1 CAYETANO V MONSOD FACTS: Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC on April 25,

1991. Cayetano opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsods nomination, petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having practiced law for the last ten years. ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the COMELEC. HELD: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

IN RE: CUNANAN Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. In accordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent. After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972. Issue: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid. Held: RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation. In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial. On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government.

MA.BINOYA: LEGALETHICSDOCS

2 It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional. MANIAGO V ATTY DE DIOS Facts: - Ligaya Maniago filed a disbarment case against Atty. De Dios on the ground that the latter engaged in the practice of law despite courts suspension. - Complainant alleged that she filed a criminal case against Miyata, a Japanese national, who is represented by Atty. De Dios. - Maniago found out that the respondent was suspended from the practice of law since 2001. - Atty. De Dios admitted that a criminal case was filed against his client but she denied that she was suspended when she appeared as a counsel for Miyata. - Respondent explained that an administrative case was indeed filed against her by Diana de Guzman, docketed as A.C. No. 4943, where she was meted the penalty of 6-month suspension. - She served the suspension immediately upon receipt of the Courts Resolution on May 16, 2001 up to November 16, 2001. - November 17: 2001: she resumed in the practice of law after filing a Manifestation on October 19, 2001 informing the Court that she was resuming her practice. - March 15, 2007: Judge Josefina Farrales, Acting Exec. Judge of the RTC, Olongapo City, erroneously issued a directive ordering respondent to desist from practicing law and revoking her notarial commission for the years 2007 and 2008. - Knowing that the directive was rather questionable, respondent, nonetheless, desisted from law practice in due deference to the court order. - April 23, 2007: the court issued a resolution stating that Atty. De Dios has already served the 6 months suspension and is now allowed to continue her practice. MA.BINOYA: LEGALETHICSDOCS - The respondent said that the complaint of the petitioner must be dismissed because she was not prohibited from the practice of law when she appeared as the counsel for her client. Issue: Whether or not the suspension of Atty. De Dios has been lifted after the 6-month period? Held: November 18, 2008: Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) submitted a resolution stating that: A suspended lawyer must first present proof(s) of his compliance by submitting certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and from the Executive Judge that he has indeed desisted from the practice of law during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the Court, after evaluation, and upon a favorable recommendation from the OBC, will issue a resolution lifting the order of suspension and thus allow him to resume the practice of law. The OBC alleged that it was unfortunate that this procedure was overlooked in A.C. No. 4943, where Atty. De Dios was able to resume her practice of law without submitting the required certifications and passing through the OBC for evaluation. The OBC recommended that the Court adopt a uniform policy on the matter of the lifting of the order of suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law. Guidelines to be observed when lifting the suspension of a lawyer prohibited from the practice of law. 1. After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty; 2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory; 3. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension;

3 4. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel; 5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents compliance with the order of suspension; 6. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted. IN RE: ARGOSINO FACTS: Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was denied of taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide from a hazing incident. Later in his sentence, he was granted probation by the court. He filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying that he be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a proof of the required good moral character he now possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15) certifications among others from: two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious order. In addition, he, together with the others who were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in honor of their hazing victim. ISSUE: Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and practice law. HELD: YES. Petition granted. Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof that he possessed the required good moral character as required before taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the premises that he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyers Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the practice of law, and that the community assistance he had started is expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate members of the society. MA.BINOYA: LEGALETHICSDOCS ART. VIII, Sec 5 (5). Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. REMEDIOS TAPUCAR VS LAURO TAPUCAR Facts: Respondent was previously dismissed as CFI judge for maintaining and cohabiting with his mistress. Despite this, he later married the same woman and had children with her. He even made statements displaying contempt for the SC and mocking the law and said court. Petitioner, his lawful wife, filed a lettercomplaint for disbarment against her husband. IBP disbarred him. Held: Disbarred (ratio is the same as the Narag case). A judge is a visible representation of the law and, more importantly of justice. Ordinary citizens consider him as a source of strength that fortifies their will to obey the law. A judge should avoid the slightest infraction of the law in all actuations, lest it be a demoralizing example to others. Likewise, an attorney is also invested with public trust. As officers of the court, lawyers must ensure the faith and confidence of the public that justice is administered with dignity and civility. A high degree of moral integrity is expected of a lawyer in the community where he resides. The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor, thus proving unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. The power to disbar, however, is one to be exercised with great caution and only in a clear case of misconduct which seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one subsists, as well as abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of

