Cayetano vs.
Monsod, 201 SCRA 210September 1991 COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged in
Facts:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by
President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of
the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not possess required qualification
of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1,
Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall
be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time
of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
holders of a college degree, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the immediately
preceding elections. However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine
Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
Issue:
Whether the respondent does not possess the required
qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
Held:
In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava,
stated: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceeding, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients,
and all action taken for them in matters connected with
the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services, contemplating an appearance
before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and
insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship
have been held to constitute law practice. Practice of law
means any activity, in or out court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. The contention that Atty. Monsod does
not posses the required qualification of having engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since
Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-
legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than
satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of
the practice of law for at least ten years does In the view
of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.*** The
Supreme Court held that the appointment of Monsod is in
accordance with the requirement of law as having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a
lawyer-manager, 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. Again, in the case
of Philippine Lawyer’s Association vs. Agrava, the practice
of law is not limited to the conduct of cases and litigation
in court; item braces the preparation of pleadings and
other papers incident to actions and social proceedings
and other similar work which involves the determination
by a legal mind the legal effects of facts and conditions.
People v. Hon. Bonifacio Maceda January 24, 2000
FACTS:
This case stems from denial by the SC of the People’s
motion seeking reconsideration of our August 13, 1990
decision holding that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz
Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the order of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private
respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the
Antique RTC, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the
pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At that time,
sufficient reason was shown why Javellana should not be
detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. The trial court’s
order specifically provided for private respondent’s
detention at the residence of Atty. del Rosario. However,
private respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam
around but was to be held as detention prisoner in said
residence. It was howevere found that the order was not
strictly complied with because Javellana was not detained
in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He went about his
normal activities as if he were a free man, including
engaging in the practice of law.
Held:
Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on
the filing of criminal cases against him. By such arrest, he is
deemed to be under the custody of the law. The trial court
gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private
respondent Javellana with the obligation “to hold and
detain” him in Atty. del Rosario’s residence in his official
capacity as the clerk of court of the regional trial court.
Hence, when Atty. del Rosario was appointed judge, he
ceased to be the personal custodian of accused Javellana
and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the
custodian under the same undertaking. As a matter of law,
when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is
deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is placed
in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound
to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be
detained in jail during the pendency of the case against
him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on
bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners
whether under preventive detention or serving final
sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in
any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or
appointive, while in detention.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. ATTY. MISAEL
M. LADAGAA.M. , No. P-99-1287 January 26, 2001
Facts:
Atty. Misael Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati, appeared as counsel for and in
behalf of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an accused in
Criminal Case No. 84-885 for “Falsification of Public
Documents” before the METC of Quezon City. It is also
denied that the appearance of said respondent in said case
was without the previous permission of the Court. During
the occasions that the respondent appeared as such
counsel before the METC of Quezon City, he was on official
leave of absence. Moreover, his Presiding Judge, Judge
Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case he was handling.
Respondent appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin-
client Narcisa Ladaga. Respondent did not receive a single
centavo from her. Helpless as she was and respondent
being the only lawyer in the family, he agreed to represent
her out of his compassion And high regard for her. This is
the first time that respondent ever handled a case for a
member of his family who is like a big sister to him. He
appeared for free and for the purpose of settling the case
amicably. Furthermore, his Presiding Judge was aware of
his appearance as counsel for his cousin. On top of this,
during all the years that hehas been in government
service, he has maintained his integrity and independence.
He failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of the
Department. The presiding judge of the court to which
respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department
contemplated by law.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Ladaga, upon such several
appearances, was engages into private practice? NO
Held:
Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in
the private practice of their profession. A similar
prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court which disallows certain attorneys from
engaging in the private practice of their profession.
ATTY. VINCENTE RAUL ALMACEN, G.R.No. L-27654
February
18, 1970FACTS:
FACTS:
Before us is Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to
Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," filed on September
25, 1967, in protest against what he therein asserts is "a
great injustice committed against his client by this
Supreme Court." He indicts this Court, in his own phrase,
as a tribunal "peopled by men who are calloused to our
pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own
applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the
Constitution with impunity." His client's he continues, who
was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment,"
has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar
of hypocrisy." In the same breath that he alludes to the
classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the members of this
Court, saying "that justice as administered by the present
members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also
deaf and dumb." He then vows to argue the cause of his
client "in the people's forum," so that "the people may
know of the silent injustice's committed by this Court,"
and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that
were committed must never be repeated." He ends his
petition with a prayer that... a resolution issue ordering
the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the
undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with
reservation that at any time in the future and in the event
we regain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our
title to assume the practice of the noblest profession.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen must surrender his
Lawyer’s Certificate of Title.
