CASE DIGESTS

(1) Ulep vs Legal Clinic Inc

FACTS: Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing
advertisements and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements
pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law." The
petitioner submits that the advertisements reproduced are champterous, unethical, demeaning
of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of
the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and
offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore
quoted. respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support
services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.

ISSUE: Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised
by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be the
subject of the advertisements herein complained of?

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by the respondent constitute
practice of law. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the
practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession. Generally, to
practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and
counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are
secured,
although such matter may or may not be pending in a court. It embraces all advice to clients
and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.

The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be
seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description
of the services it has been offering. 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.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The Legal
Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any
form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition,
and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by
law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein

(2) Cayetano vs Monsod

FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission
on Appointments on April 25, 1991. 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. Petitioner
opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification
of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years and the consequent
appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent posseses the required qualification of having engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years?

HELD: The petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Monsod possessed the
required qualification. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
court. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with
the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an
appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim
in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in
matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice.

Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. “To engage in the practice of law is to perform
those acts which are characteristics of the profession. In general, a practice of law requires a
lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out of court. As such, the petition is dismissed.

(3) Brunet vs Guaren

FACTS: On August 9, 2002, complainant spouses Stephan and Virginia Brunet (complainants)
filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Ronald L. Guaren (Atty. Guaren) before the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CED), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that in
February 1997, they engaged the services of Atty. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they
acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres. Atty. Guaren asked for a fee of Ten Thousand Pesos
(₱10,000.00) including expenses relative to its proceeding and it was agreed that full payment
of the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title. The complainants became bothered by
the slow progress of the case so they demanded the return of the money they paid; and that
respondent agreed to return the same provided that the amount of Five Thousand Pesos
(₱5,000.00) be deducted to answer for his professional fees. He even entered his special
appearance in court in a case against herein complainant.

The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Guaren to have violated the Canon of Professional
Responsibility and the CBD recommended that he be suspended for six (6) months. The IBP
Board of Governors, adopted and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation
of the CBD, suspending Atty. Guaren from the practice of law for three (3) months only.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Guaren violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility in his
dealings with the herein complainant?

HELD: The Court adopted the findings of the Board of Governors except as to penalty which it
modified into six months. The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty
to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to
be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.
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.

Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

(4) In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar

FACTS: On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration submitted its Report dated
November 30, 1972 recommending the Supreme Court to ordain the integration of the
Philippine Bar and the promulgation of the appropriate court rule. The Report of the
Commission abounds with argument on the constitutionality of Bar integration and contains all
necessary factual data bearing on the advisability (practicability and necessity) of Bar
integration. Also embodied therein are the views, opinions, sentiments, comments and
observations of the rank and file of the Philippine lawyer population relative to Bar integration,
as well as a proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission and presented to them
by that body in a national Bar plebiscite.

ISSUES: (1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?
(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?
(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?

HELD: Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer
population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial support (in reasonable
amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention
of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. Complete unification is not possible
unless it is decreed by an entity with power to do so: the State.

Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the
exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of
law." Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court's constitutional authority
over the Bar.

Resolution of the second issue — whether the unification of the Bar would be constitutional —
hinges on the effects of Bar integration on the lawyer's constitutional rights of freedom of
association and freedom of speech, and on the nature of the dues exacted from him.

To resolve the third and final issue — whether the Court should ordain the integration of the
Bar at this time — requires a careful overview of the practicability and necessity as well as the
advantages and disadvantages of Bar integration.

The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the arguments
adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass of factual data
contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration
of the Philippine Bar is "perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable," within the context
of contemporary conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative means to raise the
standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively.

January 16, 1973 – Integration of the IBP

(5) In Re Cunanan
FACTS: The matter concerns Republic Act No. 972, popularly known as the "Bar Flunkers' Act of
1953." Under the Rules of Court governing admission to the bar, "in order that a candidate (for
admission to the Bar) may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must
have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent
in any subject. But due to the difficulty of the exam and the way the same was graded, the
court, from 1946 to 1953, adjusted the passing mark correspondingly and admitted to the bar
those candidates who had obtained an average passing rate. A bill was passed in Congress to
reduce the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent effective since 1946.

ISSUE: Is RA 972 unconstitutional?

HELD: Yes, RA 972 in unconstitutional on the following grounds:

1. Because its purpose is to admit those who failed the bar due to inadequate
preparations;
2. It is judgment revoking the resolution of the Court on the petitions of the candidates
amounting to direct violation of the Constitution;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who may
be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal,
alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down by Congress under this
power are only minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the court
on who can practice law;
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and is tantamount to class legislation.
5. Article was not embraced in the title of the Act; and
6. Part of Article 1 referring to examinations from 1953 to 1955 shall remain in force.

We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of admitting,
suspending, disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is
concededly judicial. In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of
1946 to 1952, a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject,
be admitted in mass to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment
— a judgment revoking those promulgated by this Court during the aforecited year affecting
the bar candidates concerned; and although this Court certainly can revoke these judgments
even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the legislative
nor executive department, that may be so. Any attempt on the part of any of these
departments would be a clear usurpation of its functions, as is the case with the law in
question.

The law in question has been found also to suffer from the fatal defect of being a class
legislation, and that if it has intended to make a classification, it is arbitrary and unreasonable.

