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. To this effect is the testimony of the accused and of Conrado Holgado. that he offers free consultation. and cumulative authority. Any man outside of a court and unhampered by the pressure of technical procedure. that he is willing to receive works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc. They did engage in a bolo duel with a fatal result for Filomeno Morales. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind. Yes." he did so in response to a question by the municipal president. who testified to the presence and participation of Eugenio Toledo. unreasoned rules of evidence. the answer is also yes. The accused should be acquitted. is the establishment of a well. About one month later. Province of Mindoro. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. Before his election. Is the exhibit (exhibit 1) considered hearsay? Is it admissible as evidence? 2. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct. either personally or through paid agents or brokers. that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge of three pesos. would say that if a man deliberately acknowledged himself to be the perpetrator of a crime and exonerated the person charged with the crime. who was killed almost instantly. 2. The argument was renewed. That it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant. He should be acquitted because of reasonable doubt. in helping him to a nearby house.

the responsibility of Atty. presided by the Hon. a foreign partnership established in Chicago. So instead of being disbarred. Private respondents had been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do so. furthermore. respondent Court issued another Resolution this time dismissing petitioner’s appeal. Dacanay denied Clurman’s liability and at the same time he asked why is Torres using the letterhead “Baker & McKenzie”. the last day of the fifteen-day period to file an appeal. petitioner itself was guilty of negligence when it failed to make inquiries from counsel regarding its case. being an alien law firm. Alberto and Associates. BR SEBASTIAN vs CA FACTS: [P]etitioner. Upon receipt of the notice to file Brief. ISSUE: Whether or not the death of a partner extinguish the lawyer-client relationship with the law firm. asking Clurman to release some shares to Torres’ client. HELD: NO. Such use of foreign law firm name is unethical therefore Torres and his law firm are enjoined from using “Baker & McKenzie” in their practice of law. thus. the death of the latter must have been known to the former. resulting in injuries to private respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal. Petition was dismissed. Hence. DAKANAY vs BAKER Legal Ethics – Use of Foreign Law Firm Name In November 1979. the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals in a decision promulgated on August 17. 1987. Rodolfo Espiritu. Atty. ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES. its plea that they were not accorded the right to procedural due process cannot elicit either approval or sympathy. this time thru the BAIZAS LAW OFFICE. he was suspended from the practice of law for a month. the affairs of the said firm are still being settled between Atty. [P]etitioner. a copy of which was received by petitioners on August 25. Atty. 1987 but this was denied in the Resolution 38 . Counsel for petitioner failed to file the Brief thus respondent Court issued a Resolution requiring said counsel to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the Appellant’s Brief within the reglementary period. RATIO: Petitioner’s counsel was the law firm of BAIZAS. 1987. the president of petitioner corporation claims to be the intimate friend of Atty. That Atty. ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES and not merely Atty. HELD: No. that their law firm is a member of Baker & McKenzie. Baizas is of no moment since others in the firm could have replaced him. This is so because it was the law firm which handled the case for petitioner before both the trial and appellate courts. cannot practice law in the Philippines. On appeal. Baker & McKenzie. As pointed out by respondents. Illinois. 1987. On September 9. Antonio M. Ruby Alberto. hence. filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution dismissing its appeal alleging that as a result of the death of Atty. Espiritu. petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. received notice to file Appellant’s Brief within 45 days from receipt thereof. had also left the firm. an associate who was designated to handle the case. First Judicial Region. Moreover. that the said foreign firm has members in 30 cities all over the world. Branch XXXVIII. Alberto and his Associates to the petitioner as counsel remained until withdrawal by the former of their appearance in the manner provided by the Rules of Court. the lawyer who handled this case in the trial court and who is believed to have also attended to the preparation of the Appellant’s Brief but failed to submit it through oversight and inadvertence. Later. represented by Atty. The letterhead contained the name “Baker & McKenzie”. 1987. Vicente Torres sent a letter to one Rosie Clurman. Adriano Dacanay. Belen. thru its then counsel of record. the death of the latter did not extinguish the lawyerclient relationship between said firm and petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not the use of a foreign law office name is allowed. later left the office after the death of Atty. With Baizas’ death. Crispin Baizas. a daughter. rendered judgment finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarding damages to private respondents. that they associated with them in order to make a representation that they can render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment. the latter having established her own law office. Crispin Baizas. This fact should have made petitioner more vigilant with respect to the case at bar. senior partner in the law firm of BAIZAS. Petitioner failed to act with prudence and diligence. which was eventually denied by the appellate court in the Resolution of September 30. Jose Baizas (son of Crispin Baizas) and Atty. Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on September 24. On the basis of the foregoing facts. the Regional Trial Court.Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. it could have withdrawn as counsel in the manner provided by the Rules of Court so that the petitioner could contract the services of a new lawyer. Baizas. DE ROY vs CA Facts: The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of private respondents. Crispin Baizas. No reply was received so Dacanay filed an administrative complaint enjoining Torres from using “Baker & McKenzie”. As the latter failed to comply with the above Resolution. the law firm should have re-assigned the case to another associate or. Torres said that he is an associate of the law firm Guerrero & Torres.

July 7. and (2) WON the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of official tasks. THE UNITED STATES.000. R. Hence.01.because the same was not filed within the grace period as enscribed in the present jurisprudence . A large number of witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense were called at the trial. Although V&G complied with the desired requirements. CA-G. and published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G. The Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents. In its last analysis. (V&G). No. against Atty. CARSON. as a lawyer. the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1. dishonest. house counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision. Guevara for appellants. the sale of respondent’s Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives. or delay any man’s cause “for any corrupt motive or interest” (Rule 1. Silvestre Apacible and Pedro Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.R. The Code forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful. and the record contains some two hundred and fifty pages of typewritten testimony and documentary evidence. J. Code of Professional Responsibility). 1961 Attorneys should familiarize themselves with the rules and comply with their requirements. COLLANTES vs RENOMERON Facts: This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative case filed by Atty. a lawyer’s misconduct as a public official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. final judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the accused necessarily turns upon the degree of credit which should be accorded the respective witnesses called for the prosecution and the defense. ZUALO vs CFI of CEBU Zualo vs. s) and in such publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.: The appellants in this case were convicted in the court below of the crime of attempted rape. It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified. CFI of Cebu. plaintiff-appellee. 27718-R. or. petitioners cannot seek refuge in the ignorance of their counsel regarding said rule for their failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglamentary period. Held: (1) Yes. Inc. PEDRO UREA and ALBINO SARMIENTO. vs. Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the denied the motion and let the petitioner be bound by the negligence of their counsel Held: The Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit a grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. defendantsappellants. together with the accessory penalties prescribed by law. disbarment or other disciplinary action. four months and one day of prision correccional. PEDRO BARREDO. Register of Deeds of Tacloban City. The lawyer’s oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. consistently reiterated. and a careful examination of the record discloses nothing which would justify us in 39 .00 as pocket money per trip. In the instant case. respondent suspended the registration of the documents with certain “special conditions” between them. They also are chargeable with notice of changes in the rules which have been held as including not only express reglementary provisions but also a regular practice under the Rules of Court.03). Considering the length of time from the expiration of the grace period to the promulgation of the decision of the Court of Appeals on August 25. may also be disciplined by the Court for his malfeasance as a public official. in lieu thereof. Collantes. the respondent still refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission of additional requirements not adverted in his previous denial. 1987. Eventually. The lawyer’s oath is a source of obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension. Renomeron. for the latter’s irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision. it is no longer within the coverage of the grace period. and each of them was sentenced to two years. petitioners' motion for extension of time was more than a year after the expiration of the grace period. respondent formally denied the registration of the documents. (2) Yes. Issues: (1) WON the respondent. which was that V&G should provide him with weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2. Despite the resolution of the Administrator. He himself elevated the question on the registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration AdministrationNLTDRA).

