This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon located at 959 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu, contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of Manila where the parties reside. Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case. Because of this, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay. In his defense, respondent claimed that one of his duties as punong barangay was to hear complaints referred to the barangayâ€™s Lupong Tagapamayapa. As such, he heard the complaint of Regina and Antonio against Elizabeth and Pastor. As head of the Lupon, he performed his task with utmost objectivity, without bias or partiality towards any of the parties. The parties, however, were not able to amicably settle their dispute and Regina and Antonio filed the ejectment case. It was then that Elizabeth sought his legal assistance. He acceded to her request. He handled her case for free because she was financially distressed and he wanted to prevent the commission of a patent injustice against her. The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. As there was no factual issue to thresh out, the IBPâ€™s Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) required the parties to submit their respective position papers. After evaluating the contentions of the parties, the IBP-CBD found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to the IBP-CBD, respondent admitted that, as punong barangay, he presided over the conciliation proceedings and heard the complaint of Regina and Antonio against Elizabeth and Pastor. Subsequently, however, he represented Elizabeth and Pastor in the ejectment case filed against them by Regina and Antonio. In the course thereof, he prepared and signed pleadings including the answer with counterclaim, pre-trial brief, position paper and notice of appeal. By so doing, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 6.03 â€“ A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he intervened while in said service.
Furthermore, as an elective official, respondent contravened the prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713: SEC. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. â€“ In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official ands employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx xxx xxx (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. â€“ Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: xxx xxx xxx (2) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; xxx (emphasis supplied) According to the IBP-CBD, respondentâ€™s violation of this prohibition constituted a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND, PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. (emphasis supplied) For these infractions, the IBP-CBD recommended the respondentâ€™s suspension from the practice of law for one month with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. This was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors. We modify the foregoing findings regarding the transgression of respondent as well as the recommendation on the imposable penalty. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Applies Only to Former Government Lawyers Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As worded, that Rule applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and in connection â€œwith any matter in which he intervened while in said service.â€ In PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, we ruled that Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting â€œengagement or employment in connection with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in said service.â€ Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act complained of. Therefore, he was not covered by that provision. Section 90 of RA 7160, Not Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713,
Governs The Practice of Profession of Elective Local Government Officials Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 prohibits public officials and employees, during their incumbency, from engaging in the private practice of their profession â€œunless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.â€ This is the general law which applies to all public officials and employees. For elective local government officials, Section 90 of RA 7160 governs: SEC. 90. Practice of Profession. â€“ (a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives. (b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are members of the Bar shall not: (1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party; (2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office; (3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an official; and (4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the Government. (c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only on occasions of emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do not derive monetary compensation therefrom. This is a special provision that applies specifically to the practice of profession by elective local officials. As a special law with a definite scope (that is, the practice of profession by elective local officials), it constitutes an exception to Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713, the general law on engaging in the private practice of profession by public officials and employees. Lex specialibus derogat generalibus. Under RA 7160, elective local officials of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays are the following: the governor, the vice governor and members of the sangguniang panlalawigan for provinces; the city mayor, the city vice mayor and the members of the sangguniang panlungsod for cities; the municipal mayor, the municipal vice mayor and the members of the sangguniang bayan for municipalities and the punong barangay, the members of the sangguniang barangay and the members of the sangguniang kabataan for barangays. Of these elective local officials, governors, city mayors and municipal mayors are prohibited
from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives. This is because they are required to render full time service. They should therefore devote all their time and attention to the performance of their official duties. On the other hand, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours. In other words, they may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools outside their session hours. Unlike governors, city mayors and municipal mayors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan are required to hold regular sessions only at least once a week. Since the law itself grants them the authority to practice their professions, engage in any occupation or teach in schools outside session hours, there is no longer any need for them to secure prior permission or authorization from any other person or office for any of these purposes. While, as already discussed, certain local elective officials (like governors, mayors, provincial board members and councilors) are expressly subjected to a total or partial proscription to practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Since they are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession. And this stands to reason because they are not mandated to serve full time. In fact, the sangguniang barangay is supposed to hold regular sessions only twice a month. Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to practice his profession. However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations. A Lawyer In Government Service Who Is Not Prohibited To Practice Law Must Secure Prior Authority From The Head Of His Department A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at the disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of law only with the written permission of the head of the department concerned. Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules provides: Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of the Department: Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government; Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities, time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee: And provided, finally, that no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve real
or apparent conflict between his private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer of the board of directors. (emphasis supplied) As punong barangay, respondent should have therefore obtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do. The failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. Lawyers are servants of the law, vires legis, men of the law. Their paramount duty to society is to obey the law and promote respect for it. To underscore the primacy and importance of this duty, it is enshrined as the first canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 1.01 â€“ A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. (emphasis supplied) For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. (emphasis supplied) Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for violation of the lawyerâ€™s oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six months effective from his receipt of this resolution. He is sternly WARNED that any repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.
Respondent allegedly started courting her.000. plus no less than P300. to the accompaniment of sweet inducements such as the promise of a job. Rellosa. Rongcal (respondent).” the parties’ conflicting versions of the facts as culled from the records are hereinafter presented. Her former classmate who was then a Barangay Secretary referred her to respondent. she and respondent started having a sexual relationship. DIOSDADO M. The allegations raised in this complaint for disbarment are more sordid.Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and entered into the records of respondent Atty. ATTY.00 for the surgical operation their daughter would need for her congenital heart ailment. she said. RONGCAL. Diosdado M. At around this point. Vitug (complainant) against Atty. Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer. After several meetings with complainant. She narrates that this twist in the events began after respondent started calling on her shortly after he had sent the demand letter in her behalf. by complainant’s own admission. respondent sent a demand letter in her behalf to Aquino wherein he asked for the continuance of the monthly child support Aquino used to give. for support. As such. giving her financial aid. Complainant narrates that she and respondent met sometime in December 2000 when she was looking for a lawyer to assist her in suing Arnulfo Aquino (“Aquino”). being the most severe forms of disciplinary sanction. the biological father of her minor daughter. Vicente G. Under consideration is the administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Catherine Joie P. from the usual. convincing and satisfactory proof. close scrutiny of these claims is called for. should be imposed with great caution and only in those cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar is established by clear. . A classic case of “he said. The Office of the Court Administrator shall furnish copies to all the courts of the land for their information and guidance. CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG vs. if not tawdry. Soon he had progressed to making sexual advances towards complainant.
and his services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.” On 14 February 2001. he was. in truth. On 9 February 2001.financial security for her daughter. Because she completely trusted him at this point. respondent handed her his personal check in the amount of P150. Furthermore. assured by respondent’s claim that the lawyer was free to marry her. .00 in two (2) postdated checks to answer for the medical expenses of her daughter.000.00 and promised to give her the balance of P58. respondent allegedly advised complainant that Aquino gave him P150.000. she signed the document “without even taking a glance at it. Complainant maintains that inspite of their sexual relationship and the fact that respondent kept part of the money intended for her daughter. 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. She was not allowed to read the contents of the Affidavit. Federico S. Complainant acknowledges that she succumbed to these advances. sometime in April or May 2001. Respondent purportedly assured complainant that despite the Affidavit. Respondent supposedly assured her that the document meant nothing. respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit of Disclaimer (“Affidavit”) categorically stating that even as Aquino was denoted as the father in the birth certificate of her daughter. Jr. he still failed in his promise to give her a job.00 soon thereafter. as his own marriage had already been annulled. Tolentino. she could still pursue a case against Aquino in the future because the Affidavit is not a public document. Tolentino”). Instead of turning them over to her.00 cash and P58. (“Atty. necessary as it was the only way that Aquino would agree to give her daughter medical and educational support.000.000. she claims. not the real father. However. he did not file the case against Aquino and referred her instead to Atty.
he and Aquino communicated through an emissary. In making false promises that all her problems would be solved. respondent was able to appropriate for himself money that rightfully belonged to her daughter. and Canon 7.Sometime in 2002. complainant needed a lawyer who would file the aforementioned action for support. He admits sending a demand letter to her former lover. Rule 16. aggravated by his assurance that his marriage had already been annulled. She argues that respondent’s aforementioned acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility (“Code”). which obviously worked to her disadvantage. Aquino. Taking advantage of the trust and confidence she had in him as her counsel and paramour.02. Rule 1. Subsequently. to ask support for the child. complainant filed a criminal case for child abuse as well as a civil case against Aquino. He learned that because of Aquino’s infidelity. It was only when said cases were filed that she finally understood the import of the Affidavit. his relationship with his wife was strained so that in order to settle things the spouses were willing to give complainant a lump sum provided she would execute an affidavit to the effect that Aquino is not the father of her daughter.02. who was also his fellow barangay official. particularly Rule 1.01. Hence. While the criminal case was dismissed. respondent presents a different version. and dire financial need at that time. Rule 16. the civil case was decided on 30 August 2004 by virtue of a compromise agreement. assisted by Atty.01. respondent allegedly deceived her into yielding to his sexual desires. . referred her to him. Expectedly. her weak emotional state. Complainant avers that respondent failed to protect her interest when he personally prepared the Affidavit and caused her to sign the same. Complainant’s former high school classmate Reinilda Bansil Morales. Tolentino. she filed the instant complaint dated 2 February 2004. According to him.
000. He denies that he tricked her into believing that his marriage was already annulled.00 in cash and she allegedly told respondent that he could keep the remaining P38. Second. she requested that he negotiate for an out-of-court settlement of no less than P500. respondent admits of his sexual liaison with complainant.00. as he gave her the draft before the actual payment was made. When complainant allegedly signed the Affidavit. Ms.000. Aquino then proposed to rediscount the checks at an interest of 4% a month or a total of P12. first.000.00.” complainant then being in her thirties. Aquino allegedly offered to issue four postdated checks in equal amounts within four months. When Aquino rejected the amount. After several days. it was more of a “chemistry of (sic) two consensual (sic) adults. respondent devotes considerable effort to demonstrate that complainant very well knew he was married when they commenced what was to him. they had allegedly first met at his residence where she was actually introduced to his wife. Morales. they had met through his colleague. According to him.000.000.00. He then advised her to study the proposal thoroughly and with a practical mindset. Strangely. an extra-marital liaison. He denies forcing her to sign the document and strongly refutes her allegation that she did not know what the Affidavit was for and that she signed it without even reading it. As regards their illicit relationship. The resulting amount was P188.Respondent relayed this proposal to complainant who asked for his advice. He points out that. the same Affidavit adverted to by complainant. a friend and former high school classmate of hers. Subsequently.000. he assumed that it was for his attorney’s fees.00.00.000. however.00 of the settlement proceeds. Complainant disagreed. He notes that complainant is a college graduate and a former bank He likewise vehemently denies pocketing employee who speaks and understands English. Although she did not say why. He. He also explained to her the pros and cons of pursuing the case. Complainant finally agreed to this arrangement and voluntarily signed the Affidavit that respondent prepared. not P58. the emissary handed to her the sum of P150.000. complainant called his residence several . negotiations ensued until the amount was lowered to P200. P58. denies luring her with sweet words and empty promises.00 as alleged in the complaint.
In July 2003.times and actually spoke to his wife. he was the Punong Barangay from 1994 to 2002. He ran for the position of Provincial Board Member in 2001. which he turned down. referred her to Atty. complainant begged him to continue the assistance until June when her alleged fiancé from the United States would have arrived. Since then. Pampanga.00 for six (6) months. Since then he had stopped Sometime in January 2004. He also informed her that he could not assist her in filing the case.00 for a sari-sari store she was putting up and she . But months passed and the promised job never came so that she had to return to Lubao. Third.000. he also advised her “to look for the right man” and to stop depending on him for financial assistance. Tolentino. respondent finally ended his relationship with complainant. complainant allegedly went to see a friend of respondent. He. but still he agreed to give her monthly financial assistance of P6. In August 2002. she again asked for financial assistance for the last time. As the money she received from Aquino was about to be exhausted. In 2003. she allegedly started to pester respondent for financial assistance and urged him to file the Petition for Support against Aquino.000. he was known in his locality and it was impossible for complainant not to have known of his marital status especially that she lived no more than three (3) kilometers away from his house and even actively helped him in his campaign. they have ceased to meet and have communicated only through an emissary or by cellphone. and was elected President of the Association of Barangay Council (“ABC”) and as such was an ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Guagua. Thus. as he was the one who prepared and notarized the Affidavit. a circumstance so disturbing to respondent that he had to beg complainant not to call him there. While respondent acceded to her pleas. Respondent agreed. Respondent further alleges that while the demand for support from Aquino was being worked out. however. She told him that she was in need of P5. communicating to her. complainant moved to a rented house in Olongapo City because a suitor had promised her a job in the Subic Naval Base. Pampanga.
