Compilation Legal Ethics

7/25/2019 Compilation Legal Ethics

1/55

INTRODUCTION

Director of Religious Aairs vs. Bayot , 74 Pil. !7"

#acts$Respondent is charged with malpractice for having published anadvertisement in Sunday Tribunal on June 13, 1943 which readsas follows

!"arriage license promptly secured thru our assistance and the annoyance of delayor publicity avoided if desired and marriage arranged to wishes of parties#$onsultation on any matter free for the poor# %verything con&dential#

Issue$'hether or not the advertisement is ethical#

%el&$(t is undeniable that the advertisement in )uestion was a *agrant violation bythe respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a bra+en solicitation ofbusiness from the public# Section - of Rule 1. e/pressly provides among otherthings that !the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, eitherpersonally or through paid agents or bro0ers, constitutes malpractice# (t is highlyunethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or s0ill as a

merchant advertises his wares# 2aw is a profession and a trade# The lawyerdegrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practice ofmercantilism by advertising his services or oering them to the public# s a memberof the bar, he de&les the temple of 5ustice with mercenary activities as the money6changers of old de&led the temple of Jehovah# !The most worthy and eectiveadvertisement possible, even for a young lawyer is the establishment of a well6merited reputation for professional capacity and &delity to trust# This cannot beforced but must be the outcome of character and conduct# 7$anon ., $ode of%thics#8

'(D()*A + C'I*ACO

#ACT) 2edesma is counsel de parte of one accused# Thereafter, he was appointedas %lection Registrar of $adi+, :egros ;ccidental by $;"%2%$# 2edesma withdrewas counsel on the basis that his appointment as %lection Registrar would re)uire fulltime service as well as on the volume or pressure of wor0 will prevent him fromhandling ade)uately the defense# Judge $limaco denied his motion, and evenappointed him as counsel de oeing appointed as counsel de o&cio re)uires a highdegree of &delity 7law is a profession and not a mere trade8# Re)uires counsel ofrepute and eminence#3#(n criminal cases, right to counsel is absolute# :o fairhearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel#4#The

1
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/director-of-religious-affairs-vs-bayot.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/director-of-religious-affairs-vs-bayot.html


2/55

denial by Judge $limaco was due to the principal eect to delay the case 7case hasalready been postponed for ? times8

CUI + CUI

#acts The main concern in this case is the respective )uali&cations of Jesus $ui and

ntonio $ui to the position of administrator of =ospicio de San Jose de >arii, acharitable institution established by @on Aedro $ui and @ona >enigna $ui#Jesus andntonio are the sons of "ariano $ui, a nephew of the founders of the institution#ntonioBs claim to the position is based on a !convenio where then administrator

Teodoro resigned in favor of him# Jesus, however, had no prior notice of this# JesusBsclaim is that he should be preferred pursuant to the deed of donation 7whichrecogni+ed their father "ariano as a legitimate descendant to the position8 as he isthe older of the two# The deed, however, gives preference to a descendant who hasa !titulo de abogado or a doctor, or a civil engineer, or a pharmacist 7in order8# ;rto the one who pays the highest ta/es# Jesus holds the degree of >achelor of 2awsbut is not a member of the >ar, while ntonio is a member of the >ar 7he wasformerly disbarred, though, by the S$ and was 5ust reinstated wee0s beforeassuming the position8

Issue 'ho has a better right to the position of administrator between Jose andntonioC

'hat does the term !titulo de abogado meanC

%el& ntonio# The term !titulo de abogado is not 5ust mere possession of theacademic degree of >achelor of 2aws but membership in the bar after dueadmission thereto, )ualifying one to the practice of law# Aossession of the degree isnot indispensable to )ualify as a lawyer since completion of the prescribed coursesmay be shown in some other way# (t was also argued that ntonio is dis)uali&ed for

having been previously disbarred since the deed also provided that an administratormay be removed if found to lac0 a sound moral character# =owever, ntonio wasreinstated# This reinstatement is a recognition of his moral rehabilitation afterproving what was re)uired by the >ar# ntonioBs restoration to the roll of lawyerswiped out restrictions and disabilities resulting from the previous disbarment

+illegas vs 'egasi

This case is a consolidation of two cases involving the issue of whether or not amember of $ongress may appear before the regular courts as counsel for ordinarylitigants#

Case 1(n September 19.9, Raul Dillegas &led a civil case against spouses Dera $ru+ et albefore the $ourt of Eirst (nstance 7$E(8 $ebu# The Dera $ru+ spouses &led theiranswer to the complaint and they were represented by Dalentino 2egaspi, then amember of the >atasang Aambansa# Dillegas then challenged the representationmade by 2egaspi as counsel for the spouses on the ground that it isunconstitutionalF as pointed out by Dillegas !no member of the Batasang Pambansashall appear as counsel before any court without appellate jurisdiction# The


3/55

presiding 5udge however overruled DillegasB challenged and proceeded with thetrial# The 5udge said that $E(s have appellate 5urisdiction#

Case 2

(n July 19.9, %dgardo Reyes &led a civil case against :# D# Derenigde

>uin+enfabrie0en %/celsior6@e "aas, a corporation, before $E( Ri+al# %stanisaloEernande+ appeared as counsel for the corporation# Reyes )uestions theappearance of Eernande+ as counsel for the corporation on the same groundinvo0ed in $ase 1 because Eernande+ is also a member of the >atasang Aambansa#

I))U($ 'hether or not the said members, %stanislao Eernande+ and Dalentino2egaspi, of the >atasang Aambansa may appear as counsels before the said $E(s#

%('D$ :o# "embers of $ongress are prohibited to appear as counsel berfore $E(Bsacting in their original 5urisdiction# $E(Bs have dual personalities# They can be courtsof general original 5urisdiction 7courts of origin8 or appellate courts depending onthe case that they too0 cogni+ance of# (n the cases at bar, $E( $ebu and $E( Ri+al

acted as a courts of general original 5urisdiction# >oth cases were not elevated tothe said $E(s from any lower courts# Thus, the $E(s in the case at bar are !courtswithout appellate 5urisdiction#

(-riue/ )r. vs. 0i1e-e/ 20.R. No. '3567, Aril 5", "89

#acts$ R## :o# 13?3 was passed creating the :ational 'aterwor0s andSewerage uthority 7:'S8 as a public corporation and vesting in it theownership and control over all e/isting government6owned waterwor0s systems#=owever, >auan >atangas passed Res# :o# 1- stating that it does not desireto submit their local waterwor0s to the provisions of said R## :o# 13?3#Arovincial Eiscal rendered an opinion holding that R## :o# 13?3 is valid and

constitutional and declined to represent the municipality of >auan in an action to bebrought against the :'S to test the validity and constitutionality of the ct#Given this, the municipality engaged the services of a special counsel to commencean action challenging the constitutionality of R## :o# 13?3#

The Aetitioners are the special counsel see0ing reimbursement for initial attorneyBsfees, which the uditor General disallowed citing that the "unicipality of >auan hadno authority to engage the services of a special counsel

Issue$'hether municipality of >auan had authority to engage the services of aspecial counsel

%el&$ :o# The Arovincial Eiscal is the legal adviser of the mayor and counsel of thevarious municipalities of a province and it is his duty to represent the municipality inany court e/cept when he is dis)uali&ed by law, which in this case he is not# &scal cannot refuse the performance of his functions on grounds not provided forby law without violating his oath of o


4/55

)alce&o vs %er-a-&e/

#ACT)$(n 193-, tty# Dicente Erancisco was the counsel for Eelipe Salcedo in a caseentitled Felipe Salcedo vs Francisco Hernandez# Salcedo lost in that case and tty#Erancisco &led a Motion for econsideration#

The trial court however ordered tty# Erancisco to e/plain why he should not bedisciplined# (t appears that in the Motion&led by tty# Erancisco, he e/pressed hisdisagreement with the 5udgment by stating that the 5udgment is !absolutelyerroneous and constitutes an outrage to the right ofHSalcedoI and !a moc!ery ofthe popular "ill e#pressed at the polls in the Municipality of $iaong% $ayabas 7sothis could be an election case8F that the court should rectify itself or else the votersin Tiaong might !resort to the press publicly to denounce& the 'udicial outrage andthat if uncorrected, the 5udgment will lead to the !increaseHofIthe proselytes7newconverts8of (sa!dalism) and ma!e the public lose con*dence in the administrationof 'ustice+

I))U($ 'hether or not tty# Erancisco should be disciplined#

%('D$es# =e is guilty of contempt# lawyer owes respect to the courts# lawyeris duty bound to uphold the courtBs dignity and authority and to defend its integrity#

The language used by tty# Erancisco is uncalled for and un5usti&ed# (n order toappeal to reason and 5ustice, it is highly improper and amiss to ma0e trouble andresort to threats# %ven if assuming that the trial court did err in its 5udgment, tty#Erancisco should still use temperate and respectful language in advancing the causeof his client#

=is insinuations that the voters in Tiaong, Tayabas might resort to sa!dalism7aseditious movement8 is a suggestion to the people there of what they should doshould his client not get a favorable 5udgment# This is a veiled threat to the courts#

(t promotes distrust to the courts#

(t is laudable for tty# Erancisco to defend his client with all fervor and energy but hemust do so with respect to the dignity of the courts# The lawyer was &ned andreprimanded#