Low (19 Phil. and a restatement and review of the evidence at this time would serve no useful purpose. Moreover. and if the officer designated by law to prosecute such criminal cases fails or refuses to perform his duty. when. and even if it were admitted that the trial judge acted improvidently or unwisely or erroneously in making the appointment. would be impeded on account of the refusal on the part of the attorney. that about the 2nd of October. was not disposed to press the case.disturbing the findings in this regard of the trial judge. the judge of the Court of First Instance is not only authorized but is required to appoint a temporary fiscal to represent the Government in such cases. in the exercise of the sound judicial discretion conferred upon them. and indeed from the plain and explicit provisions of the statute. This petition was endorsed over to the provincial fiscal by the presiding judge. Rep. promising. would justify us in holding that the trial judge erred in arriving at his conclusions as to their guilt. legal appointment. to perform their duties. and affords no ground for appellant's contention as to a lack of jurisdiction in the court below to entertain and decide a criminal action based on an information filed by a special fiscal legally appointed for that purpose. 1912 the private prosecutrix filed a complaint against the defendants in this action in the court of the justice of the peace of Nagcarlang." From what was said in the case just cited. It is urged that the court was without jurisdiction in the premises because the information charging the commission of the crime was filed. except. then the judge or court must relieve such officer temporarily and appoint a qualified person to take his place. the judge of the Court of First Instance for the province is authorized and required to appoint a temporary fiscal. that the cause was remanded in the early days of July. the effect of which need not be and is not now considered. There can be no question of abuse of judicial discretion in the appointment of the special fiscal in the case at bar. who saw and heard the witnesses testify and was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to the substantial truth of the account of the commission of the crime of attempted rape which was given on the witness-stand by the principal witnesses called for the prosecution. or by reason of personal interest in a prosecution or other matter is disqualified to act therein as provincial fiscal. that we carefully and exhaustively abstracted and analyzed for ourselves the great mass of evidence brought here on this appeal. wherein he set forth that on the 12th of June. they find that "the provincial fiscal is absent from the province. in cases wherein it appears that there has been a manifest abuse of judicial discretion in making the appointment." The power to appoint special fiscals being thus expressly conferred upon judges of Courts of First Instance. The presiding judge of the Court of First Instance for the Moro Province has the power to cause the prosecution of criminal cases to go forward. but later declined to do so. It remains only to consider the contentions of counsel for the appellants touching the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the court below to entertain and adjudicate this action. or by reason of personal interest in a prosecution or other matter is disqualified to act therein as provincial fiscal. in our opinion. and proceed with the trial. or fails or refuses to discharge his duty by reason of illness or other cause. The attorney for the Moro Province and his assistant stand in the same position as a provincial fiscal with reference to this matter. never-the-less to ask the court to appoint a special fiscal. as a result of the machinations of the personal and political enemies of one or all of the defendants. the mere fact that the judge acts unwisely or improvidently or under a misapprehension of facts when he makes an appointment in no wise affects the legality or the validity of the appointment. we think there can be no doubt of the power of the judges of Courts of First Instance to appoint special fiscals or prosecuting officers. or fails or refuses to discharge thus duty by reason of illness or other cause. improvidently appointed by the trial judge without authority of law. that the provincial fiscal had not done anything further at the date of the petition (November 9 [8]."1awphil. in which this official set out at length his reasons for declining to file an information. we do not think that in the case at bar the special fiscal was erroneously or improvidently appointed. In his opinion the trial judge sets forth at some length the material evidence adduced at the trial. and the trial conducted by a special fiscal. 1912 the provincial fiscal conducted an investigation of the alleged crime at the urgent request of counsel for the private prosecutrix. without discovering anything which. The fiscal thus temporarily appointed shall discharge all the duties of the provincial fiscal as provided by law which the regular provincial fiscal fails or is unable to perform. and that a special fiscal should be appointed to prosecute the case in view of the manifest indisposition on the part of the provincial fiscal to bring the accused to trial. 1912). The appointment of the special fiscal was made in response to a petition filed by counsel for the private prosecutrix on November 8. and returned with an extended statement. 1912. Section 1 of Act No. 244): "If the provincial fiscal fails or refuses to discharge his duty in the prosecution of criminal cases. perhaps. In substance he stated that as a result of his investigations based upon the complaint of the private prosecutrix.. Suffice it to say that so strongly were we impressed by the forceful oral argument of counsel for the appellants with the possibility of a grave miscarriage of justice in the court below. that thereafter the provincial fiscal promised to file a formal information against the accused. who shall be paid out of the provincial treasury the same compensation per day as that provided by law for the regular provincial fiscal for the days actually employed. with reference to criminal cases. or his assistant. it might occur that the whole court machinery. 1912. that on the 29th of the same month the accused waived a preliminary trial before the justice of the peace and prayed that the cause be remanded to the Court of First Instance. 40 . 1699 reads in part as follows: "Whenever the provincial fiscal is absent from the province. charging the commission of the crime on the 9th of that month. the appointment when made was a Construing and applying this statute we said in the case of Nuñez vs. as he himself. If the Court of First Instance for the Moro Province did not have authority to appoint a temporary fiscal when the exigencies of the service demanded it.

