Page 1 of 203
CAYETANO V MONSOD
PARAS; September 3, 1991
NATURE
Petition to review decision of Commission on Appointments
FACTS
- April 25, 1991 – Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed by Pres. Aquino as Chairman of COMELEC
- Rene Cayetano opposed such appointment as citizen and taxpayer because Monsod allegedly does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years - June 18, 1991 – Monsod took his oath of office
- Monsod‘s credentials
> member of Philippine Bar since 1960 > after bar, worked in law office of his father
> 1963-1970 – in World Bank Group as operations officer in Costa Rica and Panama involves getting acquainted with laws of member-countries, negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and project work
> 1970 – in Meralco Group as CEO of investment bank
> since 1986 – rendered service to various companiesas legal and economic consultant or CEO
> 1986-1987 – secretary-general and national chairman of NAMFREL (election law)
> co-chairman of Bishop‘s Businessmen‘s Conference for Human Development
> 1990 - Davide Commission – quasi-judicial body
> 1986-1987 – member of Constitutional Commission as Chairman on Accountability of Public Officers
- AIX-C Sec1(1) - … Commission on Elections chairman shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice
of law for at least 10 years
- no jurisprudence on what constitutes the practice of law
ISSUE
WON Monsod is qualified as Chairman of COMELEC in fulfilling the requirement engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years
HELD
YES. Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Monsod as economist, manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, lawyer-negotiator, and lawyer-negotiator is proof he is engaged in practice of law for more than 1- years
- Black’s Law Dictionary
> Rendition of service requiring the knowledge and application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent > not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and giving all legal advice to clients
- Land Title Abstract and Trust Co v Dworken
> one who in representative capacity engages in business of advising clients as to their rights under law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court
- UP Law Center
> advocacy, counseling, public service
- Alexander SyCip
> appearance of lawyer in litigation is most publicly familiar role of lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the average lawyer
> more legal work is transacted in law offices that in the courtrooms > business counseling than trying cases; as planner, diagnostician, trial lawyer, surgeon
- article on Business Star
> emerging trends in corporate law
SEPARATE OPINION NARVASA [concur]
- concur only in the result
PADILLA [dissent]
- Practice refers to actual performance of application of knowledge as distinguished from mere possession of knowledge; it connotes active, habitual, repeated or customary action TF lawyer employed as business executive or corporate manager, other than head of Legal Department cannot be said to be in the practice of law
- People v Villanueva
> Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind - Commission on Appointments memorandum
> practice of law requires habituality, compensation, application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure, and attorney-client relationship
CRUZ [dissent]
- sweeping definition of practice of law as to render the qualification practically toothless
- there is hardly any activity that is not affected by some law or government regulation the businessman must know about and observe - ―performance of any acts… in or out of court, commonly understood to be the practice of law‖ which tells us absolutely nothing
GUTIERREZ [dissent]
- practice is envisioned as active and regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal or extemporaneous - nothing in the bio-data even remotely indicates Monsod has given the law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment and participation
- difficult if not impossible to lay down a formula or definition of what constitutes the practice of law
- Monsod was asked if he ever prepared contracts for parties in real-estate transaction; he answered very seldom
- Monsod may have profited from his legal knowledge, the use of such is incidental and consists of isolated activities which do not fall under the denominations of practice of law
SANTUYO V HIDALGO
CORONA; January 17, 2005
NATURE
Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct and Dishonesty
Page 2 of 203
- Petitioners Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused respondent Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty for breach of his lawyer‘s oath and notarial law
- In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land covered by deed of sale - It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and entered in his notarial register
- Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo German over ownership of said land; German presented an affidavit executed by Hidalgo denying authenticity of his signature on deed of sale
Petitioners' Claim
- Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale contained ALL the legal formalities of a duly notarized document (including impression of his notarial dry seal)
- Santuyos could not have forged the signature, not being learned in technicalities surrounding notarial act
- They had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and they could not have made any imprint of his seal or signature.
Respondents' Comments
- He denied having notarized any deed of sale for disputed property. - He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office; and admitted that he notarized several documents in that office. - As a matter of procedure, documents were scrutinized by senior lawyers, and only with their approval could notarization be done. - In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves) would affix dry seal of junior associates on documents relating to cases handled by the law firm.
- He normally required parties to exhibit community tax certificates and to personally acknowledge documents before him as notary public. - He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov 1997 (Meeting was arranged by Editha so as to personally acknowledge another document) - His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged (strokes of a lady) - At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on vacation.
ISSUES
1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed of sale was forged 2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence
HELD
1. Yes.
Ratio The alleged forged signature was different from Hidalgo‘s
signatures in other documents submitted during the investigation.