From a lawyer.00 within two months. high sense of honor. reporting in this wise. putting in doubt his professional reputation as a member of the BAR and renders him unfit and unworthy of the privileges which the law confers to him.] respondent kept on calling complainant and dropped by her house and gave P2. According to this friend. On 21 July 2004. through the above mentioned acts. a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the impositions (sic) of the appropriate penalty. he alleges. the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) for investigation. On several occasions[. After presenting the parties’ conflicting factual versions.wanted him to relay the message to respondent. Sensing that he was being blackmailed. the Investigating Commissioner rendered his Report and Recommendation dated 2 September 2005. He took advantage of her seeming financial woes and emotional dependency. are (sic) expected those qualities of truthspeaking. full candor. True enough. It signals the numerous visits and regular calls all because of [l]ewd design. report and recommendation.000. intellectual honesty and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility all of which throughout the passage of time have been compendiously described as MORAL CHARACTER. xxxx Without doubt. respondent ignored her demand. clearly showed that he is wanting in good moral character. she filed the instant complaint. to wit: Respondent. Respondent. x x x 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 P58.00 as aid while waiting allegedly for the reply of (sic) their demand letter for support. After the parties submitted their respective position papers and supporting documents. unfortunately took advantage and (sic) every opportunity to entice complainant to his lascivious hungerness (sic). complainant showed him a prepared complaint against respondent that she would file with the Supreme Court should the latter not accede to her request. the Investigating Commissioner gave credence to that of complainant and concluded that respondent clearly violated the Code.000. including suspension and disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the said Report and .
albeit brief and discreet. giving a more detailed account of the events that transpired between him and complainant. In a Resolution dated 27 April 2006. respondent does not deny that he had an extra-marital affair with complainant. we adjudicate the matter differently from what the IBP has recommended.000.Recommendation in a Resolution dated 17 December 2005. otherwise. and which act is not “so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree” in order to merit disciplinary sanction. finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules. he portrays complainant as a shrewd and manipulative woman who depends on men for financial support and who would stop at nothing to get what she wants. Arguing that the IBP based its Resolution solely on complainant’s bare allegations that she failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. Altogether. As .00 to complainant. he posits the case should be re-opened for clarificatory questioning in order to determine who between them is telling the truth. We disagree. the IBP denied the Motion on the ground that it has no more jurisdiction over the case as the matter had already been endorsed to the Supreme Court. On the charge of immorality.” respondent was meted out the penalty of suspension for one (1) year with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts will merit severe sanctions. While we find respondent liable. and “considering Respondent’s obviously taking advantage of the lawyer-client relationship and the financial and emotional problem of his client and attempting to mislead the Commission. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning (“Motion”) dated 9 March 2006 with the IBP and a Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning dated 22 March 2006 with the Supreme Court. He reiterates his own version of the facts. He was likewise ordered to return P58. the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.
It is a willful. would not be easily fooled into sexual congress by promises of a job and of free legal assistance. sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. Complainant’s allegations that she succumbed to respondent’s sexual advances due to his promises of financial security and because of her need for legal assistance in filing a case against her former lover. By his own admission. immoral or deceitful conduct. being at that time in her thirties. While the IBP concluded the question in the affirmative. the circumstance that he gave her P2. flagrant.00 as aid does not induce belief that he fueled her . it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. The next question to consider is whether this act is aggravated by his alleged deceitful conduct in luring complainant who was then in low spirits and in dire financial need in order to satisfy his carnal desires. lawyers must not only in fact be 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. precisely the fact on which the finding of immorality is rooted. Moreover. 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. an educated woman like herself who was of sufficient age and discretion. Surely. At best. respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1. but grossly immoral. especially when there is no showing that she is suffering from any mental or physical disability as to justify such recklessness and/or helplessness on her part. While it is has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior. The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral.officers of the court.000. dishonest. Respondent’s numerous visits and regular calls to complainant do not necessarily prove that he took advantage of her. it proves that he courted her despite being a married man. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law. are insufficient to conclude that complainant deceived her into having sexual relations with her. we find otherwise. or shameless act that shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
She was clearly in need of financial support from Aquino especially that her daughter was suffering from a heart ailment. Neither does complainant’s allegation that respondent lied to her about his marital status inspire belief. We cannot fathom how she could abandon all cares to respondent who she had met for only a couple of months and thereby risk the welfare of her child by signing without even reading a document she knew was related to the support case she intended to file. if not badgering. it would be unnatural for her to have just plunged into a sexual relationship with respondent whom she had known for only a short time without verifying his background. Next. It is unlikely she was not able to read it before she signed it. We are left with the most logical conclusion that she freely and wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral relationship with respondent sans any misrepresentation or deceit on his part. She also knew that respondent is an active barangay official who even ran as Provincial Board Member in 2001. . She herself admitted that they were introduced by her friend and former classmate. him for financial support. she never refuted respondent’s allegations that she had met and talked to his wife on several occasions. We find credence in respondent’s assertion that it was impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting marriage. that she helped him in his campaign. complainant charged respondent of taking advantage of his legal skills and moral control over her to force her to sign the clearly disadvantageous Affidavit without letting her read it and without explaining to her its repercussions.financial dependence as she never denied pleading with. Curiously. Considering that she previously had an affair with Aquino. who was also a married man. The Affidavit consists of four short sentences contained in a single page.” as alleged in her complaint. that she lived near his residence. She admitted that she knew his residence phone number and that she had called him there. so as not to have known of his marital status. We find complainant’s assertions dubious. We believe that her aforementioned allegations of deceit were not established by clear preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases. Ms. if it were true that she preferred “to change [her] life for the better. or that she knew a lot of his friends. she alleged that he likewise acted as counsel for Aquino. Morales who was a fellow barangay official of respondent. While acting as her counsel.
we only have complainant’s bare allegations that cannot be considered evidence.000. Furthermore.00 and pocketed the remaining P58. she cannot later blame her counsel when she experiences a change of heart. is a violation of the Code. In the absence of contrary evidence.Likewise obscure is her assertion that respondent did not fully explain to her the contents of the Affidavit and the consequences of signing it. Instead of turning over the whole amount. the record is bereft of evidence as to whether respondent also acted as Aquino’s counsel in the settlement of the case. The IBP did not make any categorical finding on this matter but simply ordered respondent to return the amount of P58. The question remains as to whether his act of preparing and notarizing the Affidavit.00 in violation of his fiduciary obligation to her as her counsel. Besides. We rule in the negative. what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duty in accordance with his oath.” If her own allegation is to be believed. Again. The Affidavit is written in short and simple sentences that are understandable even to a layman. Complainant further charged respondent of misappropriating part of the money given by Aquino to her daughter. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. . She alleged that respondent even urged her “to use her head as Arnulfo Aquino will not give the money for Alexandra’s medical and educational support if she will not sign the said Affidavit of Disclaimer. there is no showing that he knew for sure that Aquino is the father of complainant’s daughter as paternity remains to be proven. she does not deny being a college graduate or that she knows and understands English. The inevitable conclusion is that she signed the Affidavit voluntarily and without any coercion whatsoever on the part of respondent. It also goes to show that she was pondering on whether to sign the same. he allegedly issued to her his personal check in the amount of P150. The law encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in court. it shows that she was aware of the on-going negotiation with Aquino for the settlement of her claim for which the latter demanded the execution of the Affidavit. is not enough. Moreover. We feel a discussion is in order. Suspicion. As complainant voluntarily and intelligently agreed to a settlement with Aquino.00 to complainant. a document disadvantageous to his client. no matter how strong.000.000.
We also are unable to grant complainant’s prayer for respondent to be made liable for the cost of her child’s DNA test absent proof that he misappropriated funds exclusively earmarked for the purpose. The IBP relied only on the written assertions of the parties. We find the circumstances rather suspicious but evidence is wanting to sustain a finding in favor of either party in this respect.000.00 more – and complainant said he could have it and he assumed it was for his attorney’s fees.000.000.00. there is on record a photocopy of a check issued by respondent in favor of complainant for P150. apparently finding no need to subject the veracity of the assertions through the question and answer modality. It was only in his Motion for Reconsideration where respondent belatedly proffers an explanation. Respondent essentially agrees that the amount is in fact more than P150. Its primary objective is to protect the Court and the public from the misconduct of its officers with the end in view of preserving the .000.We note that there is no clear evidence as to how much Aquino actually gave in settlement of complainant’s claim for support. With the inconclusive state of the evidence. Hence.00 – but only P38. one that is distinct from a civil or a criminal action. a more in-depth investigation is called for to ascertain in whose favor the substantial evidence level tilts. respondent admits that there is actually an amount of P38. Curiously. we are constrained to remand the case to the IBP for further reception of evidence solely on this aspect. Suffice it to state that an administrative case against a lawyer is sui generis.000.000.000. We scrutinized the records and found not a single evidence to prove that there existed two postdated checks issued by Aquino in the amount of P58.00. On the other hand. The parties are in agreement that complainant received the amount of P150.00 but presented no evidence of an agreement for attorney’s fees to justify his presumption that he can keep the same. He avers that he cannot recall what the check was for but he supposes that complainant requested for it as she did not want to travel all the way to Olongapo City with a huge sum of money.00.00 that respondent never turned over to her. Neither shall we entertain complainant’s claim for moral damages and attorney’s fees. It is an investigation by the Court into the fitness of a lawyer to remain in the legal profession and be allowed the privileges as such. complainant insists that she should have received more as there were two postdated checks amounting to P58. However. We cannot and should not rule on mere conjectures.
However. WHEREFORE. Judge Barte. J. we believe that a fine of P15. We. lured an innocent woman into marriage. The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is REMANDED to the IBP for further investigation. Appalled at his reprehensible and amoral attitude. The instant case can be easily differentiated from the foregoing cases. the Court suspended him indefinitely. ALCANTARA. where respondent judge consorted with a woman not his wife. vs. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and impose on him a FINE of P15. Considering further that this is his first offense. he was fined P10. We note that from the very beginning of this case. in Fr. respondent. and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice Respondent’s misconduct is of considerable gravity. As such. of course. we find Atty. Diosdado M. DECISION MENDOZA. In Zaguirre v. complainant. therefore. respondent was found to have sired a child with another woman who knew he was married. herein respondent had expressed remorse over his indiscretion and had in fact ended the brief illicit relationship years ago. There is a string of cases where the Court meted out the extreme penalty of disbarment on the ground of gross immorality where the respondent contracted a bigamous marriage. it involves no private interest and affords no redress for private grievance. would accomplish the end desired. but there was no conclusive evidence that he sired a child with her.00 for his conduct unbecoming a magistrate despite his retirement during the pendency of the case. ATTY. is without prejudice to the outcome of the aspect of this case involving the alleged misappropriation of funds of the client. or was found to be a womanizer. report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this Decision. He therein sought understanding from the Court pointing out the polygamous nature of men and that the illicit relationship was a product of mutual lust and desire.000. such as temporary suspension. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the lawyer’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. honorable and reliable men and women in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. heed the stern injunction on decreeing disbarment where any lesser penalty. ANTONIO A.000.000. This. Sinnott v. Castillo.: .00 would suffice. abandoned his family to cohabit with his paramour. cohabited with a married woman. We take these as signs that his is not a character of such severe depravity and thus should be taken as mitigating circumstances in his favor. MARIANO PEFIANCO. premises considered.purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent.
