LEGAL PROFESSION

OUTPUTS

SUBMITTED BY:
ED THERESE R. BELISCO
ROCHELLE ANN REYES
STEPHANIE TIRO SITOY
EVELYN M. MAGDADARO
JUDITH GONZALES
ENS ANAGELAINE MANTUA

SUBMITTED TO:
Amy Rose Soler-Rellin
Judge, MTCC Branch 9, Cebu City
Page 1 of 34
a. Name 5 lawyers (living or dead, local or foreign, and not fictional)
whom you believe are worth emulating. Briefly state the legal career
and accomplishments of said lawyers.

1.) Jose "Pepe" Wright Diokno was a Filipino nationalist. He served

as Senator of the Philippines, Secretary of Justice, founding
chair of the Commission on Human Rights, and founder of the
Free Legal Assistance Group. Diokno is the only person to top
both the Philippine Bar Examination and the board exam for
Certified Public Accountants. His career was dedicated to the
promotion of human rights, the defense of Philippine
sovereignty, and the enactment pro-Filipino economic
legislation. In 2004, Diokno was posthumously conferred the
Order of Lakandula with the rank of Supremo—the Philippines'
highest honor. February 27 is celebrated in the country as Jose
W. Diokno Day.

Page 2 of 34
2.)Claudio Teehankee, CCLH (April 18, 1918 – November 27, 1989)
was the 16th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the Philippines from 1987 to 1988.

He was also the most senior associate justice and

chairman of the First Division of the Supreme Court of
the Philippines.
He was known as the court's "activist" justice because of his
dissenting opinions in many vital cases affecting the Marcos
administration. He was the lone dissenter in many cases, such as
the High Tribunal's decision upholding the constitutionality of the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. He also dissented in policies
which would seem to curtail the basic liberties of people. For a
time, Teehankee and Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma would dissent
together. After Muñoz-Palma's retirement, he was joined by
Associate Justice Vicente Abad Santos in dissenting.
It was this activism that made Marcos 'by-pass' him twice for
the position of Chief Justice (the most senior associate justice is
most likely to succeed after the retirement of the Chief Justice) in
1985. It was after the removal of Marcos that he was appointed
Chief Justice by Corazon Aquino in 1987.

Page 3 of 34
 3.) Carpio Morales was the recipient of the University of
the Philippines Alumni Association (UPAA) Distinguished Alumni
Award in Justice/Judiciary during the University of the Philippines'
centenary in 2008. She was given the award “for delivering justice
with courage and untrammelled integrity—a shining paragon to all
magistrates, worthy of emulation and respect.”

In 2011, Carpio Morales was honored as one of the

Ten Outstanding Manilans, an award given to persons who have
immensely contributed to the benefit and development of Manila and
its residents, and whose achievements in their respective fields have
given prestige to the country's capital. She was recognized for her
performance in the field of law and jurisprudence for her
"unquestionable integrity, impartial and fearless dispensation of
justice, and her untarnished and dedicated 40-year government
public service record."

She was then chosen by the Philippine Daily

Inquirer as 2014's Filipino of the Year, together with then-Justice
Secretary Leila De Lima and then-Commission on Audit Chair Grace
Pulido-Tan, was chosen. These three ladies were given the moniker
"Three Furies" and "Tres Marias."

Carpio Morales received an honorary doctor of laws

degree from the University of the Philippines on June 27, 2016. As
stated by then UP President Alfredo Pascual, UP's Board of Regents
conferred to her this honoris causa as "She has herself become the

Page 4 of 34
measure of integrity in the government service, the face of courage
and daring determination, of competence and independence, and of
one resolutely intolerant of corruption."

In the same year, Carpio Morales was given the

Ramon Magsaysay Award, regarded as Asia's Nobel Prize. As
mentioned by the Ramon Magsaysay Board of Trustees board in the
citation, she was elected to receive the award in recognition of “her
moral courage and commitment to justice in taking head-on one of
the most intractable problems in the Philippines; promoting by her
example of incorruptibility, diligence, vision and leadership, the
highest ethical standards in public service.”