RULING:
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty.
Vicente Raul Almacen be, as he is hereby, suspended from
the practice of law until further orders, the suspension to
take effect immediately.
IN RE: LANUEVO A.M. NO. 1162 AUGUST 29, 1975
FACTS:
Oscar Landicho sent a confidential letter to the Court for
re-correction and reevaluation of his answers to the 1971
Bar examinations and respectively invited the attention of
the Court to the startling fact that the grade in one
examination (civil law) of at least one bar candidate was
raised for one reason or another, before the bar results
were released this year. He argued that if the bar
examiners concerned reconsidered their grades without
formal motion, there is no reason why they may not do so
now when proper request and motion therefor is made.
Upon checking of the records of the 1971 Bar
examinations, a successful bar candidate named Ramon
Galang underwent some changes which were
authenticated by the respective examiner concerned. Each
of the 5 examiners admitted having re-evaluated and/or
re-checked the notebook involved pertaining to his subject
upon the representation to him by Bar Confidant Lanuevo
that he has the authority to do the same and that the
examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject
and/or was on the borderline of passing. An investigation
conducted by the NBI further revealed that Romy Galang y
Esguerra, alias Ramon E. Galang, a student of MLQU was
charged with the crime of slight physical injuris in the MTC
of Manila against Eufrosino de Vera. Galang declared that
he does not remember having been charged with such
crime. In all his applications to take the bar examinations,
he did not mention of this fact which he is required under
the rules to do.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Lanuevo should be disbarred.
2. Whether or not Galang should be disbarred.
HELD:
1. Yes. The bar confidant does not possess any discretion
either respect to the matter of admission of examinees to
the bar. He is not clothed with authority to determine
whether or not an examinee’s answers merit re-evaluation
or whether the examiner’s appraisal of such answers is
correct. And whether or not the examinee benefited was
in connivance or a privy thereto is immaterial. What is
decisive is whether the proceedings or incidents that led to
the candidate’s admission to the Bar were in accordance
with the rules. The facts show how the respondent adroitly
maneuvered the passing of the examinee in the 1971 Bar
exams. The respondent is therefore guilty of serious
misconduct of having betrayed the trust and confidence
reposed in him as bar confidant, thereby impairing the
integrity of the Bar examinations and undermining public
faith in the Supreme Court. 2. Section 2 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court of 1964, in connection, among
others, with the character requirement of candidates for
admission to the Bar, provides that "every applicant for
admission as a member of the Bar must be ... of good
moral character ... and must produce before the Supreme
Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and
that no charges against him involving moral turpitude,
have been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines." Prior to 1964, or under the old Rules of Court,
a bar applicant was required to produce before the
Supreme Court satisfactory testimonials of good moral
character (Sec. 2, Rule 127). Under both rules, every
applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all his
involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise
terminated, to enable the Court to fully ascertain or
determine applicant's moral character. Furthermore, as to
what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the supreme
Court To determine. Hence, the necessity of laying before
or informing the Court of one's personal record —
whether he was criminally indicted, acquitted, convicted
or the case dismissed or is still pending — becomes more
compelling. The forms for application to take the Bar
examinations provided by the Supreme Court beginning
the year 1965 require the disclosure not only of criminal
cases involving moral turpitude filed or pending against
the applicant but also of all other criminal cases of which
he has been accused. In paragraph 4 of that form, the
applicant is required under oath to declare that "he has
not been charged with any offense before a Fiscal,
Municipal Judge, or other officer; or accused of, indicted
for or convicted by any court or tribunal of any crime
involving moral turpitude; nor is there a pending case
against him" Yet, respondent Galang continued to
intentionally withhold or conceal from the Court his
criminal case of slight physical injuries which was then and
until now is pending in the City Court of Manila; and
thereafter repeatedly omitted to make mention of the
same in his applications to take the Bar examinations in
1967, 1969 and 1971. All told, respondent Ramon E.
Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, is guilty of fraudulently
concealing and withholding from the Court his pending
criminal case for physical injuries in 1962, 1963, 1964,
1966, 1967, 1969 and 1971; and in 1966, 1967,1969 and
1971, he committed perjury when he declared under oath
that he had no pending criminal case in court. By falsely
representing to the Court that he had no criminal case
pending in court, respondent Galang was allowed
unconditionally to take the Bar examinations seven (7)
times and in 1972 was allowed to take his oath.The
concealment of an attorney in his application to take the
Bar examinations of the fact that he had been charged
with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for
revocation of his license to practice law is well —settled.
Re: application for admission to the bar Vs. Vicente d.
Ching,applicant.
Facts: vicente d. Ching, a legitimate son of the spouses tat
ching, a chinese citizen, and priscila dulay, a filipina, was
born in tubao,la union on april 11, 1964.since birth,ching
has resided in the philippines. on july 17, 1998,ching , after
graduated of bachelor of laws course at st. Louis university
in baguio city,filed an application to take the 1998 bar
exam.the supreme court allowed him to take provided
that he can produce proof of his philippine citizenship.in
compliance with said requirements,ching submitted the
following documents:
A.)Certification from board of accountancy of the prc
showing that he is a certified public accountant.
B.)Voter certification from comelec tubao la union.
C.)Certification that he served as sangguniang panlungsod
member.. on april 5, 1999 ching was included as one of the
lucky passers of the bar exam and the schedule of their
oath taking was on may 5, 1999 but he was not allowed to
take his oath due the questionable citizenship issue.
Issue: is his election to philippine citizenship within the
reasonable time prescribed by the law?
Ruling:
no.since the applicant was born on 1964,the governing
charter with regards to citizenship issue is the 1935
constitution.therefore as what is provided by the said
constitution,which said that the citizenship of a legitimate
child born of a filipino mother with an alien father
followed the citizenship of the father unless upon reaching
the age of majority which is 21 years of age elected
philippine citizenship.in the case at bar,ching did not elect
his citizenship when he reach 21 years old but instead in
1999 which is 14 years after reaching the age of majority
which the court considered as not within the reasonable
period of time considering the length of 14 years after he
reaches 21 years old.in addition to that,the court said that
philippine citizenship can never be treated like commodity
tha can be claimed when needed and supressed when
convenient.in view of the foregoing,the court deny vicente
d. Ching’s application for admission to the philippine bar.
In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee,
Haron S. Meiling in the 2002 bar examinations and for
disciplinary action as member of Philippine Shari'a Bar,
Melendrez.
FACTS:
1.MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling)
from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on
him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of
the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
1.Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to
take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3)
pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation
and for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against
Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and
other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of
Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.
2.Alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in
his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of
Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of
the Bar.
2.MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal
cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former
professor, advised him to settle misunderstanding.
1.Believing in good faith that the case would be settled
because the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them,
considered the three cases that arose from a single
incident as “closed and terminated.”
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not
involve moral turpitude.
2.Use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of
his communications really contained the word “Attorney”
as they were typed by the office clerk.
3.Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-
disclosure against Meling:
1.Meling should have known that only the court of
competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired
judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against
Meling are still pending.
2.Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still
required to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his
good moral character.
ISSUE:
WON Meling’s act of concealing cases constitutes
dishonesty.
HELD:
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until
further orders from the Court, the suspension to take
effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent
Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing
the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar,
the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and
academic (Meling did not pass the bar).
1.Rule 7.01: “ A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly
making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in
connection with his application for admission to the bar .”
1.He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there
was no valid reason why he signed as “attorney” whoever
may have typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized use of the appellation “attorney” may
render a person liable for indirect contempt of court.
2.PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
1.Limited to citizens of good moral character , with special
educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
2.Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of
greater importance so far as the general public and the
proper administration of justice are concerned, than the
possession of legal learning.
3.Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the
applicant that applicant to aver that he or she “has not
been charged with any act or omission punishable by law,
rule or regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or
administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or
convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime
involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending case or
charge against him/her.”
