Professional Documents
Culture Documents
All Cases 1 - 40
All Cases 1 - 40
3, 1991 GR 1000113
a. Facts :
i. Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C.
Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the
nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991,
he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as
Chairman of the COMELEC.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and
taxpayer, filed the instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying
that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed
the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues
paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception
in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as
lawyer for more than ten years.
b. Issue:
i. Whether or not the appointment of Monsod is legal considering that he
has not been practicing his legal profession?
c. Ruling:
i. The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1(1), Article IX-C:
"There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment,
at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and
must not have been candidates for any elective position in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years."
ii. The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted during the public
hearings on Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that he
possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. The judgment
rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged
power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
(Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only where such grave abuse of
discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the
Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for the
exercise of the Court's corrective power, since no abuse, much less a
grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for has
been clearly shown
b. Issue
i. Whether or not the director of the patent office has the authority to
impose examinations for the practice of law in the patent office
c. Ruling
i. The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with
respect to admission to the practice of law in the Philippines 1 and any
member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law
anywhere and before any entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or
administrative, in the Philippines.
ii. The nature of the patent office concerns the practice of law. Another
aspect is that should a question arise from the decisions of the patent
office, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court therefore it follows that
the nature and jurisdiction of such office is under the Supreme Court and
not that of a quasijudicial body.
The contention of respondent that the laws of the united states should
be followed because our laws are patterned to them does not hold
water. Respondent Director concludes that Section 78 of Republic Act
No. 165 being similar to the provisions of law just reproduced, then he
is authorized to prescribe the rules and regulations requiring that
persons desiring to practice before him should submit to and pass an
examination. We reproduce said Section 78, Republic Act No. 165, for
purposes of comparison:
"SEC. 78. Rules and regulations. — The Director
subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, shall
promulgate the necessary rules and regulations, not
inconsistent with law, for the conduct of all business in the
Patent Office."
The above provisions of Section 78 certainly and by far, are different
from the provisions of the United States Patent Law as regards
authority to hold examinations to determine the qualifications of those
allowed to practice before the Patent Office.
Were we to allow the Patent Office, in the absence of an
express and clear provision of law giving the necessary sanction, to
require lawyers to submit to and pass on examination prescribed by it
before they are allowed to practice before said Patent Office, then
there would be no reason why other bureaus specially the Bureaus of
Internal Revenue and Customs, where the business in the same area
are more or less complicated, such as the presentation of books of
accounts, balance sheets, etc., assessments exemptions, depreciation,
these as regards the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the classification
of goods, imposition of customs duties, seizures, confiscation, etc., as
regards the Bureau of Customs, may not also require that any lawyer
practising before them or otherwise transacting business with them on
behalf of clients, shall first pass an examination to qualify.
In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members of
the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice law, and in
good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office,
for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the
interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the
Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of
evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the
Patent Director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals
from his orders and decisions are, under the law, taken to the Supreme
Court.
b. Issue
i. Whether or not Fule is violating Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules when he
acted as counsel for the accused.
c. Ruling
i. Section 32 of Rule 127 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules), which
provides that "no judge or other official or employee of the superior
courts or of the office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private
practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients."
ii. He claims that City Attorney Fule, in appearing as private prosecutor in
the case was engaging in private practice. We believe that the isolated
appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice,
within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than
an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a
succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual
exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been
interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the
public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. The
appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as
determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. The following
observation of the Solicitor General is noteworthy:
iii. "Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one
must have presented himself to be in the active and continued
practice of the legal profession and that his professional services
are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his
livelihood or in consideration of his said services."
iv. For one thing, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been
given permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of Justice, to
represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative.
i. Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case.
They lost in said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he
failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his
motion was denied. He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied
his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for
reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before
the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute
resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as
unconstitutional. He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to
surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to
continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are
men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons
their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the
Constitution with impunity. He further alleged that due to the minute
resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without knowing the
reasons why and that he became “one of the sacrificial victims before the
altar of hypocrisy.” He also stated “that justice as administered by the
present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf
and dumb.”