When the justice of the peace remands an accused person for trial in the Court of First Instance. Discretion in the matter of subjecting to trial persons remanded for trial in a Court of First Instance by a justice of the peace lies with the judge of the court.) 41 . 139." Upon a motion of the provincial fiscal to dismiss a complaint upon which an accused person has been remanded for trial by a justice of the peace. 1 and 2. that the evidence against them was unsatisfactory and unworthy of credence. Under the English rule the uncontrolled right to enter a "nolle prosequi" was the prerogative of the Attorney-General. of course. and some of the courts which do not consider themselves bound by common law precedents have declared the English practice unsound and have held the better rule to be "to ask leave of the court giving some good reason therefor. and can only be terminated therein by the court itself. 194. 1699. and in some it is not plain what the course is. he may deny the motion. in view of the failure of the provincial fiscal to file an information and bring the accused to trial. the case becomes forthwith a criminal action pending in that court. and the investigations of the provincial fiscal have satisfied him that the accused person is innocent. such person shall be committed or admitted to bail "to await the action of the judge or Court of First Instance" — not that he shall await the action of the provincial fiscal. the court claims the right to control him if it chooses. and in either event to move with the promptitude necessary to secure the right of the accused to a speedy trial. 1389. It is for the justice of the peace to determine whether the accused shall be remanded for trial. and of the provincial fiscal held that in the interests of justice it would not be proper "to deny the petition of the injured woman" and appointed a special fiscal under the provisions of Act No. But it is to be observed that it is expressly provided that: "This section shall not be construed to authorize a provincial fiscal to act as justice of the peace in any preliminary investigation. It is. 2. to aid him in determining the course to be adopted at this stage of the proceedings that provision is made in section 2 of Act No. Ordinarily." The order is usually taken upon motion by the prosecuting officer and with leave of the court. that the practice whereby the prosecuting officer in some jurisdiction enters upon the records of a criminal case that "He does not desire to prosecute further" — dicit nolle prosequi — is a very ancient one. upon full consideration of the statements of counsel for the private prosecutrix. or in which a custom amounting nearly to law does. sec.itc-a1f The modern tendency would seem to be to modify and control the power of prosecuting officers in this regard either by express legislative enactment or by the judicial recognition of a custom. Others have declined to adopt it. without the content of court. requires the consent of the court. of Plead. 556. We agree with the contentions of counsel that a conscientious prosecuting official. to dismiss or dicit nolle prosequi criminal actions actually instituted. Thereafter the trial judge. 2nd ed. In this jurisdiction provincial fiscals are not clothed with power. as counsel supported by authority contends. But we are of the opinion that in the event that criminal proceedings have been instituted..) In Virginiaa 1803. and to move the court to dismiss the proceedings. secs. and that the judges should not therefore challenge the formal expression of his will in this regard. Act No. 1627. 302 for official investigations by provincial fiscals. Enc. directly or by construction. it rests in the sound discretion of the judge whether to accede to such motion or not. it then becomes his duty to advise the court wherein the proceedings are pending as to the result of his investigations.General to dismiss without consent of court was there maintained under the theory that that officer was the immediate representative of the King. we need hardly say that we think the trial judge properly appointed a special fiscal to prosecute the case. The power to dismiss is vested solely in the courts. leaving it to the court to take such action as may be proper in the premises. or if it appears to him from the record of the proceedings in the court of the justice of the peace. or otherwise. expressly provide that in case the justice of the peace binds the accused person over to a regular trial. and Act No. in part. (10." (Anonymous. Holding as we do that the evidence relied upon by the private prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain a finding as to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. or that evidence sufficient to secure conviction will not be forthcoming at the trial despite the exercise of due diligence to that end. "amounting nearly to law" requiring the consent of the court in all cases wherein it is exercised.) There are States in which a statute. The right of the Attorney. Cas. (Bishop. that the case should not be dismissed. But if he is not satisfied with the reason assigned by the fiscal. the General Court consisting of five judges unanimously decided: "That the District Attorney has not in any case the right to enter a nolle prosequi without leave of the court. and pending further proceedings. but only as authorizing him to secure the attendance of witnesses before him in making necessary investigation for the purpose of instituting or carrying on criminal prosecutions. The duty imposed upon the provincial fiscal in such cases is either to go forward with the prosecution or to move the court to dismiss the complaint. and section 2 of Act No. and that they were victims of a conspiracy of their personal and political enemies to ruin them by compelling them to stand trial for a heinous offense which they had not committed. Criminal Procedure. and Practice. 13. Vol. whose investigations have satisfied him as to the innocence of persons charged with the commission of crime. that is to say in the presiding judge thereof. 1 Va. It is true. and others wherein while the prosecuting officer acts practically on his own responsibility. 194. he will dismiss the action in accordance with the suggestion of an experienced fiscal who has personally investigated the facts. Some American states have followed the English rule. sec. should not institute criminal proceedings against such persons. or as a result of information furnished by the private prosecutor.he was satisfied that the accused had not committed the crime with which they were charged.

He has not and ought not to have unlimited power of prosecution. such person shall be committed or admitted to bail "to await the action of the judge of Court of First Instance. in the first volume of our reports. within the power of the Solicitor General to nolle prosequi an indictment at his option without the approbation of the court. under the uniform practice since the announcement of the rule in the case of United States vs.. discontinue a criminal prosecution in that form at any time before verdict . State. and fearing its abuse . 718) the court said: "The proposition of the counsel for the Attorney-General that at the common law the Attorney-General of England and of States which have adopted this part of the common law has the right upon his sole responsibility to enter a nolle prosequi. Rep." Section 62.. 377. 193. provided that it should not thereafter be lawful for any district attorney to enter a nolle prosequi upon any indictment... and has not been questioned by this court. we know of no authority for it: — The State is the party and the Solicitor General only the agent to carry on the proceeding. The complaint cannot be withdrawn by the fiscal without the consent of the Court. But the common law is not in force in this Kingdom . 642) this court said: "After the complaint has been presented and certainly after trial has been commenced the Court and not the fiscal has full control of it. 194 provides that when a justice of the peace binds the accused person over to a regular trial. is not doubtful. . and as a logical and necessary consequence of the above cited provisions of the statutes in this regard. and that this limitation upon their power extends to the dismissal of complaints upon which accused persons have been committed or admitted to bail to await the action of the judge of the Courts of First Instance. In conclusion we here insert a number of citations of authority touching the degree of proof upon which an accused person may properly be required to stand trial for the crime with which he is charged. In this we are inclined to agree with the trial judge.. at least. Beecher. or in any other way discontinue or abandon the same without leave of the court having jurisdiction to try the offense charged. Valencia.) In the case of King vs. therefore. . and great evils may result and have resulted from placing such a power in the hands of one man . It must go on the minutes of the court and must transpire. and it has been by several statutes delegated to district attorneys. The uniform practice of the Supreme Court and the circuit courts has been that the Attorney-General by himself. under section precautions as he felt it his duty to adopt. (Statham vs. (Moulton vs. McLeod. with or without the consent of the trial judge. In failing so to do.) The District-Attorney acts for the people in criminal cases except he must have the consent of the court to enter a nolle prosequi. Robertson (6 Hawaii. or by his deputy. with the cognizance of the court. and might. But even before that Act. provincial fiscals have not the power to dismiss criminal actions pending in Courts of First Instance without leave of court. He evidently was of opinion that it rested wholly in his discretion whether the case should or should not proceed to trial.. 