Reasoning Santuyos did not state that they personally appeared
before respondent. They were also not sure if he signed the document; only that his signature appeared on it. They had no personal knowledge as to who actually affixed the signature.
2. Yes.
Ratio He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the preparation
and other mechanics of the document for notarization to the office secretaries, including safekeeping of dry seal and making entries in notarial register.
Reasoning Responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, and
respondent should have been more discreet and cautious.
Disposition Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission as notary
public for two (2) years for negligence in the performance of duties as notary public.
SICAT V ARIOLA, JR.
PER CURIAM; April 15, 2005
NATURE
Administrative case in the Supreme Court. Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS
- In an affidavit-complaint, complainat Arturo Sicat, a Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty. Gregorio Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud, deceit and falsehood in his dealings, particularly the notarization of a Special Power of Attorney(SPA) purportedly executed by one Juanito C. Benitez According to complainant, respondent made it appear that Benitez executed the said document on January 4, 2001 when in fact the latter had already died on October 25, 2000.
- He alleged that prior to notarization, the Municipality of Cainta had entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical Management, represented by Benitez, for the construction of low-cost houses(project worth=11M). For the services of the consultants, the Municipality of Cainta issued a check dated January 10, 2001 in the amount of 3.7M, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical Management and/or Cesar Goco. The check was received and cashed by the the latter by virtue of the SPA notarized by Ariola.
Respondents' Comments
- Respondent explained that as early as May 12, 2000, Benitez had already signed the SPA. He claimed that due to inadvertence, it was only on January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it. Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him on January 4, 2001 was not at all necessary because Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime before his death, on May 12, 2000. Therefore, the SPA was cancelled the same day he notarized it.
- Moreover, the suit should be dismissed for forum shopping since similar charges had been filed with the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Which complaints were dismissed because the assailed act referred to violation of the IRR of the Commission on Audit.
- The Court, in its resolution dated March 12, 2003, referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP recommended that respondent's notarial commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
ISSUES
WON acts of respondent amounted to a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD
Ratio The act was a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed
by the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which prohibits engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct..
Reasoning The undisputed facts show that Benitez died on October
25, 2000. The notarial acknowledgment of respondent declared that Benitez ―appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his clear and voluntary act.‖ Clearly respondent lied and intentionally perpetuated an untruthful statement.
- Neither will respondent's defense that the SPA in question was superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, exonerate him of
Page 3 of 203
accountability. His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.
Disposition WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., is
found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and entered in the records of respondent, and brought to the immediate attention of the Ombudsman.
UI V BONIFACIO
DE LEON; June 8, 2000
NATURE
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
FACTS
Mrs. Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bonifacio on the ground of immorality, for allegedly carrying on an illicit relationship with her husband Mr. Ui. In the proceeding before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Bonifacio attached a photocopy of a marriage certificate that said that she and Mr. Ui got married in 1985, but according to the certificate of marriage obtained from the Hawaii State Department of Health, they were married in 1987. She claims that she entered the relationship with Mr. Ui in good faith and that her conduct cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. She fell in love with Mr. Ui whom she believed to be single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted ways with him.
ISSUE
WON Atty. Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law
HELD
- No. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. One of the conditions prior to the admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of good character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. Otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. - A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, which has been defined as the conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. Lawyers, as keepers of the public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their affairs with great caution. Atty. Bonifacio was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Mr. Ui, clothed as it was with what she believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be ―grossly immoral,‖ that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
- A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships but must also behave himself so as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. Atty. Bonifacio‘s act of immediately distancing herself from Mr. Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she fad no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. On the matter of the falsified certificate of marriage, it is contrary to human experience and highly improbable that she did not know the year of her marriage or that she failed to check that the information in the document which she attached to her Answer were correct. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the bar, free from misdeeds and acts of malpractice.
FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR.
ROMERO; July 31, 1997
FACTS
- In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to the legal profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar exams on the fourth attempt.
- Figueroa avers that she and Barranco had been sweethearts, that a child was born to them out of wedlock and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her.
- Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in Janiuay, Iloilo and were steadies since 1953. Figueroa first acceded to sexual congress in 1960. A son, Rafael Barranco, was born on Dec 11, 1964. Barranco promised to marry Figueroa after he passes the bar exams. Their relationship continued, with more than 20 or 30 promises of marriage. Barranco gave only P10 for the child on Rafael‘s birthdays. In 1971, Figueroa learned Barranco married another woman.
- From 1972 to 1988, several motions to dismiss and comments were filed.
- On Sept 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for failure of complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyer‘s oath. - Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to Figueroa‘s opposition, resolved to cancel Barranco‘s scheduled oath-taking.
