Adez Realty vs.

Court of Appeals

On 30 October 1992 the Court found movant, Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, guilty of
intercalating a material fact in a decision of the Court of Appeals, which he appealed to
this Court on certiorari, thereby altering the factual findings of the Court of Appeals with
the apparent purpose of misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment.
Consequently, Atty. Dacanay was disbarred from the practice of law.

He claimed that the inserted words were written by his client, the President of Adez
Realty, Inc., in the draft of the petition to be filed before the Supreme Court and
unwittingly adopted by movant's secretary when the latter formalized the petition. He
manifested that he would not risk committing the act for which he was found guilty
considering that he was a nominee of the Judicial and Bar Council to the President for
appointment as regional trial judge.

Dacanay filed a Motion to Lift (Disbarment) stating that he was already 62 years old,
has learned his lesson from his mistake, was terribly sorry for what he had done, and in
all candor promised that if given another chance he would live up to the exacting
demands of the legal profession. He appended to his motion certifications of good moral
character.

Issue: Should the disbarment be lifted?

Held:

The disbarment of movant Benjamin M. Dacanay for three (3) years has, quite
apparently, given him sufficient time and occasion to soul-search and reflect on his
professional conduct, redeem himself and prove once more that he is worthy to practice
law and be capable of upholding the dignity of the legal profession. His admission of
guilt and repeated pleas for compassion and reinstatement show that he is ready once
more to meet the exacting standards the legal profession demands from its
practitioners. Accordingly, the Court lifts the disbarment of Benjamin M. Dacanay.
However he should be sternly warned that the practice of law is a privilege burdened
with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the
highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession
are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for
enjoying the privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal
profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its
members is not only a right, but a bounden duty as well. That is why respect and fidelity
to the Court is demanded of its members.

The disbarment of BENJAMIN M. DACANAY from the practice of law is LIFTED and he
is therefore allowed to resume the practice of law upon payment of the required legal
fees. This resolution is effective immediately.

Illusurio vs Lokin

Illusurio-Bildner is the daughter of late illusurio. She filed a disbarment case against
Lokin. Lokin was a counsekpl of the father of Illusurio-Bildner. The government is
claiming the shares of the company held by Illusurio.it is alleged that Illusurio entered
into compromise with the assistance of Lokin that should be in favour of her father but
turned out to be a special stockholder s meeting where the director and officers were
elected. The father contested the validity of the session and filed a complaint to
Securities and Exchange Commission and Lokin appeared as opposing counsel, which
allegedly constitutes conflict of interest. The father initially filed the disbarment and
followed up by his daughter.

Whether or not there is sufficient legal standing on the part of the daughter?

Yes. Section 1, Rule 139-B stated that:

Section 1. How instituted Proceeding for disbarment, suspension or discipline of

Attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines upon verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly
and conciselynthr fact an complained of and shall be supported by affidavit of person
having personal knowledge nof the facts therein alleged and or/by such dpcukrny as
may substantiate said facts. Clearly, personal knowledge is required, most of the
complaint, but of her witness. If there is any, oddly enough, the quotation of same
provision by the investigating comisioners who dismissed the earlier disciplinary case
against Lokin admitted the phrase "any person, making it appear that complaints must
have personal know ledge of the facts they alledged.

Tan vs Sabacandal

Tan and several people filed complaint due to Sabacandal's unauthorized law practice.
Sabacandal did not yet pass the bar when he took up the cases of the former and
because of that they appealed to prevent the admission of Sabacandal to the bar which
was granted, that caused numerous motions to be admitted to the bar and asked for
forgiveness.

Whether or not Sabacandal be admitted to the Bar?

An applicant must satisfy to the court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and
proper to practice bar. Following criteria were considered in several cases: the person
appreciates the insignificance of his direction and he ensures that the court that he now
posses the requisites purity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be
reported to the practice of law; the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and
the application for reinstatement, his good conduct and honourable clearing subsequent
to his disbarment , his active investment in civic, educational and religious organisation,
the favourable indorsment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the local
government officials and citizenz of his community; the pleas of his mother and wife for
the sake of the future of his family; the foregoing criteria may be made applicable on to
Sabacandal's case. After the lapse of 10 years from the time he passed the Bar
examination. He has shown contribution and willingness to reform. It is worth nothing
also of the good moral character from IBP Zamboanga.

In re : Rusiana

Rusiana was disbarred due to misconduct of Public Notary and exhibited such frame of
mind and observed such a norm of conduct unworthy of a member of legal profession.
He had intentionally filed with court for readmission, supported by resolution from
member of the Bench and Bar, labour unions, newspaper editors and reporters,
members of professional and civic organisation, attesting to Rusiana's good conduct
and moral character since his disbarment and legion to be reinstated to the legal
profession.

Whether or not Rusiana be reinstated?

Yes. He complied with requirement in court resolution on July 20 1972, as evidence by

the several certificates by individual professors of review centres that he attended,
attesting to his regular attendance and passed their subject under some conditions as
student and separate letters of Registrar and Dean of Law school addresed to this Court
Clerk of Court and acting as Bar confidant, confirmation of the student in court
resolution ; he is ordered to pass the fourth year class in recognised law school.

In re: Rovero

Rovero was disbarred due to violation of Section 2703 of Revised Administrative Code.
After 4 years, he filed bar reinstatement and claimed mental anguish and misery, also
ask for unconditional pardon for his crime to restore his political and civil rights and
pledged not to do it again but was denied. He tried it again when he is near to his time
of death at the age of 71 years old.

Whether or not Rovero be readmitted to the back due to his circumstances?

A person of good moral character - a fit and proper person to practice law must be
satisfied to be a member of the Bar. An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime
committed, but removed all the disabilities resulting from conviction. In case at bar, it
appears that since his disbarment on 1952. Rovero has honourable death with his
citizens , demonstrated his moral rehabilitation and reformatiin as to be filled once more
to emergeub the practice of law. Rovero has been active in civic and educational
organisation. He became the secretary of Provincial Board of Philippine National Red
Cross and held high position on several organisation even in commercial sector and
religious organisation that claimed him of being a devotee and he receive a pardon
from Late President Ramon Magsaysay. For more the 20 years, Rovero has been
significantly punished and disciplined.

Cui vs Cui

There were two brothers, Jesus and Antonio, "heir" to the management of the Hospice.
On 1960, Dr. Fernando resigned as Administrator to give way to Antonio as the new
Administrator, which was evidenced by the will of their predecessor that an "Abogado or
Doctor" shall be the administrator of the establishment. Jesus lay his claim due to being
a law graduate while Jesus is a disbarred lawyer and later reininstated to the Bar.Jesus
insisted that since he was disbarred due to immorality and unprofessional conduct,
which shall not made him eligible to the position.

Whether or not Antonio is righftul heir to the job posting?

Yes, the reinstatement tot the Bar by Antonio is recognition of moral rehabilitation of the
latter. When Antonio was restored to the Bar and roll of attorneys, that restriction and
disabilities from his previous disbarment become null, making him eligible to take the
job since reinstatement is restoration of all his privileged enshrined of being a lawyer.