A'A:I +) A'AU;A

#acts$

Sophia lawi was a sale representative of %#># Dillarosa K Aartner $o#, 2td# of @avao$ity# shari lauya is the incumber e/ecutive of cler0 of court of the 4th JudicialShariLa @istrict in "arawi $ity# (t appears that through lawiLs agency, a contract

was e/ecuted for the purchase on installments by lauya of one of the housing unitsbelonging to the above mentioned &rm 7hereafter, simply Dillarosa K $o#8F and inconnection therewith, a housing loan was also granted to lauya by the :ational=ome "ortgage Einance $orporation 7:="E$8# :ot long afterwards, or moreprecisely on @ecember 1-, 199-, lauya addressed a letter to the Aresident ofDillarosa K $o# advising of the termination of his contract with the company#

Ruli-g$

4


5/55

1# s regards lauyaLs use of the title of Mttorney,M this $ourt has already hadoccasion to declare that persons who pass the ShariLa >ar are not full6*edgedmembers of the Ahilippine >ar, hence may only practice law before ShariLa courts#

The title of MattorneyM is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessarydegree in the study of law and successfully ta0en the >ar %/aminations, have been

admitted to the (ntegrated >ar of the Ahilippines and remain members thereof ingood standingF and it is they only who are authori+ed to practice law in this5urisdiction#

# '=%R%E;R%, respondent shari "# lauya is hereby R(PRI*AND(Dfor the useof e/cessively intemperate, insulting or virulent language, i#e#, languageunbecoming a 5udicial o


6/55

is duly )uali&ed to practice before the Ahilippines Aatent ;


7/55

%el& The complaint for disbarment against respondent tty# (ris 2# >onifacio, foralleged immorality, was dismissed#

ll the facts ta0en together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondentwas imprudent in managing her personal aairs# =owever, the fact remains that herrelationship with $arlos Ni, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a

valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral# Eor immorality connotes conductthat shows indierence to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good andrespectable members of the community# "oreover, for such conduct to warrantdisciplinary action, the same must be !grossly immoral, that is, it must be socorrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to bereprehensible to a high degree#

Deles vs. Arago-a

#acts urora Soriano @eles, complainant , &led a veri&ed letter6complaint againsttty# Dicente %# ragona, Jr# , respondent, for having made, under oath, false andunfounded allegations against @eles in a motion &led in $ourt of grarian Relations,

(loilo, cases 1-4 and 1--, which allegedly caused hergreat mentaltorture andmoral suering#

The $R $ase 66 an intestate court issued an order denying a proposed lease of 1Phectares of the estate by @eles to one $arlos Euentes and sustaining the possessionof %nri)ue Soriano 7brother of @eles8 as lessee of said land# (n eect, the orderli0ewise sustained the possession by the brothers Eederico and $arlos glinao of aportion of the said land being tenanted by themupon authority of the lessee,%nri)ue#

(: @(SR%GR@ ;E T=% ;R@%R, @eles attempted to ta0e possession of thelandholdings by placing thereon her own tenants# The glinaos countered by &ling

against @eles two petitions with the $ourt of grarian Relations, (loilo# fter ahearing, the men of @eles entered the land in )uestion and planted rice thereon,this unauthori+ed entry prompted tty# ragona to &le an MNrgent "otion for(ssuance of (nterlocutory ;rderM praying that @eles, her agent, or any person actingfor and in her behalf from interfering with the wor0 of the glinaos in theirrespective landholdings# "rs# Soriano 7wife of %nri)ue8 went to see tty# ragano 6she told him that she was personally present when one lbert, a tenant of @eles,accompanied by armed men, went to the land in )uestion and harvested the palaythereon over the protests f the glinaosF and that she was told that they wereacting upon orders of the @eles# A;SS%SS%@ ;E T=% >;D% (:E;R"T(;:, tty#ragona promptly prepared and &led with the $R an MNrgent "otion to @eclare

H@elesI in $ontempt of $ourt#M

Issue=s$

'hether tty# ragona should be disciplined or disbarred for having prepared and&led under oath the said motion#

%el&

.


8/55

:o# Q1 66 (n Aeople vs# )uino, this $ourt laid down the decisional authority thatHSItatement made in the course of 5udicial proceedings are absolutely privileged that is, privileged regardless of defamatory tenor and of the presence of malice ifthe same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in hand or sub5ect of thein)uiry# nd that, in view of this, the person who ma0es them such as

a 5udge, lawyer, or witness does not thereby incur the ris0 of being found liablethereon in a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of damages#

Since there is no doubt that the allegations made by the respondent in the)uestioned motion for contempt are statements made in the course of a 5udicialproceeding i#e#, in $##R# cases 1-4 and 1-- besides being relevant,pertinent or material to the sub5ect6matter of the said cases, they are absolutelyprivileged, thereby precluding any liability on the part of the respondent#

Q 66 %ven when the statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause forbelief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle ofprivilege may still cover the mista0e of the individual# //# The ultimate test is thatof bona &des# (ndeed, the actuations of tty# ragano were motivated by thelegitimate desire to serve the interests of his clients 66 "rs# Soriano informed tty#ragano of the incident coupled with @elesL admissions#

*('ANIO '. >OR(TA vs. ATT;. %(%(R)ON A'NOR 0. )I*P'ICIANO

#ACT)$This is a complaint for disbarment &led against tty#=eherson lnor G#Simpliciano for allegedly notari+ing several documents during the yearPP after his commission as notary public had e/pired# The eight 7?8notari+ed documents for the year PP submitted by complainant, consisting ofaA $ommissioner:avarro ,that as of P ugust PP, respondent had already notari+edatotal of -9P documents after the e/piration of his commission as notary publicwithout having renewed said commission amounting to gross misconductas a member of the legal profession# gainst the evidencepresented by complainant, respondent did not even attempt to presentany evidence# =is counsel &led an e/6parte motion for e/tension to &le answer,which was granted, but no answer was forthcoming# Still, =earing

$ommissioner 2ydia # :avarro gave respondent a last chance to &lehis answerF which was again unheeded# Thus, respondent was unable torebut complainantBs evidence that he was not so commissioned for the year in)uestion# =is lac0 of interest and indierence in presenting his defense tothe charge and the evidence against him can only mean he has nostrong and valid defense to oer# $onclusively, respondent tty#Simpliciano is not a duly commissioned :otary Aublic forand in ue+on $ity forthe year PP#

?


9/55

I))U( 'hat is the signi&cance of the commissionC

RU'IN0$ Eor one, performing a notarial without such commission is aviolation of the lawyerBs oath to obey the laws, more speci&cally, the :otarial2aw# ppear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legalintents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyerBs

oath similarly proscribes# These violations fall s)uarely within the prohibition ofRule 1#P1 of $anon 1 of the $ode of Arofessional Responsibility, whichprovides ! lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral ordeceitful conduct# The re)uirements for the issuance of a commission as notarypublic must not be treated as a mere casual formality# Eor suchreprehensible conduct, the $ourt has sanctioned erring lawyers bysuspension from the practice of law, evocation of the notarial commission anddis)uali&cation from acting as such, and even disbarment#

A3 #INANCIA' )(R+IC(), INC. vs. ATT;. 'AARNI N. +A'(RIO

#acts$ Dalerio obtained a loan from complainant and secured the payment of the

loan obligation by issuing a postdated chec0# =owever, upon its maturity date, thechec0 was dishonored dueto insuA $ommission on >ar @iscipline 7(>A6$>@8,the latterBs mother e/plained that her daughter had been diagnosed withschi+ophreniaF thus, could not properly respond to the complaint against her# (>A6$>@ recommended tty# Dalerio be suspended from the practice of law for a periodof two 78 years, having found her guilty of gross misconduct# (>A >oard ofGovernors adopted and approved with modi&cation of the period of suspension to 1

year#

Issue whether respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violationof the $ode of Arofessional Responsibility

Ruli-g$S$ sustains the &ndings and recommendations of the (>A6$>@# !They mustat all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and totheir clients, which include prompt payment of &nancial obligations# They mustconduct themselves in a manner that re*ects the values and norms of the legalprofession as embodied in the $ode of Arofessional Responsibility# !The $ourt, &ndsunmeritorious "rs# DalerioBs 5usti&cation that her daughter, tty# Dalerio, issuering from a health condition, i#e# schi+ophrenia, which has prevented her from

properly answering the complaint against her# (ndeed, we cannot ta0e the !medicalcerti&cate on its face, considering "rs# DalerioBs failure to prove the contents of thecerti&cate or present the physician who issued it# tty# DalerioBs conduct in thecourse of the (>A and court proceedings is also a matter of serious concern# Shefailed to answer the complaint against her# @espite due notice, she failed to attendthe disciplinary hearings set by the (>A# She also ignored the proceedings before thecourt as she li0ewise failed to both answer the complaint against her and appearduring her arraignment, despite orders and notices from the court# $learly, this

9


10/55

conduct runs counter to the precepts of the $ode of Arofessional Responsibility andviolates the lawyerBs oath which imposes upon every member of the >ar the dutyto delay no man for money or malice# tty# Dalerio has failed to live up to thevalues and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the $ode ofArofessional Responsibility#

R($ 588? BAR (@A*INATION BAR *ATT(R NO. 555

#ACT)$

This treats the Aetition for Judicial $lemency and $ompassion &led by petitioner@anilo de Gu+man# =e prays that this =onorable $ourt in the e/ercise of e)uity andcompassion, grant petitioners plea for 5udicial clemency, and thereupon, order hisreinstatement as a member in good standing of the Ahilippine >ar# To recall, onEebruary 4, PP4, the $ourt promulgated a Resolution, in >#"# :o# 1, thedispositive portion of which reads in part '=%R%E;R%, the $ourt, acting on therecommendations of the (nvestigating $ommittee, hereby resolves to @(S>R tty#@:(2; @% GNU": from the practice of law eective upon his receipt of this