Atty. Salvani. buyon nga klase ka tawo. Antique. Salvani and his client. he confronted respondent Pefianco and told him to observe civility or else to leave the office if he had no business there. Ramon Salvani III. but before they could do so.) Then. Alcantara said that he would send me out of the PAO. Nga-a ginaareglo mo ina. respondent pointed his finger at him and repeated his statement for the other people in the office to hear. Two guards of the Hall of Justice came to take respondent out of the office. Atty. At this point. He asked his clerk to put a notice outside prohibiting anyone from interfering with any activity in the Public Attorneys Office. the guards were able to fend off respondents blow and complainant was not harmed. At this point. who was sitting nearby. tried to pacify respondent Pefianco. (Why do you settle that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake. Mariano Pefianco. what an idiot. Atty.) Complainant said he was surprised at respondent Pefiancos outburst and asked him to cool off. Atty. As head of the Office. This caused a commotion in the office. Salvani tried to explain to respondent that it was the woman who was asking if the civil aspect of the criminal case could be settled because she was no longer interested in prosecuting the same. Respondent refused to listen and instead continued to scold Atty. Antique. respondent tried to attack complainant and even shouted at him. (Atty. To avoid any scene with respondent. Complainant said that he then went out to attend a hearing. Felizardo Del Rosario.This is a complaint against Atty. but respondent continued to fulminate at Atty. according to complainant. the Chief of the Probation Office. Antonio A. He alleged that on May 18. is the incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public Attorneys Office in San Jose. Salvani and the latters client. but when he came back he heard respondent Pefianco saying: Nagsiling si Atty. Gago ka! (Youre stupid!) Fortunately. stood up and shouted at Atty. Herbert Ysulat and Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations. 2000. saying. ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente para mahibal-an na anang sala. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose. respondent Atty. complainant approached respondent and asked him to take it easy and leave Atty. Robert Minguez. complainant went inside his office. Pepin Marfil and Mr. respondent even took a menacing stance towards him. The complainant. Robert Minguez. . Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty. Salvani. Mariano Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for using improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault complainant. a woman approached them. Salvani talk with her amicably as a hearing was taking place in another room. Complainant saw the woman in tears. while Atty. Pepin Joey Marfil. Complainant said respondent resented this and started hurling invectives at him. Alcantara. upon seeing complainant. Alcantara nga pagwa-on na kuno ako dya sa PAO. but shortly after he again started shouting at and scolding Atty. Respondent at first listened. According to complainant. Salvani to settle the matter. whereupon he went to the group and suggested that Atty.
He claimed that two security guards also came. However. respondent should realize that what he thought was righteous did not give him the right to 1 2 . Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility1 admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy. They must act honorably.In his Comment and Counter-Complaint. with his bodyguard. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. arrived and shouted at him to get out of the Public Attorneys Office. to put a sign outside prohibiting standbys from hanging round in the Public Attorneys Office. but the latter insisted on his view about the case. For this reason. moved him and prompted him to take up her defense. respondents meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused the untoward incident. The evidence on record indeed shows that it was respondent Pefianco who provoked the incident in question. The affidavits of several disinterested persons confirm complainants allegation that respondent Pefianco shouted and hurled invectives at him and Atty. Be that as it may.2 In this case. Respondent claimed that while talking with Atty. Gago ka! (Youre stupid!) Prior to the filing of the present complaint. respondent said that it was complainant who moved to punch him and shout at him. and complainant ordered them to take respondent out of the office. fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Salvani and even attempted to lay hands on him (complainant). Respondent said he was moved by the plight of the woman whose husband had been murdered as she was pleading for the settlement of her case because she needed the money. The Committee noted that respondent failed not only to deny the accusations against him but also to give any explanation for his actions. The Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that respondent committed the acts alleged in the complaint and that he violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Salvani concerning the womans case. Salvani in fact tried to explain the matter to respondent. Napoleon Labonete. Atty. Even so. respondent Pefianco had filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an administrative and criminal complaint against complainant. however. Salvani why the case of the woman had not or could not be settled. We find the recommendation of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline to be well taken. complainant. respondent Pefianco said that the sight of the crying woman. fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times. He said that he resented the fact that complainant had ordered an employee. it recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely in the future. the complaint was dismissed by the said office. whose husband had been murdered. Contrary to complainants claims. He had no right to demand an explanation from Atty.
Salvani and his client. THE PURE CANE MOLASSES CO. defendant-appellant. INC. If they choose to exaggerate or testify falsely the responsibility for as well as the consequences of their folly are their own.demand that Atty. convincing and uncontradicted" when in fact the testimony is . Even when he was being pacified. who had been summoned. The respondent attorney answered said motion and among other things stated: That the undersigned denies that he alleged that appellee's brief was misleading but that the quoted testimony referred to variously by counsel for appellee as "uncontradicted" and "clear.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning that similar action in the future will be sanctioned more severely. Garcia. was impersonal and in all respects a proper comment of the issues involved.000. representing the appellee. Greenbaum. Respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. failed to stop respondent from his verbal rampage. When. E. which documentary evidence shows to be untrue. WHEREFORE. without any justifiable motives. Atty. (PHILIPPINE ISLANDS). Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and. Two of the witnesses. That the memorandum in lieu of oral argument addressed itself to very important matters of fact which counsel for appellee urged upon the consideration of this High Court. attorney for the appellant. When such testimony is set out in a brief it can only be for the purpose of misleading the court." — and prayed "that the motion be denied with the advertence to counsel for appellee that it is improper to refer to testimony as "uncontradicted" or "clear. Instead he insulted and berated those who tried to calm him down. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.. he deliberately used his memorandum the following improper and unprofessional language: Lawyers are ordinarily not responsible for the conduct of their witnesses on the stand. attorney Felipe Ysmael. 1932. In the course of this memorandum we have referred to four different excerpts from the testimony of Mr. however. settle the case with the widow. Whatever moral righteousness respondent had was negated by the way he chose to express his indignation. the methods used and ends sought to be gained. vs. apparently the accused in the criminal case. is hereby FINED in the amount of P1. On January 23. respondent did not relent. INC. all quoted in appellee's brief. and two guards at the Hall of Justice. who went to the Public Attorneys Office because they heard the commotion. filed a motion requesting this court to punish W. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL. Pepin Marfil and Robert Minguez. convincing and uncontradicted" is so misleading. plaintiff-appellee. Atty.. a lawyer quotes such testimony and relies on it in support of his case the lawyer as well as the witnesses becomes an offender against the truth. for contempt of court for. considering this to be his first offense.
IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY." His client's he continues. Greenbaum's conduct and we declare that he has used objectionable and reproachable language which must be. From a perusal of the memorandum above referred to we are convinced that the attorney for appellant has unnecessarily. as a tribunal "peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN In L-27654." He ends his petition with a prayer that ." In the same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the people's forum. who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment. saying "that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind. YAPTINCHAY." filed on September 25. he ridicules the members of this Court. In passing upon the petitions under consideration we express our disapproval of W. stricken from the record." so that "the people may know of the silent injustice's committed by this Court. CALERO. in his own phrase. J. VIRGINIA Y. So ordered. as is hereby. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title.: Before us is Atty. The attorney for appellee replied to said answer the after alleging that it contains statements which constitute another contempt of court." has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. ANTONIO H.disproved by the witnesses' own letters and is entitled to no weight in the consideration of the case. who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. 1967. attempting to mislead this court." and that "whatever mistakes. E. RESOLUTION CASTRO. in protest against what he therein asserts is "a great injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court. but also deaf and dumb. prayed that both pleadings of the attorney for appellant be stricken from the record and that said attorney be declared guilty of contempt of court. wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be repeated. and without justification used improper and objectionable language against the attorney for the appellee and that he has charged the latter with having quoted in his brief untrue testimony thus. Let the attorneys concerned be notified of this order." He indicts this Court. vs.
1 in which Atty. In connection therewith. On June 15.. after due hearing. He served on the adverse counsel a copy of the motion. and will purge itself of those unconstitutional and obnoxious "lack of merit" or "denied resolutions...chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Because of the tribunal's "short-cut justice. Almacen said in this petition. who ignore without reason their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. Almacen's statement that . who ignore their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity was quoted by columnist Vicente Albano Pacis in the issue of the Manila Chronicle of September 28. our own Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our pleas of [sic] justice. the Manila Times published statements attributed to him. we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession. said he did it to expose the tribunal's "unconstitutional and obnoxious" practice of arbitrarily denying petitions or appeals without any reason. Pacis commented that Atty. Almacen received a copy of the decision.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library There is no use continuing his law practice.. Twenty days later. Yaptinchay vs. his client was condemned to pay P120. He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the aforementioned petition. (Emphasis supplied) Atty. Almacen had "accused the high tribunal of offenses so serious that the Court must clear itself. rendered judgment against his client. 1967." chanrobles virtual law library The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Virginia Y. The trial court. the present members of the Supreme Court "will become responsive to all cases brought to its attention without discrimination. Calero. Thus. 1967. on September 26. without knowing why he lost the case." and that "his charge is one of the constitutional bases for impeachment. 1966 Atty. 1966. or on July 5. he moved for its reconsideration. Antonio H.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library He expressed the hope that by divesting himself of his title by which he earns his living.." Almacen deplored. Almacen was counsel for the defendant. a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any time in the future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence. but did not notify . "where our Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our pleas for justice. as follows: Vicente Raul Almacen.000. in an unprecedented petition.
the plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. Atty. June 24. which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal. No. Inc.16636. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for reconsideration.. a useless piece of paper (Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. the ruling is contrary to the doctrine laid down in the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. however. 1967 and the supplement thereto of the same date filed by defendant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library There is no substantial distinction between this case and that of Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. L. dismissing the appeal. on August 22. Because the plaintiff interposed no objection to the record on appeal and appeal bond..chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library . Venturanza.the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion. in the following words: Upon consideration of the motion dated March 27. L-20417. earlier. Almacen moved to reconsider this resolution. is not decisive. June 24. L-20417.. the Court RESOLVED TO DISMISS. filed by plaintiff-appellee praying that the appeal be dismissed. vs. the appeal was perfected out of time. Batu Construction & Co. Batu Construction & Co. 1967." citing Republic of the Philippines vs. 1966. case. the appeal. June 24. 1966 a second motion for reconsideration to which he attached the required registry return card. At the same time he filed a pleading entitled "Latest decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion for Reconsideration. 1965. urging that Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. Again. therefore.. 1966. that is. Atty. had already perfected the appeal. decided by this Court on May 30. and of the opposition thereto filed by defendant-appellant. as it hereby dismisses.. the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. L-16636. upon verbal motion of Atty. L-16636. 1966.R. Almacen himself. Appellant further states that in the latest case. 1965. and. No. praying for reconsideration of the resolution of May 8. Inc.. Venturanza. on July 18." the trial court denied both motions. Meanwhile. Republic vs. printed record on appeal) does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing thereof and is.. for the reason that the motion for reconsideration dated July 5.R.appellant. was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30. This second motion for reconsideration. 1966. G. consequently. Gregorio A. Batu Construction & Co. who. Inc. as the applicable case. thus: Before this Court for resolution are the motion dated May 9. 1966 (pp. 1967. For "lack of proof of service. on the authority of this Court's decision in Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. vs. 90-113. dismissed the appeal. relied upon by this Court in its resolution of May 8. 1966. vs. 1965).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library But the Court of Appeals. Inc. decided by the Supreme Court concerning the question raised by appellant's motion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Appellant contends that there are some important distinctions between this case and that of Manila Surety and Fidelity Co. the trial court elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. G. 1967. Almacen filed on August 17. May 30.
L-27654. said case is now final and executory. Denied shortly thereafter was his motion for reconsideration as well as his petition for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and for extension of time. He also asked for leave to file a written explanation "in the event this Court has no time to hear him in person.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library It was at this juncture that Atty. Further.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Nonetheless we decided by resolution dated September 28. 1962. against this Court as well as its individual members. which was June 24. To said reminder he manifested "that he has no pending petition in connection with Case G.a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with the insolent contemptuous. the resolution denying the motion to dismiss the appeal. this Court on November 17. Almacen to show cause "why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. Patiently. which was much earlier than the date of promulgation of the decision in the Manila Surety Case. No.R." In the main decision in said case (Rep.. one of which is that in the Manila Surety and Fidelity case." already adverted to . Venturanza. the resolution in the Venturanza case was interlocutory and the Supreme Court issued it "without prejudice to appellee's restoring the point in the brief. 1967." he preferred to be heard and to answer questions "in person and in an open and public hearing" so that this Court could observe his sincerity and candor. otherwise. We refused to take the case. Almacen gave vent to his disappointment by filing his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title. So he was reminded to turn over his certificate. within five days from notice hereof. based on grounds similar to those raised herein was issued on November 26. Atty.In the case of Republic vs. Almacen to state. his reasons for such request. in an open and public hearing. Yaptinchay. a behavior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional. Venturanza the Supreme Court passed upon the issue sub silencio presumably because of its prior decisions contrary to the resolution of November 26. No word came from him. he "chose to pursue the negative act.. and by minute resolution denied the appeal. 1967 to withhold action on his petition until he shall have actually surrendered his certificate. grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks hereinbefore reproduced. 1967 resolved to require Atty. the second motion for reconsideration filed by him after the Said date was ordered expunged from the records. oral argument shall be deemed waived and incident submitted for decision. so that this Court could act on his petition. 1965. he asked for permission "to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him ." Denying the charges contained in the November 17 resolution." This Court resolved (on December 7) "to require Atty. vs." chanrobles virtual law library In the exercise of its inherent power to discipline a member of the bar for contumely and gross misconduct. 1967 resolution did not require him to do either a positive or negative act. and that since his offer was not accepted. Therefore Republic vs." To this resolution he manifested that since this Court is "the complainant." that this Court's September 28. Hence. which he had earlier vociferously offered to surrender. Entry of judgment was made on September 8. 1962. Venturanza is no authority on the matter in issue. Almacen then appealed to this Court by certiorari. Calero vs." To give . prosecutor and Judge. we waited for him to make good his proffer.
