Leda vs.

Tabang
Material misrepresentation of civil status
he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until further Orders, the suspension to take
effect immediately.

PATRICK A. CARONAN v. RICHARD A. CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY.

PATRICK A. CARONAN
A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016

Good moral character is already flawed at the outset (application to the Bar)
Deliberate intent shows lack of moral fitness
He was not qualified at the outset since Caronan does not have a pre law
degree

Facts:
Complainant and respondent are siblings. Respondent is the older of the
two. Both of them completed their secondary education at the Makati High
School. Upon his graduation, complainant enrolled at the University of
Makati where he obtained a degree in Business Administration in 1997. 

Meanwhile, upon graduating from high school, respondent enrolled at

the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, where he stayed for one year
before transferring to the PMA. In 1993, he was discharged from the PMA. In
1997, he moved to Nueva Vizcaya with his wife and their 3 children.  Since
then, respondent never went back to school to earn a college degree.
In 2004, their mother informed complainant that respondent passed the Bar
Examinations and that he used complainant's name and college records from
the University of Makati to enroll at St. Mary's University's College of Law in
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya and take the Bar Examinations. Complainant
brushed these aside as he did not anticipate any adverse consequences to
him.

Sometime in May 2009, however, after his promotion as Store Manager,

complainant was ordered to report to the head office of PSC in Mandaluyong
City where, upon arrival, he was informed that the NBI was requesting his
presence at its office in Taft Avenue, Manila, in relation to an investigation
involving respondent who, at that point, was using the name "Atty. Patrick
A. Caronan." Complainant later learned that the reason why he was invited
by the NBI was because of respondent's involvement in a case for qualified
theft and estafa filed by Mr. Joseph G. Agtarap, who was one of the principal
sponsors at respondent's wedding.

Realizing that respondent had been using his name to perpetrate crimes and
commit unlawful activities, complainant took it upon himself to inform other
people that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan" and that respondent's real
name is Richard A. Caronan.

However, problems relating to respondent's use of the name "Atty. Patrick A.

Caronan" continued to hound him.

Hence, complainant filed the present Complaint-Affidavit to stop

respondent's alleged use of the former's name and identity, and illegal
practice of law.

Issues
Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that:
(a) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and
(b) the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted to the
Bar.

Ruling:

As correctly observed by the IBP, complainant has established by clear and

overwhelming evidence that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan" and that
respondent, whose real name is Richard A. Caronan, merely assumed the
latter's name, identity, and academic records to enroll at the St. Mary's
University's College of Law, obtain a law degree, and take the Bar
Examinations.

To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that respondent

falsely used complainant's name, identity, and school records to gain
admission to the Bar. Since complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan"
- never took the Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended
that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.

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

In the case at hand, respondent never completed his college degree.

Respondent has not completed the requisite pre-law degree.

The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent may later on
complete his college education and earn a law degree under his real
name. However, his false assumption of his brother's name, identity,
and educational records renders him unfit for admission to the
Bar. The practice of law, after all, is not a natural, absolute or constitutional
right to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a privilege
limited to citizens of good moral character. 

Here, respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of moral fitness to
be a member of the Bar when he assumed the name, identity, and school
records of his own brother and dragged the latter into controversies which
eventually caused him to fear for his safety and to resign from PSC where he
had been working for years. Good moral character is essential in those who
would be lawyers.61 This is imperative in the nature of the office of a lawyer,
the trust relation which exists between him and his client, as well as
between him and the court.

SOLIMAN M. SANTOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, AC No. 4749, 2000-01-20