R%S;2NT(;:F

The sub5ect of the Resolution is the lea0age of )uestions in "ercantile 2aw duringthe PP3 >ar %/aminations# Aetitioner at that time was employed as an assistantlawyer in the law &rm of >algos K Aere+, one of whose partners, "arcial >algos, wasthe e/aminer for "ercantile 2aw during the said bar e/aminations# The $ourt hadadopted the &ndings of the (nvestigating $ommittee, which identi&ed petitioner asthe person who had downloaded the test )uestions from the computer of >algosand fa/ed them to other persons#

I))U($

'hether or not the petition of tty# @e Gu+man should be granted%('D$

The ;ar $on&dant 7;>$8 has favorably recommended thereinstatement of petitioner in the Ahilippine >ar# Aetitioner humbly ac0nowledgedthe damaging impact of his act which unfortunately, compromised the integrity ofthe bar e/aminations# s could be borne from the records of the investigation, hecooperated fully in the investigation conducted and too0 personal responsibility forhis actions# lso, he has oered his sincerest apologies to tty# >algos, to the $ourtas well as to all the PP3 bar e/aminees for the unforeseen and unintended eectsof his actions# Aetitioner averred that he has since learned from his mista0es and

has ta0en the said humbling e/perience to ma0e him a better person#

I- re$ Petitio- to sig- i- te roll of Attys, *e&a&o

#acts$ "edado graduated from the Nniversity of the Ahilippines$ollege of 2aw in 19.9, passing the >arwith an average of ?#.V

1P


11/55

W"ay ., 19?P =e too0 the lawyerBs oath#

W=e was scheduled to sign the roll of attorneys on"ay 13, 19?P, but failed to doso, as he hadmisplaced the :otice to Sign the Roll of ttorneysgiven by the >ar;


12/55

CA;(TANO +). *ON)OD

#ACT)$ Respondent $hristian "onsod was nominated by Aresident $ora+on $#)uino to the position of $hairman of the $;"%2%$ in a letter received by theSecretariat of the $ommission on ppointments on pril -, 1991# Aetitioneropposed the nomination because allegedly "onsod does not possess the re)uired

)uali&cation of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years#

;n June -, 1991, the $ommission on ppointments con&rmed the nomination of"onsod as $hairman of the $;"%2%$# ;n June 1?, 1991, he too0 his oath of o


13/55

matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and &/ing andcollecting fees for services rendered by his associate#

(n general, a practice of law re)uires a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether inor out of court# tty# "onsodLs past wor0 e/periences as a lawyer6economist, alawyer6manager, a lawyer6entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer6negotiator of

contracts, and a lawyer6legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more thansatisfy the constitutional re)uirement that he has been engaged in the practice oflaw for at least ten years##

)oria-o vs. tty# @i+on

#ACT)$tty# "anuel @i+on was driving his brown Toyota $orolla with his wife# longbanao Street, a ta/i driver overtoo0 him so he tailed the ta/i driver until the latterstopped to ma0e a turn# =e berated the ta/i driver and held him by his shirt# Tostop the aggression, the ta/i driver forced open his door causing the accused to fallto the ground# Ta0ing pity on the accused who loo0ed elderly, the ta/i driver got outof his car to help him get up# 'hen he was about to hit the ta/i driver, he hit the

accused in the chest then he got up again and was about to bo/ the ta/i driver butthe latter caught his &st and turned his arm around# The accused went bac0 to hiscar and got his revolver ma0ing sure that the handle was wrapped in ahand0erchief# The ta/i driver was on his way bac0 to his vehicle when he noticedthe eyeglasses of the accused on the ground# =e pic0ed them up intending toreturn them to the accused# >ut as he was handing the same to the accused, hewas met by the barrel of the gun held by the accused who &red and shot him hittinghim on the nec0# =e fell on the thigh of the accused so the latter pushed him outand sped o# witness, ntonio >illanes, who came to the aid of Soriano and broughtthe latter to the hospital# sustained a spinal cord in5ury, which caused paralysis onthe left part of his body and disabled him for his 5ob as a ta/i driver# @espite positive

identi&cation and overwhelming evidence, Respondent denied that he had shot$omplainantF part from HhisI denial, Respondent also lied when he claimed that hewas the one mauled by $omplainant and two unidenti&ed persons# lthough he hasbeen placed on probation, Respondent has not yet 7for 4 years8 satis&ed his civilliabilities to $omplainant# $onvicted, by &nal 5udgment, of frustrated homicide

I))U($'hether or not frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude and where ornot guilt warrants disbarment#

%('D %S# @(S>RR%@# "oral turpitude has been de&ned as !everything which isdone contrary to 5ustice, modesty, or good moralsF an act of baseness, vileness or

depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or tosociety in general, contrary to 5ustice, honesty, modesty, or good morals# Goodmoral character includes at least common honesty#Z =omicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree ofthe crime#6 a )uestion of fact and fre)uently depends on all the surrounding circumstances

6 act of aggression shown by respondent will not be mitigated by the fact that he

13


14/55

was hit once and his arm twisted by complainant# Nnder the circumstances, thosewere reasonable actions clearly intended to fend o the lawyerBs assault#6 =e shot the victim when the latter was not in a position to defend himself#6 To ma0e matters worse, respondent wrapped the handle of his gun with ahand0erchief so as not to leave &ngerprints#

6 his illegal possession of an unlicensed &rearm and his un5ust refusal to satisfy hiscivil liabilitiesZ 'here their misconduct outside of their professional dealings is so gross as toshow them morally un&t for their o( that he had been the victim of e/tortion byrespondent lawyer# n entrapment was set up by the :>(# $omplainant furnishedthe :>( agents several peso bills for mar0ing# The paper bills were sent to theEorensic and $hemistry @ivision of the :>( and subse)uently returned tocomplainant for the use in the entrapment# $omplainant went to the respondentBso( agents then apprehended respondent and brought him to the:>( Eorensic and $hemistry @ivision for e/amination# RespondentLs hands were

14


15/55

found positive of the yellow *orescent powder applied earlier to the mar0ed money#The :>( recommended the prosecution of respondent for violation of Section 37b8 ofR## :o# 3P19 and recommended to the Secretary of Justice the &ling ofadministrative charges and the institution of disbarment proceedings against him# (nhis answer to the complaint for disbarment, respondent asserted that complainant

surreptitiously planted the mar0ed money in his poc0et without his 0nowledge andconsent# (n a resolution dated @ecember 3, 19.1, this $ourt resolved to refer thedisbarment case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report andrecommendation# =owever, upon the adoption of Rule 1396> of the Revised Rules of$ourt#, the case was transferred to the (>A >oard of Governors for investigation anddisposition# ;n "arch 1-, 1993, $ommissioner Dicente # Ro/as of the $ommissionon >ar @iscipline of the (>A recommended that respondent be disbarred# Saidrecommendation was approved by the (>A >oard of Governors in its resolution dated"arch O, 1994#

Issue$'hether or not the recommendation approved by the (>A >oard of Governorsis correct

Ruli-g es# 'here the misconduct of a lawyer as a government o


16/55

I))U($ 'hether or not Torres should be disbarred for allowing the e/clusion of theother heirs from the @eeds of %/tra5udicial Settlement despite his 0nowledge oftheir presence#

%('D$es# =e violated his oath as he engaged in deceitful conduct# =e hascommitted falsehood# >y letting his wife and "iriam declare in a public document

that they are the only heirs to the estate when in fact there are other compulsoryheirs and then later presenting these @eeds to the Registry of @eeds, tty# Torresfailed to advise that the two were doing acts contrary to law# =e participated in thema0ing of these @eeds as well as to the subse)uent transactions involving the saleof the properties covered by the @eeds# =is acts facilitated a wrong against theother heirs#

Peole vs. Tua-&a

#ACT) Respondent Ee T# Tuanda, a member of the Ahilippine >ar, as0s this $ourt tolift the suspension from the practice of law imposed upon her by a decision ofthe $ourt of ppeals# (n 19?3, tty# Ee Tuanda received from one =erminia #

"ar)ue+ several pieces of 5ewelry with a total value of A3O,PPP for sale oncommission basis# (n 19?4, instead of returning the unsold pieces of 5ewelry worthAO,-P, she issued 3 chec0s# These chec0s weredishonored by the drawee ban0,

Traders Royal >an0, for insuA 7The nti6>ouncing $hec0 2aw8# The appellate court a


17/55

Sec# ?# Suspension of attorney by the Court of ,ppeals or a Court of First

-nstance+ . $he Court of ,ppeals or a Court of First -nstance may suspend an

attorneyfrom practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding

section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his

profession until further action of the Supreme $ourt in the premises#

$onviction of a crime involving moral turpitude relates to and aects the goodmoral character of a person convicted of such oense# =erein, >A violation is aserious criminal oense which deleteriously aects public interest and public order#

The eects of the issuance of a worthless chec0 transcends the private interest ofparties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interest of thecommunity at large# Autting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied athousand fold, can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, in5urethe ban0ing system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the publicinterest# The crimes of which respondent was convicted also import deceit andviolation of her attorneyLs oath and the $ode of Arofessional Responsibility underboth of which she was bound to Mobey the laws of the land#M

