You are on page 1of 16

Khan v Simbillo b.

A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving

Facts: thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;

Resp Atty. Rizalino Simbillo advertised in the PDI and MB his legal services for c.A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
annulment cases
d. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and
Upon investigation by the Pub Info Office, it was confirmed that Simbillo is offering unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and
his services to interested clients. encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.

Ismael Khan, chief of the PIO, filed an administrative charge vs resp for improper The solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for
advertising and solicitation of his legal services in violation of the Code of solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
Professional Responsibility profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury
to the lawyer and to the bar.
Resp argues that advertising or solicitation is not per se a prohibited act:

a.Public interest is not served by the absolute prohibition


Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie
b.It’s time for the Court to promulgate a ruling that such advertisement is
not contrary to law, public policy and public order. [A.C. No. 2131 May 10, 1985] Ponente: AQUINO, J.

The IBP found the resp guilty and suspended him from the practice of law for 1 FACTS:
year, writing it in a resolution
[R]espondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which
IssueS: contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked a certain Rosie Clurman for the
release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client.
W/N resp’s act was a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of
Ruling: Yes. Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of
Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie “and if not, what is your purpose in using the
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code states that a lawyer is prohibited from performing letterhead of another law office.” Not having received any reply, he filed the instant
acts designed to solicit legal business and that he is not permitted to use self- complaint. As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker &
laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with
Practice of Law is not a business. It is a profession with public interest as the members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from
primary duty. It’s not a money making venture and law advocacy is not a capital being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the firm name of Guerrero
that necessarily yields profits. The duty is to public service and the administration & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & McKenzie.
of justice. Elements that distinguish it from business: ISSUE:
a. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which Whether or not Baker & McKenzie, an alien law firm, could practice law in the
one may attain the highest eminence without making much money; Philippines.
HELD:

NO. Respondents were enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker & LEA P. PAYOD v. ATTY. ROMEO P. METILA
McKenzie.
528 SCRA 227 (2007)
RATIO:
A lawyer who accepts a case must give it his full attention, diligence, skill, and
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines competence, and his negligence in connection therewith renders him liable.
(Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
Atty. Metila failed to submit important documents to the Court of Appeals (CA) and
[R]espondents’ use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constituted a the serious consequences brought by such act became prejudicial to the case of
representation that being associated with the firm they could “render legal services Lea Payod. Payod said they made sufficient follow ups with Atty. Metila but the
of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in latter failed to show up in appointed meetings at the Court. Pagod thereafter
foreign trade and investment”. This was unethical because Baker & McKenzie was charged Atty. Romeo P. Metila for willful neglect and gross misconduct in the
not authorized to practice law here. discharge of her duties.

Atty. Metila denied the charges and insisted that there was no attorney-client
relationship between him and Payod for there was no Special Power of Attorney
People vs Gacott
authorizing Payod’s mother to hire him as a lawyer.
GR No 116049 13 July 1995
After investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar
Facts: Discipline, to which the complaint was referred, found Atty. Metila guilty of simple
negligence and recommended that he be seriously admonished. The IBP Board of
For failure to check citations of the prosecutions, the order of respondent RTC Directors adopted the report and recommendation of the Investigating
Judge Eustaquio Gacott Jr dismissing a criminal case was annulled by the Supreme Commissioner that Atty. Metila be seriously admonished.
Court. The respondent judge was also sanctioned with a reprimand and a fine of
PHP 10k for gross ignorance of law. The judgment was made by the Second Division ISSUE:
of the Supreme Court.
Whether or not the failure of Atty. Metila to submit documents to the CA constitute
Issue: gross negligence

Whether or not the Second Division of the Supreme Court has the competence to HELD:
administratively discipline respondent judge?
The circumstances attendant to Atty. Metila’s initial handle of Payod’s case do not
Held: warrant a finding of gross negligence, or sheer absence of real effort on his part to
defend her cause.
To require the entire court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrative
matter or cases regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in Atty. Metila accepted Payod’s case upon her mother’s insistence, with only six days
a congested docket and undue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court, for him to file a petition for review before this Court, and without her furnishing
especially in administrative matters, since even cases involving the penalty of him with complete records, not to mention money, for the reproduction of the
reprimand would require action by the Court En Banc. needed documents. Despite these constraints, Atty. Metila exerted efforts, albeit
lacking in care, to defend his client’s cause by filing two motions for extension of violation of the lawyer’s oath in connection with the discharge of their duties as
time to file petition. And he in fact filed the petition within the time he requested,
members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers in the May 8, 1995
thus complying with the guideline of this Court that lawyers should at least file their
elections.Salayon, then election officer of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
pleadings within the extended period requested should their motions for extension
wasdesignated chairman of said Board, while Llorente, who was then City
of time to file a pleading be not acted upon.
Prosecutor of Pasig City, served as its ex oficio vice-chairman as provided by law.
Neither do the circumstances warrant a finding that Atty. Metila was motivated by Complainant,now a senator, was also a candidate for the Senate in that
ill-will. In the absence of proof to the contrary, a lawyer enjoys a presumption of election.Complainant alleges that, in violation of R.A. No. 6646, §27(b),
good faith in his favor. respondentstampered with the votes received by him. Petitioner claims that the
votes receivedby him were reduced in some precincts in favor of the other
candidates.Complainant
Collantes v. Renomeron
maintains that, by signing the SoVs and CoC despite respondents’
A.C. No. 3056. AUgust 16, 1991.
knowledge that some of the entries therein were false, the latter committed a
Per curiam
serious breach of public trust and of their lawyers’ oath.
FACTS:
Respondents denied theallegations against them. They alleged that the
Complainant, house counsel for V&G, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. preparation of the SoVs was made bythe 12 canvassing committees which the
Vincent Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latter’s irregular Board had constituted to assist in thecanvassing. They claimed that the errors
actuations with regards to the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma. pointed out by complainant could beattributed to honest mistake, oversight,
Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision. and/or fatigue.