Facts:
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues
filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas.
In a letter-complaint to this Court... complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a member
of the bar, alleged that:
I wish to bring to your attention and appropriate sanction the matter of Atty. Francisco R.
Llamas who, for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP
O.R. Nos. and data (date & place of issuance) in his pleadings.
If at all, he only indicates "IBP Rizal 259060" but he has been using this for at least
three years already
This matter is being brought in the context of Rule 138, Section 1 which qualifies that only a
duly admitted member of the bar "who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law".
There is also Rule 139-A, Section 10 which provides that "default in the... payment of
annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the
removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys."
Please note that while Atty. Llamas indicates "IBP Rizal 259060" sometimes, he does
not indicate any PTR for payment of professional tax.
Finally, it is relevant to note the track record of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, as shown by:...
his dismissal as Pasay City Judge... his conviction for estafa... respondent alleged:
Supreme Court dismissal decision was set aside and reversed and respondent was even
promoted from City Judge of Pasay City to Regional Trial Court Judge of Makati
Complainant need not even file this complaint if indeed the decision of dismissal as a Judge
was never set aside and reversed, and also had the decision of conviction for a light felony,
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Undersigned himself would surrender his right or...
privilege to practice law.
Undersigned since 1992 have publicly made it clear per his Income Tax Return, up to the
present, that he had only a limited practice of law. In fact, in his Income Tax Return, his
principal occupation is a farmer of which he is.
Moreover, and more than anything else, respondent being a Senior Citizen since 1992, is
legally exempt under Section 4 of Rep. Act 7432 which took effect in 1992, in the payment
of taxes
Being thus exempt, he honestly believe in view of his... detachment from a total practice of
law, but only in a limited practice, the subsequent payment by him of dues with the
Integrated Bar is covered by such exemption.
In fact, he never exercised his rights as an IBP member to vote and be voted upon.
IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution... adopting and approving the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner which found respondent guilty, and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three... months and until
he pays his IBP dues.
Respondent moved for a reconsideration of the decision, but this was denied by the
IBP
Hence, pursuant to Rule 139-B, §12(b) of the Rules of Court, this case is here for
final... action on the decision of the IBP ordering respondent's suspension for three
months.
Issues:
On the first issue, Complainant has shown "respondent's non-indication of the proper IBP
O.R. and PTR numbers in his pleadings... more particularly his use of "IBP Rizal 259060 for
at least three years."
On the second issue, complainant claims that respondent has misled the court about his
standing in the IBP by using the same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least six years
and therefore liable for his actions.
Ruling:
First. Indeed, respondent admits that since 1992, he has engaged in law practice without
having paid his IBP dues.
He likewise admits that, as appearing in the pleadings submitted by complainant to
this Court, he indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060" in the pleadings he filed in... court, at
least for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus misrepresenting that such was his IBP
chapter membership and receipt number for the years in which those pleadings were
filed.
He claims, however, that he is only engaged in a "limited" practice and that he believes
in... good faith that he is exempt from the payment of taxes... as a senior citizen since
1992.
Rule 139-A provides:
Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual
dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A
fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be...
set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs
of deceased members thereof.
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this
Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a
ground... for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
In accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the practice of law only by
paying his dues, and it does not matter that his practice is "limited."
While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, §4 grants senior citizens "exemption... the exemption
does not include payment of membership or association dues.
Second. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to
the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter,
respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings
he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty.
However, in view of respondent's advanced age, his express willingness to pay his dues
and plea for a more temperate application of the... law,... we believe the penalty of one
year suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever
is later, is appropriate.
Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, or
until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.

Leda v. Tabang, AC No. 2505, February 21, 1992

PDF
In re Parazo
G.R. No. 120348. December 3, 1948
Montemayor, J.

FACTS: Angel J. Parazo, a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter, a local daily of
general circulation, manifested a story with the headline— "CLAIM 'LEAK' IN LAST
BAR TESTS," "Applicants In Uproar, Want Anomaly Probed; One School Favored,"

He stated in said report that students of a private university in Sampaloc

had been seen with copies of the mimeographed questions one week prior to the exams.

ISSUE: Whether or not Parazo may be compelled by the court to reveal his source within the
purview of the exemption “interest of the state.”

HELD: Yes, As the conduct of Bar Examinations and the Legal Profession is imbued with
General Interest and National Importance, it is but just that the immunity of newspapermen
be disregarded as to protecting its sources from investigation as to any anomaly that may
be alleged in the conduct of the Bar Examinations.

Tan vs. Sabandal, 206 SCRA 473 (1992)

DOCTRINES:
 The practice of law is not a matter of right.
 No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor. 
FACTS:
Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view of the
finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he had filed numerous
petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer's oath.

Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the province where Sabandal is
domiciled to submit a comment on respondent's moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In compliance
therewith, the executive judge stated in his comment that he is not aware of any acts committed by the
respondent as would disqualify him to from admission to the Bar. However, he added that respondent has
a pending civil case before his court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent, then
working as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to have secured a free patent and later a
certificate of title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not
susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage
was later foreclosed and the land subsequently sold at public auction and respondent has not redeemed
the land since then.

The case was however been settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement canceled
the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the
surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain
the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising acts of
possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan
and interest.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that he already
submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has been
terminated.

HELD: 
His petition must be denied.

Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral
character. 

It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said
employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the property which he could not but
have known was a public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his moral
character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which cannot be erased by
the termination of the case and where no determination of guilt or innocence was made because the suit
has been compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair dealings.

Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him
during the period that he was submitting several petitions and motions for reconsiderations reveal his lack
of candor and truthfulness.

Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including
at least common dishonesty." It has also been held that no moral qualification for membership is more
important than truthfulness or candor.
Melendrez vs. Decena

Facts:There was two charged filed against Atty. Decena. First was about a 4k loan obtain
ed by the spouses secured by a real estate mortgage. However, it appeared on the real e
state mortgage document that the amount loaned to complainants was P5,000.00 instea
d of 4k. He said that the signing of the documents was just for formality. so, they did. The spo
uses religiously paid 10% or 500 as interest for only 3months because of financial re
verses. Consequently, Atty. Decena made a second real estate mortgage document and 
the loan extended to complainants had escalated to P10,000.00. Again, on the assuran
ce that it was only for formality, the spouses signed the new REM document.

After 3 years, they learned that their lot was already sold to someone. So they tried to rai
se the 10k and went to Atty. Decena’s house but the latter did not accept the money 
and instead gave them a sheet of paper indicating that the total indebtedness had s
oared to 20,400.