appeals for charity. the members have shown callousness to our various pleas for JUSTICE. there is a beam in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite. For with what judgment you judge. That was the unfeeling of the Court towards our pleas and prayers. and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the speck from thy brother's eyes. into disrepute.. Almacen unremittingly repeats his jeremiad of lamentations. "Let me cast out the speck from thy eye". On the contrary. that you may not be judged. compatible with his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood. Matthew: "Do not judge. and yet dost not consider the beam in thy own eye? Or how can thou say to thy brother. But why dost thou see the speck in thy brother's eye.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library Respondent stands four-square that his statement is borne by TRUTH and has been asserted with NO MALICE BEFORE AND AFTER THOUGHT but mainly motivated with the highest interest of justice that in the particular case of our client. fairness. without justification.him the ampliest latitude for his defense. . he was allowed to file a written explanation and thereafter was heard in oral argument. Chapter 7. let me quote passages from the Holy Bible. supplications. St. But he vigorously DENY under oath that the underscored statements contained in the CHARGE are insolent. . first cast out the beam from thy own eye.what did we get from this COURT? One word.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library ." chanrobles virtual law library "Therefore all that you wish men to do to you. you shall be judged. sympathy and above all in the highest interest of JUSTICE. words of humility. Thus: At the start.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library To all these beggings.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library His written answer. this time embellishing it with abundant sarcasm and innuendo. even to do you also to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets. that they tend to bring the entire Court. with all its hardiness and insensibility. generosity. and constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the noble profession of law. our pleadings will bear us on this matter. and behold.. nor consent to the doing of any in court. contemptuous. he refirms the truth of what he stated. it shall be measured to you. as undignified and cynical as it is unchastened." xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library Your respondent has no intention of disavowing the statements mentioned in his petition. offers -no apology. grossly disrespectful and derogatory to the individual members of the Court. Far from being contrite Atty. understanding. in simple word. it is plain callousness towards our particular case. DENIED. and with what measure you measure.
it is still being circulated that justice in the Philippines today is not what it is used to be before the war. We were angry but we waited for the finality of the decision. carefulness. are the very things that were applied to us. . not the SINNER.. We attack the decision of this Court. what injustices are committed in thy name. what technicalities are committed in thy name' or more appropriately. confidence and wisdom". We never interfered nor obstruct in the performance of their duties. We were provoked. . what crimes are committed in thy name". "O Liberty."the story is current. the way of life in the Philippines today. that even our own President. "O JUSTICE.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for JUSTICE.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library . DID YOU? Sir. We waited until this Court has performed its duties. though nebulous . We detest the ACTS. said: . CHARITY. we may dare say. 'O JUSTICE." xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library We must admit that this Court is not free from commission of any abuses. NEVER.is to its truth. We were compelled by force of necessity. a marketable commodity in the Philippines. . A strong public opinion must be generated so as to curtail these abuses. you remained unpunished.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library The INJUSTICES which we have attributed to this Court and the further violations we sought to be prevented is impliedly shared by our President. GENEROSITY and FAIRNESS? Did His Honors attempt to justify their stubborn denial with any semblance of reason." chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library We condemn the SIN. your Respondent rise to claim his God given right to speak the truth and his Constitutional right of free speech. Recalling Madam Roland's famous apostrophe during the French revolution.. is now in the attempt to inflict punishment on your respondent for acts he said in good faith.. Now that your respondent is given the opportunity to face you. But in the end. but who would correct such abuses considering that yours is a court of last resort.Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court that notwithstanding the violation of the Constitution. not the members. Is this. he reiterates the same statement with emphasis. after seeing that the Constitution has placed finality on your judgment against our client and sensing that you have not performed your duties with "circumspection. this Court in the reverse order of natural things. There are those who have told me frankly and brutally that justice is a commodity. not the ACTOR..chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx What has been abhored and condemned.
If we have to choose between forcing ourselves to have faith and confidence in the members of the Court but disregard our Constitution and to uphold the Constitution and be condemned by the members of this Court..S.. We are quite aware of the criticisms2 expressed against this Court's practice of rejecting petitions by minute resolutions. most petitions rejected by this Court are utterly frivolous and ought never to have been lodged at all. only to have his efforts rebuffed with a terse unadorned denial. fairness. The proper role of the Supreme Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library As we have stated. Truth to tell. Justice is blind is symbolize in paintings that can be found in all courts and government offices. IN TRUST ONLY. the vituperative chaff which he claims is not intended as a studied disrespect to this Court. Because what has been lost today may be regained tomorrow. we would be unable to carry out effectively the burden placed upon us by the Constitution. Supreme Court has defined it. understanding sympathy and for justice. then we alone may decide as to when we must end our self-sacrifice. as Mr. By and large.The phrase. is to decide "only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. not one word was spoken or given .chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library He chafes at the minute resolution denial of his petition for review. however. But overlooking. there is no choice. and as to the same petition different reasons may read different justices to the same result .3 The rest do exhibit a first-impression cogency. . We have added only two more symbols. Deaf in the sense that no members of this Court has ever heard our cries for charity. We only describe the." Pertinent here is the observation of Mr. dumb in the sense. 566: A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ. impersonal state of things and nothing more. generosity. for the nonce. withstand critical scrutiny.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library . Baltimore Radio Show.. let us examine the grain of his grievances. supplications. this Court has been generous in giving due course to petitions for certiorari. ed 562. that inspite of our beggings. we must uphold the latter. and pleadings to give us reasons why our appeal has been DENIED. were we to accept every case or write a full opinion for every petition we reject.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Be this as it may. As the offer was intended as our self-imposed sacrifice. we have lost our faith and confidence in the members of this Court and for which reason we offered to surrender our lawyer's certificate. but fail to. We refer to no human defect or ailment in the above statement. Justice Frankfurter in Maryland vs. that it is also deaf and dumb. We have given this suggestion very careful thought. 94 L.. and to spell out the reasons for denial. Chief Justice Vinson of the U. We have been asked to do away with it. to state the facts and the law. For we know the abject frustration of a lawyer who tediously collates the facts and for many weary hours meticulously marshalls his arguments.
on their merits. nor has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court. Practical considerations preclude. 1963 (60 O.. the need for compelling reasons to buttress such petitions if this Court is to be moved into accepting them. During the last three terms the Court disposed of 260. If the Court is to do its work it would not be feasible to give reasons. and so there is no need to fully explain the court's denial. even confusing reasons for denying petitions for certiorari. the petitioners counsel urged that a "lack of merit" resolution violates Section 12 of Article VIII of the Constitution. For one thing. while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion. this Court. wherein petitions for review are often merely ordered "dismissed".21098.helped the Court in alleviating its heavy docket. chanrobles virtual law library . et al. 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which recites: Review of Court of Appeals' decision discretionary.189 petitions calling for discretionary review. it was patterned after the practice of the U. 1. Hence. Apart from the fact that as already indicated different reasons not infrequently move different members of the Court in concluding that a particular case at a particular time makes review undesirable. however brief. respectively. For the same three terms the Court denied. The tune that would be required is prohibitive. This axiom is implied in sec. and. They merely hold that the petition for review should not be entertained in view of the provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. May 31. 224 cases. et al. in effect. and we held that these "resolutions" are not "decisions" within the above constitutional requirement. and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. For it is axiomatic that the supervisory jurisdiction vested upon this Court over the Court of Appeals is not intended to give every losing party another hearing. 1. The following.. this mode of disposal has . but of sound judicial discretion. In order that the Court may be enabled to discharge its indispensable duties. the same question has been raised before. There. articulated its considered view on this matter.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library By the way. to the uninformed. not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court. indicate the character of reasons which will be considered: chanrobles virtual law library (a) When the Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance.105. Six years ago. for refusing to take these cases. in Novino.260. 217. the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion.Since there are these conflicting. through the then Chief Justice Cesar Bengzon. Said Chief Justice Bengzon: In connection with identical short resolutions. We underscore the fact that cases taken to this Court on petitions for certiorari from the Court of Appeals have had the benefit of appellate review.-A review is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. and even ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it. within the Court's discretion. Congress has placed the control of the Court's business.as intended . 8099).S. respectively.1. 1. it has been suggested from time to time that the Court indicate its reasons for denial. Court of Appeals. It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right.G. vs.
and place of hearing and shall be served upon all the Parties concerned at least three days in advance. And according to Section 6 of the same Rule no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of such notice. 866. This rule was unequivocally articulated in Manila Surety & Fidelity vs. Indeed it has been held that in such a case the motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper (Philippine National Bank v. Feb. and Director of Lands vs. 81.. incidentally. 45 Phil. Almacen's petition for review. Far from straying away from the "accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings. 1963. The reason is obvious: Unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing the Court would have no way to determine whether that party agrees to or objects to the motion. 117). If Atty. Sanz. Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa v. That is why lawyers are given 'wide latitude to differ with. is not a matter of right. We know that it is natural for a lawyer to express his dissatisfaction each time he loses what he sanguinely believes to be a meritorious case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library . Atty.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library As a law practitioner who was admitted to the Bar as far back as 1941. and voice their disapproval of. as to call for the exercise of the power of supervision. and if he objects." But he made sure that he assumed the posture of a martyr.or ought to have known . I. and. His own negligence caused the forfeiture of the remedy of appeal. Batu Construction & Co. supra: The written notice referred to evidently is prescribed for motions in general by Rule 15.18638. Recalling Atty. Damasco. 28. and records. but also notify the adverse party of the time and place of hearing (which admittedly he did not). he has only himself to blame. Almacen failed to move the appellate court to review the lower court's judgment. to hear him on his objection. or so far sanctioned such departure by the lower court. not only the courts' rulings but. which provides that such notice shall state the time. which. also the manner in which they are handed down. in offering to surrender his professional certificate." it traced the procedural lines etched by this Court in a number of decisions. the movant must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party (which he did).(b) When the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings. since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition. citing Manakil v. Municipality of Unisan. Almacen knew . that the Court of Appeals had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of his appeal in the light of the law and applicable decisions of this Court. we found. Revilla. he took the liberty of vilifying this Court and inflicting his exacerbating rancor on the members thereof. 41 Phil. he looked for a "whipping boy.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Nonetheless we gave this unprecedented act of Atty. upon a thoroughgoing examination of the pleadings. Sections 4 and 5 (formerly Rule 26). It would thus appear that there is no justification for his scurrilous and scandalous outbursts.that for a motion for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of appeal. There was. therefore. To shift away from himself the consequences of his carelessness. Almacen the most circumspect consideration. 42 Phil. no need for this Court to exercise its supervisory power.