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the
Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate.
Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though as he now
argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may be
permitted “to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should
be taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing.” He said he
preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is “the complainant,
prosecutor and Judge.” Almacen was however unapologetic.
b. Issue
i. Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.
c. Ruling
i. Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed
because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full
opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be
unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of
the Supreme Court is to decide “only those cases which present
questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the
particular facts and parties involved.” It should be remembered that a
petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of
right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully
explain the court’s denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already
mentioned in the Court of Appeals’ opinion.
ii. On Almacen’s attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded
said criticisms as uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous,
grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an
officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly
respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and
judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a
fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as
of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the
cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall
not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair
criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
iii. In the case at bar, Almacen’s criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer,
he should have known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to
notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of
paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to
blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended
indefinitely.
b. Issue
i. Is respondent a common carrier?
ii. Is the respondent liable for the loss of the cartons of milk due to force
majeure?
c. Ruling
i. The Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby DENIED and the Decision
of the Court of Appeals dated 3 August 1977 is AFFIRMED.
ii. The occurrence of the loss must reasonably be regarded as quite beyond
the control of the common carrier and properly regarded as a fortuitous
event. It is necessary to recall that even common carriers are not made
absolute insurers against all risks of travel and of transport of goods, and
are not held liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen or are
inevitable, provided that they shall have complied with the rigorous
standard of extraordinary diligence.
iii. We, therefore, agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals that
private respondent Cendana is not liable for the value of the undelivered
merchandise which was lost because of an event entirely beyond private
respondent's control.
7. In the matter of petition for disbarment of Telesforo Diao AC # 244 March 29, 1962
a. Facts
ii. About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely
represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the
requisite academic qualifications. The matter was in due course referred
to the Solicitor General who caused the charge to be investigated; and
later he submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased
from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his
petition for examination in this Court, he (Diao) had not completed,
before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education
prescribed by the Department of Private Education, specially, in the
following particulars:
iii. (a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
iv. (b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A.
diploma therefrom — which contradicts the credentials he had submitted
in support of his application for examination, and of his allegation therein
of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education".
b. Issue
i. Whether or not Diao should be removed as a lawyer due to his material
misrepresentation of an essential requirement.
c. Ruling
i. This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or
"confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had his application
disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also
have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he
began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before
obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been
permitted to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the
applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous
to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the
required pre-legal education(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of
Private Education," (emphasis on "previous").
ii. Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar
examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed to
take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such
admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is
hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is
immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study
in the regular manner is equally essential..
iii. The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the
name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his
lawyer's diploma within thirty days. So ordered.
8. Khan vs Simbilio Aug 19, 2003 AC 5299
Advertising
FACTS
Atty. Simbillo was charged for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services
for advertising himself in several leading newspapers as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist.”
He claimed that he can guarantee a court decree within 4 to 6 months and that the fee was P
48,000.00.
Atty. Khan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper
advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
Atty. Simbillo answered the charges against him and he prayed that he be exonerated
from all the charges and the Court promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legal services
offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as it is dignified.
The case was referred to the IBP and they found the respondent guilty. Simbillo was
then suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year with warning. Respondent filed an
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and was denied.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.
ISSUES
Whether or not the advertisement of Atty. Simbillo was against the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rules of Court
RULING
Yes, it has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. The gaining
of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate
their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for
solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is
made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one(1) year and was sternly
warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more severely.
Case No. 23
IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS, JR.
B.M. No. 810
January 27, 1998
FACTS:
Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas recently passed the 1996 BAR Examination but he was not
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath because he was under probation due to his previous
conviction for the crime Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide for his participation in the
initiation rites of the LEX TALLONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the San Beda College of Law,
which resulted to the death of the neophyte Raul I. Camaligan due to the personal violence
inflicted upon him. Cuevas was discharged from the probation on May 16, 1995 and then filed a
petition that he be allowed to take lawyer’s oath at the court’s most convenient time. The
Court then requires the comment of Atty. Gilbert D. Camaligan, the father of the deceased
before acting on petitioner’s application. The father of the deceased then said that he has
already forgiven the petitioner in the criminal case for the death of his son and he now let the
Hon. Court decide on the matter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is morally fit to be admitted to the noble profession of
the law and be allowed to take lawyer’s oath?
RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. is discharge from
probation without any infraction of the attendant conditions therefore and the various
certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has
taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character and atone for the
unfortunate death of Raul I. Camaligan. The Court is prepared to give him the benefit of the
doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of the youth to be rash, temerarious and
uncalculating. Let it be stressed to herein petitioner that the lawyer’s oath is not a mere
formality recited but a conduct to himself to live strictly according to his oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, he will now be in better position to render legal and
other services to the more unfortunate members of society. Accordingly, the Court hereby
resolved to allow petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. to take the lawyer’s oath and to sign the Roll
of Attorneys on a date to be set by the Court.
Case No. 24
Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic, Inc.
B.M. 553
June 17, 1993
FACTS:
The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales in 1984 with an aim to move
toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms.
Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latter’s
advertisements which contain the following:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE.ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT.VISA.
THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am— 6:00 pm 7-Flr.
Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE.
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning
Monday to Friday during office hours.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-
7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal
Problems” in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is
composed of specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is
even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he
and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it.
The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor,
litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors
and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the
US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE:
Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
RULING:
YES. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation
to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly
beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the
practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic
which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly
admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice
law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use
only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards
of the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to
promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which
their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right
and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to
magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service
and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the
following as allowed forms of advertisement as enumerated: Advertisement in a reputable law
list, use of ordinary simple professional card and listing in a phone directory but without
designation as to his specialization.
Case No. 25
Tolosa vs Cargo
A.M. No. 2385
March 8, 1989
FACTS:
Several issues were also raised alleging immorality and altercations between the complainant
and the respondent.
ISSUE:
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the Solicitor General in not
finding the respondent guilty of immorality due to lack of sufficient evidence. However, the
court ruled further to warn Atty. Alfredo Cargo and reprimand him of conduct unbecoming a
member of the Bar and an officer of the court.
Case No. 26
Aguirre vs Rana
B.M. 1036
June 10, 2003
FACTS:
Respondent is a successful bar passer who was allowed only to take oath but not to sign
the roll of attorneys pending the resolution of the complaint of the petitioner who charges
respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave
misrepresentation. Apparently, the respondent appeared as counsel to an
election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (“MBEC”) of Masbate
before he took his oath and signed the rolls of attorneys. In his comment, respondent alleges he
only provide specific assistance and advice not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law.
He contends that he did not sign the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar Confidant was
tasked to investigate and its findings disclosed that according to the minutes of the meeting of
the MBEC, the respondent actively participated in the proceeding and signed in the pleading as
counsel for the candidate.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is fit for admission to the bar?
RULING:
NO. The court held that respondent did engage in unauthorized practice of law. It held
that all the activities he participated during that time involves the practice of law despite the
fact that he is not yet a member of the Bar. The right to practice law is not a right but a privilege
extended to those morally upright and with the proper knowledge and skills. It involves strict
regulation, one of which is on the moral character of its members. 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. Because the court finds
respondent not morally fit to be admitted in the Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already
took his oath, he was denied for admission to the bar.
Case No. 27
Monson vs Reyes
A.C. 1056
October 27, 1975
FACTS:
Complainant Saturnino S. Monzon charged the respondent Atty. Arsenio Reyes with:
violation of lawyer’s oath in that the lawyer shall do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of
any in court, and corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to case without
proper authority. The antecedent facts of this case is based on Monzon vs CFI, Manila CA-GR.
No. 42375. Accordingly, an intestate proceeding with CFI Manila was filed by Catalino C. Fausto,
surviving spouse of Ramona Rono who died on July 31, 1962. The decedent left 5 heirs, her
husband, Catalino and 4 children. On March 1, 1965, Catalino Fausto executed a deed of
absolute sale whereby he sold unto Gertrudes Francisco his ½ share, interest, and participation
on two parcel of land in the estate of Ramona Rono for P 65,000.00. The thermos fax copy of
the deed of sale which was ratified before the Notary Pubic Arsenio Reyes does not bear the
signature of the vendor and the vendee but the same bears the signatures of the 2 witness
thereto. Atty. Reyes filed a petition with the probate court for the approval of the said deed of
sale which was given due course on February 18, 1966. However, pending that petition Mr.