The second charge against respondent relates to acts done in his professional capacity, that is, 
done at a time when he was counsel for the complainants in a criminal case for estaf
a against accused. It was alleged that Atty. Decena effected a compromise agreeme
nt concerning the civil liability of accused without the consent and approval of the c
omplainants and that he received the amount of P500.00 as an advance payment  a
nd he did not inform the spouses about this. And even after he was confronted, he still di
d not turn over the money. 

Issue:

Ruling:

As to the first charge, the SC held that Atty. Decena indeed deceived the spouses.
From the facts obtaining in the case, it is clear that the complainants were induced to sign the 
Real Estate Mortgage documents by the false and fraudulent representations of respondent that 
each of the successive documents was a are formality.
While it may be true that complainants are not at all illiterate, respondent, being a lawyer, 
should have at least explained to complainants the legal implications of the provisio
ns of the real estate mortgage, particularly the provision appointing him as the com
plainants’ attorney-in-fact in the event of default in payments on the part of complai
nants.

As to the second charge, repondent is presumed to be aware of Section 23 Rule 138 that lawye
rs cannot “without special authority, compromise their clients’ litigation or receive anything in di
scharge of a client’s claim, but the full amount in cash.” Respondent’s failure to turn over to spo
uses the partial payment underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his 
clients.

The SC reiterated that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to ad
mission to the practice of law but a continuing requirement.

Atty. Decena was disbarred.

Vitug vs. Rongcal

FACTS: Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty.

Diosdado M. Rongcal who was introduced to her by her former
classmate. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to represent her in the
support case she was going to file against her former lover, Arnulfo
Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and respondent started having
sexual relationship with each other. According to Vitug, respondent
also gave her sweet inducements such as the promise of a job,
financial security for her daughter, and his services as counsel for
the prospective claim for support against Aquino.

On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign

an Affidavit of Disclaimer which the latter signed without reading
the said affidavit. On 14 February 2001, respondent allegedly advised
complainant that Aquino gave him P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00
in two (2) postdated checks to answer for the medical expenses of
her daughter. Instead of turning them over to her, respondent handed
her his personal check in the amount of P150,000.00 and promised
to give her the balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter. However,
sometime in April or May 2001, respondent informed her that he
could not give her the said amount because he used it for his
political campaign as he was then running for the position of
Provincial Board Member of the 2nd District of Pampanga

Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath

as a lawyer. She filed an administrative case against Rongcal which was
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It was then recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months and that he be ordered to return to complainant the amount
of P58,000.00 within two months. The same was approved by the
IBP Board of Governors. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration
with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a
Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the
Supreme Court.

ISSUES: 
(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality
(2) Whether or not respondent’s act of preparing and notarizing
the Affidavit, a document disadvantageous to his client, is a violation of the
Code.

HELD: 
(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an
applicant must possess good moral character. Said requirement persists as a
continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice,
otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.
The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act
complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A
grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible
to a high degree. On sexual relation and on respondent’s subsequent
marriage, by his own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of
immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. The Court find credence in respondent's assertion that it was
impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting marriage,
complainant’s allegations of deceit were not established by clear
preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases.

(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into
a settlement with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The
law encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending cases but also
of disputes which might otherwise be filed in court. Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility states that: A lawyer shall encourage
his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair
settlement. As complainant voluntarily and intelligently agreed to a
settlement with Aquino, she cannot later blame her counsel when she
experiences a change of heart. Suspicion, no matter how strong, is not
enough in the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the
presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duty
in accordance with his oath.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Diosdado M.

Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and impose on him a FINE of P15,000.00
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in
the future will be dealt with more severely.

The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is REMANDED to the

IBP for further investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90)
days from receipt of this Decision.

Canon 7

How a lawyer always make sure the integrity

As members of the Philippine Bar, all lawyers are mandated to uphold at all
times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
RATIONALE: To protect the public and the society in general by availing the
services only of those who have met the highest standards of ethical
responsibility.
Unqualified lawyers have no place in this very noble profession and their
continued exercise of the profession would only prejudice the interest not
only of the Bar but also the public as well.
Rule 7.01
High regard to legal ethics in general
Guidelines on how you are supposed to be as a lawyer.
Expected to be honest from the moment that you applied
Honestly, integrity of the legal profession
Admission to the bar
Applying to take the bar Rules of Court
Admission to the practice of law
Roll of attorneys
Taking the lawyers oath
Rule 7.01
Denied admission to the bar
Able to take the bar but while taking
Lied a material fact to the application
 Will not be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath
 Conditional admission to the bar
 Pending investigation
 E.g. banned from taking the bar
Took the lawyer’s oath, signed the roll of attorneys, practice of law
Subject to due process
Investigated
Name will be stricken off the roll of attorneys
Information in the application must be true
Rule 7.02
Lawyer shall not accomplish
Affidavit of Moral Character
Kung alam mo na yung bar applicant not qualified
Not morally fit
Rule 7.03
Co vs. Bernardino
Entered the transactions in his personal capacity
General rule lawyer will not be sanctioned for misconduct for private
capacity.
Exception: If the misconduct shows a lawyer’s character as unfit.
Gueverra vs. Eala

Sosa vs. Mendoza

No distinction if the misconduct or transgression is a private
dealing/capacity or professional capacity.
“cannot divide yourself”