- June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the IBP. On May 17, 1997, IBP recommended the dismissal of the case and that respondent be allowed to take the lawyer‘s oath
ISSUE
WON the facts constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of Barranco from the legal profession
HELD
No. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless acts which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.
- Barranco‘s engaging in premarital sexual relations with Figueroa and promises to marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but it does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.
- Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose sexual relations were evidently consensual.
Page 4 of 203
- Respondent, at the time of this decision, is already 62.
Disposition Petition is dismissed. Simeon Barranco, Jr. is allowed to
take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of proper fees.
BARRIOS V MARTINEZ
PER CURIAM; November 12, 2004
FACTS
- Atty. Martinez was convicted of a violation of BP 22
- Complainant submitted Resolution dated March 13, 1996, and the Entry of judgment dated March 20, 1996 in an action for disbarment against Martinez
- July 3, 1996 – the Court required respondent to comment on said petition within 10 days from notice
- February 17, 1997 – a second resolution was issued requiring respondent to show cause why no disciplinary action should be imposed on him for failure to comply with the earlier Resolution and to submit Comment
- July 7, 1997 – the Court imposed a fine of P1000 for respondent‘s failure to comply with previous resolution within 10 days
- April 27, 1998 – the Court fined the respondent an additional P2000 and required him to comply with the resolution under pain of imprisonment and arrest for a period of 5 days or until his compliance - February 3, 1999 – the Court declared respondent Martinez guilty of Contempt under Rule 71, Sec 3(b) of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure and ordered his imprisonment until he complied with the aforesaid resolution
- April 5, 1999 – NBI reported that respondent was arrested in Tacloban City on March 26, 1999 but was subsequently released after having shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of February 17, 1997 and April 27, 1998 by remitting the amount of P2000 and submitting his overdue Comment:
1. He failed to respond to the Resolution dated February 17, 1997 as he was at that time undergoing medical treatment at Camp Ruperto Kangleon in Palo, Leyte
2. Complainant passed away sometime in June 1997
3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which was decided in respondent‘s favor. Respondent avers that as a result of his moving for the execution of judgment in his favor and the eviction of the family of complainant, the latter filed the present administrative case
- September 11, 1997 – Robert Visbal of the Provincial Prosecution Office of Tacloban City submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of Court alleging that respondent Martinez also stood charged in another estafa case before the RTC of Tacloban City, as well as a civil case involving the victims of the Dona Paz tragedy in 1987 for which the RTC of Basey, Samar rendered a decision against him, his appeal thereto having been dismissed by the CA.
- June 16, 1999 – the Court referred the present case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation
- The report of IBP stated:
1. Respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the complainant died and that dismissal is warranted because the case filed by him does not survive due to his demise as a matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death. The IBP disagrees, pursuant to Section 1 Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the SC or the IBP may initiate the proceedings when they perceive acts of lawyers which deserve
sanctions or when their attention is called by any one and a probable cause exists that an act has been perpetrated by a lawyer which requires disciplinary sanctions.
2. Propensity to disregard orders of the SC, as shown by respondent, is an utter lack of good moral character
3. Respondent‘s conviction of a crime of moral turpitude clearly shows his unfitness to protect the administration of justice and therefore justifies the imposition of sanctions against him 4. It is recommended that respondent be disbarred and his name
stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys immediately
- September 27, 2003 – the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation of its Investigating Commissioner
- December 3, 2003 – Atty. Martinez filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation
- January 14, 2004 – the Court required the complainant to file a comment within 10 days
- February 16, 2004 – complainant‘s daughter sent a Manifestation and Motion alleging they have not been furnished with a copy of respondent‘s Motion
ISSUE
WON the crime respondent was convicted of is one involving moral turpitude
HELD
Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
- The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable. The practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.
- Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them. - The court is also disinclined to take respondent‘s old age and the fact that he served in the judiciary in various capacities in his favor. If at all, the respondent was held to a higher standard for it, for a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, and his conduct should be above reproach.
- The Court based the determination of the penalty from previously decided cases, holding that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime of moral turpitude.
Disposition Respondent was disbarred and his name stricken from the
Roll of Attorneys.
PIMENTEL, HR V LLORENTE
MENDOZA; August 29, 2000 (edel cruz)
Page 5 of 203
NATURE
Administrative Matter. Disbarment
FACTS
- Senator Aquilino Pimentel filed this disbarment case against Attys.