13 For like the executive and the legislative branches. 641: No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expansion or publication of opinions as to the capacity. with "imminent danger to the administration of justice. Criticism of the courts has. in assuming the important place accorded to him in the administration of justice.9 This danger lurks especially in such a case as this where those who Sit as members of an entire Court are themselves collectively the aggrieved parties.4 or that it is articulated by a lawyer. the judiciary is rooted in the soil of democratic society." said the Supreme Court of Nebraska. In written for law journals he dissects with detachment the doctrinal pronouncements of courts and fearlessly lays bare for -all to see that flaws and inconsistence" of the doctrines (Hill v. every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the actuations of public officers. as well as of the judiciary. 11 chanrobles virtual law library Courts and judges are not sacrosanct. 12 They should and expect critical evaluation of their performance. (In re Ades. criticize and censure them as they see fit. 487) . and the press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them. They have the best opportunities for observing and forming a correct judgment. like other public servants. every lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right. his right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner. and the independence of the bar. has always been encouraged by the courts. This right is not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed at a judicial authority.Moreover. In the prosecution of appeals. Rep." chanrobles virtual law library The likely danger of confusing the fury of human reaction to an attack on one's integrity. to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. 10 For courageous and fearless advocates are the strands that weave durability into the tapestry of justice. 40 Am. nourished by the periodic appraisal of the citizens whom it is expected to serve. Judicial officers. indeed. Hence. The reason is that An attorney does not surrender. been an important part of the traditional work of the bar.8 "are public property. impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. must answer for their official actions before the chancery of public opinion.6 because then the court's actuations are thrown open to public consumption. as citizen and officer of the court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Courts thus treat with forbearance and restraint a lawyer who vigorously assails their actuations.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Well-recognized therefore is the right of a lawyer.7 "Our decisions and all our official actions.5 Such right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns a concluded litigation. 126 NYS 2d 286). Lyman. both as an officer of the court and as a citizen. They are in constant . he points out the errors of lower courts. As aptly stated by Chief Justice Sharswood in Ex Parte Steinman. 6 F Supp. but also to consider it his duty to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges. competence and honesty." is the reason why courts have been loath to inflict punishment on those who assail their actuations.
v. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism.W. as no other class has as great an interest in the preservation of an able and upright bench. 196) chanrobles virtual law library But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide. His investiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic. by the judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose. and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof. but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. 72 N.. Hart. is not merely to be obedient to the Constitution and laws. but includes abstaining out of court from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward judges personally for their judicial acts. Circuit Court. 212. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. 652) . on the One hand. Hence." (State v.. . if they do not by express declaration take upon themselves. 4d. 647. 657. 28 Am. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood. "Under such a rule. but as to his demerits there must be profound silence. as a citizen and as Officer of the court a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right. This obligation is not discharged by merely observing the rules of courteous demeanor in open court." chanrobles virtual law library As Mr. (State Board of Examiners in Law v. on the other. when they are admitted to the Bar..attendance on the courts. 14 and the Rules of Court constantly remind him "to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.." 15 The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. He vows solemnly to conduct himself "with all good fidelity . is a position too monstrous to be entertained.. Above all others. (Bradley. the obligation which attorneys impliedly assume. more exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the courts. No law may abridge this right. Dee. which would not expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen. to the courts. .W.. Nor is he "professionally answerable for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges. but also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. 116 N. No class is less likely to abuse the privilege. not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office. Fisher.. "the merits of a sitting judge may be rehearsed. . 665). Justice Field puts it: ." so far as the bar is concerned. It is Such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action." (Case of Austin. membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which are not mere flux and ferment. 20 Law. but to maintain at all times the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library For. 216) To curtail the right of a lawyer to be critical of the foibles of courts and judges is to seal the lips of those in the best position to give advice and who might consider it their duty to speak disparagingly. the members of the bar have the beat Opportunity to become conversant with the character and efficiency of our judges..
The decisions of the judge must be obeyed.The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attack a court's decision in words calculated to jettison the time-honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right. In In Re Glenn. Some such frame of mind. . 2d 604." the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. June 26. However. And he may suffer frustration at what he feels is others' lack of it. As a prefatory statement he wrote: "They say that Justice is BLIND. may subject the attorney to disciplinary action. L-22979." adding that: It would be contrary to. 2d 672. the destruction of public confidence in the judicial system as such.even those gifted with superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers. Hence. of being so prejudiced as to deny his clients a fair trial on appeal and of being subject to the control of a group of city officials.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Of fundamental pertinence at this juncture is an examination of relevant parallel precedents. a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. as a lawyer. campaign. 102 So. every democratic theory to hold that a judge or a court is beyond bona fide comments and criticisms which do not exceed the bounds of decency and truth or which are not aimed at. That is his misfortune. an attorney was suspended for putting out and circulating a leaflet entitled "JUSTICE??? IN OTUMWA. statements made by an attorney in private conversations or communications 16 or in the course of a political. but it took Municipal Judge Willard to prove that it is also DEAF and DUMB!" The court did not hesitate to find that the leaflet went much further than the accused. in the . 2. and the bar should at all times be the foremost in rendering respectful submission. when the likely impairment of the administration of justice the direct product of false and scandalous accusations then the rule is otherwise. The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler or more learned lawyer than the judge. lawyers . 1967) In his relations with the courts.W.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 1. but discipline and self-respect are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of an army. Thus. because he is the tribunal appointed to decide. had a right to do. 130 N. and it may tax his patience and temper to submit to rulings which he regards as incorrect. 40 Atl.assertion of their clients' rights. 17 if couched in insulting language as to bring into scorn and disrepute the administration of justice. 481) chanrobles virtual law library We concede that a lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment That is his privilege. Calhoon." which accused a municipal judge of having committed judicial error. Ferrer. 608. (In Re Scouten. however. Admitting that a "judge as a public official is neither sacrosanct nor immune to public criticism of his conduct in office. nevertheless declared that "any conduct of a lawyer which brings into scorn and disrepute the administration of justice demands condemnation and the application of appropriate penalties. (Per Justice Sanchez in Rheem of the Philippines vs.
Hart. He wrote the judge a threatening letter and gave the press the story of a proposed libel suit against the judge and others.. honesty and fairness. impartiality." and said that he was engaged in dealing with men and not irresponsible political manikins or appearances of men. Judges are not exempt from just criticism. In People ex rel Chicago Bar Asso. I shall be compelled to resort to such drastic action as the law allows and the case warrants. 637. In the first case mentioned it was observed. the better rule is that which requires of those who are permitted to enjoy the privilege of practicing law the strictest observance at all times of the principles of truth.S. the Supreme Court of Illinois declared: . 220. Unjust criticism. 40 Am. he said: "However let me assure you I do not intend to allow such dastardly work to go unchallenged. and the dignity and usefulness of the courts be maintained. 163 Pac. 60. who are officers of the court. The letter began: Unless the record in In re Petersen v. 17 LRA (N. lies. In In Re Humphrey. Further." Said the court: We are aware that there is a line of authorities which place no limit to the criticism members of the bar may make regarding the capacity. even though it extends to the deliberate publication by the attorney capable of correct reasoning of baseless insinuations against the intelligence and integrity of the highest courts. to the end that the public confidence in the due administration of justice be upheld. 123 N. But. representing a woman who had been granted a divorce.The entire publication evidences a desire on the part Of the accused to belittle and besmirch the court and to bring it into disrepute with the general public.E. Metzen. and perjury committed in the cases involved. 15 Ann Cas 197 and note: Ex parte Steinman 95 Pac. an attorney. 734. and offensive conduct toward the judges personally by attorneys. The circular which referred to two decisions of the judge concluded with a statement that the judge "used his judicial office to enable -said bank to keep that money. etc. In re Collins. 116 N. directed against a judicial officer. especially in their criticism of the courts. 81 Pac.. attacked the judge who set aside the decree on bill of review. in our view. insulting language. could be so vile and of such a nature as to justify the disbarment of its author. it is the right and duty of a lawyer to submit his grievances to the proper authorities. the Supreme Court of California affirmed the two-year suspension of an attorney who published a circular assailing a judge who at that time was a candidate for re-election to a judicial office. 4. for instance: "It may be (although we do not so decide) that a libelous publication by an attorney. and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judge. or integrity of the courts.W. v. v. 220.) 585. 3. but the public interest and the administration of the law demand that the courts should have the confidence and respect of the people. See State Board. 212. Rep. . Ordering the attorney's disbarment." Yet the false charges made by an attorney in that case were of graver character than those made by the respondent here. Petersen is cleared up so that my name is protected from the libel.
the Court said. The acts and decisions of the courts of this state. or the reasons announced for them. is always a vigilant defender of civil rights.. notwithstanding that he fully retracted and withdrew the statements. The lawyer was charged with unprofessional conduct. under the guise of disciplinary proceedings. if believed. and asserted that the affidavit was the result of an impulse caused by what he considered grave injustice. . and such charges to the tribunal. has the right and it is his duty. In Re Troy. cannot be permitted. as well as independent court. and the bringing of the unauthorized suit. to criticise the decisions of the courts. the habit of criticising the motives of judicial officers in the performance of their official duties. to submit charges to the authorities in whom is vested the power to remove judicial officers for any conduct or act of a judicial officer that tends to show a violation of his duties. was intended and calculated to bring the court into disrepute with the public. 111 NYS 879.. or would justify an inference that he is false to his trust.which tend to bring the courts and the law into disrepute and to destroy public confidence in their integrity. or the right of the Public generally. constitutes unprofessional conduct justifying suspension from practice. It is only when an attorney transcends the limits of legitimate criticism that he will be held responsible for an abuse of his liberty of speech. The Court said: We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is a growing habit in the profession of criticising the motives and integrity of judicial officers in the discharge of their duties. Every attorney of this court. We well understand that an independent bar. While we recognize the inherent right of an attorney in a case decided against him. In a public speech. and was ordered suspended for a period of two years. It does not appear that the attorney had criticized any of the opinions or decisions of the Court. The Court said: A calumny of that character. The letter written to the judge was plainly an attempt to intimidate and influence him in the discharge of judicial functions. would tend to weaken the authority of the court against whose members it was made. 725. a Rhode Island lawyer accused the courts of the state of being influenced by corruption and greed. 111 Atl. deprive him of any part of that freedom of speech which he possesses as a citizen. 5.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Because a man is a member of the bar the court will not. an attorney was suspended for six months for submitting to an appellate court an affidavit reflecting upon the judicial integrity of the court from which the appeal was taken. if based upon reasonable inferences. bring its judgments into contempt. Such action. are not exempt from fair and honest comment and criticism. . will be encouraged. as well as every other citizen. and the person making them protected. undermine its influence as an unbiased arbiter of the people's right. and interfere with the administration of justice. or has improperly administered the duties devolved upon him.. 723. tends to subvert the confidence of the community in the courts of justice and in the . 6. In In Re Rockmore. when the proceeding is not against the officers whose acts or motives are criticised. in cases that have reached final determination. saying that the seats of the Supreme Court were bartered. and thereby reflecting on the administration of justice and creating the impression that judicial action is influenced by corrupt or improper motives.. together with the write-up in the Sunday papers.
7. Dabney v. and malignant misuse of members of the bar of the confidence the public. if administered at all. the attorney making such charges is guilty of professional misconduct. that. or by insinuation and innuendo. whether he labors in a judicial capacity or otherwise. who are bound by their duty to protect the administration of justice. Breckenridge. through its duly established courts. 258 Pac. the protection of whose rights he lends his strength and money to maintain the .. could ever properly serve their client or the public good by designedly misstating facts or carelessly asserting the law. as my clients were foreigners. but are an unwarranted attack. The charges. with patience.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The right of free speech and free discussion as to judicial determination is of prime importance under our system and ideals of government. however. the expressions above set out.. as well as to public officials. 467. has reposed in them to deal with the affairs of the private individual. No right thinking man would concede for a moment that the best interest to private citizens. an attorney published in a newspaper an article in which he impugned the motives of the court and its members to try a case. a lawyer published this statement: I accepted the decision in this case. were dismissed after the attorney apologized to the Court. Truth and honesty of purpose by members of the bar in such discussion is necessary.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 8. But such right does not have as its corollary that members of the bar who are sworn to act honestly and honorably both with their client and with the courts where justice is administered. The Supreme Court of Alabama declared that: . would be served by denying this right of free speech to any individual. and make out a prima facie case of improper conduct upon the part of a lawyer who holds a license from this court and who is under oath to demean himself with all good fidelity to the court as well as to his client. saying that: The privileges which the law gives to members of the bar is one most subversive of the public good.. direct. it might have been expecting too much to look for a decision in their favor against a widow residing here. charging the court of having arbitrarily and for a sinister purpose undertaken to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. barring possible temporary observations more or less vituperative and finally concluded. In State ex rel. The health of a municipality is none the less impaired by a polluted water supply than is the health of the thought of a community toward the judiciary by the filthy wanton. . upon the motives and integrity of this court. as well as to the ethics of the profession.. In In Re Mitchell. however.administration of justice. and when such charges are made by officers of the courts. 71 So. if the conduct of such members does not measure up to the requirements of the law itself. 747. The Court suspended the respondent for 30 days. not only transcend the bounds of propriety and privileged criticism.