507. giving the court or the presiding justice some satisfactory reason therefor. and 25 Wendell. and we think that under all the circumstances the trial judge properly appointed a special fiscal to conduct the proceedings in his stead. 136 prescribing the duties of the provincial fiscal provides that: "He shall be an officer of the Court and subject to its directions in relation to official matter pending in the Court of First Instance. The minutes are the records of the acts of the court and no entry can be made thereon except with his consent. 483.. a complete act . and submitting the evidence to the court for its final determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The legislature finding the power in so many hands. Men's minds may well differ as to the probative value of evidence submitted in support of an alleged fact. of Act No. The trial judge was manifestly of opinion that the long delay of the provincial fiscal before taking action in the case at bar.. as was the trial judge after hearing the evidence. and that he failed to discharge it when he neglected and declined to proceed with the prosecution.. (supra). He manifestly erred in his belief that the evidence relied upon by the private prosecutrix was insufficient to justify him in proceeding with the prosecution. beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 Hill. The nolle prosequi was not. Nor is it in our judgment. . he failed in the discharge of his duty. This the Solicitor General did not ask. In the case of United States vs. partly in explanation and support of our ruling upon the action of the court below in holding that the provincial fiscal had failed to discharge his 42 . But we think that the evidence was undoubtedly sufficient to justify and require his proceeding promptly with the trial. Valencia (1 Phil. 1 Abb. when desiring to nolle prosequi a case after indictment found. Such a proceeding is to be coram judice. amounted to a substantial failure on his part to discharge his duty in the premises." Section 2 of Act No. . By the act of 1870 it is expressly provided to the contrary. ..At common law the attorney general alone possessed this power. who now represent the attorney general in nearly everything pertaining to indictments and other criminal proceedings local to their respective countries. (People vs. 41 Ga. although we are aware it has often been done. asks leave of the court that it may be so entered. and his attitude when called upon the explain his failure to prosecute at the urgent instance of counsel for the private prosecutrix. we think that he undoubtedly misconceived his duty..) Nor was the paper handed by the Solicitor-General to the clerk an entry of nolle prosequi. Without reflecting upon the integrity of the good faith of the provincial fiscal.." We conclude that in this jurisdiction. and we do not pretend to say that he must have been convinced of the guilt of the accused. . and that he had the uncontrolled power to decline to prosecute. It probably exists unimpaired in the attorney general to this day.

Ex parte Patterson (50 Tex. that all reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt must be removed. Cas. 5). 1081). that probable cause be shown. and partly for the information of committing magistrates and prosecuting officers generally..)" In State vs.. it was said: "A committing magistrate acts in a two fold capacity. or that the suspicion entertained of the prisoner was wholly groundless. then his decision can not be reversed in the matter attempted in this instance. 624). — as a court in deciding questions of law and of evidence." 135 N. N. without deciding upon guilt. But there must be proof "that a crime has been committed and that there was sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty thereof. precedes the institution of a prosecution. the judge viewed such evidence from the standpoint of a trial court. 15641). State (140 Wis. 59. and which... Bungart vs.) Again. therefore. Quinn. Fortunato Suarez was riding a train on his way to Calauag.S. but is obliged to hold one accused of crime for trial if there is reasonable ground to believe him guilty. though from the nature of the case it must be Ex parte. . is not required to have submitted evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of the person charged beyond a reasonable doubt. and upon that question express no opinion. 271). . though in most other respects. So ordered.Y. Cas. which.Burr.. Wells. As was said in a recent decision (In re Mitchell [Cal. Willet vs.. I certainly should not require that proof which would be necessary to convict the person to be committed. Chief Justice Marshall. If. 82 Pac. 187 N.. the committing magistrate is not required to find evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction. with the costs of this instance against the appellants. Lundstrum vs. 141). People vs. (loc. the Chief Justice said: "This being a mere inquiry.. Atty.S. 11 L. — in other words. 309. Moss. it was said: "We are not called upon on this hearing to pass upon the sufficiency of this evidence to warrant the conviction of the defendant. Tayabas. Layman (22 Idaho. yet he does decide on the probable cause and a long and painful imprisonment may be the consequence of his decision. in such cases only is it lawful totally to discharge him. vs. cit. and I understand probable cause to be case made out by proof furnishing good reason to believe that the crime alleged has been committed by the person charged with having committed it. Lumsden (26 Fed." (U. 491). It is not required before the magistrate as it is before the jury.A. 387).R.. All that is required is that there be a sufficient legal evidence to make it appear that "a public offense has been committed and there is sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty thereof. 14692a. prefaced his opinion as follows: "On an application of this kind. and whether they shall be confined or admitted to bail. whether the accused shall be discharged or held to trial. 130. 16384). 10 Ann. Shenk (142 N.. In this connection it is proper to observe that a magistrate.]. In re Squires (13 Idaho..S. in Ex parte Bollman (4 Cranch 75..S. and I should require. Cas. 477. ought to be proved by testimony in itself legal. the question to be determined is. SUAREZ VS PLATON 69 Phil 556 – Legal Ethics – Duty of the Prosecutor In May 1935. was sufficient to justify the commitments of Aaron Burr. Perkins vs." The following cases are also in accord on the point in question: United States vs. to be such as a court and jury might hear. Although in making a commitment the magistrate does not decide on the guilt of the prisoner.) it was said: "Evidence that would justify a committing magistrate in finding that probable cause existed for the detention of a defendant need not necessarily be sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty when he is placed on trial.) In Rhea vs. and the judgment convicting and sentencing them in the court below should therefore be affirmed. Otherwise he must either be committed to prison or give bail.Y. consisting principally of affidavits. 15. in holding a defendant to answer for a crime." The rule in New York is thus stated in People vs. grievous error was committed. any jurisdiction to decide the questions of fact within the broad field of probability. 461). Steffens (27 Fed. The examining magistrate has very broad latitude in the matter — if the evidence." (Citing. 410.. Cas. Crim.) .duty in the premises... in deciding that the evidence was insufficient to make out aprima facie case. and if the latter.. cit. satisfies him that a crime within the charge made has been committed and there is reasonable cause to believe the accused is the guilty party he is warranted in holding him to bail. If there is evidence sufficient to give the magistrate any room whatever for the exercise of judgment. An examination to see whether an accused person shall be placed on trial for an offense charged against him. 25 Fed. We find no error in the proceedings in the case at bar prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendants and appellants. on a trial in chief.Y. Apparently he was very vocal and he was despising the abuses made by government 43 .Y.'" (loc.." In United States vs. App." says a very learned and accurate commentator. Cas. Van de Carr (84 N." In re Kelly (28 Nev.Y. 68 N. in what place they are to be tried. 2 L. in any reasonable view of it. This probable cause. ed.. But the scope of investigation before the magistrate falls far short of a trial of a prisoner before the court and a jury. by the Court of Special Session: "A committing magistrate is not required to exact the full measure of proof necessary to secure a conviction. as a jury in finding questions of fact.. State (61 Neb. 528.. acting as committing magistrate. it is only required that the evidence be sufficient to establish probable cause that the prisoner committed the offense charged. nor should I even require that which should absolutely convince my own mind of the guilt of the accused: but I ought to require. McGinley (153 Wis. 125. 347): "In order to hold defendant and put him on his trial.S. "If. is a mere inquest. 554). it was said: "Upon just what ground the trial court condemned the action of the examining magistrate does not clearly appear.In re Van Campen (28 Fed. 16835). in holding that evidence presented by the government. `upon this inquiry it manifestly appears that no such crime has been committed.S. State vs.