Antonio Llorente (election officer of COMELEC and chairman of the Board) and Ligaya Salayon (ex officio vice- chairman) for gross
misconduct, serious breach of trust and violation of the lawyer’s oath in connection with the discharge of their duties as members of the
Pasig City Board of Canvassers in the May 8, 1995 elections. - Pimentel alleges that respondents:
Respondents tampered with the votes he received
Statement of votes show that other candidates were credited with votes which were above the number of votes they actually received and his votes were reduced (dagdag-bawas =p)
In 101 precints, Enrile‘s votes were in excess of the total number of voters who actually voted therein
The votes from 22 precints were twice recorded in 18 statements of votes.
- PIMENTEL: The respondents committed a serious breach of public trust and of their lawyers‘ oath by signing the statements of votes (SoVs) despite their knowledge that some of the entries were false. - RESPONDENTS: The errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight and /or fatigue.
- IBP recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
- Pimentel also filed criminal charges against the two before the COMELEC which dismissed said charges for insufficiency of evidence. - The SC, upon Pimentel‘s petition for certiorari, directed the COMELEC to file appropriate charges against respondents.
ISSUE
1. WON a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule 139 –B, section 12 C (within 15 day period) since the petition was filed late
2. WON the respondents are guilty of misconduct
HELD
1. NO
Reasoning
- In Halimao v. Villanueva: Although Rule 139-B, sec 12(c) makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited.
- It appears that the petition was filed on time because a copy of the resolution personally served on the Office of the Bar Confidant of the SC was received. It is the burden of the respondent to show that the complainant filed the petition was filed beyond the 15-day period for filing it.
- Even if Pimentel received the IBP resolution in question was filed 2 days late, the delay may be overlooked.
- Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The sole question for determination is whether a member of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges as such or not.
- The complainant or the person who called the attention of the Court to the attorney‘s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and generally has no interest, in the outcome except as all citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. For this reason, laws dealing with double jeopardy or prescription or with procedure like verification of
pleadings and prejudicial questions have no application to disbarment proceedings.
2. YES
Reasoning
- In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clearly preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability.
- SC: What is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of erroneous figures in or two statements of votes but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain
senatorial candidates at the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the election returns.
- Despite the fact that these discrepancies were apparent on the face of these documents and that the variation involves substantial number of votes, respondents nevertheless certified the SoVs as true and correct. This constitutes misconduct.
- Only the respondents had access to the SoVs and the CoC and thus had the opportunity to compare them and detect the discrepancies therein so it is irrelevant that the canvassing was open to the public and observed by numerous individuals.
- A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharged of his duties as a government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer‘s oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct.
- By certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, the respondents
committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code, which stipulates that a
lawyer shall not engage in ―unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.‖ By lawyers express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as to ―do no falsehood.‖
- As lawyers in the government service, respondents were under greater obligation to observe the basic tenet of the profession (to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor) because a public
office is a public trust.
Disposition Respondents‘ participation in the irregularities reflects on
the legal profession. This merits a suspension but since this is their first transgression, a fine is sufficient.
Fine of 10,000 Php for each for misconduct.
CORDOVA V CORDOVA
PER CURIAM; November 29, 1989 (giulia pineda)
NATURE
Administrative case in the SC for Immorality of a member of the Bar
FACTS
- Savacion Delizo Cordova sent an unsworn letter-complaint to then CJ Teehankee charging her husband Atty. Laurence Cordova with immorality and acts unbecoming of a member of the Bar. The complaint was forwarded to the IBP, Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report and investigation.
- The Commission required the complainant to submit a verified complain to which she complied and submitted on Sept 27, 1988 a
Page 6 of 203
revised and verified version of her long and detailed complaint against her husband.
- On Dec 16, she was required to submit before the Commission her evidence ex parte. She requested for the rescheduling several times. The hearings never took place as she failed to appear.
- The respondent never moved to set aside the order of default, even though notices were sent to him.
- In a telegraphic message dated Apr 6, the complainant informed the commission that she and her husband have already reconciled. - In an order dated Apr 17, 1989, the Commission required the parties to appear before it for the confirmation and explanation of the telegraphic message and to file formal motion to dismiss the complaint. Neither responded and nothing was heard from either party since then.
The findings of the IBP Board of Governors:
- Complainant and respondent Cordova were married on 6 June 1976 and out of this marriage, two (2) children were born.
- In 1985, respondent Cordova left his family as well as his job as Branch Clerk of RTC of Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, and went to Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur with one Fely G. Holgado.
- Fely G. Holgado was herself married and left her own husband and children to stay with respondent. Respondent Cordova and Fely G. Holgado lived together in Bislig as husband and wife, with respondent Cordova introducing Fely to the public as his wife, using the name Fely Cordova.
