Noel Adrian G.

Mataranas JD-
1
Case Digest on Petition for leave to resume practice of law, Benjamin M. Dacanay
B.M No. 1678
Facts:
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/s:
Whether or not petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the
Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004.
Ruling:
No, in a report dated October 16, 2007, the Office of the Bar Confidant cites
Section 2, Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar) of the Rules of Court:
SECTION 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. – Every applicant
for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least
twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and
must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character,
and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines.
Applying the provision, the Office of the Bar Confidant opines that, by virtue of his
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, in 2006, petitioner has again met all the
qualifications and has none of the disqualifications for membership in the bar. It
recommends that he be allowed to resume the practice of law in the Philippines,
conditioned on his retaking the lawyer’s oath to remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a member of the Philippine bar.
Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Who may practice law. – Any person heretofore duly admitted as a
member of the bar, or thereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of
this Rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
 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.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the
Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions "(he)
shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice."
Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA
9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to
do so, conditioned on:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education;
this is especially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine
laws and update him of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is hereby
GRANTED, subject to compliance with the conditions stated above and submission of
proof of such compliance to the Bar Confidant, after which he may retake his oath as a
member of the Philippine bar.
 Case Digest on Philippine Lawyers association vs Agrava 105 Phil. 173
Facts:
On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had
scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of determining who are
qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office, the said
examination to cover patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of practice before said
office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other
persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said
examination. It would appear that heretofore, respondent Director has been holding
similar examinations.
It is the contention of the petitioner Philippine Lawyer's Association that one who
has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law
in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the
Philippines Patent Office, and that consequently, the cat of the respondent Director
requiring members of the Philippine Bar in good standing to take and pass an
examination given by the Patent Office as a condition precedent to their being allowed
to practice before said office, such as representing applicants in the preparation and
prosecution of applications for patent, is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of
the law.
Respondent further contends that just as the Patent law of the United States of
America authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to prescribe examinations to
determine as to who practice before the United States Patent Office, the respondent, is
similarly authorized to do so by our Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165. The Director of
Patents, in the past, would appear to have been holding tests or examinations the
passing of which was imposed as a required qualification to practice before the Patent
Office, to our knowledge, this is the first time that the right of the Director of Patents to
do so, especially as regards members of the bar, has been questioned formally, or
otherwise put in issue. And we have given it careful thought and consideration.
Issue/s:
Whether or not appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
Ruling:
Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code authorizes every chief of bureau
to prescribe forms and make regulations or general orders not inconsistent with law, to
secure the harmonious and efficient administration of his branch of the service and to
carry into full effect the laws relating to matters within the jurisdiction of his bureau.
Section 608 of Republic Act 1937, known as the Tariff and Customs Code of the
Philippines, provides that the Commissioner of Customs shall, subject to the approval of
the Department Head, makes all rules and regulations necessary to enforce the
provisions of said code. Section 338 of the National Internal Revenue Code,
Commonwealth Act No. 466 as amended, states that the Secretary of Finance, upon
recommendation of the Collector of Internal Revenue, shall promulgate all needful rules
and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the code. We
understand that rules and regulations have been promulgated not only for the Bureau of
Customs and Internal Revenue, but also for other bureaus of the Government, to
govern the transaction of business in and to enforce the law for said bureaus.
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 Bureau 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 practicing 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for prohibition is granted and the
respondent Director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar
to submit to an examination or tests and pass the same before being permitted to
appear and practice before the Patent Office. No costs.
 Case Digest on Bautista vs Gonzales, Adm. Matter No. 1625, February 12, 1990
Facts:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista on May 19, 1976, respondent
Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and
violation of lawyer's oath. Required by this Court to answer the charges against him,
respondent filed on June 19, 1976 a motion for a bill of particulars asking this Court to
order complainant to amend his complaint by making his charges more definite. In a
resolution dated June 28, 1976, the Court granted respondent's motion and required
complainant to file an amended complaint. On July 15, 1976, complainant submitted an
amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that respondent committed the following
acts:
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado,
Nestor Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to
pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the
value of the property in litigation.
2. Acting as counsel for the Fortunados in Civil Case No. Q-15143, wherein Eusebio
Lopez, Jr. is one of the defendants and, without said case being terminated, acting as
counsel for Eusebio Lopez, Jr. in Civil Case No. Q-15490;
3. Transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados, which properties
are the subject of the litigation in Civil Case No. Q-15143, while the case was still
pending;
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on
August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved
in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty
percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney's fees from the Fortunados, while knowing
fully well that the said property was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971,
by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with the Register of Deeds of
Iligan City;
5. Submitting to the Court of First Instance of Quezon City falsified documents
purporting to be true copies of "Addendum to the Land Development Agreement dated
August 30, 1971" and submitting the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon
City, in connection with the complaint for estafa filed by respondent against complainant
designated as I.S. No. 7512936;
6. Committing acts of treachery and disloyalty to complainant who was his client;
7. Harassing the complainant by filing several complaints without legal basis before the
Court of First Instance and the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City;
8. Deliberately misleading the Court of First Instance and the Fiscal's Office by making
false assertion of facts in his pleadings;
9. Filing petitions "cleverly prepared (so) that while he does not intentionally tell a he, he
does not tell the truth either."