Orais however later moved for the dismissal of the case upon the instruction of his superior. RTC. ABAYA. Estafa through falsification of public or official documents.: In a complaint under oath dated July 21. he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law. Puerto Princess City 1 Mrs. R-698-P August 23. Further. complainants. 2909 August 23. 52. Puerto Princess City 2 with: 1. that sales of stocks are not required to be reported in the SEC. Puerto Princess City. Branch Clerk of Court. As such. where said Judge was temporarily assigned from November 1984 to April 1986 and of which one of the undersigned complainant (sic). Eventually. A. RTC. Br. Trieste was allegedly the president of said corporation. Branch Clerk of Court. then Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Orais arrested Suarez and charged him with sedition. HELD: No. FERNAN.M.officers. he should not also hesitate to recommend that the accused be acquitted. Suarez filed this Mandamus case to compel Platon to reinstate the case. Suarez appealed the dismissal of the case but his appeal was denied on the ground that mandamus is the proper remedy. during his term. R-705RTJ. respondent.M. Branch 52. The new Sol-Gen gave credit to the arguments presented by Trieste as it recommended the dismissal of the case on the ground that Trieste did divest his interest from the corporation by virtue of his selling his shares to his sister. Valdez was then replaced by special prosecutor Jacinto Yamzon who also found that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the case. by verifying official hours rendered by one employee in the person of Miss Anabelle Cardenas who never reported for duty from August 1983 to May 1984 by encashing and receiving salaries of said Miss Cardenas through forgery of payee's signature in the treasury warrants. 1989 JUDGE EMMANUEL M. Branch 51. Hence. contract or transaction in connection with which said accused intervened or took part in his official capacity and in which he is prohibited by law from having any interest. the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence shall suffer. 1989 JUDGE EMMANUEL M. Aklan. the case was dismissed by Judge Servillano Platon on the ground that there is insufficiency of evidence. 51. said that he already divested his interest from the corporation when he took his office as mayor. Trieste was then sued for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act particularly for willfully and unlawfully having financial or pecuniary interest in a business. The fiscals are well within their rights not to push through with the case if they find the evidence to be insufficient. Puerto Princess City and ANNA BELLE CARDENAS. A public prosecutor should not hesitate to recommend to the court the accused’s acquittal if the evidence in his possession shows that the accused is innocent. then Presiding Judge of RTC. Abaya. Atty. LIGAYA GONZALES-AUSTRIA. HELD: Yes. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria. C. that he sold his shares to his sister. 44 . Trieste.J. 2. docketed as Adm. The Solicitor General is well within his rights to make such recommendation. Puerto Princess City. but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. thus deceiving the government and defrauding the Government treasury of a big amount of money. If on appeal by the accused from a conviction by the trial court he finds no legal basis to sustain the conviction. ABAYA. in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case. A. Suarez asked Valdez to inhibit and later asked for a special prosecutor to take his place as he alleged that Valdez does not have the courage to prosecute the case. JUDGE EMMANUEL M. complainant. and whose interest. No. he presented evidence to that effect. ISSUE: Whether or not the recommendation of the Solicitor General is correct. Leonila Fuertes and Mr. Matter No. 1986.respondents. In time. 52. In 1980. LIGAYA GONZALESAUSTRIA is the Branch Clerk of Court. complainant. the advertisement of Trigen in the local rotary club shows that Trieste is the president of the corporation. vs. Incidentally. Lieutenant Vivencio Orais was aboard the train. LEONILA FUERTES and EDGARDO SERVANDO. Provincial Fiscal Ramon Valdez moved for the dismissal of the case due to insufficiency of evidence. ABAYA. Gross dishonesty and corruption by soliciting. receiving bribed (sic) money in exchange for favorable resolutions and decisions from different litigants in Branch 52. The prosecuting officer is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy. the old Sol-Gen was replaced by a new one. LIGAYA GONZALES-AUSTRIA. TRIESTE VS SANDIGANBAYAN 145 SCRA 508 – Legal Ethics – Prosecutor Must Recommend Dismissal of Case If There is No Ground To Sustain It Trieste was the mayor of Numancia. Edgardo Servando charged Judge Emmanuel M. Br. but that justice shall be done. that said sale cannot be doubted simply because it was not reported to the SEC. demanding. respondent. Thereafter. the Municipality of Numancia purchased construction materials from Trigen Agro-Industrial Development Corporation. RTC. The Solicitor General doubted said sale because it was not registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission. vs. LIGAYA GONZALES-AUSTRIA. Br. therefore. in defense. Suarez filed a case against Orais for arbitrary detention. ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be reinstated. vs. No.