Fausto died on October 10, 1965. His second wife filed an intestate proceedings to settle the
estate of fausto, with the herein defendant as her counsel. On October 7, 1967, Fe Fausto-
Monzon, one of the children and heirs of spouses Ramona and Catalino also died and her
surviving spouse, the complainant was appointed to substitute for her in both intestate estate
of her mother and father. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for relief alleging the
absence of vendors and vendee’s signature in the deed of absolute sale. Court of appeals
dismissed the petition citing the answer of Atty. Reyes where he represented that the subject
deed of sale bears the signature of both buyer and seller, and that there was also a final deed of
sale executed on July 5, 1965 bearing the signature of buyer and seller. He stated further that
the original of the two documents were filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila. The
disbarment was based on the alleged false statement made by respondent in pleadings filed
where he stated that the original documents of the deeds of sale were filed with Register of
Deeds in Manila, when in truth what he filed was only a certified true copy thereof. In the
disbarment proceeding, respondent in his answer stated that he had the original of the same
deed and that he did not file the same with Register of Deed Manila. What he did file according
to him was a certified true copy which he attached to the adverse claim he filed there with.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent be disbarred for violating the attorney’s oath.
RULING:
NO. The respondent’s conduct is a careless and reckless behavior in making inaccurate
or untruthful statements before the Court of Appeals as well as before the office of Solicitor
General, among others. As it does not appear that substantial prejudice has been actually
caused the complainant or the forum to whom the statements have been addressed, the truth
or falsity of the statement or representation in question being irrelevant in the resolution of the
cases at hand, the same does not justify disbarment. Respondent is reprimanded for being
reckless in making statement of fact in his pleadings and admonished that a repetition of such
offense would be dealt with more severely.
Case No. 28
Santos vs Beltran
A.C. 5858
December 11, 2003
FACTS:
Rogelio R. Santos filed an administrative complaint of disbarment against Atty. Rodolfo
C. Beltran on the grounds of gross misconduct and malpractice. It was somehow in November
9, 1999 where the complainant filed a verified complaint against the respondent before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline alleging that when respondent
notarized the subject Deed of Donation, his siblings did not personally appear before him.
Complainant further said that his siblings signed the Deed of Donation not in the law office of
the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita Subdivision, it has been said that respondent
disregard Article 904 of the Civil Code which said that an alien cannot own real properties in the
Philippines, which refers to the siblings of the complainant who are already an American
citizens. Alleging further that the respondent appeared as private investigator for falsification of
public document and that respondent represented a conflicting interest when he entered his
appearance as defense counsel in an ejectment case of his former client Erlinda Santos-
Crawford. Respondent denied all the allegations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Beltran be disbarred.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court only suspended Atty. Rodolfo Beltran from the practice of law
for a period of one year effective immediately for being guilty of representing conflicting
interests and is sternly warned that a commission of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt more severely. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. There is a conflict of interest when a
lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or
not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty
to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be
opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has
been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new
retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in
any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance
thereof.
Case No. 22
Pedro Oparel, Sr. vs Atty. Dominador Abaria
A.C. No. 959
July 30, 1971
FACTS:
Complainant Pedro Oparel, who allegedly claimed that he was a pauper, filed a
complaint against Dominador Abaria, a member of the Philippine Bar, for the reason that the
respondent acted with dishonesty in handling the case of complainant regarding for the
recovery of damages from his employer for the injuries he suffered. Oparel complained that he
only received the amount of P500.00 while Atty. Abaria got the larger amount of P5,000.00. The
respondent answered to his complaint and he admitted that he received the alleged sum of
P5,000.00 by stating that P3,500.00 was spent by the employer for plaintiffs operation and
medical bills, another P1,000.00 for his family during his confinement in the hospital and then
the P500 received in cash by way of additional settlement. Respondent then prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent acted with dishonesty in handling the case of the
complainant?