. In these respects the sending by the accused of this letter to the Chief Justice was wholly different from . The point is this: Is a proper motive for the decisions discoverable. aided by the researches of its hundreds of bright. and the name of the erring lawyer was ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys. could never subserve any good purpose. or of any privilege which any reputable attorney. 170 Pac. can resent such an insult otherwise than by methods sanctioned by law. active students. In State Board of Examiners v. The letters were published in a newspaper. delivered its opinion as follows: The question remains whether the accused was guilty of professional misconduct in sending to the Chief Justice the letter addressed to him. or umpire. with due regard to his position. was considered conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar. & Eng. 9. as we have found. with the court acting as a fence. It would not and could not ever enlighten the public in regard to their judicial capacity or integrity. Such a communication. and the insult was so directed to the Chief Justice personally because of acts done by him and his associates in their official capacity. and wicked conspiracies. In Bar Ass'n of San Francisco v. and quarantine after it is made." 18 Am. for the very purpose of insulting him and the other justices of this court. it will gratify every right-minded citizen of the state to read it. or a committee chosen from its rank. or a constipation of morals and faithlessness to duty? If the state bar association. can formulate a statement of a correct motive for the decision. could ever have any occasion or desire to assert. or if any member of the court.W. which shall not require fumigation before it is stated. It seems like robbing a widow to reward a fraud. "The sending of a libelous communication or libelous matter to the person defamed does not constitute an actionable publication. Enc. watchful and vigilant that the widow got no undue advantage." "calculated brutality. short of assigning to the court emasculated intelligence.not the court. or the faculty of the University Law School. 116 N.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 10. Nor was it an exercise by the accused of any constitutional right. 1017. the erring attorney claimed that greater latitude should be allowed in case of criticism of cases finally adjudicated than in those pending. The Supreme Court of Minnesota. or any other person. Law (2d Ed." and similar phrases." "a corrupt deadfall." "criminal prosecution. One of the letters contained this paragraph: You assigned it (the property involved) to one who has no better right to it than the burglar to his plunder. 440. and for any words. in ordering the suspension of the attorney for six months. vile. No judicial officer." "criminal confederates. Hart." "colossal and confident insolence.judiciary. he can have no redress in any action triable by a jury. uninfluenced by passion. so made. addressed secretly to the judge alone. . For such conduct on the part of the members of the bar the law itself demands retribution . however abusive. or indecent.. the filing of an affidavit by an attorney in a pending action using in respect to the several judges the terms criminal corrupt.. Its only effect in any case would be to gratify the spite of an angry attorney and humiliate the officers so assailed. This was done.) p. 215. Philbrook. This lawyer wrote a personal letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Minnesota impugning both the intelligence and the integrity of the said Chief Justice and his associates in the decisions of certain appeals in which he had been attorney for the defeated litigants. oral or written.
wrote a personal letter to the trial justice. and thus the lot of a judge will be anything but a happy one.Y. for his rulings in a cause wholly concluded. wholly different principles are applicable thereto. To that extent his rights as a citizen were paramount to the obligation which he had assumed as an officer of this court. willfully violated his obligation to maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers. Supp. Fisher. "Is it in the power of any person. "An attorney who. 136.his other acts charged in the accusation. or else set in his own person the evil example of punishing the insult by taking the law in his own hands? . in that case a commissioner of the court. 13 Wall. 7 and in Re Wilkes (City Ct. and with robbery.S. "by insulting or assaulting the judge because of official acts. neither is it common sense." Bradley v." chanrobles virtual law library . between the indignity of an assault by an attorney upon a judge. Ed.Y." says the court.. "counsel learned in the law are permitted by writings leveled at the heads of judges." chanrobles virtual law library That a communication such as this. In the latter case it appeared that the accused attorney had addressed a sealed letter to a justice of the City Court of New York. however he proceeded and thus assailed the Chief Justice personally. complaining of his conduct and reflecting upon his integrity as a justice. It was recognized in Ex parte McLeod supra. guaranteed by the Constitution and sanctioned by considerations of public policy. constitutes professional delinquency for which a professional punishment may be imposed. but. as regards the principle involved. fully sustained the right of a citizen to criticise rulings of the court in actions which are ended. induced by his official act. but so far as he exercised the rights of a citizen. we think entirely logical and well sustained by authority." "If. it held that one might be summarily punished for assaulting a judicial officer. but it includes abstaining out of court from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward the judges personally for their official acts. The distinction made is. as we hold. after being defeated in a case. to charge them with ignorance. Either act constitutes misconduct wholly different from criticism of judicial acts addressed or spoken to others. "This obligation is not discharged by merely observing the rules of courteous demeanor in open court. he exercised no right which the court can recognize. 99 N. either as principals or accessories. The result is I have been robbed of 80. the matter should be "called to the attention of the Supreme Court. addressed to the Judge personally. which has power to discipline the attorney. he was immune.) 355.." said the court. 20 L.Y." And it was decided that. No high-minded. When. it will not be long before the general public may feel that they may redress their fancied grievances in like manner. Div. to compel the judge to forfeit either his own self-respect to the regard of the people by tame submission to the indignity. is guilty of misconduct and will be disciplined by the court. 646. in which it was stated. if only the assailant restrains his passion until the judge leaves the building. While the court in that case. as has been shown.) 1 N. has been directly decided. as we have said. and a personal insult for like cause by written or spoken words addressed to the judge in his chambers or at his home or elsewhere. manly man would hold judicial office under such conditions. on the contrary. in reference to his decision: "It is not law. with unjust rulings. to which reference has been made.) 3 N.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The conduct of the accused was in every way discreditable." Matter of Manheim 133 App. and. And there appears to be no distinction. (U. from the penalty here sought to be enforced. while such conduct was not a contempt under the state. and the administration of justice will fall into bad repute. 87 The same is held in Re Griffin (City Ct.
The invariable effect of this sort of propaganda. State. Cas. made by lawyers. 481. In In Re Doss.. 221 Pac. Dandridge. 244. dissatisfied with the loss of a case. The accused. In Cobb v. 49 Am. For this it was held that the attorney was rightly disbarred in having "willfully failed to maintain respect due to him [the judge] as a judicial officer. 7 Wall (U.) 364." As recognizing the same principle. even though he expressed an intention to resign from the bar. said the court. wrote and mailed a letter to the circuit judge. United States. In State v. 22 Ark. an attorney published newspaper articles after the trial of cases. critical of the courts and their judicial actuations.E. and thereby breached his oath as an attorney. 11. 14. 7 Colo 237.. 214. Smith's Appeal. an attorney at law. the court affirmed a lawyer's suspension for 18 months for publishing a letter in a newspaper in which he accused a judge of being under the sinister influence of a gang that had paralyzed him for two years. 411. the court held that an attorney's unjustifiable attack against the official acts and decisions of a judge constitutes "moral turpitude. 19 L. 641. In In Re Graves. 179 Pa. Commonwealth v. 671. is to breed disrespect for courts and bring the legal profession into disrepute with the public.) 44 South. 270. which the latter received by due course of mail. 3 Pac. whether amounting to a crime or not. His disbarment was ordered. constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with . 65. 2d 659.S. and which referred in insulting terms to the conduct of the judge in a cause wherein the accused had been one of the attorneys. State (Ala. and in support of its application to the facts of this case. Ed. which transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of justice. for which reason the lawyer was disbarred. the attorney was disbarred for criticising not only the judge. we cite the following: Ex parte Bradley. 2 Va. 408. criticising the court in intemperate language. an attorney.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 14. at his home. 36 Atl. 134.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 12. 172 F. 12 N.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 13. prepared over a period of years vicious attacks on jurists. 149. The Oklahoma Supreme Court declared that his acts involved such gross moral turpitude as to make him unfit as a member of the bar. People v. Beene v.The recent case of Johnson v. 2d 108. Grimes. 354 Pac. Atl.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The teaching derived from the above disquisition and impressive affluence of judicial pronouncements is indubitable: Post-litigation utterances or publications. while not holding court. Scouten's Appeal. 351. . Green. but his decisions in general claiming that the judge was dishonest in reaching his decisions and unfair in his general conduct of a case. Rep.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Our conclusion is that the charges against the accused have been so far sustained as to make it our duty to impose such a penalty as may be sufficient lesson to him and a suitable warning to others. 186 Pa." There. was in this respect much the same as the case at bar. 374.
Hernandez. refused to divulge the source of a news item carried in his paper. said institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation.disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives inherent in it as the duly constituted guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity. 61 Phil. because the court is thereby charged with no less than having proceeded in utter disregard of the laws. Francisco's client . the imprisonment for contempt of one Angel Parazo. but it is not.. the statements made disclosed . and 'of the untoward consequences.. Finding .chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library A perusal of the more representative of these instances may afford enlightenment. counsel. 2. . 595. . caused to be published in i local newspaper a statement expressing his regret "that our High Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law. invoking said law. the only remedy to put an end to go much evil. and never will be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and respect which the dignity of the courts requires. is to change the members of the Supreme Court. Cases of comparable nature have generally been disposed of under the power of courts to punish for contempt which. 82 Phil. or with having abused its power and mocked and flouted the rights of Attorney Vicente J. Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were the honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary. but it is once more putting in evidence the incompetency or narrow mindedness of the majority of its members." and his belief that "In the wake of so many blunders and injustices deliberately committed during these last years.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 1. should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable. In Salcedo vs. 724. a senator and the author of the Press Freedom Law. although resting on different bases and calculated to attain a different end." He there also announced that one of the first measures he would introduce in then forthcoming session of Congress would have for its object the complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. The reason for this is that respect for the courts guarantees the stability of their institution.. the rights to the parties. reaching to. in its opinion. although conceding that It is right and plausible that an attorney.. in defending the cause and rights of his client." which tribunal he denounced as "a constant peril to liberty and democracy" and "a far cry from the impregnable bulwark of justice of those memorable times of Cayetano Arellano.. Victorino Mapa. where counsel branded the denial of his motion for reconsideration as "absolutely erroneous and constituting an outrage to the rigths of the petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls. nevertheless illustrates that universal abhorrence of such condemnable practices. rarely have we wielded our disciplinary powers in the face of unwarranted outbursts of counsel such as those catalogued in the above-cited jurisprudence.. an inexcusable disrespect of the authority of the court and an intentional contempt of its dignity. In In re Sotto." this Court. Without such guaranty. found counsel guilty of contempt inasmuch as.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Of course. who.
Significantly.) 3.]. Ferrer: In re Proceedings against Alfonso Ponce Enrile. [N. an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts.him in contempt. of justice . where counsel charged this Court with having "repeatedly fallen" into . . implications there are which inescapably arrest attention. so as to change the members of this Court which decided the Parazo case. the Court therein hastened to emphasize that . Justice Sanchez stressed: As we look back at the language (heretofore quoted) employed in the motion for reconsideration. like any other. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other institutions. too. in order to influence the final decision of said case by this Court. The Supreme Court of the Philippines is. and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result.the pitfall of blindly adhering to its previous "erroneous" pronouncements. and consequently to lower . is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court.A.. "in disregard of the law on jurisdiction" of the Court of Industrial Relations. that it has been deciding in favor of Que party knowing that the law and justice is on the part of the adverse party and not on the one in whose favor the decision was rendered. Atty.R. to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney. who according to his statement. et al. this Court declared: But in the above-quoted written statement which he caused to be published in the press. in many cases decided during the last years. our condemnation of counsel's misconduct was unequivocal... and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court and believe that they cannot expect justice therefrom.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing deliberately so many blunders and injustices. In Rheem of the Philippines vs.. supra. the respondent does not merely criticize or comment on the decision of the Parazo case. He not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the presentation of a bill in the next Congress. It speaks of one pitfall into which this . and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice. 594. the last bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief for their grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon. would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court. Vicente Sotto.. 586. which was then and still is pending consideration by this Court upon petition of Angel Parazo. reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the number of Justices from eleven. and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. are incompetent and narrow minded. despite his avowals of good faith and his invocation of the guarantee of free speech. of which he is one of the members. they might be driven to take the law into their own hands. under the Constitution. Mr. he may be removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct (17 L.S. Articulating the sentiments of the Court. But the respondent also attacks the honesty and integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the Justices of this Court into disrepute and degrading the administration.or degrade the administration of justice by this Court. which without such guaranty would be resting on a very shaky foundation. As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts. that is to say.