I- re$ (l1o Aa&

#ACT)$$ourt held respondent %lmo S# bad a successful bar e/aminee but has notbeen admitted to the Ahilippine >ar in contempt of $ourt for unauthori+ed practiceof law and he was &ned A-PP#PP with subsidiary imprisonment in case he failed topay the &ne# 711 S$R 1.8# =e paid the &ne# tty# Arocopio S# >eltran, Jr#, thecomplainant, &led a ";T(;: T; $(R$N2R(U% T; 22 "%TR; ":(2 $;NRTS T=%E$T T=T %2"; S# >@ (S :;T NT=;R(U%@ T; AR$T($% 2'# The Report hasfound as a fact, over the denials of the respondent under oath, that he signed%/hibits >, $, and @, and that he made appearances in "etro "anila courts# Thisaspect opens the respondent to a charge for per5ury# The Report also reveals thattty# Ruben # Jacobe collaborated with the respondent as counsels forntonio S#"aravilla one of the accused in $riminal $ase :os# OP?4, OP?- and OP?O of theRegional Trial $ourt of ue+on $ity# 7%/hibit @#8 tty# Jacobe should be called toaccount for his association with the respondent#

Respondent, when as0ed about the aforesaid motions, %/hibits M>M and M@M, and thesignatures therein, denied that he &led the same and that the signatures therein arehis# =e also denied that he appeared in the hearing in the afternoon of @ecember ?,19?3 in the said trial court# ccording to him, he was in >atangas at the time# =ealso testi&ed that the only e/planation he could give regarding the signatures in theaforesaid e/hibits is that the same could have been eected by tty# >eltran to

show the Supreme $ourt that he 7respondent8 was still illegally practicing law# s tothe motion fore/amination and analysis of respondentLs signature, the (nvestigator,to aord respondent full opportunity to prove his defense, sought the assistance ofthe :ational >ureau of (nvestigation to compare respondentLs signature in theaforesaid e/hibits with the signatures appearing in the pleadings that he &led in theSupreme $ourt, which latter signature he admits as genuine and as his own# Theaforesaid documentary and testimonial evidence, as well as the above report of the

1.


18/55

:>(, have clearly proved that respondent bad is still practicing law despite thedecision of this $ourt of "arch ?, 19?3#

I))U()$'hether or not bad can engage in practice of law#

'hether or not tty# Jacobe liable in his collaboration with the respondent#

%('D$ :o# ;nly those licensed by the Supreme $ourt may practice law in thiscountry# The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is aprivilege# (t is limited to persons of good moral character withspecial )uali&cations duly ascertained and certi&ed# The e/ercise of this privilegepresupposes possession of integrity, legal 0nowledge, educational attainment andeven public trust, since a lawyer is an oar and the right to

practice law thereafter# =e should 0now that two essential re)uisites for becoming alawyer still had to be performed, namely his lawyerLs oath to be administered bythis $ourt and his signature in the Roll of ttorneys# 7Rule 13?, Secs# 1. and 19,Rules of $ourt#8 The regulation of the practice of law is un)uestionably strict# NnderSection 3 7e8 of Rule .1 of the Rules of $ourt, a person who engages in theunauthori+ed practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court# "r# %lmo S#bad is hereby &ned Eive =undred 7A-PP#PP8 pesos payable to this $ourt within ten71P8 days from notice failing which he shall serve twenty6&ve 7-8 daysimprisonment#

es# =e violated $anon 9 Rule 9#P1 lawyer shall not delegate to any un)uali&edperson the performance of any tas0 which by law may only be performed by amember of the >ar# in good standing# lawyer shall not assist anyone who is not amember of the >ar to practice law in this country# Thus, he must not ta0e as partneror associate in his law &rm a person who is not a lawyer, a lawyer who has beendisbarred and a lawyer who has been suspended from practice of law# The lawyerwho assists in an unauthori+ed practice of law whether directly or indirectlyis sub5ect to disciplinary action# Einally, tty# Ruben # Jacobe is re)uired to e/plainwithin ten 71P8 days from notice why he should not be disciplined for collaboratingand associating in the practice of the law with the respondent who is not a memberof the bar#

Aguirre v Ra-a

#ACT) Respondent is a successful bar passer who was allowed only to ta0e oathbut not to sign the roll of attorneys pending the resolution of the complaint of thepetitioner who charges respondent with unauthori+ed practice of law, gravemisconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation# pparently, therespondent appeared as counsel to an election candidate before the "unicipal>oard of %lection $anvassers 7!">%$8 of "asbate before he too0 his oath andsigned the rolls of attorneys# (n his comment, respondent alleges he only provide

1?


19/55

speci&c assistance and advice not as a lawyer but as a person who 0nows the law#=e contends that he did not sign the pleadings as a lawyer# The ;ar$on&dant was tas0ed to investigate and its &ndings disclosed that according to theminutes of the meeting of the ">%$, the respondent actively participated in theproceeding and signed in the pleading as counsel for the candidate#

I$ ';: the respondent is &t for admission to the bar#

R The court held that respondent did engaged in unauthori+ed practice of law# (theld that all the activities he participated during that time involves the practice oflaw despite the fact that he is not yet a member of the >ar# The right to practice lawis not a right but a privilege e/tended to those morally upright and with the proper0nowledge and s0ills# (t involves strict regulation, one of which is on the moralcharacter of its members# Aassing the bar is not the only )uali&cation to become anattorney6at6law# Respondent should 0now that two essential re)uisites for becominga lawyer still had to be performed, namely his lawyerBs oath to be administered bythis $ourt and his signature in the Roll of ttorneys# >ecause the court &ndsrespondent not morally &t to be admitted in the >ar, notwithstanding the fact thathe already too0 his oath, he was denied admission to the bar#

I- re$ Atty *arcial (&illo-

#ACT)$The respondent "arcial # %dillon is a duly licensed practicing ttorney inthe Ahilippines# The (>A >oard of Governors recommended to the $ourt the removalof the name of the respondent from its Roll of ttorneys for stubborn refusal to payhis membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of $ourt 1396 and theprovisions of par# , Section 4, rticle (((, of the (>A >y62aws pertaining to theorgani+ation of (>A, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to paythe same#

%dillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of hisconstitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre6condition tomaintain his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the (>A and topay the corresponding dues, and that as a conse)uence of this compelled &nancialsupport of the said organi+ation to which he is admitted personally antagonistic, heis being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the$onstitution# =ence, the respondent concludes the above provisions of the $ourtRule and of the (>A >y62aws are void and of no legal force and eect#

I))U( 'hether or not the court may compel tty# %dillion to pay his membershipfee to the (>A#

%('D$The (ntegrated >ar is a State6organi+ed >ar which every lawyer must be amember of as distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merelyoptional and voluntary# ll lawyers are sub5ect to comply with the rules prescribedfor the governance of the >ar including payment a reasonable annual fees as one ofthe re)uirements# The Rules of $ourt only compels him to pay his annual dues and itis not in violation of his constitutional freedom to associate# >ar integration does notcompel the lawyer to associate with anyone# =e is free to attend or not the meeting

19


20/55

of his (ntegrated >ar $hapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses#The only compulsion to which he is sub5ected is the payment of annual dues# TheSupreme $ourt in order to further the StateBs legitimate interest in elevating the)uality of professional legal services, may re)uire the the cost of the regulatoryprogram the lawyers#

Such compulsion is 5usti&ed as an e/ercise of the police power of the State# Theright to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a mattersub5ect to regulation and in)uiry# nd if the power to impose the fee as a regulatorymeasure is recogni+e then a penalty designed to enforce its payment is not void asunreasonable as arbitrary# Eurthermore, the $ourt has 5urisdiction over matters ofadmission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and theirregulation as part of its inherent 5udicial functions and responsibilities thus the courtmay compel all members of the (ntegrated >ar to pay their annual dues#

AD*I))ION TO PRACTIC(

IN R($ +ICTORIO D. 'ANU(+O

#"# :o# 11O ugust 9, 19.-

#acts$This is a disbarment matter with regards to ttorney Dictorio 2anuevo, the>ar $on&dant for the 19.1 >ar %/aminations# Supreme $ourt received a con&dentialletter that spea0s of the e/am noteboo0s of a e/aminee named Ramon Galang whohas been re6evaluated and re6corrected such that he hurdled the >ar %/ams andwas admitted to the >ar#

2anuevo admitted having brought the &ve e/amination noteboo0s of Ramon %#Galang bac0 to the respective e/aminers for re6evalution or re6chec0ing# The &vee/aminers admitted having re6evaluated or re6chec0ed the noteboo0 to him by the

>ar $on&dant, stating that he has the authority to do the same and that thee/aminee concerned failed only in his particular sub5ect and was on the borderlineof passing# Ramon Galang was able to pass the 19.1 bar e/am because of2anuevoBs move but the e/am results bears that he failed in - sub5ects namely in7Aolitical, $ivil, "ercantile, $riminal K Remedial8#

Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Ahysical (n5uries on%ufrosino de Dera, a law student of "2N#

The &ve e/aminers were led by 2anuevo to believe that it is the >ar $ommitteeBsregular activity that when an e/aminee has failed in one sub5ect alone, the rest hepassed, the e/aminer in that sub5ect which he *un0ed will review his e/am

noteboo0#fterwards, 2anuevo gained possession of few properties, including that of a housein >E =omes, which was never declared in his declaration of assets and liabilities#

Issue$ ';: 2anuevo was guilty of defrauding the e/aminers such that Galangpassed the >arC %S

%el&$ (t was plain, simple and unmitigated deception that characteri+ed respondent2anuevoBs well6studied and well6calculated moves in successively representing