In 2017, Carpio Morales received Quezon City's

Tandang Sora Award, in recognition of exhibiting the same values as
Philippine heroine Melchora Aquino, who was known by the moniker
Tandang Sora. These values are honesty, industry, service, word of
honor, caring, and protectiveness. Carpio Morales' dedication and
untarnished reputation as a public servant was also recognized
through this award.

Page 5 of 34
4.) Antonio Tirol Carpio (born October 26, 1949) is an
incumbent Senior Associate Justice and, for four instances, acting
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. He was sworn
in as member of the High Court by President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo on October 26, 2001.

Justice Carpio's personal advocacy is "to protect

and preserve Philippine territorial and maritime sovereignty
specifically in the West Philippine Sea." referring to an area of the
South China Sea claimed by the Philippines.[8]

He believes in the importance of “an understanding

by citizens of all claimant states...either to restrain extreme
nationalism fueled by historical lies or to give hope to a just and
durable settlement of the dispute based not only on the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) but also on
respect for actual historical facts.”

In his speech 'Grand Theft of the Global Commons',

Justice Carpio called "...the fishery Regulations of Hainan a grand
theft of the global commons in the South China Sea." He also
maintains that "The Philippines is fighting a legal battle not only for
itself but also for all mankind. A victory for the Philippines is a victory
for all States, coastal and landlocked, that China has shut out of the
global commons in the South China Sea."

Page 6 of 34
 In 2015, the Philippine Department of Foreign
Affairs sponsored Justice Carpio on a world lecture tour on the South
China Sea dispute. Justice Carpio presented the Philippines’
historical and legal case on the dispute before think tanks and
universities in 30 cities covering 17 countries.

In May 2017, Justice Carpio published an eBook

titled "The South China Sea Dispute: Philippine Sovereign Rights and
Jurisdiction in the West Philippine Sea". It is a collation of his over
140 lectures and speeches "intended to convince the Chinese people
that the nine-dashed line has no legal or historical basis.". The eBook
"explains in layman’s language the South China Sea dispute from A
to Z."

Page 7 of 34
5.)

Cecilia Muñoz-Palma (November 22, 1913 – January 2, 2006)

was a Filipino jurist and the first woman appointed to the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.[1] She was appointed to the Supreme Court
by President Ferdinand Marcos on October 29, 1973, and served
until she reached the then-mandatory retirement age of 65.

While on the Court, Muñoz-Palma penned several opinions

adverse to the martial law government of her appointer, President
Marcos. After retiring from the Court, she became a leading figure in
the political opposition against Marcos, and was elected to the
Batasang Pambansa as an Assemblywoman from Quezon City.
When Corazon Aquino was installed as President following the 1986
People Power Revolution, Muñoz-Palma was appointed chairwoman
of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987
Constitution.

Page 8 of 34
 b.) Give at least 15 skills or competencies needed to be globally
competitive as a lawyer, especially in light of the ASEAN integration.

1. Taking in lots of information and distilling the key points

2. People skills

3. Working to a deadline/ planning ahead

4. Asking the right questions

5. Understanding your client — and the other side

6. good public speakers

7. critical thinking

8.mindfulness

9.Collaboration Skills

10.Time Management Skills

11. Good team worker and leader

12. Open minded

13.Innovative

14.) Resilient

15.)Hardworker

C. Give your expectations from this subject, Legal Profession.

As a group, we have agreed that we expect in depth learning

and understanding the legal profession and see its beauty despite of
its criticisms. We also expect to be quite immersed although we are
still law students so that it will not be hard for us to adjust. Lastly, we
expect that this semester will be both fruitful and fulfilling to each and
everyone.

D.) Give your expectations from the USC College of Law.

Page 9 of 34
 As a group, we expected that USC College of Law will
give us one of the best legal education in the country. We also expect
that law professors will help us along the way. We expect that
although the road to finishing law school may not be easy, but it will
be worthy and the USC’s brand of legal education will help us
survive in the years to come specially if we are already practicing law.