(6) Alawi vs Alauya

FACTS: Petitioner Sophia Alawi was an employee of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao
City while respondent Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th
Judicial Shari'a District in Marawi City. They were classmates, and used to be friends. Through
petitioner’s agency, Alauya was able to acquire a housing unit on installment under a contract
and a housing loan from the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation. Thereafter, the
Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of his
contract with the company alleging that said contract is made through misrepresentation,
deceit, fraud and dishonesty. The envelope containing it, and which actually went through the
post, bore no stamps. Alauya further wrote other letters for the same reasons and he insisted
on the cancellation of his housing loan and discontinuance of deductions from his salary on
account thereof.
Upon learning this, Alawi filed a complaint against Alauya deploring the latter’s references to
her and usurping the title of attorney among others.

ISSUE: Whether or not Alauya's membership in the Sharia Bar endows him the title of an
attorney?

HELD: Yes. Persons who passed the Sharia Bar are not full-fledged members of the Bar and may
only practice law before a Sharia Court. His disinclination to use the title of counselor-at-law
does not warrant his use of the title of an attorney. Respondent was ordered reprimanded for
the use of excessively intemperate, insulting and virulent language unbecoming of a judicial
officer and for usurping the title of attorney and was warned that any similar misconduct in the
future will be dealt with more severely.

(7) TUMBAGA vs TEOXEN

FACTS: This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant Gizale O. Tumbaga against

respondent Atty. Manuel P. Teox.on, charging him with gross immorality, deceitful and
fraudulent conduct, and gross misconduct. Complainant narrated that she met respondent
sometime in September 1999 when he was then the City Legal Officer of Naga City from whom
she sought legal advice. Teoxen frequently visited Tumbaga and assured complainant’s mother
that his marriage was a sham and the same was not registered. Complainant believed his
representation that he was eligible to marry her. They moved in together and had a son and
caused to register a Certificate of Live Birth. His became rare and complainant was forced to
work to support their needs but the respondent compelled her to resign and promised them
support but failed to fulfill such promise repeatedly.

Respondent denied all the allegations against him. However, the IBP found respondent to have
maintained an illicit affair and imposed of the penalty of suspension for two years. The IBP
board of governors, increased the same to three years.

ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of violating the Code of good moral conduct?

HELD: Yes, the Court agrees with the conclusion of the IBP that the actuations of respondent in
this case showed his failure to live up to the good moral conduct required of the members of
the legal profession. The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by lawyers at the
time of their application for admission to the Bar, and must be maintained until retirement
from the practice of law. In this regard, the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

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.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.

Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the Court, must not only be in
fact of good moral character, but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading
lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three years with stern warning that
similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.

(8) Diao vs Martinez

FACTS: After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A.
Diao was admitted to the Bar. 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 relayed to the Solicitor General who caused the charge
to be investigated and recommending that the name of the petitioner be removed from the
rolls. It was alleged that he has not completed his required pre-legal education particularly (1)
his high school training and (2) did not attend Quisumbing College and never obtained a
corresponding diploma therefrom, before taking up law subjects.

ISSUE: Should the petitioner be removed from the roll of attorneys for be unqualified to take
the bar examinations?

HELD: Yes. 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.

(9) Dantes vs Dantes

FACTS: Emma T. Dantes, sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Crispin G. Dantes on the
ground of immorality, abandonment, and violation of professional ethics and law. Respondent
purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women, one after the other, and had
illegitimate children with them. From the time respondent’s illicit affairs started, he failed to
give regular support to complainant and their children, thus forcing complainant to work
abroad to provide for their children’s needs constituting a violation of his lawyer’s oath and his
moral and legal obligation to be a role model to the community. Respondent denied allegations
and manifested that they mutually agreed to separate 18 years ago, after complainant
abandoned him. He further alleged that he sent his two sons to the best schools and bought
them lots in Pampanga. On July 7, 2004, the IBP submitted its Report recommending that the
respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.

ISSUES: Did the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD: Yes, the Court ordered the disbarment of the respondent and striking off of his name in
the roll of attorneys. It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three
ostensible purposes, namely: (i) to protect the public; (ii) to protect the public image of lawyers;
and (iii) to protect prospective clients. A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from
themselves. Despite variations in the specific standards and provisions, one requirement
remains constant in all the jurisdictions where the practice of law is regulated: the candidate
must demonstrate that he or she has "good moral character," and once he becomes a lawyer
he should always behave in accordance with the standard. In this jurisdiction too, good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but an unending requirement
for all the members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of grossly immoral
conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

"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."

"Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.”

(10) In Re Dacanay

FACTS: This bar matter concerns the petition of petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay for leave to
resume the practice of law. Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He
practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his
ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical aid
program. His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.

On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition
Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship.1 On that day, he took his oath of
allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada.
Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine
bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship?

HELD: No. The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall
be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar
and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of
Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The
practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners. The exception is when Filipino citizenship is
lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired
pursuant to RA 9225. This is because "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA
9225]. Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never
to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although
he is also deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic
right to resume law practice accrues.

The Court ruled to grant the petition, subject to compliance with certain conditions such as
payment of IBP fees and professional tax, 36 hours of mandatory continuing legal education
and retaking of the lawyer’s oath.