ISSUE: The IBP recommends the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint on the basis of the

WON respondent should be disbarred. following: (1) respondents had no involvement in the tabulation of the
electionreturns, because when the Statements of Votes (SoVs) were given to them,
RULING: such hadalready been accomplished and only needed their respective signatures;
Yes. The acts of dishonesty and oppression which respondent committed as a (2) thecanvassing was done in the presence of watchers, representatives of the
public official have demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble politicalparties, the media, and the general public so that respondents would not
calling of the law. have riskedthe commission of any irregularity; and (3) the acts dealt with in R.A.
No. 6646,§27(b) are mala in se and not mala prohibita, and petitioner failed to
establishcriminal intent on the part of respondents.
Pimentel v. Llorente Issue/s:
Facts: This case involves a complaint for disbarment against respondents Antonio WON the respondents should be held guilty.
M.Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and
Held:
Yes. They should be held guilty.There is a strong public interest involved in the issuance of the writ of possession prayed for. The Berenguers filed a motion to
requiring lawyers to behave at all timesin a manner consistent with truth and set aside the Resolution arguing that: the DARAB already acquired jurisdiction over
honor. It is important that the commoncaricature that lawyers by and large do not case when they seasonably filed an appeal before it; and that Florin should have
feel compelled to speak the truth and toact honestly, should not become a waited until the DARAB has decided the appeal. Florin denied the said motion
common reality. As lawyers in the government service, respondents were under prompting the Berenguers to move for her inhibition on ground of partiality. Florin
greater obligation to observe this basic tenet of theprofession because a public issued on a Writ of Possession23 in favor of BARIBAG. Florin directed the full
office is a public trust. implementation of the writ of possession in spite of the Berenguers’ protestations.
Hence, this petition for the disbarment of respondents Florin, Jornales, in his
capacity as Assistant Regional Director for DAR, and Vega, in his capacity as DAR
Legal Officer V.

BERENGUER vs. FLORIN A.C. No. 5119 Issue:

Facts: Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Petitioner Berenguers are the registered owners of a 58.0649-hectare land in
Bibingcahan, Sorsogon, Sorsogon. The Berenguers applied for the exclusion of their Held:
land with the DAR and for a notice to lift coverage based on the ground that their
Yes. Respondent ATTY.ISABEL E. FLORIN is found guilty of violating the Code of
landholdings have been used exclusively for livestock. The DAR Secretary, without
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, she is penalized with SUSPENSION from
acting on the application for exclusion, cancelled the Berenguers’ certificates of
the practice of law for three (3) months effective upon notice hereof. The
title on the land and issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in favor
complaint against Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Pedro Vega is DISMISSED for
of the members of the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development
lack of sufficient evidence. Judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross
Cooperative (BARIBAG).
ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do injustice will be administratively
The Berenguers filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of DAR. While the case sanctioned. In this case, it appears, however, that this is the first time that Florin
was pending appeal, BARIBAG filed a petition for the implementation of the Order has been made administratively liable. Although there is no showing that malice or
before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD). This was granted by bad faith attended the commission of the acts complained of, the same does not
Florin, as RARAD. Florin directed the issuance and implementation of the Writ of negate the fact that Florin executed an act that would cause an injustice to the
Possession. The Berenguers filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that they Berenguers. To SC justices mind, the act of issuing the writ of execution and writ of
were denied due process as they were not furnished with a copy of BARIBAG’s possession is not simply an honest error in judgment but an obstinate disregard of
petition for implementation. Florin denied the motion for reconsideration for lack the applicable laws and jurisprudence.
of merit.