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court said that it was just a misunderstanding between him and his
client since the client happens to be poor and unlettered, seeking to enforce what he considers
his just demands against an employer, it is even more imperative that matters be explained to
him with all precision and clarity. The Supreme Court said that he should not invite loss of trust
by inadvertence or even by failure to use the simplest and most understandable language in
communicating matters. For he may lend himself to the suspicion that he is lacking in candor
and may be taking undue advantage of his client for his own profit and advantage in any dealing
with the adverse party. Hence, the administrative case that was filed against Abaria is
dismissed.
Case No. 23
IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS, JR.
B.M. No. 810
January 27, 1998
FACTS:
Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas recently passed the 1996 BAR Examination but he was not
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath because he was under probation due to his previous
conviction for the crime Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide for his participation in the
initiation rites of the LEX TALLONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the San Beda College of Law,
which resulted to the death of the neophyte Raul I. Camaligan due to the personal violence
inflicted upon him. Cuevas was discharged from the probation on May 16, 1995 and then filed a
petition that he be allowed to take lawyer’s oath at the court’s most convenient time. The
Court then requires the comment of Atty. Gilbert D. Camaligan, the father of the deceased
before acting on petitioner’s application. The father of the deceased then said that he has
already forgiven the petitioner in the criminal case for the death of his son and he now let the
Hon. Court decide on the matter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is morally fit to be admitted to the noble profession of
the law and be allowed to take lawyer’s oath?
RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. is discharge from
probation without any infraction of the attendant conditions therefore and the various
certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has
taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character and atone for the
unfortunate death of Raul I. Camaligan. The Court is prepared to give him the benefit of the
doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of the youth to be rash, temerarious and
uncalculating. Let it be stressed to herein petitioner that the lawyer’s oath is not a mere
formality recited but a conduct to himself to live strictly according to his oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, he will now be in better position to render legal and
other services to the more unfortunate members of society. Accordingly, the Court hereby
resolved to allow petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. to take the lawyer’s oath and to sign the Roll
of Attorneys on a date to be set by the Court.
Case No. 24
Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic, Inc.
B.M. 553
June 17, 1993
FACTS:
The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales in 1984 with an aim to move
toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms.
Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latter’s
advertisements which contain the following:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE.ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT.VISA.
THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am— 6:00 pm 7-Flr.
Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE.
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning
Monday to Friday during office hours.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-
7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal
Problems” in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is
composed of specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is
even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he
and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it.
The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor,
litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors
and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the
US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE:
Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
RULING:
YES. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation
to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly
beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the
practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic
which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly
admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use
only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards
of the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to
promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which
their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right
and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to
magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service
and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the
following as allowed forms of advertisement as enumerated: Advertisement in a reputable law
list, use of ordinary simple professional card and listing in a phone directory but without
designation as to his specialization.
Case No. 25
Tolosa vs Cargo
A.M. No. 2385
March 8, 1989
FACTS:
Several issues were also raised alleging immorality and altercations between the complainant
and the respondent.
ISSUE:
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the Solicitor General in not
finding the respondent guilty of immorality due to lack of sufficient evidence. However, the
court ruled further to warn Atty. Alfredo Cargo and reprimand him of conduct unbecoming a
member of the Bar and an officer of the court.
Case No. 26
Aguirre vs Rana
B.M. 1036
June 10, 2003
FACTS:
Respondent is a successful bar passer who was allowed only to take oath but not to sign
the roll of attorneys pending the resolution of the complaint of the petitioner who charges
respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave
misrepresentation. Apparently, the respondent appeared as counsel to an
election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (“MBEC”) of Masbate
before he took his oath and signed the rolls of attorneys. In his comment, respondent alleges he
only provide specific assistance and advice not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law.
He contends that he did not sign the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar Confidant was
tasked to investigate and its findings disclosed that according to the minutes of the meeting of
the MBEC, the respondent actively participated in the proceeding and signed in the pleading as
counsel for the candidate.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is fit for admission to the bar?