1.Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal
cases. His deliberate silence constitutes concealment,
done under oath at that.
ALAWI V. ALAUYA
Facts:
Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa &
Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing
Company. Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive
clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a District in Marawi
City, They were classmates, and used to be friends.
Through Alawi's agency, a contract was executed for the
purchase on installments by Alauya of one of the housing
units of Villarosa. In connection, a housing loan was also
granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation (NHMFC). Not long afterwards, Alauya
addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co.
advising of the termination of his contract with the
company. He claimed that his consent was vitiated
because Alawi had resorted to gross misrepresentation,
deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence. He laso
wrote similar letters to the Vice President of Villarosa and
the Vice President of NHMFC. On learning of Alauya's
letters, Alawi filed an administrative complaint against
him. One of her grounds was Alauya’s usurpation of the
title of "attorney," which only regular members of the
Philippine Bar may properly use. Alauya justified his use of
the title, "attorney," by the assertion that it is "lexically
synonymous" with "Counsellors-at-law." a title to which
Shari'a lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he
prefers the title of "attorney" because "counsellor" is often
mistaken for "councilor," "konsehal " or the Maranao term
"consial ," connoting a local legislator beholden to the
mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself a lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Shari’a bar, can
use the title of Attorney
Held:
He can’t. The title is only reserved to those who pass the
regular Philippine bar. As regards Alauya's use of the title
of "Attorney," this Court has already had occasion to
declare that persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-
fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only
practice law before Shari'a courts. While one who has
been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has been
admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered
"counsellors," in the sense that they give counsel or advice
in a professional capacity, only the latter is an "attorney."
The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who, having
obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and
successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been
admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
remain members hereof in good standing; and it is they
only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.
AGUIRRE V. RANA
FACTS
Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed
the 2000 Bar Examinations. On 21 May 2001, one day
before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar
examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant
Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition
for Denial of Admission to the Bar, charging respondent
with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct,
violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. The Court
allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the
Bar during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 but
ruled that he cannot sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the
resolution of the charge against him. Complainant charged
respondent for unauthorized practice of law and grave
misconduct, alleging that respondent, while not yet a
lawyer, appeared as counsel for Vice Mayoralty candidate
George Bunan in the May 2001 elections before the
Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (“MBEC”) of
Mandaon, Masbate, and filed with the MBEC a pleading as
counsel entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the
Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of
Vice-Mayor. Respondent also signed as counsel for
Estipona-Hao in her petition to be declared the winning
mayoralty candidate. On the charge of violation of law,
respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a
client in any court or administrative body, respondent
being a municipal government employee (Secretary of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate).
The Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar
Confidant (“OBC”) for evaluation, report and
recommendation. OBC’s Report and Recommendation
The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before
the MBEC as counsel for Bunan in the May 2001 elections.
The minutes of the MBEC proceedings show that
respondent actively participated in the proceedings. The
OBC likewise found that respondent appeared in the MBEC
proceedings even before he took the lawyer’s oath on 22
May 2001. Respondent’s misconduct casts a serious doubt
on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Such
unauthorized practice of law is a ground to deny his
admission to the practice of law.
HELD
Respondent is guilty of unauthorized practice of law and
was thus denied admission to the Philippine bar.
1. SC agreed with the finding of the OBC that respondent
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does
not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
- Respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan and signed as
“counsel” in the pleadings
- was also retained as counsel of mayoralty candidate
Emily Estipona-Hao and of party REFORMA LM-PPC
*all these took place before Respondent took his oath and
signed the Roll of Attorneys
2. What constitutes the “practice of law”
- The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases
or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts
- all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law, incorporation services,
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an
appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a
mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy
and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings
in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship
have been held to constitute law practice, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the
work done involves the determination by the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.
- any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience.
- perform acts which are usually performed by members of
the legal profession.
- render any kind of service which requires the use of legal
knowledge or skill. * respondent was engaged in the
practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings
before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without
license to do so.
3. The right to practice law is not a natural or
constitutional right but is a privilege.
- limited to persons of good moral character with special
qualifications duly ascertained and certified.