The Berenguers appealed to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). BARIBAG, on


HUYSSEN vs. GUTIERREZ
other hand, filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession. BARIBAG filed
a Motion for the Appointment of a Special Sheriff. DAR Acting Secretary Conrado A.C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006
S. Nava rro denied the Berenguers’ appeal. Florinissued a Resolution, which
granted BARIBAG’s Motion for the appointment of a Special Sheriff and ordered
Fact: Complainant alleged that in 1995, while respondent was still connected with Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), she and her three sons, who are in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by
all American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas under Section 13[g] of the the functions of his office. Respondent’s conduct in office betrays the integrity and
Immigration Law. Respondent told complainant that in order that their visa good moral character required from all lawyers, especially from one occupying a
applications will be favorably acted upon by the BID they needed to deposit a high public office. A lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any
certain sum of money for a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry
year. Believing that the deposit was indeed required by law, complainant deposited in government; he must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times
with respondent on six different occasions from April 1995 to April 1996 the total and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer
amount of US$20,000. Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs that he in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high
received the amounts deposited by the complainant but refused to give her copies degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than his brethren in private practice.
of official receipts despite her demands. After one year, complainant demanded
from respondent the return of US$20,000 who assured her that said amount would
be returned. Respondent promised to return the money and issued worthless
checks. Thus, a complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant in the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). On 5
November 2004, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted her G.R. No. 109870 December 1, 1995
report recommending the disbarment of respondent. On 4 November 2004, the
IBP Board of Governors approved the Investigating Commissioner’s report with
modification. EDILBERTO M. CUENCA, petitioner,
Issue: vs.
Whether the Respondent, a Government Officer and a Lawyer is liable thus must COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
be Disbarred in the Practice of Law.
RESOLUTION
Held:
FRANCISCO, J.:
Yes, The court agree with the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be
severely sanctioned. We begin with the veritable fact that lawyers in government After his petition for review of the Court of Appeals' judgment1 affirming his
service in the discharge of their official task have more restrictions than lawyers in conviction for violation of the "Trust Receipts Law" (Presidential Decree No. 115)
private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a was denied by this Court in a Resolution dated February 9, 1994,2 petitioner filed
lawyer who holds a responsible public office. Respondent’s act of asking money on July 6, 1994 a pleading entitled "SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION
from complainant in consideration of the latter’s pending application for visas is FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL"3 setting forth, in relation to the
violative of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits motion for new trial:
members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or
6. The Motion for New Trial shall be grounded on newly discovered evidence
deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code
and excusible (sic) negligence, and shall be supported by affidavits of:
which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interest.
(i) an officer of private complainant corporation who will exculpate 3. Sometime in 1974, upon my initiative, CDCP together with its affiliated
petitioner; companies, organized a number of wholly-owned service corporations. One of
these was Ultra International Trading Corporation, whose purpose was to serve
and supply the needs of CDCP and its other subsidiaries with lower value goods and
(ii) an admission against interest by a former officer of the owner of Ultra using Ultra's financial resources.
Corporation (the Corporation that employed petitioner), which actually exercised
control over the affairs of Ultra; and
4. The directors in Ultra Corporation were nominees of CDCP, and received
(iii) the petitioner wherein he will assert innocence for the first time and
the instructions directly from me and or Mr. Pedro Valdez, Chairman of CDCP.
explain why he was unable to do so earlier.
5. From Ultra's inception, my brother, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca was
The Court in its July 27, 1994 Resolution,4 among other things, granted the
appointed President and Chief Executive Officer. On March, 1979, I instructed Ultra
substitution but denied the motion for leave to file motion for new trial, "the
through my brother, Mr. Edilberto Cuenca to purchase for CDCP various steel
petition having been already denied on February 9, 1994."
materials. These materials were received by CDCP and are covered by the trust
Notwithstanding, petitioner on August 8, 1994 filed a "MOTION TO ADMIT receipts which are the subject of this case.
ATTACHED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL",5 and a "MANIFESTATION AND SECOND
6. In 1980, CDCP suffered cashflow problems, and consciously omitted
MOTION TO ADMIT" on August 17, 1994.6 The Court thereafter required the
payment to Ultra for the delivery of the said steel materials. As a nominee of CDCP,
Solicitor General to comment on said motion and manifestation within ten (10)
Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca merely acted as agent for CDCP. As such, CDCP provided
days from notice, in a Resolution dated September 7, 1994.7
him with the guarantees needed to persuade China Bank to issue the said trust
In the Comment filed after three (3) extensions of time were given by the Court,8 receipts. On the basis of such guarantees, along with informal assurances issued by
the Solicitor General himself recommends that petitioner be entitled to a new trial, CDCP to China Bank that the transactions of Ultra were undertaken for and on
proceeding from the same impression that a certain Rodolfo Cuenca's (petitioner's behalf of CDCP and CDCP Mining Corporation, Ultra was able to obtain credit
brother) sworn statement is an admission against interest which may ultimately facilities, among which included the trust receipts subject of this case.
exonerate petitioner from criminal liability. The full text of Mr. Rodolfo Cuenca's
7. However, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca had no power to cause the payment of
"Affidavit"9 reads:
said trust receipts because the common Treasurer and controller of both CDCP and
RODOLFO M. CUENCA, Filipino, of legal age, with the residence at Urdaneta Village, Ultra, Ms. Nora Vinluan, acted under my control and I did not allow her to make
Makati, Metro Manila, after being duly sworn and (sic) state that: the appropriate payments.