RULING:
NO. The court held that respondent did engage in unauthorized practice of law. It held
that all the activities he participated during that time involves the practice of law despite the
fact that he is not yet a member of the Bar. The right to practice law is not a right but a privilege
extended to those morally upright and with the proper knowledge and skills. It involves strict
regulation, one of which is on the moral character of its members. 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. Because the court finds
respondent not morally fit to be admitted in the Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already
took his oath, he was denied for admission to the bar.
Case No. 27
Monson vs Reyes
A.C. 1056
October 27, 1975
FACTS:
Complainant Saturnino S. Monzon charged the respondent Atty. Arsenio Reyes with:
violation of lawyers oath in that the lawyer shall do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of
any in court, and corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to case without
proper authority. The antecedent facts of this case is based on Monzon vs CFI, Manila CA-GR.
No. 42375. Accordingly, an intestate proceeding with CFI Manila was filed by Catalino C. Fausto,
surviving spouse of Ramona Rono who died on July 31, 1962. The decedent left 5 heirs, her
husband, Catalino and 4 children. On March 1, 1965, CatalinoFausto executed a deed of
absolute sale whereby he sold unto Gertrudes Francisco his ½ share, interest, and participation
on two parcel of land in the estate of Ramona Rono for P 65,000.00. The thermos fax copy of
the deed of sale which was ratified before the Notary Pubic Arsenio Reyes does not bear the
signature of the vendor and the vendee but the same bears the signatures of the 2 witness
thereto. Atty. Reyes filed a petition with the probate court for the approval of the said deed of
sale which was given due course on February 18, 1966. However, pending that petition Mr.
Fausto died on October 10, 1965. His second wife filed an intestate proceedings to settle the
estate of fausto, with the herein defendant as her counsel. On October 7, 1967, Fe Fausto-
Monzon, one of the children and heirs of spouses Ramona and Catalino also died and her
surviving spouse, the complainant was appointed to substitute for her in both intestate estate
of her mother and father. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petitionfor relief alleging the
absence of vendors and vendee’s signature in the deed of absolute sale. Court of appeals
dismissed the petition citing the answer of Atty. Reyes where he represented that the subject
deed of sale bears the signature of both buyer and seller, and that there was also a final deed of
sale executed on July 5, 1965 bearing the signature of buyer and seller. He stated further that
the original of the two documents were filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila. The
disbarment was based on the alleged false statement made by respondent in pleadings filed
where he stated that the original documents of the deeds of sale were filed with Register of
Deeds in Manila, when in truth what he filed was only a certified true copy thereof. In the
disbarment proceeding, respondent in his answer stated that he had the original of the same
deed and that he did not file the same with Register of Deed Manila. What he did file according
to him was a certified true copy which he attached to the adverse claim he filed there with.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent be disbarred for violating the attorney’s oath.
RULING:
NO. The respondent’s conduct is a careless and reckless behavior in making inaccurate
or untruthful statements before the Court of Appeals as well as before the office of Solicitor
General, among others. As it does not appear that substantial prejudice has been actually
caused the complainant or the forum to whom the statements have been addressed, the truth
or falsity of the statement or representation in question being irrelevant in the resolution of the
cases at hand, the same does not justify disbarment. Respondent is reprimanded for being
reckless in making statement of fact in his pleadings and admonished that a repetition of such
offense would be dealt with more severely.
Case No. 28
Santos vs Beltran
A.C. 5858
December 11, 2003
FACTS:
Rogelio R. Santos filed an administrative complaint of disbarment against Atty. Rodolfo
C. Beltran on the grounds of gross misconduct and malpractice. It was somehow in November
9, 1999 where the complainant filed a verified complaint against the respondent before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline alleging that when respondent
notarized the subject Deed of Donation, his siblings did not personally appear before him.