P


21/55

separately to each of the &ve e/aminers concerned to the eect that the e/amineefailed only in his particular sub5ect and[or was on the borderline of passing# Torepeat, the before the unauthori+ed re6evaluations were made, Galang failed in the&ve 7-8 ma5or sub5ects and in two 78 minor sub5ects which under nocircumstances or standard could it be honestly claimed that the e/aminee failed

only in one, or he was on the borderline of passing#The >ar $on&dant has absolutely nothing to do in the re6evaluation orreconsideration of the grades of e/aminees who fail to ma0e the passing mar0before or after their noteboo0s are submitted to it by the %/aminers# The >ar$on&dant has no business evaluating the answers of the e/aminees and cannotassume the functions of passing upon the appraisal made by the %/aminersconcerned# =e is not the over6all %/aminer# =e cannot presume to 0now better thanthe e/aminer#

S T; G2:GBS $R(" $S% The concealment of an attorney in his application tota0e the >ar e/aminations of the fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for,an alleged crime, is a ground for revocation of his license to practice law is well settled# The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be granted every one whodemands it, but is a privilege to be e/tended or withheld in the e/ercise of sounddiscretion# The standards of the legal profession are not satis&ed by conduct whichmerely enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal law#

Nnder the circumstances in which respondent Ramon %# Galang, alias Roman %#Galang, was allowed to ta0e the >ar e/aminations and the highly irregular mannerin which he passed the >ar, '% have no other alternative but to order the surrenderof his attorneyBs certi&cate and the stri0ing out of his name from the Roll ofttorneys#

D(CI)ION$2anuevo disbarred, Galang stric0en from the Roll of ttorneys#

#irst 'ea-to Cera1ics vs CA

#acts$AetitionerLs contention is that $ircular :o# 1691 cannot be deemed to havesuperseded rt# ? of the ;mnibus (nvestments $ode of 19?. 7%#;# :o# O8because the $ode, which Aresident )uino promulgated in the e/ercise of legislativeauthority, is in the nature of a substantive act of $ongress de&ning the 5urisdictionof courts while the circular is a rule of procedure which this $ourt promulgatedpursuant to its rule6ma0ing power Aetitioner )uestions the holding of the Second@ivision that although the right to appeal granted by rt# ? of the $ode is asubstantive right which cannot be modi&ed by a rule of procedure, nonetheless,)uestions concerning where and in what manner the appeal can be brought are onlymatters of procedure which this $ourt has the power to regulate#

Judicial review of the decisions and &nal orders of the >;( was originally provided forin the ;mnibus (nvestments $ode of 19?1# rt# .? was thereafter amended by >#A#>lg# 19, 3 by granting in \ 9 thereof e/clusive appellate 5urisdiction to the then(ntermediate ppellate $ourt 7now the $ourt of ppeals8 over the decisions and &nalorders of )uasi65udicial agencies# 'hen the ;mnibus (nvestments $ode of 19?.7%#;# :o# O8 was promulgated on July 1., 19?., the right to appeal from the

1


22/55

decisions and &nal orders of the >;( to the Supreme $ourt was again granted# >ythen, however, the present $onstitution had ta0en eect# 4 The $onstitution nowprovides in rt# D(, Sec# 3P that M:o law shall be passed increasing the appellate

5urisdiction of the Supreme $ourt as provided in this $onstitution without its adviceand concurrence#

Issue$';: the provision is violative of the constitutional prohibition on increasingthe appellate 5urisdiction of the Supreme $ourt without its advice and concurrence#

%el&$ es# This provision is intended to give the Supreme $ourt a measure ofcontrol over cases placed under its appellate 5urisdiction# Eor the indiscriminateenactment of legislation enlarging its appellate 5urisdiction can unnecessarilyburden the $ourt and thereby undermine its essential function of e/pounding thelaw in its most profound national aspects# :ow, art# ? of the 19?. ;mnibus(nvestments $ode, by providing for direct appeals to the Supreme $ourt from thedecisions and &nal orders of the >;(, increases the appellate 5urisdiction of this$ourt# Since it was enacted without the advice and concurrence of this $ourt, thisprovision never became eective#

IN R($ CUNANAN

#ACT)$ (n the manner of the petitions for dmission to the >ar of unsuccessfulcandidates of 194O to 19-3F lbino$unanan et# al petitioners# (n recent years fewcontroversial issues have aroused so much public interest and concern as R## 9.popularly 0nown as the !>ar Elun0ersB ct of 19-3#

Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtainsageneral ave of .-V in allsub5ects w[o falling below -PV in any sub5ect, although for the past fewe/ams thepassing grades were changed depending on the strictness of the correcting of thebar e/aminations 7194O6 .V, 194.6 O9V, 194?6 .PV 19496.4V, 19-P619-3

.-V8# "any of the bar e/aminees believed themselves to be fully )uali&ed topractice law as those reconsidered and passed by the S#$#, andfelt that they havebeen discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of afew percentages lower than those admitted to the bar went to congress for, andsecured in 19-1 Senate >ill no#1, but was vetoed by the president after he wasgiven advise adverse to it# :ot overriding the veto, the senate then approvedsenate bill no# 3. embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill# The billthen became law on June 1, 19-3#Republic ct 9. has for its ob5ect, according toits author, to admit to the >ar those candidates whosuered frominsuy and large, the law is contrary topublic interest since it )uali&es 1,P94 law graduates who had inade)uate

preparation for thepractice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure in thee/ams#

I))U($'o: R 9. is constitutionalC

%('D$:o, R 9. is not constitutional# (n the 5udicial system from which ours hasbeen evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneyat law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputablya 5udicial function and responsibility# (t is obvious therefore, that the ultimate power


23/55

to grant license for the practice of law belong %$2NS(D%2 to the court and the lawpassed by $ongress on the matter is permissive in character, of as other authoritiesmay say, merely &/ the minimum conditions for the license#

uro&a vs Eala-&o-i 6?Pil 7

#acts Shigenori Yuroda, formerly a 2ieutenant6General of the Japanese (mperialrmy and $ommanding General of the Japanese (mperial Eorces in The Ahilippinesduring a period covering 19433 and 19444 who is now charged before a military$ommission convened by the $hief of Sta of the rmed forces of the Ahilippineswith having unlawfully disregarded and failed Mto discharge his duties as suchcommand, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimesagainst noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the (mperial Japanese Eorces inviolation of the laws and customs of warM comes before this $ourt see0ing toestablish the illegality of %/ecutive ;rder :o# O? of the Aresident of the Ahilippinesto en5oin and prohibit respondents "elville S# =ussey and Robert Aort fromparticipating in the prosecution of petitionerLs case before the "ilitary $ommissionand to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case ofpetitioners#

Issue$'[: the participation of two merican attorneys in the prosecution of thiscase are )uali&ed to practice law in Ahilippines in accordance with our Rules of court

%el&$es# "ilitary $ommission is a special military tribunal governed by a speciallaw and not by the Rules of court which govern ordinary civil court# (t has alreadybeen shown that %/ecutive ;rder :o# O? which provides for the organi+ation of suchmilitary commission is a valid and constitutional law# There is nothing in saide/ecutive order which re)uires that counsel appearing before said commission mustbe attorneys )uali&ed to practice law in the Ahilippines in accordance with the Rulesof $ourt# (n facts it is common in military tribunals that counsel for the parties areusually military personnel who are neither attorneys nor even possessed of legaltraining# The "ilitary $ommission having been convened by virtue of a valid lawwith 5urisdiction over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of%/ecutive ;rder :o# O?, and having said petitioner in its custody, this $ourt will notinterfere with the due process of such "ilitary commission#

O1ico *i-i-g a-& I-&ustrial Cor. v. +alleFos,

#acts ;n June 1, 19.3, lfredo $atolico 7herein private respondent8, then a 5udgeof the $ourt of Eirst (nstance of $avite, &led with said court a complaint, presided byrespondent Judge mador T# Dalle5os, against ;mico "ining and (ndustrial$orporation and Erederic0 G# 'ebber, the latter in his personal capacity and asAresident and $hairman of the >oard of @irectors of said corporation, alleging two78 causes of action#

The &rst, for the return of ten 71P8 certi&cates of stoc0 of the corporation borrowedfrom him by the defendants, and the second, for the payment of his services aslegal counselfor the corporation#]]]

3


24/55

/nder the *rst cause of action% plainti0 Catolico alleged among others that he is aresident of Cavite City "here he is a 'udge of the Court of First -nstance andstoc!holder of the defendant mico Mining and -ndustrial Corporation holding thirty345 certi*cates of stoc!% the same having been issued to him "ay bac! in ,ugust%16768 that defendant corporation% through its co9defendant Frederic! :+ ;ebber%

pleaded "ith him that ten 145 certi*cates of stoc!% be allo"ed to remain "ith themunder their responsibility% for the t"o purposes8 *rst "as so that the stoc! can beused as collateral for a loan amounting to P14 Million "ith


25/55

=e was unduly strict regarding the re)uirements of notice of hearing to the ;mico$orp, and at the same time, unduly liberal, with respect to the $atolico# =e re)uired;mico $orp for proof of service but for $atolico he none was re)uired#

)uc co-&uct falls sort of te reuire1e-t tat te oHcial co-&uct of aFu&ge soul& -ot o-ly e free fro1 i1roriety, ut also fro1 te

aeara-ce of i1roriety.