- Respondent Cordova gave Fely Holgado funds with which to establish a sari-sari store in the public market at Bislig, while failing to support his legitimate family.
- On 6 April 1986, respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an apparent reconciliation. Respondent promised that he would separate from Fely Holgado and brought his legitimate family to Bislig
- Respondent would, however, frequently come home from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the support of his legitimate family.
- In February 1987, complainant found, upon returning from a trip to Manila that respondent Cordova was no longer living with her children in their conjugal home; that respondent Cordova was living with another mistress, Luisita Magallanes, and had taken his younger daughter along with him
- Respondent and his new mistress hid Melanie from the complainants, compelling complainant to go to court and to take back her daughter by habeas corpus. The RTC of Bislig, gave her custody of their children. - Notwithstanding respondent's promise to reform, he continued to live with Luisita Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give support to his legitimate family.
ISSUE
WON the recent reconciliation of the Cordovas and the failure of the complainant to pursue the case have dismissed the case.
HELD
The most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent, assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent earn carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself.
Ratio
- An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show that he possessed of good moral character. That requirement is
not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar.
- The lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community.
Disposition WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND
respondent from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from this Court. The Court will consider lifting his suspension when respondent Cordova submits proof satisfactory to the Commission and this Court that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to.
SORIANO V DIZON
PER CURIAM; January 25, 2006 (romy ramirez)
NATURE
Administrative case for disbarment
FACTS
- Respondent, Atty. Manuel Dizon, was convicted by final judgment by the RTC of Baguio City for frustrated murder. He applied and was granted probation by the said court based on several conditions which included among others the satisfaction of the civil liabilities imposed in favor of the offended party, Roberto Soriano, the taxi driver who was rendered paralyzed on the left side of the body as a result of his being shot by the defendant.
- The defendant despite the condition that he pay the civil liabilities imposed on him as a condition for the probation, appealed said civil liability to the Court of Appeals.
- From the records of the trial court, it appears that defendant was drunk at the time of the incident and that the case arose out of the apparent resentment of the defendant from having been overtaken by the victim who was then driving a taxi. From the testimony of a witness, it further appears that the taxi driver was merely defending himself and that defendant was the aggressor during said incident.
- Upon the complaint for the disbarment filed by Soriano against Dizon, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines rendered its report and recommendation which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors. The Commssion recommended the disbarment of the defendant for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and for exhibiting an obvious lack of good moral character.
ISSUES
1. WON Dizon‘s crime of frustrated murder involves moral turpitude and that his guilt warrants disbarment
HELD
Ratio
- The totality of the facts of the case unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. Given that membership in the legal profession demands a high degree of good moral character not only as a condition to admission but also a continuing requirement for the practice of law, the
Page 7 of 203
defendant has shown in all his actuations that he lacks the fitness to remain in the law profession.
Reasoning
- Not all cases involving homicide involves moral turpitude. The question as to what may be a crime involving moral turpitude would depend on the individual facts surrounding the case and the surrounding circumstances.
- In the case at bar, it was shown that Dizon was the aggressor as he pursued and shot complainant when the latter least expected it. The actuations of the victim in this case can be considered as reasonable actions clearly intended to fend off the attack of Dizon.
- The defendant‘s use of an unlicensed firearm and his refusal to satisfy his civil liability to the victim is a serious transgression of Canon 1 of the code of Professional Responsibility.
- Defendant has continuously display his dishonest and duplicitous behavior by first seeking to arrive at an out of court settlement with the family and when the same failed, making it appear that it was the family would sought a conference with him. He also lied to the court by claiming that he incident was the result of the mauling he got at the hands of the victim and two other persons. This story was belied by the physical evidence as testified to by no less than three doctors.
Disposition Manuel Dizon is disbarred and his name is stricken from
the roll of attorneys.
CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES V VILLALUZ
REGALADO; June 19, 1997 (cha mendoza)
NATURE
Petition for the disbarment on the grounds of grossly immoral and grave misconduct
FACTS
-Complainant is the presiding judge of Branch 108 of the RTC of Pasay City while respondent is a consultant at the Presidential Anti Crime Commission, and a retired justice of the Court of Appeals
-Complainant was widowed by the presumption of death of her 1st
husband, upon a decree of presumption of death after 16-year absence -Complainant and respondent met sometime in 1977when respondent was the presiding judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig for the murder case involving the death of the complainant‘s son. Since then, the respondent became a close family friend.