Complainant further said that his siblings signed the Deed of Donation not in the law office of
the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita Subdivision, it has been said that respondent
disregard Article 904 of the Civil Code which said that an alien cannot own real properties in the
Philippines, which refers to the siblings of the complainant who are already an American
citizens. Alleging further that the respondent appeared as private investigator for falsification of
public document and that respondent represented a conflicting interest when he entered his
appearance as defense counsel in an ejectment case of his former client Erlinda Santos-
Crawford. Respondent denied all the allegations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Beltran be disbarred.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court only suspended Atty. Rodolfo Beltran from the practice of law
for a period of one year effective immediately for being guilty of representing conflicting
interests and is sternly warned that a commission of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt more severely. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. There is a conflict of interest when a
lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or
not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty
to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be
opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has
been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new
retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in
any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance
thereof.
UY VS GONZALES
AC 5280
MARCH 30, 2004
FACTS:
Complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer to prepare and file a petition for the
issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with respondent the circumstances
surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and
submitted to him a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial Court.
When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to complainant’s office demanding a
certain amount other than what was previously agreed upon. Respondent left his office after
reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find out later
that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent filed a
letter-complaint against him with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification of Public
Documents. The letter-complaint contained facts and circumstances pertaining to the transfer
certificate of title that was the subject matter of the petition which respondent was supposed to
have filed.
Respondent claims that he gave complainant a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is
withdrawing the petition he prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the
petition thereby terminating the lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant; that
there was no longer any professional relationship between the two of them when he filed the
letter-complaint for falsification of public document; that the facts and allegations contained in
the letter-complaint for falsification were culled from public documents procured from the Office
of the Register of Deeds.
The IBP found him guilty of violating Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility and recommended for his suspension for 6 months.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 21 of the CPR?
RULING:
No. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public
Documents filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by respondent due to his
personal dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the issuance
of the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed from complainant. Clearly, there was no
attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant. The preparation and the
proposed filing of the petition was only incidental to their personal transaction.
Whatever facts alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in
his professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased
son and therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for estafa against herein complainant,
which necessarily involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in
any way, violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint
against herein complainant to a misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty,
probity and good demeanor or that renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
To hold otherwise would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to
protect his personal or proprietary interests.
FACTS:
Atty. Eduardo Mario Jr.
was the president of UST faculty union. In 1988 they had a collective bargaining agreement for
the management of the Php 35million economic benefits to the members of the faculty union.
The said collective bargaining agreement expired in 1988 however, the respondent failed to
come up with a new agreement which resulted to the termination of 16 employees including
respondent Atty. Eduardo Marino. In 1990 the secretary of labor made a five year contract
between the UST and the terminated employees providing their reinstatement and a
compromise agreement providing the payment of php 7 million with the reinstatement. However,
records show that only php5 million was only given. The UST and the union arranged an
agreement for the salary increase and benefits for a total of 42 million. From the last agreement,
the UST took care of the disbursment of the 20million from the 42 million agreed amount.
Complainants questioned the lack of transparency among the leaders and directors of the union
in the disbursement processes since they have not revived the agreed amount. The
complainants filed for the disbarment of Atty. Mario and accusing him of compromising the
entitlements under the memorandum of agreement without the knowledge of the members of
the union, failing to account the 7million, lack of transparency and the refusal to remit the money
to the union.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Eduardo Marino can be disbarred.
RULING:
He is hereby reprimanded for his misconduct with a warning that a more drastic punsihment will
be imposed on him upon the repitition of the act. The law punishing an attorney is confined in
the failure to serve justice and being unable to shelter the judiciary, in the case at bar, Atty.
Eduardo must only be reprimanded for his misconduct and such punishment is enough and he
is reminded of his actions to be in accordance with that of a member of the bar.
BOLIVAR VS SIMBOL
AC 377
APRIL 29, 1966
FACTS:
Concepcion Bolivar lived and financially supported respondent Simbol of his studies in law
school with the promise that he would marry her after finishing his studies. However, after
Simbol graduated law, he secretly married another woman without the knowledge of Bolivar.
When Miss Bolivar had this to her knowledge, Atty. Simbol still asked her to continue assisting
him financially and continue their relationship. Miss Bolivar filed a civil case against him but did
not prosper since they had a compromise agreement for it. But the Solicitor General filed for the
disbarment of Atty. Simbol on moral grounds. However, after several notices, the respondent
still failed to appear before the court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the case for the disbarment may prosper.