E. Give your short-term goals (1 year) and long-term goals (4 years)

in law school.

As a group, our short term goal in college of law is

passing the year subjects, learning the principles of law and see the
beauty of law despite of its criticisms and deeply understand it not
only in our minds but also by heart. The long term goal is to practice,
have the needed skills and knowledge to apply our learnings in law
school and be a kind of lawyer who works not for money but to the
Filipino community specially those who need legal services the most
like the poor and the needy considering the injustices happening
around us.

F. How will you achieve the foregoing goals?

We have agreed in our group that to achieve such goals,

each and everyone of us should be determined, hardworking, be
open-minded all the times and practice thinking, writing and
communicating like a lawyer even if he/she is still a student. As early
as now, we apply our learnings in law school and put in our mind and
hearts our main goal, to be a lawyer who serve the community and to
be an advocate of justice and peace in the Filipino society.

G. What traits or attitudes should be minimized, if not, avoided, in law

school?

While discussing, we have summarized that what should

be avoided in law school is procrastination, not being a team worker
and at the same time a good team leader, boastfulness and not
having the will and the determination to finish law school. We have

Page 10 of 34
come up to these because we believe that aside of working smart
and intelligently partnered with will and determination to succeed, we
will graduate and pass the bar exams.

Page 11 of 34
CASE DIGESTS

Cayetano vs. Monsod

G.R. 100113, 3september 1991

Facts:

Petitioner Renato Cayetano questioned Respondent Christian

Monsod’s nomination by Pres. Corazon Aquino as Chairman of the
Commission on election. Cayetano opposed the nomination because
Monsod allegedly lacked the Constitutional qualification requirement,
specifically the practice of law of at least 10 years, as stated in Sec.1,
Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. However, the Commission on
Appointment confirmed the nomination.

It was known that Monsod has engaged in the practice of law

for more than 10 years as he worked as a lawyer-economist, lawyer-
manager, lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, lawyer-negotiator of
contract and a lawyer legislator of both the poor and the rich. He also
served as former secretary-general and national chairman of
NAMFREL, as a member of the Constitutional Commission and
Davide Commission and as Chairman of Committee on Accountability
of Public Officers.

Issues:

1. Whether Respondent Monsod possess the required

qualification for the position of Chairman of the COMELEC.

Ruling:

Yes, Atty.Monsod possess the required qualification of having

engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years as his past works

Page 12 of 34
related to law verify and more than satisfy the requirement of at least
ten years practice of law.

The practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. Such that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court. It embraces the preparation of pleadings
and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients
before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying

In the view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed.

Alawi  vs. Alauya

Facts;
Complainant Sophia Alawi was a sales representative (or
coordinator) of E. B. Villarosa and Partners Co., Ltd. Of Davao City, a
real estate and housing company. The respondent, Ashari M. Alauya
is the incumbent executive clerk of court of 4 th Judicial Shari’a district
in Marawi City.  They used to be friends and classmates.
Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on
installments by Alauya of one of the housing units belonging to the
Villarosa and Co. in connection to this, a housing loan was granted to
Alauya by the National Home Mortgage finance Corporation
(NHMFC).
Not so long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of
Villarosa and Co and to NHMFC for the termination of his contract
with the company for reasons that his consent was vitiated by gross
misinterpretation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty, and abuse of confidence.
This was copy furnished for the Vice president.
Upon learning of Alauya’s letters, Alawi filed an administrative
complaint praying that Alauya be dismissed or disciplined on the
ground that he usurped the title attorney which only regular members
of the Philippine bar may properly use.

Page 13 of 34
Alauya justified the use of the title “attorney” by the assertion that it is
lexically synonymous with “counsellor-at-law”, a tittle to which Shari’s
lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of
“attorney” because “counselor” is often mistaken for “councilor”,
“konsehal” or “consial” among Maranaos, connoting a local legislator
beholden to the mayor. Withal, he doesn’t consider himself a lawyer.

