Legal Ethics Case Digests l Atty. Lood l Kris Ellen L.

Taucan

PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS. AGRAVA

FACTS: A petition was filed by the petitioner for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in
his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office. On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a
circular announcing that he had scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of
determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office. The
petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court
to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the
Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent Director’s holding an examination for the purpose is in
excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution
of patent cases “ does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of
scientific and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to include engineers
and other individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he
stressed that for the long time he is holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been questioned
formally.

ISSUE: ​Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution
of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.

HELD​: It was held that the director of the Philippine Patent Law Office cannot restrict lawyers from
appearing before said Office by requiring them to pass first an examination to cover patent law and
jurisprudence and the rules of practise before said office.

Any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law anywhere before any entity, whether
judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the Philippines without need of passing another examination
The ruling applies to all quasi-judicial bodies.

Aguirre v. Rana

FACTS​: Respondent Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. One day before
the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar,
complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant
charged respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave
misrepresentation.

Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the
May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers ("MBEC") of Mandaon, Masbate.
In this pleading, respondent represented himself as "counsel for and on behalf of Vice Mayoralty
Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading as counsel for Bunan.

In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his "specific assistance" to represent him before
the MBEC. Respondent claims that "he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but as a
person who knows the law."

ISSUE: ​WON respondent is unfit to be a member of the bar.

HELD: Yes, verily, 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. Evidence clearly supports the
charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he
was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority to
practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.

Respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer's oath. However, it is the
signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent
Legal Ethics Case Digests l Atty. Lood l Kris Ellen L. Taucan

passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an
attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to
be performed, namely: his lawyer's oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of
Attorneys.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of
good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this
privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public
trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law
simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from
one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a
license.

In Re: Petition to sign the Roll of Attorneys, Michael Medado

FACTS: ​Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 May 1980, he took the
Attorney’s Oath at the PICC. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but failed
to do so allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several years later,
while rummaging through his things, he found said Notice. He then realized that he had not signed in the
roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance record.

He thought that since he already took the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as important.
The matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys was subsequently forgotten.

In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to provide his roll number for his
MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide
his roll number.

About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in
the Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse by characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor
intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment.

The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit, saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification
for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.

ISSUE​: WON petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

HELD​: Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of a fine and the imposition of
a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.

Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate
penalty of disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions. In this case, said
action is not warranted.

The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good faith in filing the petition himself, albeit after the
passage of more than 30 years; that he has shown that he possesses the character required to be a
Legal Ethics Case Digests l Atty. Lood l Kris Ellen L. Taucan

member of the Philippine Bar; and that he appears to have been a competent and able legal practitioner,
having held various positions at different firms and companies.

However, Medado is not free from all liability for his years of inaction. A mistake of law cannot be utilized
as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.

Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. At the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized
practice of law. Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. However, the Court
imposed upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1)
year after receipt of the Resolution. He was also made to pay a fine of P32,000. Also, during the one-year
period, petitioner was not allowed to engage in the practice of law.

IN RE: PETITION RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES,

EPIFANIO B. MUNESES

FACTS​: Apetition was filed by Epifanio B. Muneses (petitioner) with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
praying that he be granted the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.

The petitioner alleged that he became a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March
21, 1966; that he lost his privilege to practice law when he became a citizen of the United States of
America (USA) on August 28, 1981; that on September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship
pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the "Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003" by
taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Washington,
D.C., USA; that he intends to retire in the Philippines and if granted, to resume the practice of law.

ISSUE​: Has Muneses ceased to become a member of the bar after his naturalization in the US?

HELD​: The Court reiterates its ruling in re: Dacanay that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss thereof
means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the
practice of law. Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. ​Thus, a Filipino lawyer who
becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225,
remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the
practice of law is not automatic. ​R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his
profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such
practice.