-On January 7, 1994, the complainant and the respondent got married in a civil wedding, with all the essential and formal requisites present. -On the afternoon of their wedding day, the respondent fetched the complainant from her house in QC to stay in the respondent‘s condo unit. There was a phone call and when the complainant answered, a woman was on the other end of the line offending the complainant with insulting remarks. The complainant confronted the respondent about the caller and the confrontation ended up in a heated exchange of words, to the point where the respondent said to the complainant, ―Ayaw ko nang ganyan! Ang gusto ko sa babae, 'yong sumusunod sa bawa't gusto ko'. Get that marriage contract and have it burned." With that, the complainant left the respondent and after that, they never contacted each other again.
-Several months after, in a bible study session, the complainant learned from Manila RTC Judge Ramon Makasiar, a member of the bible group, that he (Judge Makasiar) solemnized the marriage between the
respondent and a certain Lydia Geraldez. After hearing that, on June 6, 1995 the complainant filed the instant Complaint for Disbarment against him (Exh. "A").
-On August 7, 1995, when complainant discovered that the respondent falsified his marriage contract (Exh C.) dated May 10, 1994 by stating that he is ―single‖, the complainant executed against respondent her "Supplemental Complaint Affidavit for Falsification" (Exhs. "D" and "D-1"). The complainant also presented the Marriage Contract between her and respondent (Exh. "B"), the Order declaring her first husband, Primitivo Mijares, presumptively dead (Exh. "E"); and Affidavit of Judge Myrna Lim Verano, who solemnized the marriage between her (complainant) and respondent (Exhs. "F" and "F-1").
Respondent’s claim The respondent claimed that he only voluntarily
signed the Marriage Contract bet. Him and the complainant in an effort to help the complainant in the administrative case for immorality filed against her by her legal researcher in 1993 and that their marriage was just a ―sham marriage‖
-Also, he claims that when he got married to the complainant, his first marriage with Librada Peña was still subsisting because the decision declaring its annulment had not yet become final and executory (required publication not yet done), as certified by Mrs. Nelia B. Rosario, Acting Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Exh. "4").
ISSUE
WON the respondent is guilty of gross immorality and grave misconduct?
HELD
YES, respondent is undeniably guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
Ratio The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall
be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law
Reasoning The respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. A former Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court, and, thereafter, a Justice of the Court of Appeals is surely conversant with the legal maxim that a wrong cannot be righted by another wrong, if granted that he was just helping the complainant in the administrative case filed against her.
-The respondent gave his voluntary consent to the marriage, and with all the legal requisites for the marriage present, he should have known that his marriage with the complainant was valid.
-the respondent stated under oath that his marriage with Librada Peña had been annulled by a decree of annulment, when he (respondent) took Lydia Geraldez as his wife by third marriage, and therefore, he is precluded, by the principle of estoppel, from claiming that when he took herein complainant as his wife by second marriage, his first marriage with Librada Peña was subsisting and unannulled.
Disposition WHEREFORE, finding herein respondent, former Justice
Onofre A. Villaluz, GUILTY of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon notice hereof, with the specific WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter. SO ORDERED.
Page 8 of 203
ESTRADA V SANDIGANBAYAN
PER CURIAM; November 25, 2003 (boots tirol)
NATURE
RESOLUTION of the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
FACTS
-Joseph Estrada, through Atty Alan Paguia, filed a Petition for Certiorari under the Rules of Court against Sandiganbayan, which prayed – ―1. That Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the Honorable Court disqualify themselves from hearing and deciding the petition; 2. That the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and set aside; and 3.That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending before the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. -Atty Paguia, speaking for Estrada, asserted that the inhibition of the members of the SC from hearing the petition is called for under Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting justices or judges from participating in any partisan political activity which proscription, according to him, the justices have violated by attending the ‗EDSA 2 Rally‘ and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contended that the justices have thereby prejudged a case that would assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo is, according to petitioner, a patent mockery of justice and due process.
-The SC dismissed the petition for lack of merit (Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion) and the SC warned Atty Paguia of his conduct -- his attacks on the Court and making public statements on the case (violating Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility). He was given 10 days SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
- On 10 October 2003, Atty. Paguia submitted his compliance with the show-cause order. In a three-page pleading, Atty. Paguia, in an obstinate display of defiance, repeated his earlier claim of political partisanship against the members of the Court (for discussion on political partisanship please see original case), and continued to make public statements about Estrada‘s case.
ISSUES
WON Atty Paguia should be suspended from the practice of law
HELD
YES.
-Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.
-The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of the people‘s faith
in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.