ISSUES:
Whether respondent Alauya is allowed to use the title  “attorney”
although only passing thr Shari’s bar.

Ruling:
No, Alauya is not allowed to use the title “attorney”. Persons who
pass the Shari’s courts are not full-pledged members of the Philippine
bar, such that, they can only practice in Shari’s courts. The title of
attorney is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary
degree in the study of law and taken the Bar examination have been
admitted to the IBP and remain members therof in good standing,
and it is only them who are authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction.
Wherefore, respondent Ashari Alauya is hereby reprimanded for the
use of excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent language,
usurping the title attorney and he is warned that any similar or other
impropriety or misconduct in the future will be dealt severely.

AGUIRRE VS RANA
EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003 ]
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
EDWIN L. RANA, RESPONDENT

Facts:

Page 14 of 34
Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
Before the scheduled mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed
against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar.

The Court allowed respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the
lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of
Attorneys up to now.

Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer,

appeared as counsel for a candidate in an election.

On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent

is a municipal government employee, being a secretary of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is
not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or
administrative body.

On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation,

complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice
mayoralty candidate George Bunan without the latter engaging
respondent’s services. Complainant claims that respondent filed the
pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice
mayoralty candidate.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of

law and thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar

Ruling:

The Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law

Page 15 of 34
is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the
legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of
service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.

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.

True, 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
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.

Page 16 of 34
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY
B.M. NO. 1678, December 17, 2007

FACTS:

Benjamin Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960.

He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to

Page 17 of 34
seek medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied for
Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical program. His
application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May
2004.

On July 14, 2006, applied for reacquisition of his citizenship, and

pursuant to RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition of
2003) he reacquired his citizenship. He took his allegiance as a
Filipino citizen before the Consulate General in Toronto, Canada.
Thereafter, returned to the Philippines and intends to resume his law
practice.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay lost his membership in the

Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004

RULINGS:

NO.Applying the provision, the Office of the Bar Confidant opines

that, by virtue of his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, in 2006,
petitioner has again met all the qualifications and has none of the
disqualifications for membership in the bar. It recommends that he be
allowed to resume the practice of law in the Philippines, conditioned
on his retaking the lawyer’s oath to remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a member of the Philippine bar.

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the

highest degree of morality, faithful observance of the rules of the legal
profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education
requirement and payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in
good standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him

Page 18 of 34
unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients
repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional privilege.

Admission to the bar requires certain qualifications. The Rules of

Court mandates that an applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen
of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral
character and a resident of the Philippines. He must also produce
before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and
that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines

The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the

Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases
prescribed by law.15 Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the
Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the
practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso
jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The
practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.

The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of

naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently
reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because "all Philippine
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not
to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA
9225]."17 Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225.
Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his
membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law
practice accrues.

Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in

the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to
its provisions "(he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license

Page 19 of 34
or permit to engage in such practice." 18 Stated otherwise, before a
lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can
resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:

(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership

dues in the IBP;

(b) the payment of professional tax;

(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory

continuing legal education; this is specially significant to refresh
the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and
update him of legal developments and

(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind
him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an
officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a

member of the Philippine bar.

IN RE: PETITION RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE

LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES
EPIFANIO B. MUNESES
B.M. No. 2112, July 24, 2012

FACTS:

On June 8, 2009, Epifanio B. Muneses filed a petition with the Office

of the Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines.

Page 20 of 34
Muneses alleged that he became a member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) on March 21, 1966. He lost his privilege to
practice law when he became a citizen of the United States of
America (USA) in August 28,1981. On September 15, 2006, he
reacquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA9225 or the
“Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquistion of 2003” and took his
allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate
General in Washing D.C., USA; that he intends to retire in the
Philippines and if granted, to resume the practice of law.

ISSUES:

Whether or not EpifanioMuneses can resume the practice of law

upon reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship

RULINGS:

YES.The Court reiterates 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 became 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, the
right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. The 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.