- A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law
simply by passing the bar examinations.
- although respondent passed the 2000 Bar Examinations
and took the lawyer’s oath, it is the signing in the Roll of
Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer.
People v Leoncio Santocildes, Jr. Y Siga-an
FACTS:
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape of
a girl less than nine years old. The court rendered a
decision finding appellant guilty as charged. However,
during the proceeding, accused-appellant was not
represented by a member of the Bar. Hence, he filed a
Notice of Appeal and praying that the judgment against
him be set aside on the ground that he was denied of his
right to be represented by a counsel which results to the
denial of due process. The Office of the Solicitor General
maintains that notwithstanding the fact that appellant's
counsel during the trial was not a member of the Bar, he
was afforded due process since he was given opportunity
to be heard and records reveal that said person handled
the case in a professional and skillful manner.
ISSUE: Whether or not a person not member of the
Philippine Bar may represent an accused in a criminal
proceeding.
HELD: NO. The presence and participation of counsel in
criminal proceedings should never be taken lightly. Even
the most intelligent or educated man may be convicted
without a counsel, not because he is guilty but because he
does not know how to establish his innocence. The right of
the accused to counsel is guaranteed to minimize the
imbalance in the adversarial system where the accused is
pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the
State. A person has the right to due process, he must be
heard before being condemned - a part of person's basic
rights. The right to counsel of an accused is enshrined in
the Constitution (Art. III,Secs. 12 & 14(2)], Rules of Criminal
Procedure (Sec. 1 of Rule 115), Art. 8, Sec. 5 of the
Constitution and the Rules of Court (Sec. 1 of Rule 138)
The assailed judgment is Set Aside, and the case is hereby
Remanded to the trial court for new trial.
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU),
Enrique Entila and Victoriano Tenazas vs. Binalbagan
Isabela Sugar Company, Court of Industrial Relations and
Quintin Muning
FACTS:
1.COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ORDERED
REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES FOR ENTILA AND
TENAZAS.
1.Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of Entila and Tenazas
filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the
total backwages.
i. Entila and Tenazas filed manifestation indicating their
non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of
their backwages
ii. Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of
Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages.
1. Opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that
he is not a lawyer.
a. Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the
backwages as compensation for professional services
rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:
i. Cipriano 10%
ii. Quintin Muning 10%
iii. Atanacio Pacis 5%
iii. CANON 34: condemns an agreement providing for the
division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union
president is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers
1. Sec 5(b) of RA 875 that —No justification for a ruling,
that the person representing the party-litigant in the Court
of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is entitled
to attorney's fees
a. Duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer to
examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of the
parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of
evidence.
b. Representation should be exclusively entrusted to duly
qualified members of the bar.
2.The permission for a non-member does not entitle the
representative to compensation for such representation.
1.Sec 24, Rule 138 Compensation of attorney's agreement
as to fees:
i. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from
his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his
services.
a. Petition to take the Bar Exam in 1960 after failing in the
1959 Bar Examination.
b. His uncle, TAPEL, opposed the petition alleging that his
nephew is not a person of good moral character for having
misrepresented, sometime in 1950, when he was 16 years
old, that he was eligible for 3rd year high school by
utilizing the school records of his cousin and name-sake,
Juan M. Publico.
ii. PUBLICO has not completed Grade 4
iii. Tapel instituted an administrative case against his
nephew for falsification of school records or credentials.
3.PUBLICO PASSED THE BAR, took the lawyer's oath, and
signed the Roll of Attorneys.
4.Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo Paras, Jr., investigated
and reported:
1.September 1961, Dulcisimo Tapel dropped the complaint
on the ground that his witnesses had turned hostile.
i. Motion denied, his witnesses had already testified.
2.Recommended PUBLICO’s name to be stricken off the
roll of attorneys.
i. Respondent falsified his school records
ii. Thereby violating the provisions of Sections 5 and 6,
Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, which require completion
by a bar examinee or candidate of the prescribed courses
in elementary, high, pre-law and law school, prior to his
admission to the practice of law.
5.11 years later, PUBLICO filed a Petition for
Reinstatement alleging that he had never received, for had
he been informed, nor did he have any knowledge of the
Resolution of the Court ordering the Bar Division to strike
his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
1.He was advised to inquire into the outcome of the
disbarment case against him.