1. During the years 1967 until February 1983, I was the President and Chief 8. To my knowledge, CDCP has not paid Ultra the amounts corresponding to
Executive Officer of Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines the materials covered by the trust receipts subject of this case.
(CDCP).
9. By the time final demand to pay on the trust receipts were (sic) served in
2. During that period, I controlled an effective majority of the voting shares 1984, Mr. Edilberto Cuenca was no longer president of Ultra Corporation and could
of stock of CDCP. not have possibly cause (sic) Ultra Corporation to pay.
10. I have executed this affidavit in order to accept personal responsibility for "whose obligation to govern impartially is compelling as its obligation to govern at
the trust receipts subject of this case and to exculpate Mr. Edilberto Cuenca of the all; and whose interest, therefore in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a
criminal charges which he has asked this Honorable Court to review. case, but that justice shall be done (Time to Rein in the Prosecution, by Atty. Bruce
Fein, published on p. 11, The Lawyers Review, July 31, 1994). (Emphasis
11. Accordingly, I also undertake to pay the civil obligations arising from the
supplied.)10
subject trust receipts.

Although in "Goduco v. CA" (14 SCRA 282 [1965]) decided some twenty (20) years
(Sgd.)
ago, this Court ruled that it is not authorized to entertain a motion for
RODOLFO M. CUENCA reconsideration and/or new trial predicated on allegedly newly discovered
evidence the rationale of which being:
Affiant
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is conclusive as to the facts, and cannot be
And the Solicitor General had this to say: reviewed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, in an appeal by certiorari to the
Ordinarily, it is too late at this stage to ask for a new trial. Supreme Court, the latter has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for new trial on
the ground of newly discovered evidence, for only questions of fact are involved
However, the sworn statement of Rodolfo Cuenca is a declaration against his own therein.
interests under Section 38, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court and it casts doubt on
the culpability of his brother Edilberto Cuenca, the petitioner. Hence, the alleged the rule now appears to have been relaxed, if not abandoned, in subsequent cases
confession of guilt should be given a hard look by the Court. like "Helmuth, Jr. v. People"11 and "People v. Amparado".12

The People is inclined to allow petitioner to establish the genuineness and due In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside technicalities and despite the
execution of his brother's affidavit in the interest of justice and fair play. opposition of the Solicitor General, granted new trial to the convicted accused
concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or affidavits of persons which the
Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, prosecutors Court considered as newly discovered and probably sufficient evidence to reverse
who represent the People of the Philippines in a criminal case are not duty bound the judgment of conviction. Being similarly circumstanced, there is no nagging
to seek conviction of the accused but to see that justice is done. Said Rule 6.01 of reason why herein petitioner should be denied the same benefit. It becomes all the
Canon 6 states: more plausible under the circumstances considering that the "People" does not
Canon 6 — These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the raise any objection to a new trial, for which reason the Solicitor General ought to
discharge of their official tasks. be specially commended for displaying once again such statesmanlike gesture of
impartiality. The Solicitor General's finest hour, indeed.
Rule 6.01 — The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion For New Trial is hereby GRANTED. Let the case
of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly be RE-OPENED and REMANDED to the court of origin for reception of petitioner's
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action. (Emphasis supplied.) evidence.

The above duty is well founded on the instruction of the U.S. Supreme Court in SO ORDERED.
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) that prosecutors represent a sovereign
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Lahm v. Mayor

A.C. No. 7430; 15 February 2012

Facts:

On 5 September 2006, a certain David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission against the members of the Board of Trustees of the International
Misamin v San Juan School, Manila. The case was raffled to the sala of the respondent, Labor Arbiter
Jovencio Ll. Mayor, Jr. During the proceedings, Toze filed a Verified Motion for the
A.C. No. 1418. August 31, 1976 Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, to which
Fernando, J. the complainants, Martin Lahm III and James P. Concepcion, opposed. Thereafter,
the respondent issued an Order directing the parties in the said case to maintain
Facts: the status quo ante, which consequently reinstated Toze to his former position as
Respondent admits appearing as counsel for the New Cesar’s Bakery in the superintendent of the International School Manila. Despite the complainants’
proceeding for violations of minimum wage law before the NLRC while he held motion for an early resolution of their motion to dismiss the said case, respondent
office as captain in the Manila Metropolitan Police. Respondent contends that the maintained his Order. Thus, the complaint praying for the respondent’s disbarment
law did not prohibit him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends for alleged gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath.
that his appearance as counsel while holding a government position is not among Issue:
the grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension or removal of
attorneys. Is the respondent guilty for the gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath?