Page 21 of 34
In pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the
practice of law, the OBC required the herein petitioner to submit the
original or certified true copies of the following documents in relation
to his petition:

1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of
Immigration;
5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
6. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual
membership dues;
7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.

The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance,

particularly with the MCLE. After all the requirements were
satisfactorily complied with and finding that the petitioner has met all
the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for membership in
the bar, the OBC recommended that the petitioner be allowed to
resume his practice of law.

Page 22 of 34
WILFREDO M. CATU, complainant, vs. ATTY. VICENTE G.
RELLOSA, respondent||| 

Issues:

Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility?

Facts:

The complainant is Wilfredo M. Catu who is a co-owner of the lot and

building 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 but the demand to vacuate from the premises was
ignored. A complaint against them was filed to
LupongTagapamayapa of Barangay. Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa, as the
punong barangay, summoned them for a conciliation meetings. When
both parties failed to show up, Atty. Rellosaissued a certification for
the filing of the appropriate action in court.The respondent then
appeared as a counsel for the defendant. Complainant filed the
instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent committed
an act of impropriety as a 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.

Ruling:

The respondent did violated the code of Professional Responsibility

and was found guilty. The respondent violated his oath as a lawyer
and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The respondent will be suspended for six months.

Page 23 of 34
ERWIN B. JAVELLANA, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LUIS T. SANTOS,
SECRETARY, respondents.

Issue:

Whether or not DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81

are unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has the sole and
exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law?

Facts:

Atty. Erwin B. Javellana was an elected City Councilor of Bago City,

Negros Occidental. On October 5, 1989, City Engineer Ernesto C.
Divinagracia filed Administrative Case No. C-10-90 againstJavellana
for: (1) violation of Department of Local Government (DLG)
Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum
Circular No. 74-58 and the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees," and (2) for oppression,
misconduct and abuse of authority. Divingarcia complains that
Javellana is an incumbent member of City Council of Bogo Citybutstill
continuous topractice law without securing authority from the
Regional Director as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-
38. On July 8, 1989, Javellana filed a case against Divinagarcia as
counsel for Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang. The case filed
against Divinagarcia is Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with
Damages. Javellana has also appeared as counsel in many other
criminal cases and civil cases without prior authority. On August 13,
1990, they had a formal hearing of Complaint where Divinagracia and
Javellana presented their evidences. On September 10, 1990,
Javellana requested DLG for a permit for him to continue to practice
Law, in which Javellana receives approval. Secretary Luis T. Santos
issued Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 setting some guidelines for
local elective officials that choose to continue their profession like
Javellana on September 21, 1991. On March 25, 1991, Javellana
filed a Motion to dismiss the administrative case against him on the
ground mainly that DLG Memorandum Circular Nos. 80-38 and 90-81

Page 24 of 34
are unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has the sole and
exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law. On May 2, 1991,
Javellana’s motion to dismiss was dismissed by public respondents.
His reconsideration is also denied

Ruling:

The petition was denied due to the lack of merit.

The petitioner’s argument that the Section 90 of the Local

Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-
38 and 90-81 are unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has
the sole and exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law. The
Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81
simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts
of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private
practice of their profession, in those instances where the law allows it.
Section 90 of the Local Government Code does not discriminate
against lawyers and doctors. It applies to all provincial and municipal
officials who are working in any profession.

Page 25 of 34
Magno vs. Velasco-Jacoba

AC No. 6296

November 22, 2005

Facts:

Atty. Evelyn Magno filed a sworn complaint charging

respondent Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba with willful violation of (1)
Section 415 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and (2) Canon 4
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.The administrative case
was a result of the disagreement between the complainant with her
uncle Inos over a landscaping contract. On January 5, 2003,
respondent, on the strength of a Special Power of Attorney signed by
Lorenzo Inos, appeared for the latter. 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, respondent countered that she is
appearing as an attorney-in-fact, not as counsel, of Lorenzo
Inos. Complainant enumerated instances tending to prove that
respondent had, in the course of the conciliation proceedings before
the Punong Barangay, acted as Inos Lorenzo's counsel instead of as
his attorney-in-fact.

