More cases on

Rule 139-B
By : Ed de los Reyes
Adez Realty vs. Court of Appeals
• On 30 October 1992 the Court found movant, Atty. Benjamin M.
Dacanay, guilty of intercalating a material fact in a decision of the
Court of Appeals, which he appealed to this Court on certiorari,
thereby altering the factual findings of the Court of Appeals with the
apparent purpose of misleading this Court in order to obtain a
favorable judgment. Consequently, Atty. Dacanay was disbarred from
the practice of law.
• He claimed that the inserted words were written by his client, the
President of Adez Realty, Inc., in the draft of the petition to be filed
before the Supreme Court and unwittingly adopted by movant's
secretary when the latter formalized the petition. He manifested that
he would not risk committing the act for which he was found guilty
considering that he was a nominee of the Judicial and Bar Council to
the President for appointment as regional trial judge.
Dacanay filed a Motion to Lift (Disbarment) stating that he
was already 62 years old, has learned his lesson from his
mistake, was terribly sorry for what he had done, and in all
candor promised that if given another chance he would live
up to the exacting demands of the legal profession. He
appended to his motion certifications of good moral
character
Issue:
Should the disbarment be lifted?

Held:
The disbarment of movant Benjamin M. Dacanay for three (3) years
has, quite apparently, given him sufficient time and occasion to soul-
search and reflect on his professional conduct, redeem himself and
prove once more that he is worthy to practice law and be capable of
upholding the dignity of the legal profession. His admission of guilt
and repeated pleas for compassion and reinstatement show that he is
ready once more to meet the exacting standards the legal profession
demands from its practitioners. Accordingly, the Court lifts the
disbarment of Benjamin M. Dacanay. However he should be sternly
warned that —
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness,
maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful
compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the
conditions required for remaining a member of good
standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice
law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession,
has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This
authority to discipline its members is not only a right, but a
bounden duty as well. That is why respect and fidelity to the
Court is demanded of its members.
 The disbarment of BENJAMIN M. DACANAY from the
practice of law is LIFTED and he is therefore allowed to
resume the practice of law upon payment of the required
legal fees. This resolution is effective immediately.
 Illusurio vs Lokin
Facts:
Illusurio-Bildner is the daughter of late illusurio. She filed a disbarment
case against Lokin. Lokin was a counsekpl of the father of Illusurio-
Bildner. The government is claiming the shares of the company held by
Illusurio.it is alleged that Illusurio entered into compromise with the
assistance of Lokin that should be in favour of her father but turned out
to be a special stockholder s meeting where the director and officers
were elected. The father contested the validity of the session and filed a
complaint to Securities and Exchange Commission and Lokin appeared
as opposing counsel, which allegedly constitutes conflict of interest. The
father initially filed the disbarment and followed up by his daughter.
Issue:
Whether or not there is sufficient legal standing on the part of the daughter?

Held:
• Yes. Section 1, Rule 139-B stated that:
• Section 1. How instituted Proceeding for disbarment, suspension or discipline of
Attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines upon verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall
state clearly and conciselynthr fact an complained of and shall be supported by
affidavit of person having personal knowledge nof the facts therein alleged and
or/by such dpcukrny as may substantiate said facts. Clearly, personal knowledge
is required, most of the complaint, but of her witness. If there is any, oddly
enough, the quotation of same provision by the investigating comisioners who
dismissed the earlier disciplinary case against Lokin admitted the phrase "any
person, making it appear that complaints must have personal know ledge of the
facts they alledged.
 Tan vs Sabacandal
Tan and several people filed complaint due to Sabacandal's
unauthorized law practice. Sabacandal did not yet pass the
bar when he took up the cases of the former and because of
that they appealed to prevent the admission of Sabacandal
to the bar which was granted, that caused numerous
motions to be admitted to the bar and asked for forgiveness.
Issue:
Whether or not Sabacandal be admitted to the Bar?

Held:
An applicant must satisfy to the court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and
proper to practice bar. Following criteria were considered in several cases: the person
appreciates the insignificance of his direction and he ensures that the court that he now
posses the requisites purity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be
reported to the practice of law; the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and
the application for reinstatement, his good conduct and honourable clearing subsequent
to his disbarment , his active investment in civic, educational and religious organisation,
the favourable indorsment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the local
government officials and citizenz of his community; the pleas of his mother and wife for
the sake of the future of his family; the foregoing criteria may be made applicable on to
Sabacandal's case. After the lapse of 10 years from the time he passed the Bar
examination. He has shown contribution and willingness to reform. It is worth nothing
also of the good moral character from IBP Zamboanga.
 In re : Rusiana
Rusiana was disbarred due to misconduct of Public Notary
and exhibited such frame of mind and observed such a norm
of conduct unworthy of a member of legal profession. He
had intentionally filed with court for readmission, supported
by resolution from member of the Bench and Bar, labour
unions, newspaper editors and reporters, members of
professional and civic organisation, attesting to Rusiana's
good conduct and moral character since his disbarment and
legion to be reinstated to the legal profession.
Issue:
Whether or not Rusiana be reinstated?

Held:
Yes. He complied with requirement in court resolution on
July 20 1972, as evidence by the several certificates by
individual professors of review centres that he attended,
attesting to his regular attendance and passed their subject
under some conditions as student and separate letters of
Registrar and Dean of Law school addresed to this Court
Clerk of Court and acting as Bar confidant, confirmation of
the student in court resolution ; he is ordered to pass the
fourth year class in recognised law school.
 In re: Rovero
Facts:
Rovero was disbarred due to violation of Section 2703 of
Revised Administrative Code. After 4 years, he filed bar
reinstatement and claimed mental anguish and misery, also
ask for unconditional pardon for his crime to restore his
political and civil rights and pledged not to do it again but
was denied. He tried it again when he is near to his time of
death at the age of 71 years old.
Issue:
Whether or not Rovero be readmitted to the back due to his circumstances?

Held:
A person of good moral character - a fit and proper person to practice law must
be satisfied to be a member of the Bar. An absolute pardon not only blots out the
crime committed, but removed all the disabilities resulting from conviction. In
case at bar, it appears that since his disbarment on 1952. Rovero has honourable
death with his citizens , demonstrated his moral rehabilitation and reformatiin as
to be filled once more to emergeub the practice of law. Rovero has been active in
civic and educational organisation. He became the secretary of Provincial Board
of Philippine National Red Cross and held high position on several organisation
even in commercial sector and religious organisation that claimed him of being a
devotee and he receive a pardon from Late President Ramon Magsaysay. For
more the 20 years, Rovero has been significantly punished and disciplined.
 Cui vs Cui
Facts:
There were two brothers, Jesus and Antonio, "heir" to the management
of the Hospice. On 1960, Dr. Fernando resigned as Administrator to give
way to Antonio as the new Administrator, which was evidenced by the
will of their predecessor that an "Abogado or Doctor" shall be the
administrator of the establishment. Jesus lay his claim due to being a
law graduate while Jesus is a disbarred lawyer and later reininstated to
the Bar.Jesus insisted that since he was disbarred due to immorality and
unprofessional conduct, which shall not made him eligible to the
position.
Issue:
Whether or not Antonio is righftul heir to the job posting?

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