ALCANTARA v PEFIANCO

Facts:
 Atty Pefianco is counsel in a criminal case. One day the private offended party went to the Public Attorney’s Office to have her civil
claims (in the criminal case) settled. Atty Salvani attended to her.
 While Atty. Salvani was talking to the woman, Atty Pefianco shouted at them and questioned the actions of the woman (pertaining to
the settlement).
 Atty Pefianco was asked to calm down but he did not refrain from his outburst. District Public Attorney Alcantara, as head of the
agency, talked to Pefianco.
 But Pefianco called Alcantara an idiot and a stupid (loud enough for other people to hear). A commotion in the office ensued (Pefianco
even tried to attack Alcantara).
 A complaint was filed against Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and for using improper and offensive language.
 Pefianco says that he was just moved by the sight of a crying woman whose husband had been murdered. He also averred that it was
Alcantara who punched him and called him stupid.

Issue:
Did Pefianco violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Held:
Yes. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code which requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward their fellow lawyers. It was Pefianco’s meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so that caused the untoward
incident (shouting at Salvani and the woman). Though he thought that this is righteous, his public behavior can only bring down
the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode respect for it.

Atty Pefianco was fined and reprimanded.

ROYONG v OBLENA

FACTS:
 Royong, the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena, filed a rape case against the latter.
 In her complaint, Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to have intercourse with her and that she refrained to report the
incident because Oblena threatened to kill her family.
 As a result if the sexual intercourse, Royong gave birth to a child
 Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong had a relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse with
him.
 The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently removed from the roll of attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong
before and after the rape incident showed that she is more of a sweetheart than a victim because of the circumstances behind the
incident
 The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that he is a person
of good moral character while having an illicit and adulterous relationship with Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but
also has a legal husband in the province
 Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are different from those originally charged in the complaint but the
court overruled his petition
 After the hearing, the investigators concluded that A.) Oblena used his knowledge in law to commit immoral acts without incurring
any criminal liability; B.) he committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with Angeles, his common-law wife, even after
he became a lawyer and C.) Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his application to take the bar.

ISSUE:
 W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds to cause
Oblena’s disbarment

HELD:
 YES!
 Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape, seduction or adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for
disbarment enumerated in Sec 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, the enumeration is not exclusive and the power of the court to
exclude unworthy members of the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice and can be
exercised even without any statutory authority, in all cases unless properly prohibited by statutes.
 American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful
continuance in the practice of law. The loss requires suspension or disbarment eventhough the statues do not explicitly specify that
as a ground of disbarment.
 Oblena’s argument that he believed himself to be a person with good moral character when he filed his application to take the bar
examination is wrong. One’s own approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral character. Moral character is not a
subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what the person really is and not what he other
people thinks he is.
 His pretension to wait for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal knowledge with her shows the scheming mind of Oblena
and his taking advantage of his knowledge of the law.
 Also, Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed moral ascendancy over her. Oblena took advantage of Royong’s
trust on him.
 Oblena’s contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing the present complain which is entirely different from the
original complaint filed is untenable. There is nothing in the law requiring the Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same
offence charged in the original complaint. What the law provides is that if the Solicitor General finds sufficient grounds to proceed
against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation.

IN RE GALANG

FACTS:
 Ramon Galang has a pending criminal case of slight physical injuries in the City Court of Manila
 He took the Bar Exams 7 times and was allowed to take the lawyer’s oath in 1972. BUT, he was allowed to do so only because he
fraudulently concealed and withheld from the Court his pending criminal case in 1962,63,64,66,67,69 and 71. And in 1966,67,69 and
71… he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case in court

ISSUE: WoN Galang should be disbarred?

HELD: YES!

RATIO:
1. It is well-settled in a long string of cases that concealment of an atty in his application to take the Bar 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. (Guilty of Fraud upon the
Court)
2. Galang’s persistent denial of his involvement in any criminal case (which he later admitted) and his failure to clear his name for 13
years indicate his lack of the requisite attributes of honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is therefore unworthy to be a lawyer.
(he did not offer any explanation for such omission).
3. Among other grounds for disbarment:
a. Misrepresentations of, or false pretenses relative to, the reqt on applicant’s educational attainment
b. Lack of good moral character
c. Fraudulent passing of the Bar exams

ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC

FACTS:
 Ulep prays the Supreme Court to order the Legal Clinic to cease, issuing advertisement similar to or of the same tenor as that of
annexes A and B (p381). Legal Clinic admits the facts of publication of said advertisement that claims that it is not engage in the
practice of law but in the rendering of legal support services through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic
machine.

ISSUE:
 W/N the services offered by Legal Clinic as advertised by it constitutes practice of law
 Whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisement complained of
 HELD:
 According to the IBP, notwithstanding the manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the 2 terms, legal support services
and legal services, common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially without substantial distinction. The use of the
name the Legal Clinic gives the impression that the respondent corporation is being managed by lawyers and that it renders legal
services. The advertisement in question is meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public order and public
policy. This is in violation of Canon 1 Rule 1.02 that is counseling illegal activities.
 Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court which requires that application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and
experience. Applying the case Cayetano vs. Monsod, the court agrees that the activities of the respondent Legal Clinic constitute the
practice of law. Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent does not represent clients in court since law
practice is not limited merely to court appearances.
 Regarding the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Profession Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in
making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, and objective information or statement of facts. The proscription
against advertising of legal services rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession.
 Exceptions:
o Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon
o Ordinary, simple professional card. The card may contain only the statement of his name, the law firm, address and branch of law
practiced.
 Considering that Atty. Nogales who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of the legal clinic is a member of the
Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded with a warning that the repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this
proceeding will be dealt with more severely.