Respondent, in her answer, alleged that the complaint was filed

with the Office of the Punong Barangay instead of the
LupongTagapamayapaand 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 katarunganpambarangay proceedings does not apply. 
Further, she argued that her appearance was not as a lawyer, but
only as an attorney-in-fact. 

Commissioner Maala recommended that suspension of the

respondent from the practice of her profession for a period of 6
months.
Page 26 of 34
Issue: Whether or not respondent violated Section 415 of the LGC.

Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court joined the IBP Commission on

Bar Discipline in its determination that respondent transgressed the
prohibition prescribed in Section 415 of the LGC. However, its
recommended penalty of mere admonition must have to be modified.
Doubtless, respondent's conduct tended to undermine the laudable
purpose of the katarungan pambarangay system. What compounded
matters was when respondent repeatedly ignored complainant's
protestation against her continued appearance in the barangay
conciliation proceedings.

The provision clearly requires the personal appearance of the

parties in katarunganpambarangay 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.
There can be no quibbling that 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. Worse still, the
participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their analytical
skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite
settlement of the case.The prohibition against the presence of a
lawyer in a barangay conciliation proceedings was not, to be sure,
lost on respondent. The complainant wrote her Sumbong with the end
in view of availing herself of the benefits of barangay justice. That she
addressed her Sumbong to the barangay captain is really of little
moment since the latter chairs the LupongTagapamayapa. 

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

Page 27 of 34
parties shall go through the conciliation process either before
the lupon chairman or the lupon or pangkat. 

In this case, the punong barangay, as chairman of

the LuponTagapamayapa, conducted the conciliation proceedings to
resolve the disputes between the two parties.

Page 28 of 34
Re: 2003 Bar Examinations

BM No. 1222

February 4, 2004

Facts:

In 2003, Justice Jose Vitug, Chairman of the 2003 Bar

Examinations Committee, was apprised of a rumored leakage in the
examination on Mercantile Law. Justice Vitug reported said matter to
Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. and to the other members of the
Court. The Court resolved to nullify the examination in Mercantile law
and hold another examination on October 4, 2003, 8pm at De La
Salle University.

The Court received numerous petitions and motions expressing

the agreement to the nullification of the bar examinations in
Mercantile Law but voicing strong reservations against the holding of
another examination on the subject. Alternative proposals submitted
to theCourt included the spreading out of the weight of Mercantile
Law among the remaining seven bar subjects, i.e.,to determine and
gauge the results of the examinations on the basis only of the
performance of examinees in the seven bar subjects. The Court
issued a resolution cancelling the scheduled examination in
Mercantile Law and to allocate the fifteen percentage points among
the seven bar examination subjects.

The 25% of the questions were prepared by Justice Vitug and

the other 75% were done by Atty. Balgos. Atty. Balgos thought that
his computer was safely insulated from third parties. However, his
computer was in fact interconnected with the computers of his nine
assistant attorneys, namely: ZoraydaZosobrado, Claravel Javier,
RolynneTorio, Mark WarnerRosal, CharlynneSubia, Danilo De
Guzman, Enrico G. Velasco, Concepcion De los Santos, Pamela
June Jalandoni. All of them professed to know nothing about the
leakage.

Page 29 of 34
 Atty. Danilo De Guzman admitted to Atty. Balgos that he
downloaded the test questions from Atty. Balgos’ computer. Atty.
Balgos was convinced that De Guzman was the source of the
leakage of his test questions in Mercantile Law. The questions were
faxed to Ronan Garvida then to Betans Randy Iñigo and James
Bugain. Randy Iñigo passed a copy or copies of the same
questions to another Betan, Alan Guiapal, who gave a copy to the
MLQU-Beta Sigma [Lambda's] Most Illustrious Brother, Ronald F.
Collado, who ordered the printing and distribution of 30 copies to the
MLQU's 30 bar candidates.