Issue: Held:

Whether respondent should be held administratively liable. Yes. The Supreme Court concurred with the conclusion of the Investigating
Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline that respondent guilty for
Held: the gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. Gross misconduct is any
No. There can only be suspicion that he used his public office, despite being a public inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person
trust, and not his legal knowledge, it shall not pass being unnoticed. Respondent, concerned with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights
in his future actuations as a member of the bar, should refrain from laying himself of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. The motive behind this
open to such doubts and misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position conduct is generally a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.
occupied by him but also for membership in the bar. He is not worthy of Under the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the labor arbiters no longer have
membership in an honorable profession who does not even take care that his the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining
honor remains unsullied. orders. However, the respondent, in violation of the said rule, vehemently insist
that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining order.
Further, the unfounded insistence of the respondent on his supposed authority to This is a verified petition for disbarment filed against Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong for
issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, taken having been found guilty of grave misconduct while holding the position of Register
together with the delay in the resolution of the said motion for reconsideration, of Deeds of
would clearly show that the respondent deliberately intended to cause prejudice
Marawi City. It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an off-shoot of the
to the complainants.
administrative case earlier filed by complainant against respondent, which was
In stubbornly insisting that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary initially investigated by the Land Registration Authority (LRA), complainant charged
injunction and/or temporary restraining order contrary to the clear import of the respondent with illegal exaction; indiscriminate issuance of Transfer Certificate of
2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code Title (TCT); and manipulating the criminal complaint filed against Hadji Serad
of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to obey the laws of the land Bauduli Datu and others for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law. It appears from the
and promote respect for law and legal processes. records that the Baudali Datus are relatives of respondent. The initial inquiry by the
LRA was resolved in favor of respondent, absolved respondent of all the charges
Reference:
brought against him. The case was then forwarded to the DOJ for review, then SoJ
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Franklin Drilon exonerated respondent of the charges of illegal exaction and
infidelity in the custody of documents, but held guilty of grave misconduct for his
Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. A member imprudent issuance of TCT and manipulating the criminal case for violation of the
of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Anti-Squatting Law instituted against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and the latterÕs co-
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such accused. As a result of this finding, former President FVR issued AO No. 41 adopting
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving in toto the conclusion reached by Secretary Drilon.
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
the admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a Respondent questioned said AO before this Court through a petition for certiorari,
superior court, or for corruptly or wilful appearing as an attorney for a party to a mandamus, and prohibition claiming that the Office of the President did not have
case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the the authority and jurisdiction to remove him from office and insisted that
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes respondents violated the laws on security of tenure and that respondent Reynaldo
malpractice V. Maulit, then the administrator of the LRA committed a breach of Civil Service
Rules when he abdicated his authority to resolve the administrative complaint
against him (herein respondent), but was dismissed for failure on the part of
petitioner to sufficiently show that public respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the questioned order.

Respondent MR was denied with finality. On the disbarment proceeding,


ALI v. ATTY. BUBONG complainant claims that it has become obvious that respondent had proven himself
A.C. No. 4018, Mar. 8, 2005 unfit to be further entrusted with the duties of an attorney and that he poses a
serious threat to the integrity of the legal profession. Respondent maintains that
FACTS: there was nothing irregular with his issuance of TCT No. T-2821 in the name of the
Bauduli Datus. According to him, both law and jurisprudence support his stance
that it was his ministerial duty, as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City, to act on
applications for land registration on the basis only of the documents presented by Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this matter. It
the applicants. In the case of the Bauduli Datus, nothing in the documents they reads: Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position
presented to his office warranted suspicion, hence, he was duty-bound to issue TCT to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with
No. T-2821 in their favor. Respondent also insists that he had nothing to do with his public duties. Respondents conduct manifestly undermined the peopleÕs
the dismissal of criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law and confidence in the public office he used to occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of
explains that his participation in said case was a result of the two subpoenas duces the legal profession. The ill-conceived use of his knowledge of the intricacies of the
tecum issued by the investigating prosecutor who required him to produce the law calls for nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law. As for
various land titles involved in said dispute. The IBP commenced the investigation the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainants daughter, requesting for
of this disbarment suit. On 23 February 1996, Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez the withdrawal of this case, we cannot possibly favorably act on the same as
denied the order relative to the transfer of venue of this case and penalized with proceedings of this nature cannot be interrupted or terminated by reason of
dismissal from the service, as Register of Deeds of Marawi City. desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or
failure of the complainant to prosecute the same. As we have previously explained
RECOMMENDATION/FINDING:
in the case of Irene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos: A case of suspension
The finding of Grave Misconduct on the part of respondent by the Office of the or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the
President was fully supported by evidence and as such carries a very strong weight complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the
in considering the professional misconduct of respondent in the present case. The record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven.
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved, with modification, which pertained This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for
solely to the period of suspension from the practice of law from a five-year suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant
suspension to a two-year suspension to be proper. is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are
On 17 January 2003, respondent MR was denied as by that time, the matter had undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for
already been endorsed to this Court. the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons
ISSUE: unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his
conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the
WON respondent may be disbarred for grave misconduct committed while he was attention of the court to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a party,
in the employ of the government. and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all.
RULING:

We resolve this question in the affirmative. In the case at bar, respondents grave Olazo vs. Justice Tinga
misconduct, as established by the Office of the President and subsequently
affirmed by this Court, deals with his qualification as a lawyer. By taking advantage A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, December 7, 2010 Facts:
of his office as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge Complainant filed a sales application covering a parcel of land situated in Barangay
of the rules governing land registrationfor the benefit of his relatives, respondent Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of Taguig, previously part of Fort Andres
had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform the functions of a civil Bonifacio that was segregated and declared open for disposition. A Committee on
servant but also to retain his membership in the bar. Awards whose duty was to study, evaluate, and make a recommendation on the
applications to purchase the lands declared open for disposition. The Committee addition, the complainant alleged that in May 1999, the respondent met with
on Awards was headed by the Director of Lands and the respondent was one of the Manuel for the purpose of nullifying the conveyance of rights over the land to
Committee members, in his official capacity as the Congressman of Taguig and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The complainant claimed that the respondent wanted
Pateros. the rights over the land transferred to one Rolando Olazo, the Barangay Chairman
of Hagonoy, Taguig. The respondent in this regard executed an Assurance where
Charge:
he stated that he was the lawyer of Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
Violation of Rule 6.02

The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02


The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01
The complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as Congressman
The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct
and as a
considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a qualified
beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The complainant averred that Joseph
Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not
qualify for an award. Thus, the approval of his sales application by the Committee
member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with the on Awards amounted to a violation of the objectives of Proclamation No. 172 and
complainants sales application because of his personal interest over the subject Memorandum No. 119. The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated
land. The complainant alleged that the respondent exerted undue pressure and Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
influence over the complainants father, Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter to contest Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the practice of law,
the complainants sales application and claim the subject land for himself. The within the one-year prohibition period, when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon
complainant also alleged that the respondent prevailed upon Miguel Olazo to Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.
accept, on various dates, sums of money as payment of the latters alleged rights Issues:
over the subject land. The complainant further claimed that the respondent
brokered the transfer of rights of the subject land between Miguel Olazo and Whether the respondents actions constitute a breach of the standard ethical
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, who is the nephew of the respondents deceased wife. As conduct first, while the respondent was still an elective public official and a
a result of the respondents abuse of his official functions, the complainants sales member of the Committee on Awards; and second, when he was no longer a public
application was denied. The conveyance of rights to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez and official, but a private lawyer who represented a client before the office he was
his sales application were subsequently given due course by the Department of previously connected with.
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Held:
The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03
First, the records do not clearly show if the complainants sales application was ever
The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas brought before the Committee on Awards. These circumstances do not show that
belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainants brother. The complainant alleged the respondent did in any way promote, advance or use his private interests in the
that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights discharge of his official duties. To repeat, since the sales application was not
over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. As a result of the respondents brought before the Committee on Awards when the respondent was still a
promptings, the rights to the land were transferred to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. In member, no sufficient basis exists to conclude that he used his position to obtain
personal benefits. We note in this regard that the denial of the complainants sales described private practice of law as one that contemplates a succession of acts of
application over the subject land was made by the DENR, not by the Committee on the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a
Awards. lawyer. In any event, even granting that respondents act fell within the definition
of practice of law, the available pieces of evidence are insufficient to show that the
Second, the complainants allegation that the respondent orchestrated the efforts
legal representation was made before the Committee on Awards, or that the
to get the subject land does not specify how the orchestration was undertaken.
Assurance was intended to be presented before it. These are matters for the
What appears clear in the records is the uncorroborated Sinumpaang Salaysay of
complainant to prove and we cannot consider any uncertainty in this regard against
Miguel Olazo, dated May 25, 2003,[20] categorically stating that the respondent
the respondents favor.
had no interest in the subject land, and neither was he a contracting party in the
transfer of his rights over the subject land. In the absence of any specific charge, Penalty:
Olazos disclaimer is the nearest relevant statement on the respondents alleged
DISMISSED
participation, and we find it to be in the respondents favor. Third, the other
documents executed by Miguel Olazo, that the complainant presented to support
his claim that the respondent exerted undue pressure and influence over his father
(namely: the letter, dated June 22, 1996, to the DENR Regional Director-NCR;[21] Olazo vs. Justice Tinga
the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 12, 1996;[22] and the Sinumpaang Salaysay A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, December 7, 2010 40. Bernardo vs. Atty. Ismael Mejia
dated July 17, 1996[23]), do not contain any reference to the alleged pressure or
force exerted by the respondent over Miguel Olazo. The documents merely Facts:
showed that the respondent helped Miguel Olazo in having his farm lots (covered Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, Ismael F. Mejia, of the
by the proclaimed areas) surveyed. They also showed that the respondent merely following administrative offenses:
acted as a witness in the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 17, 1996. To our mind,
there are neutral acts that may be rendered by one relative to another, and do not 1) misappropriating and converting to his personal use: a) part of the sum of
show how the respondent could have influenced the decision of Miguel Olazo to P27,710.00 entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes on property
contest the complainants sales application. At the same time, we cannot give any belonging to Bernardo, situated in a subdivision known as Valle Verde I; and b) part
credit to the Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, of Manuel. They are of another sum of P40,000.00 entrusted to him for payment of taxes and expenses
not only hearsay but are contrary to what Miguel Olazo states on the record. We in connection with the registration of title of Bernardo to another property in a
note that Manuel had no personal knowledge, other than what Miguel Olazo told subdivision known as Valle Verde V; 2) falsification of certain documents, to wit: a)
him, of the force allegedly exerted by the respondent against Miguel Olazo. a special power of attorney dated March 16, 1985, purportedly executed in his
favor by Bernardo; b) a deed of sale dated October 22, 1982; and c) a deed of
Second Issue: assignment purportedly executed by the spouses Tomas and Remedios Pastor, in
As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the respondent previously Bernardos favor; and
interfered with the sales application covering Manuels land when the former was 3) issuing a check, knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a
still a member of the Committee on Awards. The complainant, too, failed to loan obtained from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter,
sufficiently establish that the respondent was engaged in the practice of law. At replacing said check with others known also to be insufficiently funded. The SC
face value, the legal service rendered by the respondent was limited only in the rendered an en banc decision declaring his disbarment, and Mejia filed a petition
preparation of a single document. In Borja, Sr. v. Sulyap, Inc.,[32] we specifically to reengage in the practice of law which was denied by the court, and filed the
present petition for review of the administrative case with plea for reinstatement insolvent and unable to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and
to the practice of law. the general public, and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of GENBANK’s
assets was held where Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General
Issue:
Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and
Whether or not he should be reinstated to the practice of law? supervision of the court in GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. After
EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-
Held: gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos, his family and cronies. Pursuant to this
Yes, In the petition, Mejia acknowledged his indiscretions in the law profession. mandate, the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion,
Fifteen years had already elapsed since MejiaÕs name was dropped from the Roll reconveyance, restitution against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued
of Attorneys. At the age of seventy-one, he is begging for forgiveness and pleading several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by them by taking
for reinstatement. According to him, he has long repented and he has suffered advantage of their close relationship and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The