-The attention of Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from making such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party. Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has persisted in ignoring the Court‘s well-meant admonition. The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
Disposition Atty Paguia indefinitely suspended from the practice of law
ZALDIVAR V GONZALES
PER CURIAM; October 7, 1988 (joey capones)
NATURE
Petition to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan
FACTS
Enrique A. Zaldivar had a pending case for graft and corruption in the Sandiganbayan initiated by Tanodbayan Gonzalez. Zaldivar filed a petition in the SC alleging that Gonzalez, as Tanodbayan and under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, was no longer vested with power and authority independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for graft and corruption against public officials and employees, and hence the information filed in his criminal cases were all null and void. The SC issued a temporary restraining order. Petitioner later filed another petition because Gonzalez filed additional criminal charges against petitioner and five other individuals. Gonzalez instituted another criminal case in the Sandiganbayan. Four days later, the SC issued another TRO. Zaldivar then filed a petition to cite in contempt Special Prosecutor Gonzalez for filing new information before the Sandiganbayan and for making contemptuous statements to the media. In a news art in the Phil Daily Globe, Gonzalez made the ff. statements: (1) while the rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the SC, it‘s difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course, (2) while Pres. Aquino had been prodding him to prosecute graft cases even if they involve the high and mighty, the SC had been restraining him, (3) while he doesn‘t wish to discuss the merits of the Zaldivar petition before the SC, He was disturbed that the order can aggravate the thinking of some people that affluent persons can prevent the progress of a trial. The SC ordered the nullification of the criminal cases and for Gonzalez to cease and desist from further acting on Zaldivar‘s case In the motion for reconsideration, Gonzales claimed that 3 handwritten notes, sent by some members of the SC interceding for cases pending before his office, were in his possession. He said that he doubts whether the judges will remain impartial to him, there being at least 4 members who definitely won‘t, and prayed that these 4 inhibit themselves in the deliberation. When this was denied, he filed a motion to transfer administrative proceedings to the IBP. He also released statements to the press saying, in effect, that the SC deliberately rendered an erroneous decision, that members of the SC have improperly pressured him to render decisions favorable to their friends and colleagues, and that the Sc dismisses judges without rhyme or reason and disbars lawyers without due process. Gonzalez didn‘t deny
Page 9 of 203
he said/wrote those statements. His defense is that he was just exercising his freedom of speech.
ISSUES
1. WON the SC should punish Gonzalez for contempt of court and give administrative sanctions
2. WON Gonzales is not liable because he was just using his constitutional right of freedom of speech.
HELD
1. YES
Ratio Statements which constitute gross disrespect of the Court, and
degrade the SC and the entire system of justice are clearly contemptuous. The SC should exercise its disciplinary authority over the source.
Reasoning The SC cited several cases wherein the Court held that the
statements were contemptuous and warranting the exercise of the court‘s authority. These are:
(1). Monteciollo v. Gica – Atty del Mar moved to reconsider a decision of the CA with a veiled threat that he should interpose his next appeal to the President. He said the court knowingly rendered an unjust judgment thru negotiations. He was convicted of contempt of court.
(2) Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel – counsel asked CJ
Concepcion and J Castro to inhibit themselves from judging the case since the brother of Castro was the VP of favored party and CJ‘s son was the Secretary of the Board of Investments. He even threatened that if he didn‘t get a favorable decision, he‘d bring the case to the World Court and invoke the Hickenlooper Amendment requiring the cutting off of all aid to the Philippines.
3. In re Almacen – the SC committed a great unjust to his client; justice
administered by the SC wasn‘t only blind, but also deaf and dumb; he‘ll argue the cause of his client in the people‘s forum (published in Manilla Times). Almacen was suspended from the practice of law because he exceeded the boundaries of fair criticism.
4. Paragas v. Cruz – counsel alleged that the SC violated the
Constitution, which was a ground for impeachment; hoped that an incident wherein 2 SC employees were killed wouldn‘t happen again (covert threat upon the members of the Court)
5. In re Sotto – a newspaper reporter refused to divulge his source and
was sent to jail. Atty. Sotto published in a newspaper that the SC erroneously interpreted the law, they‘re narrow-minded, and that the members of the SC should be changed. He was held in contempt of Court.
6. Salcedo v. Hernandez – Atty Francisco: the Court‘s resolution is
erroneous and is a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls.
2. NO
Ratio A lawyer‘s right of free expression may have to be more limited
than that of a layman.
Reasoning The freedom of speech and of expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that the freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of the fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. The lawyer‘s duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice.
[Discussion on the SC’s power to discipline its lawyers]
The SC, as the regulator and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary disciplinary auth over attorneys. This stems from the Court‘s Constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself. This is an inherent power incidental to the proper administration of justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. It also has inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the court including lawyers and all other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court. This is necessary for its own protection against improper interference with the due administration of justice and not dependent upon the complaint of the litigant. There are two related powers here: (1) Court‘s inherent power to discipline attorneys – broader than contempt power; lawyer doesn‘t need to be in contempt of court to be punished under this; (2) contempt power - may be committed by both lawyers and non-lawyers, in and out of court; if this is done by a lawyer, it‘s usually accompanied with professional misconduct.