2.He resigned from all his positions in public and private
offices, and transferred to Manila.
3.Prayed that Court allow reinstatement taking into
consideration his exemplary conduct from the time he
became a lawyer, his services to the community the
numerous awards, resolutions and/'or commendations he
received,
i. Court denied the Petition.
ii. Petitioner moved for reconsideration was denied by the
Court for lack of merit.
4.5th plea avers that his enrollment in Third Year High
School in Manila was through the initiative of his uncle,
Dulcisimo B. Tapel who accompanied him to school and
enrolled him in a grade level above his qualifications in
spite of his demonstrations
i. Misrepresentation committed was precipitated by his
uncle; that being merely 16 year old, he could not be
expected to act with discernment as he was still under the
influence of his uncle, who later on caused his disbarment
ii. No opposition has been filed to any of the petitions.
ISSUE:
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services
rendered?
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer
according to the order, is sought to be voided in the
present petition.
WON a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees
which are deductible from the back pay of some of its
members.
YES. It was PAFLU that moved for an extension of time to
file the present petition for review; union members Entila
and Tenazas did not ask for extension but they were
included as petitioners in the present petition. Their
inclusion in the petition as co-petitioners was belated.
HELD:
ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE SET ASIDE AS THEY ARE
AWARDED 10% OF BACKWAGES AS ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR
MUNING. COSTS AGAINST MUNING.
1.Lawyer-client relationship is only possible if one is a
lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot
establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique
Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot,
therefore, recover attorney's fees.
2.Public policy demands that legal work in representation
of parties litigant should be entrusted only to those
possessing tested qualifications, for the ethics of the
profession and for the protection of courts, clients and the
public.
3.The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession
should not be violated:
1.Acting as an attorney with authority constitutes
contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or
imprisonment or both,
2.Law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit
of an act or an act done in violation of law
3.If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the
public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case
of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition,
aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to
disciplinary measures.
4.In response to UNION may appeal an award of attorney's
fees which are deductible from the backpay of some of its
members:
1.YES because such union or labor organization is
permitted to institute an action in the industrial court on
behalf of its members
2.If an award is disadvantageous to its members, the union
may prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party, under Sec
6, RA 875: i. Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases —Appeals.
—Any person aggrieved by any order of the Court may
appeal to the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
3.Usually, individual unionist is not in a position to bear
the financial burden of litigations.
PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered
financial difficulties. Later on, Central Bank issued a
resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent. Former Solicitor
General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the then
Court of First Instance praying for the assistance and
supervision of the court in GENBANK's liquidation. After
EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG for the purpose
of recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG, on July 17, 1987,
filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for 'reversion,
reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages
against respondents Tan, et al. so PCGG issued several
writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by
the above-named persons by taking advantage of their
close relationship and influence with former President
Marcos. These respondents were represented by
Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent
Mendoza as counsel for respondents. The motions alleged
that respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor General and
counsel to Central Bank, 'actively intervened in the
liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired
by respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied Banking
Corporation. The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03
prohibits former government lawyers from accepting
'engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
ISSUE
W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
applies to respondent Mendoza?
HELD
NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. The matter or the act of
respondent Mendoza as Solicitor General involved in the
case at bar is 'advising the Central Bank, on how to
proceed with the said bank's liquidation and even filing the
petition for its liquidation with the CFI of . In fine, the
Court should resolve whether his act of advising the
Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate GENBANK
is included within the concept of 'matter’ under Rule 6.03.
The 'matter’ where he got himself involved was in
informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by law
to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the
necessary petition. The subject 'matter of Sp. Proc. No.
107812, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but is
different from the subject 'matter in Civil Case No. 0096
which is about the sequestration of the shares of
respondents Tan, et al.The jurisdiction of the PCGG does
not include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. It goes
without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza
because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General
in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter
different from the matter involved in Civil Case No.