transcript or official stenographic notes that had been taken by her in any case. the cases were referred to Court of Appeals Justice Oscar M. 2909 for the disbarment of Atty. Some of the Treasury Warrants covering her salaries were. 1984 and was granted leave of absence from March 14 to 30. On October 28. Demanding and Receiving Bribe Money against Judge Abaya. 1984. 1983 and rendered service for the period from October 1. Equally damaging to respondents' assertion are the Daily Time Records of Princess Tours 6 showing that Annabelle Cardenas acted as tourist guide on 43 working days when she was supposedly rendering service as stenographic reporter. said Annabelle Cardenas even executed a special power of attorney in his favor authorizing him not only to collect the treasury warrants but to endorse and negotiate them as well. 1986. A one-year SUSPENSION from office as Attorney of Atty. 4 We now consider these well-thought out recommendations. — The act complained of was allegedly committed by Judge Abaya while temporarily assigned to Branch 52. she was paid her salaries corresponding to the periods allegedly worked. filed in compliance with the Court Resolution of August 12. who was temporarily assigned to Batangas City. b. Her explanation that her name was placed on the daily time record as team leader.— The gravamen of this charge is that Annabelle Cardenas who was appointed as Stenographic Reporter of Branch 51. By resolution of December 11. Illegal exaction of portion of the salaries of his subordinate Edgardo Servando as part and condition of his continued employment in Branch 51. 3. although she did not actually conduct the tours reflected therein is too shallow to merit belief. It must be recalled that complainant Atty. 1986. Adm. being then employed at Princess Tours Rafols Hotel as a tourist guide. R-705-RTJ to amend their complaint by including Annabelle Cardenas as defendant in the charge of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents. RTC Palawan vice Judge Jose G. to 8:15 P. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria for dishonesty and grave misconduct in having forged his signature in a probation order in Criminal Case No. I. Especially damaging to the pretensions of the respondents that Annabelle Cardenas rendered service as stenographic reporter during the period under consideration are the school records of the Holy Trinity College. Matter No. Matter No. Judge Abaya verified as true and correct her daily time records as stenographic reporter purportedly showing that she rendered service and incurred no absences or tardiness from August 9 to September 30. entitled "People of the Philippines vs. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria based on the same alleged offense. she could not produce any single order. was a ghost employee from August 1983 to May 1984 as she never reported for work during said period. as in fact. 698-P was followed by a petition dated August 5.M. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria had filed her comment on the charges against her. It was averred therein that the initial exclusion was due to oversight and that it was never intended to exclude her as a co-principal. report and recommendation. Herrera for investigation. Moreover. where Judge Abaya is the presiding judge. 1986. 7 It was however proved that Judge Abaya collected Annabelle Cardenas' salaries on several occasions. Leonardo Cruz. according to complainants. We find the charges against Judge Abaya and Annabelle Cardenas to be supported by substantial evidence. All she presented were so-called practice notes. Charges of Gross Dishonesty and Corruption by Soliciting. Matter No. Notwithstanding. Austria in AC2909. the school records reveal that she has other subjects such as Business Organization and Management (3 units). the Court resolved to consolidate these related cases. we find the evidence insufficient on the one hand to overthrow the explanation of respondents that Judge Abaya collected Annabelle Cardenas' salaries in Manila so that he could bring the same to Candon. 2.. Judge Abaya denied all these charges in his comment dated August 29. The REMOVAL of Annabelle Cardenas from office as Court Stenographer.1986 against one of his accusers. Based on the evidence presented by the parties. 4995 of the RTC.. the court calendar for Branch 51 never once carried Annabelle Cardenas' name to signify her attendance at a court session. encashed by Judge Abaya by forging Annabelle Cardenas' signature. Justice Herrera finds the respondents guilty of the charges against them and thereby recommends: 1. 1984. Sining ng Pakikipagtalastas (3 units) and Accounting for Single Proprietorship (3 units). Ten Commandments (3 units). 1984 and from April 23 to 27. 1983 to May 31. and on the other hand to support complainants' theory that Judge Abaya appropriated the money for himself. who is a good friend of the Judge." for attempted murder. showing that Annabelle Cardenas was attending school in the first semester of school year 1983-1984 from 2:00 P. 5 While she claimed to have been permitted by her teacher to attend her typing and stenography classes after office hours. Atty. her attendance in which can be safely concluded from the passing grades she received in said subjects. the Court granted the motion of the complainants in Adm. Puerto Princess. with her knowledge and consent.3. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria was then Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 52. Genilo Jr. The FORFEITURE of retirement benefits of Judge Abaya except earned leave credits. R-705-RTJ: a. civil or criminal.M. Judge Abaya stated in his comment that it was Annabelle Cardenas who was collecting her salary "without intervention from your respondent. Case No. 698-P he earlier filed on July 18. countering that the latter worked as stenographic reporter from August 1983 to May 31. 45 . Branch 52. 1986. Thus. He asserted that these charges were concocted in retaliation against the administrative complaint docketed as Adm. Ilocos Sur for delivery to her mother. After Atty.1986 docketed as Adm. Both Judge Abaya and Annabelle Cardenas vehemently denied the charges. Ligaya G. 8 Be that as it may. RTC. Estafa thru Falsification of Public or Official Documents by Judge Abaya and Annabelle Cardenas. It is indeed quite intriguing that during the ten-month period under consideration. Palawan in August 1983 upon the recommendation of Judge Abaya as Presiding Judge therein.

Fuertes. Leonila Fuertes.000.200. but only about P1. Fuertes' diary. Mrs. 14 c. — It is alleged that Judge Abaya exacted portions of the salaries of two (2) employees in Branch 51 of the Palawan RTC 46 . a school teacher. Fuertes had been there. He alleged that the bail application of the accused in Criminal Case No. The Judge told her to see him at his house at 7:00 o'clock in the evening. such as (1) the visible presence of Mrs. and (2) the highly credible testimony of Judge Miclat on the report made to him by Mrs. telling him that was all she could afford.M. Under the circumstances. Mrs. the Judge assured her that he would be able to do something about it ("Ngunit lahat ay magagawan ko ng paraan dahil ako ang nakakaalam sa mga decision dito"). Miclat about the matter. "Ang kaso ninyo ay medyo tagilid. Austria against Judge Abaya. then acting City Fiscal for Puerto Princess City handling Criminal Case No. Fuertes perjured herself just to accommodate the vengeanceful ire of Atty. Judge Abaya looked dissatisfied but said "Never mind" and that he would just contact her at the next trial for the final judgment. she delivered the amount of Pl. Although they were all against the Idea of her acceding to the Judge's demand. 12 August 15. Fuertes is not a disgruntled litigant. Upon the other hand. testified that she went to Branch 52 at about 5:00 P. she should.) She added that when Judge Abaya emerged from the courtroom. Mrs. I went to town to see Baby Francisco. He is talking care Nanette na idinay ko. but because the evidence of guilt was strong. Fuertes' conversation remarked. He testified that Mrs." (Your case is shaky with only a 50-50 chance of winning because there is no eyewitness.00 from her so that the bail application of the accused would be denied. Fuertes merely concocted her story at the time regarding the solicitation of Judge Abaya in connection with the pending case of the suspected killers of her son. But I did not sign and asked me to see him in town at the residence of Menchie his niece personally nakiusap kay Baby upang mai-deny ang affidavit ko through Atty. 1985 in response to a telephone call from court stenographer Nelly Vicente that Judge Abaya wanted to see her personally. thus: August 13. stenographic reporter of Branch 52 corroborated that portion of Mrs. Fuertes having been closeted with Judge Abaya inside the courtroom for about 20 minutes. 1985 called by Judge Abaya to see him after office hours. Nonetheless.) She retorted that there was an eyewitness but the Judge insisted that there was none because the supposed eyewitness had his back turned when her son was stabbed.00 to Judge Abaya on August 15. Fuertes and Nelly Vicente had been pressured by Atty. and travelled all the way from Palawan to Manila to testify against the Judge. would impute such a serious offense against a judge unless it be the truth. While he advised her to file a complaint against Judge Abaya. They find support in collateral but highly significant circumstances pointed to by Mrs. Purpose they convinced me to sign my name in the affidavit stating that I will deny the previous affidavit I made stated that Judge asked from me certain amount and his request was granted.000. Fuertes' testimony: We find no improper motive as to why Mrs. 1986 Judge Abaya with companion Rufo Gonzales and Celia Fernandez. 