Second (ssue es it is void because it is contrary to law and public policy#

The contract of professional services entered into between private respondent andthe petitioners, while the former was still a 5udge of the $ourt of Eirst (nstance,co-stitute& rivate ractice of la and in contravention of the eJressrovisio- of )ectio- ?! of Rule ?6of the Revised Rules of $ourt#]]]

(t is based on sou-& reaso-s of ulic olicy, for there is no )uestion that therights, duties, privileges and functions of the o


26/55

words, it is fre)uent habitual e/ercise# Eurther, the fact that the Secretary of Justiceapproved EuleBs appearance for his friend should be given credence#

CONC(PCION DIA3AKONU(+Ovs. *UN. EUD0( BONI#ACIO B. B(RCACIO O#TABACO, A'BA;#

#ACT)$ Respondent, incumbent "unicipal Judge of Tabaco, lbay, faces thisadministrative complaint for conduct unbecoming a Judge on two counts 718engaging in the practice of law, and 78 failure to return promptly to complainant,$oncepcion @ia6ônuevo, the money deposited with him#

Synopsis:n the *rst count% respondent "as found to have ta!enactive interest in the case of complainant by giving the latter legaladvice on the remedy available to her and her co9o"ners "ith regardsto the property sold to a third person8 accepted from complainant thesum of P3%G44 to redeem the property from the vendee% plus P144 forincidental e#penses8 "ritten the vendee on behalf of complainant

o0ering to redeem the land in uestion8 caused% "hen attempts at an9out9of9court settlement failed% the *ling of the complaint for "hich he"as issued a receipt for doc!eted and research fees8 and being

present at the pre9trial+ n the second count% respondent "as found tohave obstinately refused to return the money after the vendee hadre'ected the e#tra'udicial o0er to repurchase the property5 despitecomplainantIs reuest for almost a year% so much so that the latter hadto secure the services of another counsel "ho "as compelled to as!from no less than a member of the 'udiciary the return of the amountdeposited "ith him+ ,nd instead of delivering the amount% he put upthe e#cuse that the money did not belong entirely to complainant and

that the latter agreed to his !eeping the money during the pendencyof the case instituted to redeem the property+

"rs# $oncepcion @ia6ônuevo, claims to be a co6owner of an undivided interest ofa certain parcel of irrigated riceland situated in $abilogan, Sto# :iô, Sto# @omingo,lbay# This property was the ob5ect of a deed of sale e/ecuted by "a/imo >alibado,

Justo >alibado and Aetrona >alibado de >arrios in favor of lfredo ;ng andac0nowledged before "unicipal Judge >onifacio >ercacio, respondent herein, as e/6oercacio advised the complainant to redeem or repurchase the property from thevendee, lfredo ;ng# $omplainant then re)uested the 5udge to intercede in theirbehalf with the vendee to allow them to redeem the property and for that purposeshe gave respondent the amount of A3,-PP#PP to be used to pay lfredo ;ng#Respondent agreed and received the amount of A3,-PP#PP for which he issued areceipt#

O


27/55

Respondent sent the corresponding letter to lfredo ;ng but the latter did notanswer# Eorthwith a complaint was &led on "arch ?, 19. with the $ourt of Eirst(nstance of lbay 7$ivil $ase :o# 4-918# @uring the pendency of the civil case,complainant as0ed respondent 5udge to allow her to withdraw A1,-PP#PP from the

A3,-PP#PP she had deposited with him as she was then in need of money, but noaction was ta0en by respondent# The verbal re)uest was followed by a registeredletter dated January 4, 19.3 advising Judge >ercacio that complainant herein waswithdrawing the amount of A3,-PP#PP deposited with him and re)uesting him toremit the said amount within ten days from receipt of the letter# There was still noresponse from respondent Judge, hence, another letter was sent dated Eebruary 1,19.3# @ue to the non6remittance of the aforementioned amount, tty# "adrid &ledwith the $ourt of Eirst (nstance an urgent motion dated ugust P, 19.3, prayingthat Judge >ercacio be directed to consign in court the amount deposited with himby the plainti, "rs# ^onuevo#

Respondent violated )ectio- 77 of te Eu&iciary Act of "46, as amended,which provides in part

Mll provisions relative to the observance of o


28/55

RespondentLs claim is belied, however, by the active interest he too0 in the case of"rs# ônuevo manifested as follows7a8 =e gave "rs# ônuevo legal advice on the remedy available to her and her co6owners with regards to the property sold to lfredo ;ng#7b8 =e accepted from "rs# ônuevo the sum of A3,-PP#PP for purposes of

redeeming the property from the vendee, plus A1PP#PP for incidental e/penses#7c8 =e wrote to lfredo ;ng for and in behalf of "rs# ônuevo and her co6ownersoering to redeem the land in )uestion#7d8 'hen his attempts at an out6of6court settlement failed, he caused the &ling ofthe complaint in $ivil $ase :o# 4-91, for which he was issued a receipt for doc0etand legal research fees#7e8 =e was present together with tty# >erango at the pre6trial of July -, 19., andalthough, as he claims, it was tty# >erango who made an appearance for that pre6trial, the trial Judge nonetheless too0 note of respondentLs presence so that the;rder dictated on that occasion reads Mttys# >erango and >ercacio are noti&ed ofthe date of the trial#M

De 0u/1a- vs +isaya- Rai& Tra-sit

#acts$The Disayan Rapid Transit $o# and the :egros Transportation $o#, (nc#, duringthe time the legal services are claimed to have been rendered by the petitioner,were operating automobile lines in the Arovince of ;ccidental :egros# Therespondent, :icolas $oncepcion, was at the time the president, general manager,and controlling stoc0holder of these two transportation companies# (n January,1933, $oncepcion engaged the professional services of the petitioner, who was thena law practitioner in the $ity of "anila# The employment was for the purpose ofobtaining the suppression, reduction and refund of certain toll rates on variousbridges along the line operated by the respondent transportation companies# Theherein petitioner accordingly too0 steps to obtain &rst the suppression, and later thereduction of toll rates on said bridges and also the refund of toll charges alreadycollected by the Arovince of ;ccidental :egros# Aetitioner &led with the saidSecretary of Aublic 'or0s and $ommunication, petition as0ing for the reduction oftoll charges which was granted# s a result of this reduction of tolls, the respondentshave been bene&ted with an economy of A.?,44? for every eighteen months# Thevarious incidental )uestions raised by the petitioner revolves around the reasonablecompensation to which he is entitled, and we pass on to the consideration of thispoint# The respondents in their brief insinuate that the services of the petitionerwere unsolicited and unauthori+ed#

Issue$';: petitioner is entitled to compensation#%el&$es# lthough the professional services rendered by the petitioner are purelyadministrative and did not re)uire a high degree of professional s0ill ande/perience, the fact remains that these services were rendered and were productiveof substantial bene&cial results to his clients# The following are the circumstances tobe considered in determining the compensation of an attorney the amount andcharacter of the services renderedF the labor, time, and trouble involvedF the natureand importance of the litigation or business in which the services were renderedF

?


29/55

the responsibility imposedF the amount of money or the value of the propertyaected by the controversy, or involved in the employment, the s0ill and e/periencecalled for in the performance of the servicesF the professional character and socialstanding of the attorneyF the results securedF and whether or not the fee is absoluteor contingent, it being a recogni+ed rule that an attorney may properly charge a

much a larger fee when it is to be contingent that when it is not# The &nancial abilityof the defendant may also be considered not to enhance the amount above areasonable compensation, but to determine whether or not he is able to pay a fairand 5ust compensation for the services rendered, or as as incident in ascertainingthe importance and gravity of the interests involved in the litigation# s warrantedby the records, it is obvious that as a result of the reduction of the rates of the tollof the bridges in the said province, the respondents were bene&ted with aneconomy of A.?,44?# The refund to the said corporations of the amount of A-P,PPPis a great relief and enhancement of their business# Eacts and circumstancesconsidered, we are of the opinion that the reasonable compensation of thepetitioner is A.,PPP, deducting therefrom, however, the sum of A1,?P which thepetitioner had already received#

CA;(TANO +). *ON)OD

#ACT)$ Respondent $hristian "onsod was nominated by Aresident $ora+on $#)uino to the position of $hairman of the $;"%2%$ in a letter received by theSecretariat of the $ommission on ppointments on pril -, 1991# Aetitioneropposed the nomination because allegedly "onsod does not possess the re)uired)uali&cation of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years# ;n

June -, 1991, the $ommission on ppointments con&rmed the nomination of"onsod as $hairman of the $;"%2%$# ;n June 1?, 1991, he too0 his oath of o


30/55

of the (ntegrated >ar of the Ahilippines since its inception in 19.6.3# =e has alsobeen paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years#

>lac0 de&nes Mpractice of lawM as The rendition of services re)uiring the 0nowledgeand the application of legal principles and techni)ue to serve the interest of anotherwith his consent# (t is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in

the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and otherpapers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparationof legal instruments of all 0inds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients# (tembraces all advice to clients and all actions ta0en for them in matters connectedwith the law# n attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an o


31/55

#(t should be observed that proceedings for the disbarment of members of the barare not in any sense a civil action where there is a plainti and the respondent is adefendant# @isciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and aord noredress for private grievance# They are underta0en and prosecuted solely for thepublic welfare# They are underta0en for the purpose of preserving courts of 5ustice

from the o


32/55

mind in the e/ercise of disbarment, and the power should be e/ercised with thatcaution which the serious conse)uences of the action involves#

The profession of an attorney is ac)uired after long and laborious study# (t is alifetime profession# >y years of patience, +eal, and ability, the attorney may haveac)uired a &/ed means of support for himself and family of great pecuniary value,

and the deprivation of which would result in irreparable in5ury# 73 Ahil# .P, ..6.?8