Catu v. Rellosa

FACTS​: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon located in
Manila. His mother and brother contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor of
one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises. Thus, a
complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay. Respondent, as punong
barangay, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable
settlement, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.Respondent
entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in the (subsequent ejectment) case. Complainant
filed the instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent committed an act of impropriety as a
Legal Ethics Case Digests l Atty. Lood l Kris Ellen L. Taucan

lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he
presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.

According to the IBP-CBD, committed a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND,
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW​ AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

And violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he intervened while in said service.

ISSUE: ​WON Rellosa could appear before courts while acting as incumbent punong barangay.

HELD: No. Respondent is ​found ​GUILTY of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and
Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore ​SUSPENDED
from the practice of law​ for a period of six months.

Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act complained of.
Therefore, he was not covered by that provision. However, he should have procured prior permission or
authorization from the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations. Respondent
should have therefore obtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local
Government before he entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do.

In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission, respondent not only
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 - ​A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful​, dishonest, immoral or deceitful ​conduct​. (emphasis
supplied)

For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of the legal
profession, respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 7. ​A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE
LEGAL PROFESSION​ AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and
disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.

Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba

FACTS​: In her sworn complaint, as endorsed by the President of the IBP, Nueva Ecija Chapter, Atty.
Evelyn J. Magno charged Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba, a member of the same IBP provincial chapter, with
willful violation of (a) Section 415 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 and (b) Canon 4 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility​.

This disciplinary case arose out of a disagreement that complainant had with her uncle, Lorenzo Inos,
over a landscaping contract they had entered into. In a bid to have the stand-off between them settled,
complainant addressed a letter, styled "Sumbong", ​to Bonifacio Alcantara, barangay captain of Brgy. San
Legal Ethics Case Digests l Atty. Lood l Kris Ellen L. Taucan

Pascual, Talavera, Nueva Ecija. At the barangay conciliation/confrontation proceedings conducted on

January 5, 2003, respondent, on the strength of a Special Power of Attorney signed by Lorenzo Inos,
appeared for the latter, accompanied by his son, Lorenzito. Complainant's objection to respondent's
appearance elicited the response that Lorenzo Inos is entitled to be represented by a lawyer inasmuch as
complainant is herself a lawyer. And as to complainant's retort that her being a lawyer is merely
coincidental.

In her Answer, respondent alleged that the administrative complaint was filed with the Office of the
Punong Barangay, instead of before the Lupong Tagapamayapa, and heard by Punong Barangay
Bonifacio Alcantara alone, instead of the collegial Lupon or a conciliation panel known as pangkat.
Prescinding from this premise, respondent submits that the prohibition against a lawyer appearing to
assist a client in katarungan pambarangay proceedings does not apply. Further, she argued that her
appearance was not as a lawyer, but only as an attorney-in-fact.

In her report, Commissioner Maala stated that the "charge of complainant has been established by clear
preponderance of evidence" and, on that basis, recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of her profession for a period of six (6) months. On the other hand, the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, while agreeing with the inculpatory finding of the investigating commissioner, recommended in
its Resolution that respondent be admonished.

ISSUE​: WON the IBP Resolution be confirmed.

HELD​: No its recommended penalty of mere admonition must have to be modified. Section 415 of the
LGC of 1991​ ​, on the subject ​Katarungang Pambarangay​, provides:

Section 415. clearly requires the personal appearance of the parties in katarungan pambarangay
conciliation proceedings, unassisted by counsel or representative. The rationale behind the personal
appearance requirement is to enable the lupon to secure first hand and direct information about the facts
and issues, the exception being in cases where minors or incompetents are parties. Obviously, laymen of
goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between themselves without what
sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose presence could sometimes obfuscate and
confuse issues and worse, with their penchant to use their analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to
prolong instead of expedite settlement of the case.