5304 entitled "People vs. Fuertes asked the Judge what he wanted.00 given by Mrs.000 and I brought the money to Judge. Yet she charged him with a serious offense. Judge Abaya directed her to the adjoining courtroom where he told her. gave P2. on August 13. That would be contrary to the ordinary prompting of men. nanghihingi ng pera. under normal circumstances be grateful to the Judge. the officer-in-charge who then called Judge Abaya from the other branch. Fuertes is too rich in details brought out on cross-examination which cannot simply be swept aside as mere fabrications. he was informed later on that Mrs. He surmised that Mrs. Nelly Vicente referred her to Carmencita P. but the Judge cut her off by saying he needed the money badly before he leaves for Manila. 9 Roselyn Teologo. Fuertes expressed puzzlement on why she had to give money when she was the aggrieved party. Miclat. Teologo. he is asking money. in consideration of the sum of P 2. 13 July 2. now Judge Angel R. Fuertes gave Judge Abaya not the amount being asked." (This is terrible. 5304 was denied. There was absolutely no motive for her to do So. He asked me for my case was 50-50. Mrs. "Grabe ito. Mrs. Fuertes' son. Fuertes came to him in August of 1986 to inform him that Judge Abaya was asking P5. he told her that he has a problem. Fuertes. Judge Abaya having denied the petition for bail of the suspected killer of Mrs. Fuertes. the testimony of Mrs. We quote with approval Justice Herrera's perceptive reasons for giving full faith and credence to Mrs. Fuertes might have been blaming him for the delay in the resolution of the criminal case against her son's alleged killers. as then acting City Fiscal.1985 in his chambers.ñèt When Mrs. 50-50 dahil walang eyewitness.200. Charge of illegal Exaction against Judge Abaya. not because of any outside interference. complainant and mother of the victim in the aforesaid case. "Kailangan ko ng pera Limang Libo at Ide-deny ko ang bail na mga acusado" (I need Five Thousand Pesos and I will deny bail to the accused). 13-A Judge Abaya denied the solicitation as well as the receipt of money from Mrs. She further testified that Carmen Baloco who eavesdropped on the Judge and Mrs. It certainly cannot be said that Mrs. 5304.It was alleged that Judge Abaya denied the application for bail of the accused in Criminal Case No. on the solicitation of Judge Abaya. Baloco. Fuertes consulted her brothers-in-law as well as the then prosecuting fiscal. Fuertes answered that she would have to consult her brothers-in-law about the matter. 1985 at Branch 52 and Mrs. Leonila Fuertes. 11 Likewise submitted in evidence by the complainants were the entries in Mrs. he instructed her not to tell anybody that Mrs. Henry Arias and Fernando Oniot for murder. a school teacher. We cannot accept Judge Abaya's contention that Mrs.00. the latter's arrival on August 13. Fuertes in the courtroom in conference with Judge Abaya at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of August 15. 10 Additional corroborative evidence was given by Judge Angel R. Fuertes' testimony relating to the phone call of Nelly Vicente to Mrs. Fuertes. Austria ay nakiusap pa rin. (should be 13) 1985. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria into testifying against him out of sheer vindictiveness and that Mrs.lâwphî1.

Austria signed Judge Abaya's name to the probation order and promulgated it. A. A week later. a former stenographer of Branch 51 testified that since his employment in said Branch. This order. Atty.M. While the investigating officer. one of the complainants herein. In view of the predicament of Leonardo Cruz and the authority granted to her by Judge Abaya. Atty. Lastly. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria. She adverts to Judge Abaya's order of November 4. he received a notice of termination effective at the close of business hours on December 31. She further maintains that as Judge Abaya never complained about the alleged forgery. Judge Abaya betrayed the very essence of magistracy. 2909 The complaints for dishonesty and grave misconduct in A. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria filed her charges against Judge Abaya. 1985 which granted accused Leonardo Cruz' motion for reconsideration of the order denying probation. for indeed. He insists that the personnel action taken on Servando and Jamora was due to their inefficiency. 1986. However. set the promulgation of the probation order on January 16. 1986. we hereby order the forfeiture of his retirement benefits. 19 For him then to transgress the highest ideals of justice and public service for personal gain is indeed a demoralizing example constituting a valid cause for disenchantment and loss of confidence in the judiciary as well as in the civil service system. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria admits to having signed the probation order and of having promulgated it. 4999 of said court entitled "People of the Philippines vs.00 from his initial salary and thereafter a monthly amount of P400. Leonardo Cruz" for attempted homicide. in December when the Judge before leaving for Manila for the Christmas vacation asked him for Pl. we find Judge Emmanuel M. It would simply be the word of one against a judge. the promulgation was set on April 22. Judge Abaya was absent so the promulgation was reset to April 16.M. the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. but explains that these were done with the knowledge and consent of Judge Abaya. 1986 as he had to leave for Coron in the same pumpboat that brought him to Puerto Princess and he had no money to sustain him up to the time the Judge arrives from Manila. II. Austria's proddings. On January 16. As requested. In complicity with Annabelle Cardenas. April 22. with Judge Abaya allegedly giving instructions before he left for Manila to promulgate said order even in his absence should the probationer Leonardo Cruz arrive in court. The judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice. Judge Abaya had been exacting from him P350. As he had previously resigned. he is deemed to have ratified it and is now estopped from questioning her authority. In summation. 1881 of the Civil Code) 20 in that having been granted full authority to promulgate the probation order. Edgardo Servando. In the meantime. which carried certain conditions.1986. 21 47 . declared that such recommendation was made in consideration of his agreement to give Judge Abaya Pl. Judge Abaya has demonstrated his unfitness and unworthiness of the honor and requisites attached to his office. she necessarily had the authority to sign the Judge's name if the need arose. labelling the same as sheer vindictiveness due to Servando's termination and Jamora's demotion.000. albeit in an angry manner without attempting to conceal their contempt for Judge Abaya. Atty. RTC Palawan. the provincial warden failed to bring the accused to court. 17 he concluded that "the evidence in this regard would be unable to withstand judicial scrutiny for want of ample corroboration. shortchanging them of services undoubtedly vital to the speedy administration of justice. Justice Herrera observed that both Servando and Jamora "testified in a natural and straightforward. as recommended by the investigating officer Justice Herrera. he was unable to comply as he did not then have cash.00 from as fringe benefits. 1984 from the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of Judge Abaya. which undertaking he complied with. 1986 at 8:00 o'clock in the morning. fanned by Atty. except earned leave credits. we give respondent Judge the benefit of the doubt. 1986. On the latter date. No. R-698-P and for disbarment in Adm. Austria justifies her action under the theory of agency (Art. R-698-P and Adm.00 every payday. Judge Abaya requested Atty.000. which exaction ceased only in March 1986 when Atty. he likewise abused the trust and confidence of the people. We further mete out to Annabelle Cardenas in consequence of her grave misconduct as above-described the penalty of removal from office as Court Stenographer with prejudice to her re-appointment to the Judiciary. No. hence the promulgation of the probation order was again reset to June 3. medical allowance and year-end bonus. the charge if true is so demeaning to an RTC judge that it requires more than a bare allegation to sustain it. 1986 in Criminal Case No. and who was appointed stenographer on September 3. Leonardo Cruz came and begged that the probation order be promulgated the following day. On April 21. From him. the latter demoted him to process server. Case No. who had asked her to prepare orders and decisions in Branch 52 to ease his load of presiding over two (2) branches. In this regard. 1984 upon the recommendation of Judge Abaya. 1986. she compares the probation order to a writ of execution which is usually done by the Clerk of Court. 2909 against Atty. 16 Judge Abaya likewise denied this charge. the payment of said benefits having been in checks. By these acts. then Clerk of Court of Branch 52. 18 We are in accord with this observation.00. 15 Nilo Jamora. Abaya guilty of grave and serious misconduct affecting Ms integrity and moral character which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had his resignation not been accepted. stem from her act of having allegedly forged the signature of Judge Abaya in a probation order dated April 22. In regarding justice as a commodity to be sold at a price. Case No. The office of a judge exists for one solemn end — to promote justice by administering it fairly and impartially. only for Atty. Austria to discover that Judge Abaya had neglected to sign the probation order. Austria to prepare the probation order with the day and month in blank for the signature of the a condition for their continued employment. He further stated that when he refused to retract his charges against Judge Abaya before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan despite the Judge's offer of money.