4 family obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyers oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondents character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. PEOPLE V VILLANUEVA
In 1959, Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in the municipality of Alaminos in Laguna. In said case, the private offended party asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule to prosecute said case. Apparently, Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna. Villanueva the opposed the appearance of Fule as counsel for the offended party as he said that according to the Rules of Court when an attorney had been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage in private law practice. ISSUE: Whether or not Ariston Fule is engaged in private law practice. HELD: No. Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. In the case at bar, Fule is not being compensated but rather hes doing it for free for his friend who happened to be the offended party. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Further, the fact that the Secretary of Justice approved Fules appearance for his friend should be given credence.

The facts of this administrative case, as found by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),[1] in its Report, are as follows: Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) alleged that sometime in November, 1992, she was referred to the respondent who promised to process all necessary documents required for complainants trip to the USA for a fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00). On December 1, 1992 the complainant made a partial payment of the required fee in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), which was received by Ester Calis, wife of the respondent for which a receipt was issued. From the period of January 1993 to May 1994 complainant had several conferences with the respondent regarding the processing of her travel documents. To facilitate the processing, respondent demanded an additional amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) and prevailed upon complainant to resign from her job as stenographer with the Commission on Human Rights. On June 20, 1994, to expedite the processing of her travel documents complainant issued Planters Development Bank Check No. 12026524 in the amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) in favor of Atty. D. Calis who issued a receipt. After receipt of said amount, respondent furnished the complainant copies of Supplemental to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Of. 156) and a list of questions which would be asked during interviews. When complainant inquired about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the former that she will be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer, employed as sales manager of Matiao Marketing, Inc. the complainant was furnished documents to support her assumed identity. Realizing that she will be travelling with spurious documents, the complainant demanded the return of her money, however she was assured by respondent that there was nothing to worry about for he has been engaged in the business for quite sometime; with the promise that her money will be refunded if something goes wrong.

SEBASTIAN V CALIS For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of his oath as lawyer, respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment.

MA.BINOYA: LEGALETHICSDOCS

5 Weeks before her departure respondent demanded for the payment of the required fee which was paid by complainant, but the corresponding receipt was not given to her. When complainant demanded for her passport, respondent assured the complainant that it will be given to her on her departure which was scheduled on September 6, 1994. On said date complainant was given her passport and visa issued in the name of Lizette P. Ferrer. Complainant left together with Jennyfer Belo and a certain Maribel who were also recruits of the respondent. In May 1997 the complainant again tried to see the respondent however she found out that the respondent had transferred to an unknown residence apparently with intentions to evade responsibility. Attached to the complaint are the photocopies of receipts for the amount paid by complainant, applications for U.S.A. Visa, questions and answers asked during interviews; receipts acknowledging partial refunds of fees paid by the complainant together with demand letter for the remaining balance of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00); which was received by the respondent.[2] Despite several notices sent to the respondent requiring an answer to or comment on the complaint, there was no response. Respondent likewise failed to attend the scheduled hearings of the case. No appearance whatsoever was made by the respondent.[3] As a result of the inexplicable failure, if not obdurate refusal of the respondent to comply with the orders of the Commission, the investigation against him proceeded ex parte. On September 24, 1998, the Commission on Bar Discipline issued its Report on the case, finding that: It appears that the services of the respondent was engaged for the purpose of securing a visa for a U.S.A. travel of complainant. There was no mention of job placement or employment abroad, hence it is not correct to say that the respondent engaged in illegal recruitment. The alleged proposal of the respondent to secure the U.S.A. visa for the complainant under an assumed name was accepted by the complainant which negates deceit on the part of the respondent. Noted likewise is the partial refunds made by the respondent of the fees paid by the complainant. However, the transfer of residence without a forwarding address indicates his attempt to escape responsibility. In the light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant together with Jennyfer Belo and Maribel were apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials for carrying spurious travel documents; Complainant contacted the respondent through overseas telephone call and informed him of by her predicament. From September 6 to 9, 1994, complainant was detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore. On September 9, 1994 the complainant was deported back to the Philippines and respondent fetched her from the airport and brought her to his residence at 872-A Tres Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Respondent took complainants passport with a promise that he will secure new travel documents for complainant. Since complainant opted not to pursue with her travel, she demanded for the return of her money in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00). On June 4, 1996, June 18 and July 5, 1996 respondent made partial refunds of P15,000.00; P6,000.00; and P5,000.00. On December 19, 1996 the complainant through counsel, sent a demand letter to respondent for the refund of a remaining balance of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00) which was ignored by the respondent. Sometime in March 1997 the complainant went to see the respondent, however his wife informed her that the respondent was in Cebu attending to business matters. MA.BINOYA: LEGALETHICSDOCS