0096.Secondly, the supposed intervention of Mendoza in
the liquidation case is not significant and substantial. We
note that the petition filed merely seeks the assistance of
the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role
of the court in this type of proceedings is to assist the
Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the
GENBANK. Also, The disqualification of respondent
Mendoza has long been a dead issue. For a fact, the
recycled motion for disqualification in the case at bar was
filed more than four years after the filing of the petitions
for certiorari , prohibition and injunction with the Supreme
Court which were subsequently remanded to the
Sandiganbayan. At the very least, the circumstances under
which the motion to disqualify in the case at bar were
refiled put petitioner's motive as highly suspect.It is also
submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its
strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who 'switch
sides. It is claimed that 'switching sides' carries the danger
that former government employee may compromise
confidential official information in the process. But this
concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As
afore-discussed, the act of respondent Mendoza in
informing the Central Bank on the procedure how to
liquidate GENBANK is a different matter from the subject
matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the
sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al ., in
Allied Bank. There is no switching sides for there were no
sides.
CATU V. RELLOSA
FACTS
Catu co-owns a lot and building and contested the
possession of one of the units in the said building by
Elizabeth (sister in law of Catu) and Pastor, who ignored
demands to vacate the place. The parties went to the
Lupon Tagapamayapa to try to settle the issue amicably.
Respodent Rellosa as Punong Barangay presided over the
conciliation proceedings. The parties failed to settle their
case, and the petitioner brought the case to court.
Surprisingly, Rellosa appeared in court as counsel for
Elizabeth and Pastor. This prompted Catu to file an
administrative complaint against Rellosa for his act of
impropriety. IBP committee on bar discipline, after
investigation, ruled that Rellosa violated Rule 6.031 and RA
67132. The committee recommended Rellosa’s suspension
from practice for 1 month.
ISSUE
W/N Rellosa violated Rule 6.03
HELD
No.
Rule 6.03 applies only to a lawyer who has left government
service. Rellosa was an incumbent punong barangay at the
time he committed the act complained of. As such
incumbent, the proper law that governs him is RA 71603,
which actually allows him to practice his profession.
However, being a public official, he is also governed by
Revised Civil Service Rules, which requires him first to
obtain a written permission from his department head
who is the Sec. of DILG. This he failed to do. SC ruled that
Rellosa violated the lawyer’s oath (to uphold and obey
law), Rule 1.01 (lawyer shall not engage in unlawful
conduct), and Canon 7 (lawyer shall uphold integrity and
dignity of the profession), for a lawyer who disobeys law
disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. SC punished
Rellosa with 6 months suspension and strongly advised
him to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word
delicadeza.
__________
Hofilena question: under RA 6713, are lawyers allowed to
practice their profession?
Answer:
Yes, RA 6713 says “if the constitution or law allows it”
Public officers however are subject to Civil Service Rules
which state that should they engage in private practice of
their profession, they should first secure a written
permission from their department head.
Spouses OLBES VS. Atty. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE, AC-5365.
April 27, 2005
Facts
Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by
Spouses Olbes for security of a loan. After the loan was
paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of
the five checks for P50, 000 with different maturity date.
All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a
case for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted
the spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case against Atty.
Deciembre with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this
Court. In the report, Commissioner Dulay recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
two years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Issue
Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in
accord with his fault.
Held:
1. A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in which he intervened while in service
2.Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers
and Employees
3. Local Government Code of 1991 -Membership in the
legal profession is a special privilege burdened with
conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not
only learned in the law, but also known to possess good
moral character. “A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of
society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible
norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the
advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which
he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.” By taking the
lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth
and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the
fair and impartial administration of justice. Lawyers should
act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in
a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the
public’s faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly clear
that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously
transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank
checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite respondent’s full knowledge that
the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already
been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a
commercial document, resorted to for his material gain.
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely
unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The
standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties
of criminal laws. Considering the depravity of the offense
committed by respondent, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from
the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for
employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible.
His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention
of one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law effective
immediately.
In Re: Argosino, 270 SCRA 26
FACTS:
Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but
was denied of taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the
Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of “reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide” from a hazing incident.
Later in his sentence, he was granted probation by the
court. He filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying
that he be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the
Rolls of Attorneys. As a proof of the required good moral
character he now possess, he presented no less than
fifteen (15) certifications among others from: two (2)
senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of
religious order. In addition, he, together with the others
who were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in
honor of their hazing victim.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take
the
Lawyer’s Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and practice
law.