Ligaya Gonzales-Austria as Branch Clerk of Court IS ACCEPTED as of December 31. Provincial Fiscal rendered an opinion holding that R. and simulating the signature of the judge is not one of them. for precisely as a lawyer. and by reason of his highest qualification. if the judge shall direct him to make findings and include the same in his report. the municipality engaged the services of a special counsel to commence an action challenging the constitutionality of R. the resignation of Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria guilty as charged. Austria's theory of agency that she lawfully acted as agent of the Judge is wholly devoid of merit. together with his findings in relation to the same. In Adm. the FORFEITURE of the retirement benefits of Judge Emmanuel M.Respondent's arguments are quite novel but unpersuasive. or to guardianship. even if true. the clerk may perform all the duties of the judge in receiving applications. trustees.A. ENRIQUEZ SR. In Adm. which the Auditor General disallowed citing that the Municipality of Bauan had no authority to engage the services of a special counsel Issue: Whether municipality of Bauan had authority to engage the services of a special counsel Held: No. 23 However. Signing orders in the name of. and all evidence relating to them. However. Matter No. Bauan Batangas passed Res. The judicial power vested in a judge and its exercise is strictly personal to the Judge because of. Given this. Rule 136 of the Rules of Court which reads: Sec. 2. VS HON. Judge Abaya himself is bereft of any power to authorize the clerk of court to sign his name in his official capacity in a matter pending adjudication before him. she ought to have known the illegality of the act complained of. and may also. trusteeships. 1987 and any and all benefits accruing during her government service are declared forfeited. and forthwith transmit such reports. The issuance of the order in question is strictly judicial and is exclusively vested in the judge which is beyond his authority to delegate. Abaya. except her earned leave credits.. reports. A fiscal cannot refuse the performance of his functions on grounds not provided for by law without violating his oath of office. a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. Abaya. which in this case he is not. 1383 was passed creating the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) as a public corporation and vesting in it the ownership and control over all existing government-owned waterworks systems.A. administrators. Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Ombudsman for the filing of appropriate criminal charges against respondents if warranted. Matter No. she ought to know that under no circumstances is her act of signing the name of the judge permissible. The duties of the clerk of court in the absence of any express direction of the Judge is well defined under Section 5. No. Case No. Atty. and. except that of illegal exaction against Judge Abaya. Nor could her void act in signing the name of the judge be validly ratified by the latter. and evidence to the judge. 1383. or receiverships. receive the accounts of executors.. That would not only be contrary to law. finding the respondents Judge Emmanuel M.. the Court hereby orders: 1. The Petitioners are the special counsel seeking reimbursement for initial attorney’s fees. when directed so to do by the judge. Her SUSPENSION as a member of the Bar for a period of one year from the finality of this decision is further decreed. accounts.A. but also subversive of public order and public policy. Austria's misconduct as Branch Clerk of Court to affect her qualification as a member of tile Bar. As thoroughly explained by Justice Herrera: .her explanation that she is the one preparing decisions and orders in Branch 52 with the knowledge and consent of Judge Abaya during the time that the latter was acting as Presiding Judge of said branch and that she was directed to promulgate the probation order in favor of Leonardo Cruz only to discover that the judge overlooked to sign the order. guardians. No. The Provincial Fiscal is the legal adviser of the mayor and counsel of the various municipalities of a province and it is his duty to represent the municipality in any court except when he is disqualified by law. No. Instead of engaging the services of a special attorney. and the DISMISSAL from office of Annabelle Cardenas as Stenographic Reporter with prejudice to her reappointment to the Judiciary. R-698-P and Adm. then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such ground. 1383. the municipal council should have requested the Secretary of Justice to appoint an acting provincial fiscal in place of the provincial fiscal who had declined to handle and prosecute its case in court. Annabelle Cardenas and Atty. WHEREFORE. — In the absence of the judge. and receivers. As a lawyer and branch clerk of court. This is patently illegal. R-705-RTJ. 5. 1383 is valid and constitutional and declined to represent the municipality of Bauan in an action to be brought against the NAWASA to test the validity and constitutionality of the Act. petitions. Copies of this resolution shall be attached to the respondents' respective personal records. or to the settlement of the estates of deceased persons. No. Duties of the Clerk in the absence or by direction of the judge.A. is not a valid justification for her to simulate the signature of Judge Abaya in the probation order. 2909. 24 We find Atty. No. except his earned leave credits. She could have probably released the order with the statement that it is upon orders of the judge or by authority of the judge but she could not under any circumstance make it appear as she did in this case that the Judge signed the order when in fact he did not. 152 stating that it does not desire to submit their local waterworks to the provisions of said R. and can never be the subject of agency. and the issuance of all orders and notices that follow as a matter of course under these rules. 22 Generally speaking.. inventories. 48 . if that misconduct as a government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency. GIMENEZ Facts: R.

The services of the petitioner having been engaged by the municipal council and mayor without authority of law. 49 . the Auditor General was correct in disallowing in audit the petitioner's claim for payment of attorney's fees.