A lawyer is not just a professional but also an officer of the court and as such, is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act which tends to obstruct the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him and conduct warranting application of the contempt power.
Disposition Atty. Raul M. Gonzales was found guilty of contempt of
court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. He was suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.
CASTANEDA V AGO
CASTRO; July 30, 1975 (glaisa po)
NATURE
- Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
FACTS
- 1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries.
-1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
- 1961 – SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution; Ago‘s motion denied, levy was made on Ago‘s house and lots; sheriff advertised the sale, Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC affirmed dismissal
- Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied - 1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago failed to redeem
- 1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession to the properties
- 1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½ share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued
- 1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a
Page 10 of 203
similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition
- Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
WON the Agos‘ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy
HELD
- No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the sheriff‘s sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
- Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice.
- A counsel‘s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client‘s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer‘s insistence despite the patent futility of his client‘s position.
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his case. If he finds his client‘s cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client‘s propensity to litigate.
LEDESMA V CLIMACO
FERNANDO; June 28, 1974 (mini bernardo)
NATURE
Original action in the SC, Certiorari
FACTS
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending in the sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent Judge denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense. Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.
ISSUE
WON a member of the bar may withdraw as counsel de oficio due to appointment as Election Registrar
HELD
No.
1. The ends of justice would be served by requiring Ledesma to continue as counsel de oficio because: the case has been postponed at least 8 times at the defense's instance; there was no incompatibility between duty of petitioner to defend the accused, and his task as an election registrar.
2. Ledesma's withdrawal would be an an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty rqeuired of the legal profession. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the administration of justice. The fact that such services are rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.
3. The Constitution provides that the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel..." ---manifest the indispensable role of a member of the Bar in the defense of an accused. The right to be assisted by counsel is so important that it is not enough for the Court to apprise the accused of his right to an atty, but is essential that the court assign on de oficio for him if he desires/ is poor.
Thus, Ledesma should exert himself sufficiently, if not with zeal, if only to erase doubts as to his fitness to remain a member of the profession in good standing.
Disposition Petition for certiorari dismissed.
IN RE: TAGORDA
MALCOLM; March 23, 1929 (boots tirol)
FACTS
Luis Tagorda, a practicing lawyer and a member of the Provincial Board of Isabela admits that the previous election he used a card which states what he can do for the people as a lawyer and a notary public (he can execute deed of sales, etc). He also admits that he wrote a letter to a lieutenant of his barrio asking him to inform the people in any town meetings that despite his election as member of the Board, he will still exercise his profession as a lawyer and notary public, even adding that he will only charge three pesos for registration of their land titles.
ISSUES
1. WON Tagorda is guilty of malpractice for soliciting employment 2. WON Tagorda should be disbarred
HELD
1. YES.
Sec 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by Act 2828) states that "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally, or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics provide:
Page 11 of 203
27- The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards, being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional... Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
28 -It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to be employed to bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as clients… A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof to the end that the offender may be disbarred.
- The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional.
- With the admitted facts, the respondent stands convicted of having solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons.
2. NO. The commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are: first, his intimation that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and third, his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future.
ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC
REGALADO; June 17, 1993 (dahls salamat)
FACTS
- Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads pertaining to the exercise of the law professions other than those allowed by law
- Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE? P560 for a valid marriage
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am-6pm
7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla
- Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE DON PARKINSON
An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BKS on Guam Divorce thru the Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Probs, Visa ext. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retiree‘s Visa. Declaration of
Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Sp/Shil. Call Marivic
THE LEGAL CLINIC, etc
Petitioner‟s Claim:
-Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar.
-As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the ads
Respondent‟s Comment:
-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg support services thru paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines
- Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be allowed under Bates v. State bar of Arizona
ISSUES
1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law?
2. WON their services can be advertised?
HELD
1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and expertise
- To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession; to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge/skill
- Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and counsel and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured regardless of WON they‘re pending in court 3 types of legal profession activity:
1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations
2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman
3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in proper inter and enforcement of law
Respondent‘s description of its services shows it falls within the practice of law:
Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps and modern info tech
- computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering, locating parties/witnesses to a case, fact finding investigations, assistance to laymen in need of services from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus registrations, etc.
*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and technical know how like installing computer system for law offices, this doesn‘t make it an exception to the general rule
- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot advisory and non-diagnostic
ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption – have to explain to client the intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper course of action