6 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS be SUSPENDED as a member of the bar until he fully refunds the fees paid to him by complainant and comply with the order of the Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court.*4+ Pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, this administrative case was elevated to the IBP Board of Governors for review. The Board in a Resolution[5] dated December 4, 1998 resolved to adopt and approve with amendment the recommendation of the Commission. The Resolution of the Board states: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decisions as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with an amendment that Respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis be DISBARRED for having been found guilty of Gross Misconduct for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. We are now called upon to evaluate, for final action, the IBP recommendation contained in its Resolution dated December 4, 1998, with its supporting report. After examination and careful consideration of the records in this case, we find the resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP in order. We agree with the finding of the Commission that the charge of illegal recruitment was not established because complainant failed to substantiate her allegation on the matter. In fact she did not mention any particular job or employment promised to her by the respondent. The only service of the respondent mentioned by the complainant was that of securing a visa for the United States. We likewise concur with the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution, that herein respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that he could MA.BINOYA: LEGALETHICSDOCS give her visa and travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing untoward would happen; that he guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund her the fees and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong. All for material gain. Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyers relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.[6] The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character.[7] This requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.[8] We have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.[9] It is dismaying to note how respondent so cavalierly jeopardized the life and liberty of complainant when he made her travel with spurious documents. How often have victims of unscrupulous travel agents and illegal recruiters been imprisoned in foreign lands because they were provided fake travel documents? Respondent totally disregarded the personal safety of the complainant when he sent her abroad on false assurances. Not only are respondents acts illegal, they are also detestable from the moral point of view. His utter lack of moral qualms and scruples is a real threat to the Bar and the administration of justice. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[10] We must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of

7 the court after giving him the opportunity to be heard.[11] Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of the IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant. Lastly, the grant in favor of the complainant for the recovery of the P114,000.00 she paid the respondent is in order.[12] Respondent not only unjustifiably refused to return the complainants money upon demand, but he stubbornly persisted in holding on to it, unmindful of the hardship and humiliation suffered by the complainant. WHEREFORE, respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be FURNISHED to the IBP and the Bar Confidant to be spread on the personal records of respondent. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay to the complainant immediately the amount of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand (P114,000.00) Pesos representing the amount he collected from her. IN RE: ARTHUR CUEVAS In 1991, a neophyte died during the initiation rites of Lex Talionis Fraternitas in the San Beda College of Law. Arthur Cuevas Jr was one of the persons charged (with murder) for the death of the neophyte. He pleaded guilty and was later convicted to the lesser crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. Thereafter, Cuevas was granted probation and he continued taking up law. In 1995, he was discharged from probation. In 1996, the Supreme Court allowed Cuevas to take the bar on the condition that in case he will pass, his oath taking will have to be approved by the Supreme Court first. Cuevas did pass the 1996 bar exams and in 1997, he filed a petition before the Supreme Court asking the latter to allow him to take the Lawyers Oath. ISSUE: Whether or not Cuevas may be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath. MA.BINOYA: LEGALETHICSDOCS HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court is duty bound to prevent the entry of undeserving aspirants, as well as to exclude those who have been admitted but have become a disgrace to the profession. Cuevas participation in the senseless killing of the neophyte is highly reprehensible however, the Supreme Court is willing to give him a chance considering that Cuevas has received various certifications regarding his good behavior while on probation. The Supreme Court also stressed that the lawyers oath is not a mere formality recited for a few minutes in the glare of flashing cameras and before the presence of select witnesses. As a lawyer, Cuevas shall be expected to abide by the oath strictly and to conduct himself beyond reproach at all times. As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to render legal and other services to the more unfortunate members of society.