where the editor of the Manila Guardian was adjudged in contempt for publishing an editorial which asserted that the 1944 Bar Examinations were conducted in a farcical manner after the question of the validity of the said examinations had been resolved and the case closed. has lost much of its vitality. constitutes likewise criminal contempt. This is of no moment. this was the prevailing view in this jurisdiction. in People vs. which upheld the rule above-adverted to. Alarcon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The rule that bars contempt after a judicial proceeding has terminated. came when. need not now be reviewed in detail. speaking thru Justice Jose P. Virtually. embarrass or influence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding. to be shielded against the influence of newspaper comments. The plain import of all these is that this Court is so patently inept that in determining the jurisdiction of the industrial court. What is sought. For sometime. So that. The second paragraph quoted yields a tone of sarcasm which counsel labelled as "so called" the "rule against splitting of jurisdiction. Laurel. Almacen would now seek to sidestep the thrust of a contempt charge by his studied emphasis that the remarks for which he is now called upon to account were made only after this Court had written finis to his appeal. in the interest of brevity. in line with the doctrinal rule that the protective mantle of contempt may ordinarily be invoked only against scurrilous remarks or malicious innuendoes while a court mulls over a pending case and not after the conclusion thereof. obstruct. constitutes criminal contempt which is 'summarily punishable by courts. It pictures this Court as one which refuses to hew to the line drawn by the law on jurisdictional boundaries. is the all- . They bring into question the capability of the members . however. 20 the then Chief Justice Manuel V. The first stir for a modification thereof. Said Chief Justice Moran in Alarcon: A publication which tends to impede. That pitfall is the tendency of this Court to rely on its own pronouncements in disregard of the law on jurisdiction.Court has repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations comes into question. this was an adoption of the view expressed by Chief Justice Moran in his dissent in Alarcon to the effect that them may still be contempt by publication even after a case has been terminated.and some former members of this Court to render justice.all of them involved contumacious statements made in pleadings filed pending litigation. Those statements detract much from the dignity of and respect due this Court. Moran dissented with the holding of the majority. and is equally punishable by courts. it has committed error and continuously repeated that error to the point of perpetuation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Of course. A complete disengagement from the settled rule was later to be made in In re Brillantes. blindly adhere to earlier rulings without as much as making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statute governing the jurisdiction of the industrial court. in the first kind of contempt." Similar thoughts and sentiments have been expressed in other cases 18 which. a common denominator underlies the aforecited cases . It makes a sweeping charge that the decisions of this Court. 19 Atty. 21 a contempt proceeding. Implicit in the quoted statements is that the pronouncements of this Court on the jurisdiction of the industrial court are not entitled to respect. A publication which tends to degrade the courts and to destroy public confidence in them or that which tends to bring them in any way into disrepute.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library More than this. In the second. In the second kind of contempt. By constitutional mandate. 1967. to withdraw the privilege. By the tenor of our Resolution of November 17. 23 chanrobles virtual law library This. consideration of whether or not he could be held liable for contempt for such post litigation utterances and actuations. and gave him the privilege of ministering within its bar. the pendency or non-pendency of a case in court is altogether of no consequence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Undoubtedly. not only the right. and cannot be tolerated. with or without a pending case.important duty of the courts to administer justice in the decision of a pending case. because the admission of a lawyer to the practice of law is a representation to all that he is worthy of their confidence and respect. by removing or suspending a member whose misconduct has proved himself unfit to continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney. In this inquiry. as what is sought to be protected is the court itself and its dignity. In the first there is no contempt where there is no action pending. no comfort is afforded Atty. Almacen's professional identity. Any court having the right to admit attorneys to practice and in this state that power is vested in this court-has the inherent right. in the exercise of the disciplinary power the morals inherent in our authority and duty to safeguard and ethics of the legal profession and to preserve its ranks from the intrusions of unprincipled and unworthy disciples of the noblest of callings. in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion to exclude them from practice.. The sole objective of this proceeding is to preserve the purity of the legal profession. we have confronted the situation here presented solely in so far as it concerns Atty. as there is no decision which might in any way be influenced by the newspaper publication. To deny its existence is equivalent to a declaration that the conduct of attorneys towards courts and clients is not subject to restraint. to determine the rules for admission to the practice of law. He could as much be liable for contempt therefor as if it had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal. this is well within our authority to do. Inherent in this prerogative is the corresponding authority to discipline and exclude from the practice of law those who have proved themselves unworthy of continued membership in the Bar. and one which is essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. Accordingly. 22 our is the solemn duty. is here immaterial. Therefore it is almost universally held that both the admission and . the punitive hand of justice is extended to vindicate the courts from any act or conduct calculated to bring them into disfavor or to destroy public confidence in them. Such a view is without support in any respectable authority. Almacen by the circumstance that his statements and actuations now under consideration were made only after the judgment in his client's appeal had attained finality. it becomes. is an inherent and incidental power in courts of record. who are officers of the court. but the duty. the contempt exists. Courts would lose their utility if public confidence in them is destroyed. whenever it is made to appear to the court that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public and of the courts.. Thus The power to discipline attorneys. amongst others. So much so that . of the court which made him one of its officers. however. his sworn duty as a lawyer and his fitness as an officer of this Court.
he virtually makes this Court and its members with verbal talons. As such. virtually tarred and feathered the Court and its members as inveterate hypocrites incapable of administering justice and unworthy to impose disciplinary sanctions upon him. alluding to the Scriptures.this Court and its members into disrepute and destroy public confidence in them to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice. he went farther. it cannot be allowed to go unrebuked." he categorically denounces the justice administered by this Court to be not only blind "but also deaf and dumb. imputing to the Court the perpetration of "silent injustices" and "short-cut justice" while at the same time branding its members as "calloused to pleas of justice. and should not be. The integrated entirety of his petition bristles with vile insults all calculated to drive home his contempt for and disrespect to the Court and its members. In haughty and coarse language. stir up public indignation and disrespect toward the Court. Almacen's petition. It is not a whit less than a classic example of gross misconduct. answer and oral argumentation speaks for itself. in a calculated effort ." And.disbarment of attorneys are judicial acts. Almacen here in question are properly the object of disciplinary sanctions. Like any other Government entity in a viable democracy. Beyond making the mere offer. however. offered no apology.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The proffered surrender of his lawyer's certificate is. he expressed no regret. purely potestative on Atty. The way for the exertion of our disciplinary powers is thus laid clear. but as a privilege conditioned on his own behavior and the exercise of a just and sound judicial discretion. . we now proceed to make an assessment of whether or not the utterances and actuations of Atty. gross violation of the lawyer's oath and gross transgression of the Canons of Legal Ethics.to startle the public. It has been elevated to an express mandate by the Rules of Court. of course. bring . that power to remove or suspend has risen above being a mere inherent or incidental power. no statute. not as a matter of right. and completely negates any pretense of passionate commitment to the truth. Almacen's part. no law stands in its way. above criticism.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We must once more stress our explicit disclaimer of immunity from criticism. more important of all. 25 chanrobles virtual law library Our authority and duty in the premises being unmistakable. They could never serve any purpose but to gratify the spite of an irate attorney. the Court is not. The vicious language used and the scurrilous innuendoes they carried far transcend the permissible bounds of legitimate criticism. with characteristic arrogance. attract public attention to himself and. he actually availed of the said move as a vehicle for his vicious tirade against this Court. in this jurisdiction." he caused the publication in the papers of an account of his actuations. Picturing his client as "a sacrificial victim at the altar of hypocrisy. 24 chanrobles virtual law library Indeed. Unorthodox though it may seem. and that one is admitted to the bar and exercises his functions as an attorney. Called upon to make an explanation. true to his announced threat to argue the cause of his client "in the people's forum. Odium of this character and texture presents no redeeming feature. he rehashed and reiterated his vituperative attacks and.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The virulence so blatantly evident in Atty. Instead." With unmitigated acerbity. and the need therefor is unavoidable.
But a critique of the Court must be intelligent and discriminating. real qualities approached only through constant striving to attain them.the premises. if not a total distortion. 31 So that even if it be conceded that the members collectively are in a sense the aggrieved parties. But in the exercise of its disciplinary powers. fortunes and properties. 27 Not being intended to. the members of the Court are. the power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a necessary incident of the power to admit persons to said practice. only as a duly constituted court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Undeniably. the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. would be placed at grave hazard should the administration of justice be threatened by the retention in the Bar of men unfit to discharge the solemn responsibilities of membership in the legal fraternity. that. the Court acts as an entity separate and distinct from the individual personalities of its members. but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers. the individual members act not as such individuals but. nay. Their distinct individualities are lost in the majesty of their office. there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor. the members of the Court are the "complainants. this proceeding is not . in a very real sense. Consistently with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate court. This is an utter misapprehension. 29 In such posture. possess the quality of judiciousness and must be informed -by perspective and infused by philosophy. And more than this. 28 Public interest is its primary objective. in the exercise of its disciplinary powers. this power is vested exclusively in this Court. This duty it cannot abdicate just as much as it cannot unilaterally renounce jurisdiction legally invested upon it. Almacen would have appear.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Accent should be laid on the fact that disciplinary proceedings like the present are sui generis. By constitutional precept. that fact alone does not and cannot disqualify .as well as the people themselves whose rights. aggrieved parties. as Atty. inflict punishment. not only of the nature of the proceeding at hand but also of our role therein. and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. fitting to its high function as the court of last resort. and requires detachment and disinterestedness. Any criticism of the Court must. Any tirade against the Court as a body is necessarily and inextricably as much so against the individual members thereof.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Finally. to a certain degree. 26 chanrobles virtual law library It is not accurate to say. prosecutors and judges" all rolled up into one in this instance. Hence.and does not involve . 30 So that. if there be any complainant in the case at bar.a trial of an action or a suit. even lives. it can only be the Court itself. nor is it an obstacle to the exercise of our authority in . there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly. valid and healthy criticism is by no means synonymous to obloquy. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal. not the individual members thereof .
the suspension to take effect immediately. be furnished the Secretary of Justice. can be regarded as falling outside of the compass of that authority. -versusHON.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Last to engage our attention is the nature and extent of the sanctions that may be visited upon Atty. we are empowered to do not alone because jurisprudence grants us discretion on the matter 33 but also because. we are impelled to decree that the same should be indefinite. primarily addressed to the sound discretion of the Court which.. the Solicitor General and the Court of Appeals for their information and guidance. it is obvious that if we have authority to completely exclude a person from the practice of law. exercise the power in all cases which call for disciplinary action. Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do disservice to an advocate and that in every effervescence of candor there is ample room for the added glow of respect. The present is such a case. Vicente Raul Almacen be. even without the comforting support of precedent. CLEMENTE M. suspended from the practice of law until further orders. should ever be controlled by the imperative need that the purity and independence of the Bar be scrupulously guarded and the dignity of and respect due to the Court be zealously maintained. As marked out by the Rules of Court. IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library That the misconduct committed by Atty. accordingly. ET AL. Almacen is of considerable gravity cannot be overemphasized. and believing that it may not perhaps be futile to hope that in the sober light of some future day. . as he is hereby. Atty. 32 The discretion to assess under the circumstances the imposable sanction is. it is our view that suspension will suffice under the circumstances. these may range from mere suspension to total removal or disbarment. The merit of this choice is best shown by the fact that it will then be left to Atty. prosecutor and judge is absolutely inexistent. However. of course. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation and University of the Philippines. Almacen for his transgressions. IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty. ELPIDIO TIBURCIO. Almacen to determine for himself how long or how short that suspension shall last. at any time after the suspension becomes effective he may prove to this Court that he is once again fit to resume the practice of law. being neither arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice. MARCELINO TIBURCIO. In the end. which is lesser in degree and effect. acting as a Court. heeding the stern injunction that disbarment should never be decreed where a lesser sanction would accomplish the end desired.them from the exercise of that power because public policy demands that they. there is no reason why indefinite suspension.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ACCORDINGLY. This. the imagined anomaly of the merger in one entity of the personalities of complainant. EULOGIO MENCIAS. For.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Let copies of this resolution. SORIANO IN L-24114. His demonstrated persistence in his misconduct by neither manifesting repentance nor offering apology therefor leave us no way of determining how long that suspension should last and.
and the case entitled "Varsity Hills vs. Soriano was in effect asking this Court to exhume this case from the archives. Parenthetically. And so Atty.33 hectares of land out of the 430 hectares (more or less) involved in the two cases. Soriano allegedly relied upon the assurance of a mutual acquaintance. etc. Soriano. Wittingly or unwittingly. in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact of the other respondents. it is interesting to note that the contingent fee of 143. 1969. Dalangpan — that indeed these two cases were pending in this Court. 1969. serve to dissuade this Court from requiring him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for entering an appearance at such a late date. generating as it does in the minds of the litigants.) as "chief counsel of record" for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio. The entry of appearance of a counsel in a case which has long been sealed and terminated by a final judgment. It detracts heavily from the faith which should be accorded final judgments of courts of justice. Soriano grossly remiss and inexcusably precipitate in putting an officious finger into the vortex of the case. et al. He was wanting in the reasonable care which every member of the Bar must needs exercise before rushing into the midst of a case already litigated or under litigation. Soriano prepared a letter-contract dated October 8. ." (L-30546). Soriano were to render his professional services solely in the Varsity Hills case. besides being an unmitigated absurdity in itself and an unwarranted annoyance to the court which pronounced the judgment. by virtue of which he agreed to render professional services in the two cases in consideration of a contingent fee of 143. Herminio C. entered his appearance in the present case (L-24114. This act in itself would have been innocuous were it not for the fact that it was done one year and eight months after the decision in this case became final. for in this latter case. et al. an area of only about 19 hectares is involved. et al. Marcelino Tiburcio supposedly informed Atty. Mencias. 1969. PHHC and U. went to him to engage his professional services in two cases.P. the records of which we are in a position to take judicial notice. Antonio J. vs. It was on the same date. a member of the Philippine Bar since January 19. In addition to Marcelino Tiburcio's representations. Soriano of the precise status of each of the two cases. Tiburcio. He alleged that sometime during the first week of October 1969. however. He forthwith came with a recital of the circumstances under which he had agreed to have his services retained by the respondents Tiburcio. we find Atty.. At their conference. the respondent Marcelino Tiburcio. as well as of the public. an illusory belief that something more can be done toward overturning a final judicial mandate. Atty. We thus considered it needful that he explain in full and in writing his unprecedented. 1969. Atty. Mariano. therefore. Hon. Clemente M. In the incident before us. 1954. et al. while the present case was still pending and the date of hearing thereof was yet undetermined. thus: that the Varsity Hills case was set for hearing by this Court on October 27. is a sore deviation from normal judicial processes. Atty. October 8. His subsequent explanation did not. 1 the bulk of the property claimed by the respondents having been litigated in the present case. that he then caused the preparation of his written appearance in the present case.33 hectares of land would find no justification if Atty. to wit: this terminated case (L-24114). if not altogether bizzare behavior.By virtue of a pleading entitled "Appearance" filed with this Court on October 10.