(n the words of former $hief Justice "arshall of the Nnited States $ourt

;n one hand, the profession of an attorney is of great importance to an individualand the prosperity of his whole life may depend on its e/ercise# The right to e/erciseit ought not to be lightly or capriciously ta0en from him# ;n the other, it is e/tremelythat the respectability of the bar should be maintained and that its harmony withthe bench should be preserved# Eor these ob5ects, some controlling power, somediscretion, ought to reside in the $ourt# This discretion, ought to be e/ercised withgreat moderation and 5udgmentF but it must be e/ercised# 7%/ parte >urr# 9 'heat-9F "artin, 2egal K Judicial %thics 19. %d# p# 13#8

lthough respondentLs negligence does not warrant disbarment or suspension underthe circumstances of the case, nonetheless it cannot escape a rebu0e from Ns as wehereby rebu0e and censure him, considering that his failure to notify his clients ofthe decision in )uestion manifests a lac0 of total dedication or devotion to theirinterest e/pected of him under his lawyerLs oath and the $anons of Arofessional%thics# RespondentLs inaction merits a severe censure from the $ourt#

CANTI*BU%AN +). CRU>

#ACT)$ ;n pril O, 19.9, petitioner Romulo $antimbuhan &led separatecriminal complaints against Aatrolmen @anilo San ntonio and Rodolfo @ia+ for less

serious physical in5uries, respectively, and were doc0eted as $riminal $ases :os#-?-49 and -?--P in the then "unicipal $ourt of Aara^a)ue, "etro "anila#Aetitioners :elson ># "alana and Robert D# 2ucila, in 19.9, were senior law studentsof the N#A#assistance to the needy clients in the ;


33/55

a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and hisappearance must be either personal or by a duly authori+ed member of the bar#

Thus, a non6member of the Ahilippine >ar a party to an action is authori+ed toappear in court and conduct his own caseF and, in the inferior courts, the litigant

may be aided by a friend or agent or by an attorney# =owever, in the $ourts of Eirst(nstance, now Regional Trial $ourts, he can be aided only by an attorney# nd, theycontend that the e/ercise by the oended party to intervene is sub5ect to thedirection and control of the &scal and that his appearance, no less than his activeconduct of the case later on, re)uires the prior approval of the &scal#

I))U($ 'hether or not a party in a case may be assisted by a person who is not amember of the Ahilippine >ar and its appearance must be approved by the &scal#

%('D$ Section 34, Rule 13? of the Rules of $ourt, clearly provides that in themunicipal court a party may conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an agentappointed by him for the purpose# The permission of the &scal is not necessary for

one to enter his appearance as private prosecutor# (n the &rst place, the law doesnot impose this condition# 'hat the &scal can do, if he wants to handle the casepersonally is to disallow the private prosecutorLs participation, whether he be alawyer or not, in the trial of the case# ;n the other hand, if the &scal desires theactive participation of the private prosecutor, he can 5ust manifest to the court thatthe private prosecutor, with its approval, will conduct the prosecution of the caseunder his supervision and control# Eurther, we may add that if a non6lawyer canappear as defense counsel or as friend of the accused in a case before themunicipal trial court, with more reason should he be allowed to appear as privateprosecutor under the supervision and control of the trial &scal# (n the two criminalcases &led before the "unicipal $ourt of Aara^a)ue, petitioner $antimbuhan, as theoended party, did not e/pressly waive the civil action nor reserve his right to

institute it separately and, therefore, the civil action is deemed impliedly institutedin said criminal cases# Thus, said complainant Romulo $antimbuhan has personalinterest in the success of the civil action and, in the prosecution of the same, hecannot be deprived of his right to be assisted by a friend who is not a lawyer#

%y&ro Resources Co-tractors Cor. v. Pagalilaua-,

#acts$ =ydro Resources $ontractors $orporation 7=ydro8 hired the privaterespondent ban as its M2egal ssistant#M ;n September 4, 19?P, ban &red

because of his alleged failure to perform his duties well# ban &led a complaint

against the petitioner for illegal dismissal# The labor arbiter ruled that ban was

illegally dismissed and was a


34/55

Issue$ 'hether or not there is an employer6employee relationship

%el&$ ;es, there is an employer6employee relationship#

A layer, liGe a-y oter rofessio-al, 1ay very ell e a- e1loyee of arivate cororatio- or eve- of te gover-1e-t. It is -ot u-usual for a ig

cororatio- to ire a sta of layers as its i-3ouse cou-sel, ay te1regular salaries, ra-G te1 i- its tale of orga-i/atio-, a-& oter. vise treatthem li!e its other o@cers and employees+ ,t the same time% it may also contract

"ith a la" *rm to act as outside counsel on a retainer basis+ $he t"o classes of

la"yers often "or! closely together but one group is made up of employees "hile

the other is not+ , similar arrangement may e#ist as to doctors% nurses% dentists%

public relations practitioners% and other professionals+===

,s stated in the case of $abas v+ California Manufacturing Co+% :++ Jo+ ?47?4%

anuary 27% 16?65K

A$his Court has consistently ruled that the determination of "hether or notthere is an employer9employee relation depends upon four standardsK 15 the

manner of selection and engagement of the putative employee8 25 the mode

of payment of "ages8 35 the presence or absence of a po"er of dismissal8

and E5 the presence or absence of a po"er to control the putative

employeeIs conduct+ f the four% the right9of9control test has been held to be

the decisive factor+A

Aa- orGe& solely for te etitio-er a-& &ealt o-ly it legal 1attersi-volvi-g te sai& cororatio- a-& its e1loyees# (tBs also assisted theAersonnel ;


35/55

#ACT) "oises R# Rada a messenger in the $ourt of Eirst (nstance of $amarines:orte, >ranch ((, is charged with a violation of Section 1 of $ivil Service Rule D(((,which provides as follows

Sec# 1# :o o


36/55

#acts$ "r# %lmo S# bad was a successful e/aminee of the 19.? bar e/aminationsbut has not been admitted to the Ahilippine >ar in contempt of $ourt forunauthori+ed practice of law and he was &ned A-PP#PP with subsidiaryimprisonment and had paid the &ne# tty# Arocopio S# >eltran, Jr#, the complainant,&led a ";T(;: T; $(R$N2R(U% T; 22 "%TR; ":(2 $;NRTS T=% E$T T=T%2"; S# >@ (S :;T NT=;R(U%@ T; AR$T($% 2'# =owever, a report was found

that bad signed %/hibits >, $ and @ and had made appearances in "etro "anilacourts despite his denials under oath where he can be charged for Aer5ury#Respondent denied that he appeared in the hearing on @ecember P?, 19?3 and thatthe signatures on the aforementioned %/hibits are his where he said it could havebeen made up by tty# >eltran# Signatures underwent forensic e/amination and theaforesaid documentary and testimonial evidence, as well as the above report of the:>(, have clearly proved that respondent bad is still practicing law despite thedecision of this $ourt of "arch ?, 19?3#

Issue$ 'hether or not bad can engage in practice of law

Ruli-g of te Court$ :o# ;nly those licensed by the Supreme $ourt may practicelaw in this country# The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional rightbut is a privilege# (t is limited to persons of good moral character withspecial )uali&cations duly ascertained and certi&ed# The e/ercise of this privilegepresupposes possession of integrity, legal 0nowledge, educational attainment andeven public trust, since a lawyer is an oacarro Ainatacan as his own, and has underta0en to give &nancial supportto the said child, 'e hold that he has reali+ed the wrongfulness of his past conduct

3O


37/55

and is now prepared to turn over a new leaf# >ut he must be admonished that hisadmission to and continued membership in the >ar are dependent, among others,on his compliance with his moral and legal obligations as the father of "aria Rochie>acarro Ainatacan#

Ratio$;ne of the indispensable re)uisites for admission to the Ahilippine >ar is that

the applicant must be of good moral character# This re)uirement aims to maintainand uphold the high moral standards and the dignity of the legal profession, andone of the ways of achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this nobleprofession only those persons who are 0nown to be honest and to possess goodmoral character# Ms a man of law, 7a lawyer8 is necessary a leader of thecommunity, loo0ed up to as a model citi+enM =e sets an e/ample to his fellowciti+ens not only for his respect for the law, but also for his clean living# Thus,becoming a lawyer is more than 5ust going through a law course and passing the>ar e/aminations#

DIAO +). *ARTIN(>

#ACT)$fter successfully passing the corresponding e/aminations held in 19-3,Telesforo # @iao was admitted to the >ar# bout two years later, Severino "artine+charged him with having falsely represented in his application for such >are/amination, that he had the re)uisite academic )uali&cations# The matter was indue course referred to the Solicitor General who caused the charge to beinvestigatedF and later he submitted a report recommending that @iaoLs name beerased from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petitionfor e/amination in this $ourt, he 7@iao8 had not completed, before ta0ing up lawsub5ects, the re)uired pre6legal education prescribed by the @epartment of Arivate%ducation, specially, in the following particulars

7a8 @iao did not complete his high school trainingF and

7b8 @iao never attended uisumbing $ollege, and never obtained his ## diplomatherefrom which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of hisapplication for e/amination, and of his allegation therein of successful completion ofthe Mre)uired pre6legal educationM#

nswering this o


38/55

e/amination represented him as an ## graduate 7194P619418 of such college# :ow,asserting he had obtained his ## title from the rellano Nniversity in pril, 1949,he says he was erroneously certi&ed, due to confusion, as a graduate of uisumbing$ollege, in his school records#