RULING:
Yes. Since sufficient notices were sent to Atty. Simbol, he still failed to appear and defend his
side. Therefore, the disbarment case against him may prosper on moral grounds. Since he
unjustly enriched himself at the expense of Miss Bolivar. Although he made himself benefited
from the effort of Miss Bolivar and that the complaint was withdrawn, it does not take away the
offensiveness of his actions and constituting a grossly immoral conduct.
ARCIGA VS MANIWANG
AM 1608
AUGUST 4, 1981
FACTS:
In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law student, he had a relationship with Arciga, then a
medical technology student. They started having a sexual relationship in 1971. In 1973, Arciga
got pregnant. The two then went to Arciga’s hometown to tell the latter’s parent about the
pregnancy. They also made Arciga’s parents believe that they were already married but they
would have to have the church wedding in abeyance until Maniwang passes the bar exams.
Maniwang secured a copy of his birth certificate in preparation of securing a marriage license.
In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar. But after his oath taking, he stopped communicating with
Arciga. Arciga located his whereabouts and there she found out that Maniwang married
another woman. Arciga confronted Maniwang’s wife and this irked Maniwang so he inflicted
physical injuries against Arciga.
Arciga then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on gross immoral conduct.
Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arciga’s child; that he did promise to marry Arciga
many times; that he broke those promises because of Arciga’s shady past because apparently
Arciga had an illegitimate child even before her son with Maniwang was born.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwang’s case is different from the cases of Mortel vs
Aspiras and Almirez vs Lopez, and other cases therein cited. Maniwang’s refusal to marry Arciga
was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment (though not much discussion was
provided by the ponente as to why). But the Supreme Court did say that it is difficult to state
with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is “grossly immoral conduct” or to
specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a
member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the
straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has
been defined as “that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community”.
IN RE: EDILLON
AM 1928
AUGUST 3, 19778
FACTS:
Atty. Marcial Edillon was dibarred due to non-payment of his IBP dues, hence the petitioner on
this case. He claimed that the provisions of Sec. 10 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court is
unconstitutional as he is being compelled, as a precondition in maintaining his good standing as
a lawyer, to pay and settle his dues to the IBP. Petitioner stubbornly insisted his take and
refused to admit full competence of the court in this matter. But after some time in realization,
his recalcitrance and defiance were gone in his subsequent communication with the court. He
appealed that his health, advanced age, and concern to his former clients’ welfare be
considered in his prayer so that he can again practice law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Edillon should be reinstated as member of the bar.
RULING:
YES. Admission to the bar is a privilege burdened with condition. Failure to abide entails loss of
such privilege. Considered in addition was the two (2) years Atty. Edillon was barred to practice
law, and the dictum of Justice Malcolm in Villavicencio v. Lukban that “the power to discipline,
especially if amounting to disbarment, should be exercised in a preservative and not on the
vindictive principle”. After contrition on the part of the petitioner, the court finds reinstatement
in order.
HERNANDEZ VS GO
AC 1526
JANUARY 31, 2005
FACTS:
Complainant engaged respondent’s services, she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed
him to sell her lots, believing that the proceeds thereof would be used to pay her creditors.
Respondent abused her trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to others but
to himself and spent his own money to pay her obligations. Obviously, had he sold the lots to
other buyers, complainant could have earned more. Records show that she did not receive any
amount from respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Go should be disbarred
RULING:
DISBARRED. “A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession.”
Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only himself but also the name and honor
of the legal profession. He violated this Court’s mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct
themselves, especially in their dealing with their clients and the public at large, with honesty
and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
“A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.”
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. When it appears that an attorney is no longer
worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right
but also the duty of this Court to withdraw the privilege. Respondent, by his conduct,
blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the legal profession.
Public interest requires that an attorney should exert his best efforts and ability to protect the
interests of his clients. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only
protects his client’s cause; he also serves the ends of justice and does honor to the bar and
helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.