were it not for his candor. Bonifacio T. as claimed by Atty. Manila). Nemesio Diaz. if it were true. at the hearing of this incident. His subsequent assertions to the contrary are plainly mere after thoughts. ANA LUZ B. categorically denied having given. when Atty. Soriano is hereby ordered. Nowhere in his written manifestations to this Court did he make mention of such efforts on his part. in keeping with the reasonable vigilance exacted of members of the legal profession. Soriano accepted the two cases for the respondents. a lawyer is enjoined to obtain the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute. therefore. Soriano cannot lean on the supposed assurance of Atty. Soriano should have done. Had he been less precipitate in his actions. that his clients complained to him about having been left out in the cold by their former lawyer. ATTY. then he should. ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA vs. to forthwith withdraw the appearance that he has entered as chief counsel of record for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio. Dalangpan that the case was still pending with his Court — which assurance Atty. at the hearing of this incident. Doria as counsel for the respondents in the Varsity Hills case now pending before this Court. It is the sense of this Court. Soriano is further likewise warned that any future similar act will be met with heavier disciplinary sanction. we note that Atty. in owning his mistake and the apology he made to this Court. Atty. Doria. Furthermore. If this office were situated in the province and he did not have the time to come to the Supreme Court building in Manila. 3 He did not bother either to comprehend the substance of the Varsity Hills case before accepting the said case. CRISTAL-TENORIO . at the very least. Soriano guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of this Court. we are far from being convinced that he really did so. Doria. Although at the hearing of the present incident he averred that he exerted efforts to communicate with Atty. Atty. certainly knew the status of the present case since the scope of our decision in the latter is a prime issue raised in the Varsity Hills case. that he must be as he is hereby severely censured. in the present case. Soriano at the hearing of this incident. This inexcusable negligence would merit no less than his suspension from the practice of the law profession. Clemente M. give notice to such lawyer of the contemplated substitution. We find Atty. as is the befitting thing to do when a lawyer associates with another in a pending cause. 1969. he had not bothered at all to communicate with Atty. of the premier control over the case. Rizal Avenue. Clearly. then that circumstance of itself should have indicated to him the imperative need for verification of the true status of the present case. Soriano has joined one Atty. et al. Atty. Diaz to no avail. he could have posed the proper query to the Clerk of Court by registered mail or by telegram. 2 Atty. And if this cannot be had. which is easily and quickly accessible by car or public conveyance from his office (May Building. something which is elementary in the lawyer's trade. however. Atty. Further still. What Atty. especially the Varsity Hills case. Dalangpan. he would have surely detected the existence of a final judgment in the present case. Atty.Before taking over a case handled by a peer in the Bar. was to pay a verification visit to the records section of this Court. Soriano's entry of appearance in the present case as "chief counsel of record" for the respondents in effect sought to preempt the former counsel. who was counsel of record in that case even prior to October 10.
Oliver Tenorio and John Cedric Tenorio. As to grossly immoral conduct.. Certifications from the Civil Registry of Manila and the National Statistics Office (NSO) prove that no record of marriage exists between them. However.In a verified complaint for disbarment filed with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on 30 May 2000. the complainant alleged that the respondent (1) cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband. Donnabel Tenorio and Felicisimo Tenorio III. namely. and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. the complainant alleged that the respondent has been falsely representing herself to be married to Felicisimo R. who has a prior and subsisting marriage with another woman. Cristal-Tenorio in her law office. Bukidnon. the respondent and Felicisimo R. which led to the filing of an estafa case against her. grossly immoral conduct. which states that they were married on 10 February 1980 in Manila. another date and place of marriage are indicated. But in the birth certificates of their two other children. charged the latter with deceit. The false date and place of marriage between the two are stated in the birth certificates of their two children. complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza. a former employee of respondent Atty.. Jr. and (3) threatened the complainant and her family on 24 January 2000 with the statement “Isang bala ka lang” to deter them from divulging respondent’s illegal activities and transactions. Jr. the complainant alleged that the respondent caused the dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit derogatory to Makati City Councilor Divina Alora Jacome. . Tenorio. 12 February 1980 in Malaybalay. The respondent would often openly and sarcastically declare to the complainant and her co-employees the alleged immorality of Councilor Jacome. Tenorio. On malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. through spurious means. On deceit. who is not a member of the Philippine Bar. Ana Luz B. (2) converted her client’s money to her own use and benefit. were able to obtain a false marriage contract.
the respondent denied all the allegations against her. . the same had already been dropped pursuant to the Order of 14 June 1996 issued by Branch 103 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. she has no partners in her law office. She claimed that her Cristal-Tenorio Law Office is registered with the Department of Trade and Industry as a single proprietorship. The respondent likewise denied that she threatened the complainant with the words “Isang bala ka lang” on 24 January 2000. Hence. which they did and for which they were re-hired. Registry No. it was Councilor Jacome who caused the execution of said document. The charge of malpractice or other gross misconduct in office was likewise denied by the respondent. the complainant and her cohorts are the rumormongers who went around the city of Makati on the pretext of conducting a survey but did so to besmirch respondent’s good name and reputation. As to the estafa case. Her husband has no prior and subsisting marriage with another woman. but she reneged on her promise. The respondent also flaunted the fact that she had received numerous awards and citations for civic works and exemplary service to the community. as shown by its Certificate of Registration of Business Name. the respondent denied that she caused the dissemination of a libelous and defamatory affidavit against Councilor Jacome.In her answer. Jr. she declared that she is legally married to Felicisimo R. the respondent averred that this disbarment complaint was filed by the complainant to get even with her. Tenorio. She then prayed for the dismissal of the disbarment case for being baseless. They were married on 12 February 1980 as shown by their Certificate of Marriage. On the contrary. this disbarment complaint is politically motivated: some politicians offered to re-hire the complainant and her cohorts should they initiate this complaint. Likewise. Further. She terminated complainant’s employment after receiving numerous complaints that the complainant extorted money from different people with the promise of processing their passports and marriages to foreigners. As to the charge of grossly immoral conduct. Additionally. As to the charge of deceit. 2000-9108 of the Civil Registry of Quezon City.
. Jr. she admitted that Felicisimo R.. But upon cross-examination. Tenorio. The parties also agreed that the Complaint. but he and a certain Gerardo A. During the hearing on 30 August 2000. In her Reply. The letterhead submitted by the complainant was a false reproduction to show that her husband is one of her law partners. respondent averred that she neither formed a law partnership with her husband nor allowed her husband to appear in court on her behalf. when confronted with the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office bearing her signature. She then presented as evidence a certified copy of the marriage contract issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General and authenticated by the NSO. are named as senior partners because they have investments in her law office. Panghulan. . while the respondent would submit a Rejoinder to the Reply. and the attached affidavits would constitute as the respective direct testimonies of the parties and the affiants. is not a lawyer. he did so as a representative of her law firm. Tenorio. Tenorio. Tantuico. If there was an instance that her husband appeared in court. Tenorio. on 12 February 1980 in Quezon City. and (2) a Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card signed by the respondent as Chairperson where her husband is identified as “Atty. The erroneous entries in the birth certificates of her children as to the place and date of her marriage were merely an oversight. Answer. Felicisimo R. Jr. who is also not a lawyer. Jr. is listed as a senior partner.The IBP referred this case to Investigating Commissioner Atty. Kenny H. Jr.” She added that respondent’s husband even appeared in court hearings. In her Rejoinder. the complainant bolstered her claim that the respondent cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband by submitting (1) the letterhead of CristalTenorio Law Office where the name of Felicisimo R. but when she later discovered that their marriage contract was not registered she applied for late registration on 5 April 2000. The respondent further declared that she married Felicisimo R.. the parties agreed that the complainant would submit a Reply to respondent’s Answer.
in violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9. However. Jr. Jr. Tenorio. the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner San Juan. In her Report and Recommendation dated 30 September 2003. the complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint on 13 November 2002 after allegedly realizing that this disbarment complaint arose out of a misunderstanding and misappreciation of facts. We agree with the findings and conclusion of Commissioner San Juan as approved and adopted with modification by the Board of Governors of the IBP. In its Resolution No. Jr.. Thus. This motion was not acted upon by the IBP. (3) and the Order dated 18 June 1997 issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court in Criminal Cases Nos. The modification consisted in increasing the penalty from reprimand to suspension from the practice of law for six months with a warning that a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.. (2) the Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card of “Atty. Thus. In Rayos-Ombac vs. she is no longer interested in pursuing the case. Tenorio. Felicisimo R. At the outset. wherein Felicisimo R. she found the respondent guilty of the charge of cooperating in the illegal practice of law by Felicisimo R.. San Juan found that the complainant failed to substantiate the charges of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline Milagros V. Commissioner San Juan recommended that the respondent be reprimanded. XVI-2003-228 dated 25 October 2003. as a senior partner. entered his appearance as counsel and even moved for the provisional dismissal of the cases for failure of the private complainants to appear and for lack of interest to prosecute the said cases.Sometime after the parties submitted their respective Offer of Evidence and Memoranda. Jr. Tenorio. which lists Felicisimo R. we declared: . Tenorio. we find that the IBP was correct in not acting on the Motion to Withdraw Complaint filed by complainant Cambaliza. Rayos.” signed by respondent as Chairperson.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility based on the following evidence: (1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office.. 20729 – 20734.
They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. . exonerate the respondent. In Gerona vs. the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. What matters is whether. the respondent is not yet convicted thereof. this disbarment case should proceed accordingly. The IBP correctly found that the charges of deceit and grossly immoral conduct were not substantiated. With respect to the estafa case which is the basis for the charge of malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. on the basis of the facts borne out by the record. which read as follows: Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not. any administrative disciplinary proceedings for the same act must await the outcome of the criminal case to avoid contradictory findings. the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. however. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. if the evidence on record warrants. notwithstanding the Motion to Withdraw Complaint. in any way. affirm the IBP’s finding that the respondent is guilty of assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. In disbarment proceedings. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9. Hence. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. Datingaling. Hence. We. we held that when the criminal prosecution based on the same act charged is still pending in court. the complainant has the burden of proving his case by convincing evidence. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party.
The Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card is another proof that the respondent assisted Felicisimo R. In this case. Jr. Felicisimo R. and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not . Tenorio. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. appearing in court in representation of a client. Panghulan. The purpose is to protect the public. the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy.” bears the signature of the respondent as Chairperson of the Group. Tenorio. the respondent herein. Notably. but he holds himself out as one. is not a lawyer. Jr. Gerardo A. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. Tenorio..01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. Felicisimo Tenorio.Rule 9. the court. and Maricris D. the respondent admitted that the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office listed Felicisimo R.. Battung as senior partners. They are listed in the letterhead of her law office as senior partners because they have investments in her law office. The lawyer’s duty to prevent. the identification card stating that he is “Atty. Holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose like identifying oneself as attorney. His wife. The term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his services.. That is a blatant misrepresentation. Jr. or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law. or at the very least not to assist in. Jr.. the client. in misrepresenting to the public that he is a lawyer. At the hearing. Such acts constitute unauthorized practice of law. abetted and aided him in the unauthorized practice of the legal profession. She admitted that the first two are not lawyers but paralegals.
subject to disciplinary action. any agency. with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus. WHEREFORE. Cristal-Tenorio is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective immediately. And. Let copies of this Resolution be attached to respondent Cristal-Tenorio’s record as attorney in this Court and furnished to the IBP and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts. . respondent Atty. the law makes it a misbehavior on his part.subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by. to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. personal or corporate. Ana Luz B.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of. for culpable violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.