On May 16, 1988 respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against him,
claiming that the long delay in the resolution of the complaint against him constitutes a
violation of his constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of cases. Upon
order of the Court, the Solicitor General filed a comment to the motion to dismiss on
August 8, 1988, explaining that the delay in the investigation of the case was due to the
numerous requests for postponement of scheduled hearings filed by both parties and
the motions for extension of time to file their respective memoranda." [Comment of the
Solicitor General, p. 2; Record, p. 365]. Respondent filed a reply to the Solicitor
General's comment on October 26, 1988. In a resolution dated January 16, 1989 the
Court required the Solicitor General to submit his report and recommendation within
thirty (30) days from notice.
On April 11, 1989, the Solicitor General submitted his report with the
recommendation that Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales be suspended for six (6) months. The
Solicitor General found that respondent committed the following acts of misconduct:
a. transferring to himself one-half of the properties of his clients during the pendency of
the case where the properties were involved;
b. concealing from complainant the fact that the property subject of their land
development agreement had already been sold at a public auction prior to the execution
of said agreement; and
c. misleading the court by submitting alleged true copies of a document where two
signatories who had not signed the original (or even the xerox copy) were made to
appear as having fixed their signatures [Report and Recommendation of the Solicitor
General, pp. 17-18; Rollo, pp. 403-404].
Respondent then filed on April 14, 1989 a motion to refer the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and disposition pursuant to Rule
139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. Respondent manifested that he intends to submit
more evidence before the IBP. Finally, on November 27, 1989, respondent filed a
supplemental motion to refer this case to the IBP, containing additional arguments to
bolster his contentions in his previous pleadings.
Issue/s:
Whether or not respondent committed the acts of misconduct alleged by
complainant Bautista.
Ruling:
Yes, after a careful review of the record of the case and the report and
recommendation of the Solicitor General, the Court finds that respondent committed
acts of misconduct which warrant the exercise by this Court of its disciplinary power.
The record shows that respondent prepared a document entitled "Transfer of
Rights" which was signed by the Fortunados on August 31, 1971. The document
assigned to respondent one-half (1/2) of the properties of the Fortunados covered by
TCT No. T-1929, with an area of 239.650 sq. mm., and TCT No. T-3041, with an area of
72.907 sq. m., for and in consideration of his legal services to the latter. At the time the
document was executed, respondent knew that the abovementioned properties were
the subject of a civil case [Civil Case No. Q-15143] pending before the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City since he was acting as counsel for the Fortunados in said case
[See Annex "B" of Original Complaint, p. 12; Rollo, p. 16]. In executing the document
transferring one-half (1/2) of the subject properties to himself, respondent violated the
law expressly prohibiting a lawyer from acquiring his client's property or interest involved
in any litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his profession [Article 1491, New
Civil Code]. This Court has held that the purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or
interest in litigation is a breach of professional ethics and constitutes malpractice
[Hernandez v. Villanueva, 40 Phil. 774 (1920); Go Beltran v. Fernandez, 70 Phil. 248
(1940)].
Another misconduct committed by respondent was his failure to disclose to
complainant, at the time the land development agreement was entered into, that the
land covered by TCT No. T-1929 had already been sold at a public auction. The land
development agreement was executed on August 31, 1977 while the public auction was
held on June 30, 1971.
The Court finds clearly established in this case that on four counts the
respondent violated the law and the rules governing the conduct of a member of the
legal profession. Sworn to assist in the administration of justice and to uphold the rule of
law, he has "miserably failed to live up to the standards expected of a member of the
Bar." [Artiaga v. Villanueva, Adm. Matter No. 1892, July 29, 1988, 163 SCRA 638, 647].
The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that, considering the nature of the offenses
committed by respondent and the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent
lawyer should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
WHEREFORE, finding that respondent Attorney Ramon A. Gonzales committed
serious misconduct, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of
law for SIX (6) months effective from the date of his receipt of this Resolution. Let
copies of this Resolution be circulated to all courts of the country for their information
and guidance, and spread in the personal record of Atty. Gonzales.
 Case Digest on Dizon vs Lambino, 498 SCRA 223
Facts:
As two student-suspects in the killing, Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo
Narag, were at the time in the office of Col. Bentain, Atty. Dizon requested to take them
into his custody. Atty. Marichu Lambino, Legal Counsel of UP Diliman, who repaired to
the Office of Col. Bentain, advised against Atty. Dizon’s move, however, he not being
armed with a warrant for their arrest.