HELD:
YES. Petition granted.
RATIO:
Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent
proof that he possessed the required good moral character
as required before taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign
the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the
premises that he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In
giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally
reminded that the Lawyer’s Oath is not merely a ceremony
or formality before the practice of law, and that the
community assistance he had started is expected to
continue in serving the more unfortunate members of the
society.
Emilio Grande vs Evangeline de Silva
Facts:
Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party
in a criminal case, for Estafa and BP22 in RTC Marikina
against Sergio Natividad. During the proceedings,
respondent Atty. Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the
accused, tendered to complainant a check in the amount
of P144,768.00, drawn against her account with the
Philippine National Bank, as settlement of the civil aspect
of the case against her client. Complainant refused to
accept the check, but respondent assured him that the
same will be paid upon its presentment to her drawee
bank. She manifested that as a lawyer, she would not issue
a check which is not sufficiently funded. Thus, respondent
was prevailed upon by complainant to accept the check.
Consequently, he desisted from participating as a
complaining witness in the criminal case, which led to the
dismissal of the same and the release of the accused,
Sergio Natividad. When complainant deposited the check
he was told the account was closed. He demanded the
payment of the check from respondent which she ignored
so she filed a criminal case, for Estafa and BP22 in RTC
Marikina against Atty. De Silva and a disbarment case of
respondent for deceit and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.
IBP found respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct
and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. Thus, he
recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years.
Issue:
WON respondent should be suspended.
Held:
The record shows that respondent prevailed upon
complainant to accept her personal check by way of
settlement for the civil liability of her client, Sergio
Natividad, with the assurance that the check will have
sufficient funds when presented for payment. In doing so,
she deceived complainant into withdrawing his complaint
against her client in exchange for a check which she drew
against a closed account. It is clear that the breach of trust
committed by respondent in issuing a bouncing check
amounted to deceit and constituted a violation of her
oath, for which she should be accordingly penalized. Such
an act constitutes gross misconduct and the penalties for
such malfeasance is prescribed by Rule 138, Section 27of
the Rules of Court, to wit:
SEC. 27.
Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme
Court, grounds therefore. A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so. The nature of the office of an
attorney requires that a lawyer shall be a person of good
moral character. Since this qualification is a condition
precedent to a license to enter upon the practice of law,
the maintenance thereof is equally essential during the
continuance of the practice and the exercise of the
privilege. Gross misconduct which puts the lawyer’s moral
character in serious doubt may render her unfit to
continue in the practice of law
.[9] The loss of moral character of a lawyer for any reason
whatsoever shall warrant her suspension or disbarment
,[10] because it is important that members of the legal
brotherhood must conform to the highest standards of
morality
.[11] Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for
the profession, whether it be professional or non-
professional, justifies disciplinary action. Thus, a lawyer
may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly
incurred. Such conduct is unbecoming and does not speak
well of a member of the bar, for a lawyer’s professional
and personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond
reproach and above suspicion
.[12] Moreover, the attitude of respondent in deliberately
refusing to accept the notices served on her betrays a
deplorably willful character or disposition which stains the
nobility of the legal profession
.[13] Her conduct not only underscores her utter lack of
respect for authority; it also brings to the fore a darker and
more sinister character flaw in her psyche which renders
highly questionable her moral fitness to continue in the
practice of law: a defiance for law and order which is at
the very core of her profession. Such defiance is anathema
to those who seek a career in the administration of justice
because obedience to the dictates of the law and justice is
demanded of every lawyer. How else would respondent
even endeavor to serve justice and uphold the law when
she disdains to follow even
simple directives? Indeed, the first and foremost command
of the Code of Professional Responsibility could not be any
clearer:
A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
Needless to state, respondent’s persistent refusal to
comply with lawful orders directed at her with not even an
explanation for doing so is contumacious conduct which
merits no compassion. The duty of a lawyer is to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times.
She can only do this by faithfully performing her duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to her clients
.[14] We cannot tolerate any misconduct that tends to
besmirch the fair name of an honorable profession.
SUSPENDED FOR 2 YEARS.