TRIESTE v SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS
 TRIESTE was charged with 23 separate violations of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act* because while being the Municipal
Mayor and member of the Committee on Award of the Municipality of Numancia in Aklan and having financial or pecuniary
interest in TRIGEN Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, he awarded purchases of construction materials by the said
municipality from the said corporation and signing the vouchers as evidence of said purchase
 The Sandiganbayan found TRIESTE guilty and sentenced him to suffer indeterminate penalty of imprisonment and perpetual
disqualification
 TRIESTE, in his defense, alleges that he signed the vouchers only after all the purchases had already been made, delivered and paid
for by the Municipal Treasurer hence he cannot be guilty under the provisions of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

ISSUE W/N TRIESTE IS GUILTY UNDER THE ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

HELD NO

RATIO
 TRIESTE already sold his shares to a certain MRS TUASON before he assumed office and despite the absence of it in the SEC records,
the court finds this fact immaterial as there is no law requiring submission of reports regarding sales and disposal of stocks (what is
required is only submission of annual financial reports)
 The Municipal Treasurer testified that there was never a public bidding hence if there is no bidding then there could be no awarding
by TRIESTE
 Testimonial and documentary evidence both confirm that TRIESTE signed vouchers after payment and since what is contemplated in
the Anti-Graft Law is the actual intervention in the transaction which one has financial or pecuniary interest in, TRIESTE cannot be
held liable under such Law
 TRIGEN did not gain any undue advantage in the transaction such that there is no complaint for non-delivery, underdelivery or
overpricing in the transactions
 Hence, TRIESTE should be acquitted

NOTE
*Section 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers
 (h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any
interest

PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN

*kalokohan na kaso to, 140++ pages (disclaimer) main decision – 28 pages lang
** merong history of Rule 6.03 and other historical stuff sa case

Facts:
 1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Central Bank extended loans to Genbank in the
hope of rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.
 1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbank’s assets was held with the Lucio Tan Group winning the bid.
Solicitor General Mendoza, representing the government, intervened with the liquidation of Genbank.
 1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family and cronies.
 1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila). In relation to this case, PCGG issued several
writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking advantage of their close relationship and
influence with Marcos. Sandiganbayan heard the case.
 Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents.
 1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation in the liquidation of Genbank. Genbank (now Allied
Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from the Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Sandiganbayan denied PCGG’s motion. According to the Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on
behalf of the Central Bank. And Mendoza’s appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in
1986.

Issue:
 W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito Mendoza

Held:
 No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.
 The matter (see 3rd note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank on how to proceed with the
liquidation of Genbank. This is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio
Tan group.
 The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is
considered insubstantial.
 SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to disqualify Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost
a lot of cases against Mendoza. Kyle’s interpretation: PCGG getting desperate
 Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will make it harder for the government to get good lawyers in
the future to work for them because of the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that were related to one’s work as a
government counsel.

Concurring Opinions:
 Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 should have a prescriptive period
 Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was Solicitor General, no Rule 6.03 yet)
 Bottom line, they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied without any prescriptive period and if applied retroactively

Notes:
 Adverse-interest conflicts – where the matter in which the former government lawyer represents a client in private practice is
substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed with the government and the interests of the current and
former are adverse
 Congruent-interest conflicts – the use of the word “conflict” is a misnomer, it does not involve conflicts at all, as it prohibits lawyers
from representing a private person even if the interests of the former government client and the new client are entirely parallel
 Matter – any discrete, isolatable act as well as indentifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party
 Intervention – interference that may affect the interests of others
 CHUA v MESINA, Jr

Facts:
 Atty Simeon Mesina is the legal counsel of spouses Anna Chua and Chua An. The spouses leased a building owned by Mesina’s
family. The property, however, was actually mortgaged in favor of a bank for a loan obtained by Mesina’s mother—Felicisima
Melencio (who was the registered owner as well).
 When Felicisima failed to meet her obligations to the bank, the spouses were convinced by Mesina to help his mother in
consideration for the purchase of the same lot at a certain price. A deed of sale was made conveying the property to the spouses.
 But when the spouses were appraised for capital gains tax, Atty Mesina suggested to execute another deed of sale—this time, the
date of the transaction is 1979, which is before the effectivity of the law imposing capital gains tax.
 Not long after the title was handed over to the spouses, another lessee of the building—Tecson—questioned the transaction as he
was, himself, interested in buying the property. Tecson filed charges for falsification of documents.
 To avoid the falsification charge, Mesina proposed to simulate a deed of sale wherein the spouses would appear to resell the
property to Felicisima. A new title was issued to Felicisima by virtue of said deed but this was entrusted in the hands of the spouses.
 Later on, Tecson desisted from pursuing the charges. Meanwhile, Mesina borrowed the title of the property from the spouses and
promised to transfer, yet again, title in the name of the spouses.
 But Mesina failed to effect such transfer and the spouses learned that the property is being offered to a public sale. Hence the action.
The case was investigated by the IBP and recommended that Mesina be suspended for gross misconduct.

Issue:
Was Atty. Mesina guilty of gross misconduct?

Held:
Blimey! Of course! When Atty Mesina advised Chua to execute a deed of sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains
tax, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes. When he convinced Chua to execute another deed to make
it appear that the property was conveyed back to Felicisima, Mesina committed dishonesty. And when he obtained the title upon
the misrepresentation that he will return the same after 4 months, he committed dishonesty again. There were also badges of fraud
that can be attributed to Mesina as there were marked differences in the signatures of Felicisima.

Clearly, Mesina violated his oath of office and Canons 1, 7, 15, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His disbarment is
warranted.