Atty. Dizon had earlier filed a criminal complaint also against Atty. Lambino,
together with Chancellor Posadas and Vice Chancellor Torres-Yu and Col. Bentain,
before the Ombudsman, for violation of P.D. 1829 which makes it unlawful for anyone to
obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenses.
Atty. Lambino in turn charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP with violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03;
Canon 6, Rules 6.01 and 6.02; and Canon 8, Rule 8.01, docketed as CBD Case No.
373.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the act of Atty. Dizon in trying to arrest the student-suspects
constitutes violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
Yes, held that the objection of the said UP officials to the arrest of the students
"cannot be construed as a violation of P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1 (c) without rendering it
unconstitutional," they having "a right to prevent the arrest [of the students] at the time
because their attempted arrest was illegal."
Respecting the complaint against Atty. Dizon, this Court, also in Posadas v.
Ombudsman, held that "[f]or the failure of the NBI agents to comply with the
constitutional and procedural requirements, . . . their attempt to arrest [the two student-
suspects] without a warrant was illegal."
By persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected students without a warrant,
Atty. Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or
at lessening confidence in the legal system. (Emphasis supplied).
WHEREFORE, Atty. Orlando V. Dizon is, in CBD Case No. 373, found guilty of
violation of Canon 1 of Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall
be dealt with more severely.
 Case Digest on Nadayag vs Grageda, A.C. No. 3232, September 27,1994
Facts:
In a letter-complaint dated April 15, 1988, Rosita C. Nadayag charged
respondent Atty. A. Grageda, a practicing attorney and notary public in Iligan City, with
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in connection with a "Pacto de Retro" transaction
wherein complainant was the vendee. Complainant's affidavit, which accompanied her
letter-complaint, alleged that respondent:
. . . prepared and notarized a PACTO DE RETRO sale with me as the Vendee-a-Retro
last January 21, 1987 in this City using Original Certificate of Land Title stolen from the
Office of the Register of Deeds herein in Iligan as a result of which I was swindled in
One hundred eight thousand pesos (P108,000.00) because the said land sold to me by
Pacto de Retro was already sold ahead of time to another party, using the owner's
duplicate copy of the title. That during our pacto de retro sale, as I was suspicious
already of the appearance of the Original Certificate of Title, having many annotations
and old patches thereof, when I brought the matter to the attention of Atty. Jose A.
Grageda, notarizing the same, he simply answered me that the title was all right and
that he told me further not to worry as he is an attorney and besides he knew very well
the Vendor-a- Retro whose business transactions especially notarial matter has been
and in fact always handled by him (Attorney Jose A. Grageda).
That said stolen Original Certificate of Land Title was confiscated by Iligan City Register
of Deeds, Attorney Reynaldo Baguio on the occasion when I applied for registration of
my Pacto de Retro. Findings showed that many other cased of stolen original
certificates of land titles have taken place in the said office but the said Attorney as the
Register of Deeds did not prosecute the thieves thereof.
I filed Estafa case against the Vendor-a-Retro together with her accomplices to include
said Attorney Jose A. Grageda, coursing it through the local Barangay Captain last May
1987 yet, then forwarded to the City Fiscal through the Police Station Commander in
June 1987 but that and until the time of this Report was not tried in Court yet but that
the Information did not include said Atty. Jose A. Grageda, hence this report.
Respondent filed his counter-affidavit dated March 29, 1989, pertinently alleging:
6. That they showed me a copy of the title which I examined and found out the title was
clear and there was no annotation or entry so I told them that as far as the title was
concern there was no encumbrances or annotation and can be the subject of the Pacto
de Retro;
7. That they insisted that I notarized the document so I proceeded to translate the
document in Cebu, Visayan dialect to make sure that the parties understood the deed
and they replied that they understood this and I asked then further if they have any
more to add or delete; they answered that there was no more and they will sign the
same;
8. That I told them to sign the document above their typewritten name which they did
and witnessed by the other person with them who were present, so after their signature
in good faith based upon their documents I notarized the same.
Issue/s:
Whether or not Atty. Jose A. Grageda should be suspended from practicing law
because of his misconduct.
Ruling:
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high
standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the
public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of
honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to
his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity
which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the profession. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., 214 SCRA 1 [1992]).
In the case at bar, respondent should have been conscientious in seeing to it that
justice permeated every aspect of a transaction for which his services had been
engaged, in conformity with the avowed duties of a worthy member of the Bar. He
should have fully explained the legal intricacies and consequences of the subject
transaction as would aid the parties in making an informed decision. Such responsibility
was plainly incumbent upon him, and failing therein, he must now face the
commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. After all, notarization is
not an empty routine. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a
public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
ACCORDINGLY, and as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, the
Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent Atty. Jose A. Grageda from the practice of
law for a period of three (3) months commencing from receipt of this Resolution, with
the warning that a repetition of the same or any other misconduct will be dealt with more
severely. Let a copy of this Resolution be spread on the records of said respondent,
with copies thereof furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and duly
circularized to all courts.