Alainly, therefore, Telesforo # @iao was not )uali&ed to ta0e the bar e/aminationsF

but due to his false representations, he was allowed to ta0e it, luc0ily passed it, andwas thereafter admitted to the >ar# Such admission having been obtained underfalse pretenses must be, and is hereby revo0ed# The fact that he hurdled the >are/aminations is immaterial# Aassing such e/aminations is not the only)uali&cationto become an attorney6at6lawF ta0ing the prescribed courses of legal study in theregular manner is eually essential##

R($ P(TITION O# A' AR0O)INO TO TA( T%( 'A:;(R) OAT%

#ACT)$ Aetitioner l $aparros rgosino passed the bar e/aminations held in 1993#The $ourt however deferred his oath6ta0ing due to his previous conviction for

Rec0less (mprudence Resulting (n =omicide# The criminal case which resulted inpetitionerLs conviction, arose from the death of a neophyte during fraternityinitiation rites sometime in September 1991# Aetitioner and seven 7.8 other accusedinitially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide charges# The eight 7?8 accused laterwithdrew their initial pleas and upon re6arraignment all pleaded guilty to rec0lessimprudence resulting in homicide#The trial court granted herein petitionerLsapplication for probation# The trial court as well issued an order approving a reportdated O pril 1994 submitted by the Arobation ;


39/55

the lawyerLs oath, thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which inrecent years has undoubtedly become less than irreproachable#

fter a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner l$aparros rgosino to ta0e the lawyerLs oath, sign the Roll of ttorneys and practicethe legal profession with the following admonition (n allowing "r# rgosino to ta0ethe lawyerLs oath, the $ourt recogni+es that "r# rgosino is not inherently of badmoral &ber# ;n the contrary, the various certi&cations show that he is a devout$atholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service#

The $ourt is persuaded that "r# rgosino has e/erted all eorts to atone for thedeath of Raul $amaligan# 'e are prepared to give him the bene&t of the doubt,ta0ing 5udicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious anduncalculating# 'e stress to "r# rgosino that the lawyerLs oath is :;T a mereceremony or formality for practicing law# %very lawyer should at 22 T("%S weighhis actions according to the sworn promises he ma0es when ta0ing the lawyerLsoath# (f all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the lawyerLs oath and

the $ode of Arofessional Responsibility, the administration of 5ustice willundoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned#

Colla-tes v Re-o1ero-

#acts$This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative case &led bytty# $ollantes, house counsel for DK G >etter =omes Subdivision, (nc# 7DKG8,against tty# Renomeron, Register of @eeds of Tacloban $ity, for the latterBs irregularactuations with regard to the application of DKG for registration of 1O3 pro forma@eed of bsolute Sale with ssignment 7in favor of GS(S8 of lots in its subdivision#lthough DKG complied with the desired re)uirements, respondent suspended theregistration of the documents with certain !special conditions between them,

which was that DKG should provide him with wee0ly round trip tic0et from Taclobanto "anila plus A,PPP#PP as poc0et money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale ofrespondentBs ue+on $ity house and lot by DKG or GS(S representatives#

%ventually, respondent formally denied the registration of the documents# =ehimself elevated the )uestion on the registrability of the said documents todministrator >onifacio 7of the :ational 2and Titles and @eeds Registrationdministration6:2T@R8# The dministrator then resolved in favor of theregistrability of the documents# @espite the resolution of the dministrator, therespondent still refused the registration thereof but demanded from the partiesinterested the submission of additional re)uirements not adverted in his previousdenial#

The issue in this disbarment proceeding is whether the respondent register ofdeeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by this $ourt for his malfeasances as apublic o


40/55

The lawyerLs imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money ormalice# The lawyerLs oath is a source of his obligations and its violation is a groundfor his suspension% disbarment or other disciplinary action#

The $ode of Arofessional Responsibility applies to lawyers in government service inthe discharge of their o

#ACT)$ Respondent @iosdado # Gutierre+ is a member of the Ahilippine >ar,

admitted to it on ;ctober -, 194-# (n criminal case :o# R6.93 of the $ourt of Eirst(nstance of ;riental "indoro he was convicted of the murder of Eilemon Samaco,former municipal mayor of $alapan, and together with his co6conspirators wassentenced to the penalty of death# Npon review by this $ourt the 5udgment ofconviction was a


41/55

une/ecuted portion of the prison term was remitted Mon condition that he shall notagain violate any of the penal laws of the Ahilippines#M

;n ;ctober 9, 19-? the widow of the deceased Eilemon Samaco, victim in themurder case, &led a veri&ed complaint before this $ourt praying that respondent be

removed from the roll of lawyers pursuant to Rule 1., section -# Respondentpresented his answer in due time, admitting the facts alleged by complainantregarding his previous conviction but pleading the conditional pardon in defense, onthe authority of the decision of this $ourt in the case of (n re 2onto0, 43 Ahil# 93#

Nnder section - of Rule 1. a member of the bar may be removed or suspendedfrom his o


42/55

conviction for murder without regard to the pardon he invo0es in defense# The crimewas )uali&ed by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in band,by ta0ing advantage of his ooth counsel fell short of what was e/pected of them,despite their avowed duties as o


43/55

ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of theproceedings in this controversy are barren of any re*ection of the same#

PAEAR() +). ABAD )ANTO)#ACT)$ This is an appeal interposed by petitioner Gloria Aa5ares from the orderdated July 1, 19O issued by the $ourt of Eirst (nstance of "anila, dismissing herpetition for certiorariwith preliminary in5unction against respondent Judge %strellabad Santos of the "unicipal $ourt of "anila and respondent Ndharam >a+ar K $o#(n its complaint the Ndharam >a+ar K $o# averred, among others, as follows Thatdefendant in 19O1, ordered from the plainti )uantities of readymade goods anddelivered to her in good condition and same were already sold, but did not ma0e thefull payment up to the present timeF That defendant is still indebted to the plaintiin the sum of A3-4#?-, representing the balance of her account as the value of thesaid goods, which is already overdue and payable#M

(nstead of answering the complaint against her, Gloria Aa5ares, however, moved fora bill of particulars praying the inferior court to re)uire the Ndharam >a+ar K $o# toitemi+e the 0inds of goods which she supposedly purchased from the said company,the respective dates they were ta0en and by whom they were received as well astheir purchase prices, alleging that without this bill she would not be able to meetthe issues raised in the complaint#

fter due hearing, the inferior court denied the motion of Gloria Aa5ares for a bill ofparticulars# =er motion for reconsideration having been denied too by the saidcourt, she then brought the incident on certiorarito the $ourt of Eirst (nstance of"anila, alleging in support of her petition that in denying her motion for a bill of

particulars, the respondent 5udge acted in grave abuse of discretion#

I))U($'hether or not the respondent 5udge erred denying the petitionerBs bill ofparticularsC

%('D$ :o error was therefore committed by the lower court in summarilydismissing appellantLs petition for certiorari against respondent 5udgeLs orderdenying her motion for a bill of particulars, as pretended by appellant in her loneassignment of error# 'ell may we apply to this appeal, the words of "r# Justice J#>#2#Reyes in an analogous case, that Mthe circumstances surrounding this litigationde&nitely prove that appeal is frivolous and a plain tric0 to delay payment andprolong litigation unnecessarily# Such attitude deserves condemnation, wasting as it

does, the time that the courts could well devote to meritorious cases#M=ere, thissimple collection case has needlessly clogged the court doc0ets for over sevenyears# =ad appellant been but prudently advised by her counsel to confess

5udgment and as0 from her creditor the reasonable time she needed to dischargeher lawful indebtedness, the e/penses of litigation that she has incurred by way of&ling fees in the $ourt of Eirst (nstance, premiums for her appeal bond, appellatecourt doc0et fees, printing of her appellantLs brief, and attorneyLs fees would havebeen much more than su


44/55

still remains saddled with the same debt, burdened by accumulated interests, afterhaving spent uselessly much more than the amount in litigation in this worthlesscause# s we recently said in another case,3the cooperation of litigants and theirattorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court doc0ets withunmeritorious cases may be avoided# There must be more faithful adherence to

Rule ., section - of the Rules of $ourt which provides that Mthe signature of anattorney constitutes a certi&cate by him that he has read the pleading and that tothe best of his 0nowledge, information and belief, there is good ground to supportit8 and that it is not interposed for delayM and e/pressly admonishes that Mfor awillful violation of this rule an attorney may be sub5ected to disciplinary action#M

Peole vs. Rosueta Er.

#acts$ Ros)ueta Jr and two others were convicted of a crime# They appeal theirconviction until it reached the Supreme $ourt# Their lawyer 7counsel de parte8, tty#Gregorio %stacio, failed to &le their >rief# nd so the Supreme $ourt ordered tty#%stacio to show cause why he should not be disciplined for failure to &le said >rief#

tty# %stacio failed yet again to submit his e/planation# The Supreme $ourt thensuspended him from the practice of law e/cept for the purpose of &ling the >rief inthis particular case# tty# %stacio then &led a "otion for Reconsideration where hee/plained that he did actually prepare an e/planation the same being left withRos)ueta Sr 7father of accused8 for the latter to mail it# >ut then Ros)ueta Sr#Bshouse burned down together with the e/planation# =e only came to 0now of thisfact when he was preparing for the "otion for Reconsideration# tty# %stacio alsoe/plained that his clients are withdrawing their appeal by reason of their fail

Date post:	26-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mariko-iwaki
View:	250 times
Download:	2 times

Compilation Legal Ethics

Documents