enough. Through his reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his children and abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are represented as their counsel, former
redeem the indignity that they have suffered due to his disbarment. After his Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza
disbarment, he put up the Mejia Law Journal, a publication containing his religious as counsel for respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that
and social writings. He also organized a religious organization and named it El Cristo Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central Bank actively intervened in the
Movement and Crusade on Miracle of Heart and Mind. While the age of the liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan et.
petitioner and the length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of al., which subsequently became Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to
disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for reinstatement, the disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, prohibits former government lawyers from accepting “engagement” or
no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he has shown employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in
remorse.Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his the said service. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denyting PCGG’s motion to
punishment has lasted long enough. Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its disqualify respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency
duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when between respondent Mendoza’s former function as SolGen and his present
the penalty imposed has already served its purpose. After all, penalties, such as employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this court
disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders. assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent
Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government
FACTS service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which
In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial he had intervened while in the said service.”
difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial support to Filcapital HELD
Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current
account with Central Bank. Despite the mega loans GENBANK failed to recover The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03.
from its financial woes. The Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem when he
acted as SOlGen and later as counsel of respondents et.al. before the Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics: “ A
Sandiganbayan. However there is still the issue of whether there exists a lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public employ, should
“congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from not after his retirement accept employment in connection with any matter which
representing respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the meaning of “matter” and he has investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ.”
the metes and bounds of “intervention” that he made on the matter. Beyond doubt
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public position as a
that the “matter” or the act of respondent Mendoza as SolGen involved in the case
vehicle to promote or advance his private interests extends beyond his tenure on
at bar is “advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s
certain matters in which he intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this
liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in CFI of Manila. The Court
restriction specifically applicable to lawyers who once held public office.” A plain
held that the advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate
reading shows that the interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who once served in the
GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of
government and 2. relates to his accepting “engagement or employment” in
Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the service.
“drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations
and laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the
scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify. Respondent Mendoza had
nothing to do with the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING
did not participate in the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the IN THE 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER
liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARI’A BAR,
jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner,
Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to
respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while SolGen is an B.M. No. 1154. June 8, 2004
intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in the Civil case of Facts:
sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the “intervention”. The applicable
meaning as the term is used in the Code of Professional Ethics is that it is an act of On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the Office
a person who has the power to influence the subject proceedings. The evil sought of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from
to be remedied by the Code do not exist where the government lawyer does not taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate
act which can be considered as innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing, or disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws or briefing
In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take
abstract principles of law.” The court rules that the intervention of Mendoza is not
the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases before the
significant and substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives assistance in
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, namely: Criminal Cases Noa.
the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court is not strictly as a court of justice but
15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687
as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. In such
for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
a proceeding the role of the SolGen is not that of the usual court litigator protecting
the interest of government. The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which occurred on May 21,
2001, when Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.
wife in front of media practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo: attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.
Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in WON the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling is proper and
his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact shall subsequently barred him from taking his lawyer’s oath and signing on the Roll
that he is not a member of the Bar. Attached to the Petition is an indorsement of Attorneys
letter which shows that Meling used the appellation and appears on its face to have
Held:
been received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City on November 27,
2001. The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate sanctions
upon Haron S. Meling as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Accordingly, the
Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated December 3, 2002, Meling filed his
membership of Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar is hereby SUSPENDED
Answer with the OBC.
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
In his Answer, Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed
is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic.
against him by Melendrez because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former
professor, advised him to settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez. Believing Rationale:
in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has moral
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a matter of
ascendancy over them, he being their former professor in the College of Law,
right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in
Meling considered the three cases that actually arose from a single incident and
the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The requirement
involving the same parties as “closed and terminated.” Moreover, Meling denies
of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
the charges and adds that the acts complained of do not involve moral turpitude.
practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the
As regards the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his practice of law.
communications really contained the word “Attorney” as they were, according to
The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is
him, typed by the office clerk.
satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. The nature of
In its Report and Recommendation dated December 8, 2003, the OBC disposed of whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court in
the charge of non-disclosure against Meling in this wise: determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer.
By concealing the existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of
The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in his
fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to
petition to take the Bar Examinations are ludicrous. He should have known that
impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.
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.
Furthermore, granting arguendo that these cases were already dismissed, he is still
In re Parazo
required to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.
Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are made under oath, and should not be G.R. No. 120348. December 3, 1948
taken lightly by an applicant.
Montemayor, J.
Issue:
FACTS: Angel J. Parazo, a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter, a local daily CAMACHO was the hired counsel of the expelled students in an action for the
of general circulation, manifested a story with the headline— "CLAIM 'LEAK' IN Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injuction in the said civil case. While
LAST BAR TESTS," "Applicants In Uproar, Want Anomaly Probed; One School the civil case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements
Favored," He stated in said report that students of a private university in Sampaloc were separately executed by the expelled students without the knowledge of
had been seen with copies of the mimeographed questions one week prior to the CAMACHO.
exams.
CAMACHO led a complaint against lawyers comprising the PANGULAYAN AND
ISSUE: ASSOCIATES Law firm (lawyers of AMA)because without his knowledge they
procured and effected on separate occasions compromise agreements (letters of
Whether or not Parazo may be compelled by the court to reveal his source within
apology and Re-admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients which in effect
the purview of the exemption “interest of the state.”
required them to waive all kinds of claims they may have with AMA.