Respondent’s defense that the aforequoted Section 415 of the ​LGC does not apply since complainant
addressed her Sumbong to the barangay captain of Brgy. San Pascual who thereafter proceeded to hear
the same is wrong. The prohibition in question applies to all ​katarungan barangay proceedings. Section
412(a) the LGC of 1991 clearly provides that, as a precondition to filing a complaint in court,the parties
shall go through the conciliation process either before the ​lupon chairman or the ​lupon or pangkat.​ As
what happened in this case, the punong barangay​, as chairman of the ​Lupon ​Tagapamayapa,​ conducted
the conciliation proceedings to resolve the disputes between the two parties.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba is hereby FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00) for willful violation of Section 415 of the Local Government Code of 1991 with WARNING that
commission of similar acts of impropriety on her part in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Coronan v. Coronan

FACTS: ​Richard is the older brother of the real Patrick Caronan, who, in 2013 filed a complaint before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP.

The real Patrick Caronan graduated from college with a degree in Business Administration at the
University of Makati (UM). He worked his way up until he was promoted as branch manager of a
convenience store in Muntinlupa.
Legal Ethics Case Digests l Atty. Lood l Kris Ellen L. Taucan

His brother Richard studied at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM). He later transferred to the
Philippine Military Academy (PMA). A year later, he was discharged from PMA and focused on helping
their father in a car rental business.

In 1997, he moved to Nueva Vizcaya with his wife and three children and never went back to school.
Two years later, he told his brother that he enrolled at a law school in Nueva Vizcaya.

In 2004, their mother informed Patrick that his brother passed the Bar examination. Their mother also told
him that Richard used his name and college records from UM to enroll at St. Mary’s University College of
Law.

Patrick brushed aside what his brother did. He said he did not anticipate any adverse consequences to
him until he was summoned by his office in 2009 informing him that the NBI requested his presence for
an investigation against “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan” for qualified theft and estafa.

Patrick also learned that his brother was arrested for gun-running activities, illegal possession of
explosives and violation of the Bouncing Checks Law.

Fo fear of his own safety and because he became the subject of talk in his office, he was forced to resign
from his work. He eventually filed a complaint against his brother.

In his defense, Richard denied all allegations and maintained that his identity can no longer be raised as
an issue as it had already been resolved in an earlier administrative case declared closed and terminated
by this court in AC No. 10074.

Since respondent falsely assumed the name, identity, and academic records of complainant and the real
"Patrick A. Caronan" neither obtained the bachelor of laws degree nor took the Bar Exams, the
Investigating Commissioner recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No.
49069 be dropped and stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. He also recommended that respondent and the
name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted as a member of the Bar;

ISSUE​: WON (a) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name
"Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted to the Bar.

HELD​: Yes. Since complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the Bar Examinations, the IBP
correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

The IBP was also correct in ordering that respondent be barred from admission to the Bar. Under Section
6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be admitted
unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law course.

The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent may later on complete his college education
and earn a law degree under his real name. However, his false assumption of his brother's name, identity,
and educational records renders him unfit for admission to the Bar. The practice of law, after all, is not a
natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a privilege
limited to citizens of ​good moral character. In In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee
Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar Examinations and for Disciplinary Action as Member of the Philippine
Shari 'a Bar, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez,the Court explained the essence of good moral character:

Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation or
from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public
in the place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
corresponds to objective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is not
Legal Ethics Case Digests l Atty. Lood l Kris Ellen L. Taucan

satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal
law. ​Good moral character includes at least common honesty​.

Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by pretending to have the necessary
qualifications to be a lawyer. He also tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged unscrupulous
activities, which resulted in the filing of several criminal cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his
acts do not have a place in the legal profession where one of the primary duties of its members is to
uphold its integrity and dignity.

WHEREFORE​,

(1) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 is ordered ​DROPPED ​and
STRICKEN OFF ​the Roll of Attorneys; (2) respondent is ​PROHIBITED ​from engaging in the practice of
law or making any representations as a lawyer; (3) respondent is ​BARRED ​from being admitted as a
member of the Philippine Bar in the future.