Atty. De Guzman committed a criminal act of larceny, theft of

intellectual property and unlawful infraction of Atty. Balgos’ right to
privacy of communication, and to the security of his papers and
effects against unauthorized search and seizure — rights zealously
protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. He transgressed
the very first canon of the lawyers' Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that '[a]lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law
and legal processes, Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and Canon 7 - A
LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. De Guzman should be disbarred.

Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court acting on the recommendation

resolved to disbar Atty. De Guzman.

The Court adopts the report, including with some modifications

the recommendation, of the Investigating Committee. The Court,
certainly will not countenance any act or conduct that can impair not
only the integrity of the Bar Examinations but the trust reposed on the
Court.

Page 30 of 34
 The Investigating Committee recommends that Attorney Danilo
De Guzman be DISBARRED for he had shown that he is morally unfit
to continue as a member of the legal profession, for grave
dishonesty, lack of integrity, and criminal behavior. In addition, he
should make a written public apology and pay damages to the
Supreme Court for involving it in another 'bar scandal,' causing the
cancellationof the mercantile law examination, and wreaking havoc
upon the image of this institution.

"With regard to recommending measures to safeguard the

integrity of the bar examinations and prevent a repetition of future
leakage in the said examinations, inasmuch as this matter is at
present under study by the Court’s Committee on Legal Education
and Bar Matters, as an aspect of proposals for bar reforms, the
Investigating Committee believes it would be well-advised to refrain
from including in this report what may turn out to be duplicative, if not
contrary, recommendations on the matter."

PROVISIONS:

Non-lawyers who may be authorized to appear in court:

1. Cases before the MTC:  Party to the litigation,  in person OR
through an agent or friend or appointed by him for that purpose
(Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC)
2. Before any other court: Party to the litigation, in person (Ibid.)
3. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly
licensed member of the Bar is not available: the judge may
appoint a non-lawyer who is:
1. resident of the province
2. of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in
his defense (Rule 116, Sec. 7, RRC).
4. Legal Aid Program – A senior law student, who is enrolled in a
recognized law school’s clinical education program approved by
the supreme Court may appear before any court without
compensation, to represent indigent clients, accepted by the
Legal Clinic of the law school.  The student shall be under the
direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly accredited
by the law school.

Page 31 of 34
 5. Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear before the
NLRC or any Labor Arbiter, if
1. they represent themselves, or if
2. they  represent their organization or members thereof (Art
222, PO 442, as amended).
6. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a claimant
before the Cadastral Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9).
Public Officials who cannot engage in the private practice of
Law in the Philippines:
1. Judges and other officials as employees of the Supreme
Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35, RRC).
2. Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid.)
3. Government prosecutors (People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109).
4. President, Vice-President, members of the cabinet, their
deputies and assistants (Art. VIII Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution).
5. Members of the Constitutional Commission (Art IX-A, Sec. 2,
1987 Constitution)
6. Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8 (2nd par), 1987
Constitution)
7. All governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No. 7160, Sec.
90).
8. Those prohibited by special law
Public Officials with Restrictions in the Practice of Law:
1. 1.      No Senator as member of the House of Representative
may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice as
before the Electoral Tribunals, as quasi-judicial and other
administration bodies (Art. VI, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution).
2. Under the Local Government Code (RA 7160, Sec.
91)Sanggunian members may practice their professions
provided that if they are members of the Bar, they shall not:
1. appear as counsel before any court in any civil case
wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or
instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
2. appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer
or employee of the national or local government is accused
of an offense committed in relation to his office;
3. collect any fee for their appearance in administrative
proceedings involving the local government unit of which he
is an official;
4. use property and personnel of the government except
when the Sanggunian member concerned is defending the
interest of the government.
Page 32 of 34
3. Under RA 910, Sec. 1, as amended, a retired justice or judge
receiving pension from the government, cannot act as counsel in
any civil case in which the Government, or any of its subdivision
or agencies is the adverse party or in a criminal case wherein an
officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense
in relation to his office.

Page 33 of 34
 SUMMARY:
Edgardo M. Villareal
II, Legal Profession,
First Edition (2002)

Page 34 of 34