CAMACHO averred that such an act was unbecoming of any member of the legal
HELD: profession warranting either disbarment or suspension. PANGULAYAN in his
defense claimed that the agreements were executed for the sole purpose of
Yes, As the conduct of Bar Examinations and the Legal Profession is imbued with effecting the settlement of an administrative case.
General Interest and National Importance, it is but just that the immunity of
newspapermen be disregarded as to protecting its sources from investigation as to ISSUE:
any anomaly that may be alleged in the conduct of the Bar Examinations.
W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES SHOULDBE SUSPENDED/DISBARRED?

HELD:
CAMACHO VS PAGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
YES. It would appear that when individual letters of apology and Re-admission
A.C. 4807 MARCH 22, 2000 Agreements were formalized, CAMACHO was already the retained counsel of the
expelled AMA students.
PRINCIPLE:
PANGULAYAN and associates having full knowledge of this fact still proceeded to
CANON 9: Lawyer should not communicate upon subject of controversy with a negotiate with the expelled AMA students and their parents without at least
party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or communicating the matter to their lawyer CAMACHO.
compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. Lawyer
must avoid everything that may tend to mislead party not represented by counsel This failure of PANGULAYAN and associates, whether by design or oversight, is an
and should not advise him as to law. excusable violation of the canons of profession ethics and in utter disregard of a
duty owing to a colleague.
FACTS:
The excuse that agreements were executed for settling the administrative case was
9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published belied by the Manifestation which states “9 signatories agreed among others to
objectionable features or articles in the school paper. Denial of the appeal to AMA terminate ALL civil, criminal and administrative proceedings they may have against
President Aguiluz gave rise to Civil Case 97-30549. AMA arising from their previous dismissal”. Hence, PANGULAYAN should be
suspended for 3 months.

You might also like