Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU),

Enrique Entila and Victoriano Tenazas vs. Binalbagan

Muning

Isabela Sugar Company, Court of Industrial Relations

10%

and Quintin Muning

FACTS:
1.COURT

OF

REINSTATEMENT

INDUSTRIAL
WITH

RELATIONS

BACKWAGES

FOR

ORDERED
ENTILA

ii

AND

i.

Atanaci

TENAZAS.

a.Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of Entila and Tenazas

Pacis

filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the

total backwages.
i.

En

iii.

CA

tila and Tenazas filed manifestation

NON 34: condemns an agreement

indicating their non-objection to an

providing

award of attorney's fees for 25% of

attorney's fees, whereby a non-

their backwages

lawyer union president is allowed

ii.

for

the

division

of

to share in said fees with lawyers

uentin Muning filed a "Petition for

1. Sec 5(b) of RA 875 that

the Award of Services Rendered"

No

equivalent

ruling,

to

20%

of

the

backwages.
1. Opposed
Cid

&

by

Cipriano

Associates

for

that

the

person

representing

the

party-

litigant

the

justification

in

the

Court

of

Industrial Relations, even if

ground that he is not a

he

lawyer.

entitled to attorney's fees

a.

Court

of

is

not
a.

lawyer,

Duty

is
and

Industrial Relations

obligation

of

awarded

Court

Hearing

25%

of

or

the

the backwages as

Officer to examine

compensation

and cross examine

for

professional

witnesses on behalf

services

of the parties and

in

rendered

the

apportioned

case,

to

as

assist

in

the

orderly

follows:

presentation

of

evidence.
b. Representation
should

be

exclusively
entrusted
i.

Ciprian

0%

qualified

to

duly

members

of the bar.
2.The permission for a non-member does not entitle the
representative to compensation for such representation.
a.Sec 24, Rule 138 Compensation of attorney's agreement
as to fees:
i.

ii.

Quinti

An

attorney shall be entitled to have

and recover from his client no more

than a reasonable compensation

offices, and transferred to Manila.

for his services.

c.Prayed

that

Court

allow

reinstatement

taking

into

consideration his exemplary conduct from the time he

a.

Petition to take the Bar Exam in 1960

became a lawyer, his services to the community the

after failing in the 1959 Bar Examination.

numerous awards, resolutions and/'or commendations he

b. His uncle, TAPEL, opposed the petition

received,

alleging that his nephew is not a person of

good

moral

character

for

having

i.

Co

ii.

Pe

urt denied the Petition.

misrepresented, sometime in 1950, when

he was 16 years old, that he was eligible

titioner moved for reconsideration

for 3rd year high school by utilizing the

was denied by the Court for lack of

school records of his cousin and name-

merit.

sake, Juan M. Publico.

ii.

PU

BLICO has not completed Grade 4

iii.

Tap

el instituted an administrative case

against his nephew for falsification

d.5th plea avers that his enrollment in Third Year High

School in Manila was through the initiative of his uncle,
Dulcisimo B. Tapel who accompanied him to school and
enrolled him in a grade level above his qualifications in
spite of his demonstrations
i.

of school records or credentials.

Mi

srepresentation

committed

was

3.PUBLICO PASSED THE BAR, took the lawyer's oath, and

precipitated

his

that

signed the Roll of Attorneys.

being merely 16 year old, he could

4.Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo Paras, Jr., investigated

not

and reported:

discernment as he was still under

a.September 1961, Dulcisimo Tapel dropped the complaint

the influence of his uncle, who later

on the ground that his witnesses had turned hostile.

on caused his disbarment

i.

be

by

expected

uncle;
to

act

ii.

with

No

otion denied, his witnesses had

opposition has been filed to any of

already testified.

the petitions.

b.Recommended PUBLICOs name to be stricken off the roll

of attorneys.
i.
spondent

falsified

his

Re

school

records
ii.

Th

ereby violating the provisions of

Sections 5 and 6, Rule 127 of the
Rules

of

Court,

which

require

completion by a bar examinee or

candidate of the prescribed courses
in elementary, high, pre-law and
law school, prior to his admission to
the practice of law.

ISSUE:
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services
rendered?
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer
according to the order, is sought to be voided in the
present petition.
WON a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees which
are deductible from the backpay of some of its members.
YES.
It was PAFLU that moved for an extension of time to file the
present petition for review; union members Entila and
Tenazas did not ask for extension but they were included as

5.11 years later, PUBLICO filed a Petition for Reinstatement

petitioners in the present petition. Their inclusion in the

alleging that he had never received, for had he been

petition as co-petitioners was belated.

informed, nor did he have any knowledge of the Resolution

of the Court ordering the Bar Division to strike his name

HELD:

from the Roll of Attorneys.

ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE SET ASIDE AS THEY ARE

a.He was advised to inquire into the outcome of the

AWARDED 10% OF BACKWAGES AS ATTORNEYS FEES FOR

disbarment case against him.

MUNING. COSTS AGAINST MUNING.

b.He resigned from all his positions in public and private

1.Lawyer-client relationship is only possible if one is a

lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot
establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila
and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot,
therefore, recover attorney's fees.
2.Public policy demands that legal work in representation
of parties litigant should be entrusted only to those
possessing tested qualifications, for the ethics of the
profession and for the protection of courts, clients and the
public.
3.The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession
should not be violated:
a.Acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt
of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or
both,
b.Law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of
an act or an act done in violation of law
c.If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the
public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case
of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition,
aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to
disciplinary measures.
4.In response to UNION may appeal an award of attorney's
fees which are deductible from the backpay of some of its
members:
a.YES

because

such

union

or

labor

organization

is

permitted to institute an action in the industrial court on

behalf of its members
b.If an award is disadvantageous to its members, the union
may prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party, under Sec
6, RA 875:
i.
c.

6. Unfair

Labor

Se

Practice

cases Appeals. Any person

aggrieved by any order of the Court
may appeal to the Supreme Court
of the Philippines.
c.Usually, individual unionist is not in a position to bear the
financial burden of litigations.

do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale, etc.;

that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he
offers free consultation; that he is willing to serve the poor.

Tan Tek Beng vs David

In 1970, Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer,
entered into an agreement whereby Tan Tek Beng will

When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of

supply clients to Atty. David and in exchange thereof, Atty.

Echague, Isable advising the latter that even though he

David shall give Tan Tek Beng 50% of the attorneys fees

was elected as a provincial board member, he can still

collected as the latters commission. Atty. David also

practice law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same

agreed not to deal with clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng

directly without the latters consent. The agreement went
sour due to allegations of double-cross from both sides. Tan

to his people; that he is willing to receive works regarding

preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc.; that he

Tek Beng denounced Atty. David before the Supreme Court

is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge of

but did not seek the enforcement of their agreement.

three pesos.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. David is guilty of Malpractice.

ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.

HELD: Yes. The agreement between Atty. David and Tan

HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The

Tek Beng is void because it was tantamount to malpractice

practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,

which is the practice of soliciting cases at law for the

either personally or through paid agents or brokers,

purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or

constitutes malpractice.

brokers Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice

ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty
committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and

The most worthy and effective advertisement possible,

even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother
lawyers, is the establishment of a well- merited reputation

technical meaning to the term malpractice.

for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot

That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion

be forced, but must be the outcome of character and

that the practice of law is a profession, not a business.

conduct.

The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by

advertisements,

or

himself

interviews

warranted

or

through

others

for

to

do

so

would

be

Solicitation

not

of
by

business
personal
by

by

circulars

or

communications

or

personal

relations,

is

unprofessional.

unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure

On the agreement to divide the attorneys fees, the

business by indirection through touters of any kind,

Supreme Court noted: No division of fees for legal services

whether allied real estate firms or trust companies

is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon a

advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or

division of service or responsibility.

offering

On the agreement that Atty. David shall not deal with

clients supplied by Beng directly: The professional services
of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any law
agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between
client

and

lawyer.

lawyers

responsibilities

and

qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations

which direct the performance of his duties by or in the

retainers

in

exchange

for

executorships

or

trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect

advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring
newspaper comments concerning the manner of their
conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the
importance of the lawyers position, and all other like selflaudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our
high calling, and are intolerable.

interest of such intermediary. A lawyers relation to his

It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring

client should be personal, and the responsibility should be

a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood,

direct to the client. . . .

relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.

In re: Tagorda
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of
Isabela. Before his election, he campaigned that he is a
lawyer and a notary public; that as a notary public he can

Tagordas liability is however mitigated by the fact that he

is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he was unaware
of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of being
disbarred, he was suspended from the practice of law for a

month.

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Director of Religious Affairs vs Bayot

Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal

In June 1943, Bayot advertised in a newspaper that he

helps people in securing marriage licenses; that he does so
avoiding delays and publicity; that he also makes marriage

BACK

arrangements; that legal consultations are free for the

poor; and that everything is confidential. The Director of
Religious Affairs took notice of the ad and so he sued Bayot
for Malpractice.
Bayot initially denied having published the advertisement.
But later, he admitted the same and asked for the courts
mercy as he promised to never repeat the act again.

SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He

ISSUE: Whether or not Bayot is guilty of Malpractice.

also denied authorizing the printing of such calling cards.

HELD: Yes. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides

ISSUES:

among other things that the practice of soliciting cases at

law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid
agents

or

brokers,

constitutes

malpractice.

The

1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached

upon the professional services of Atty. Pedro Linsangan.

advertisement he caused to be published is a brazen

2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper

solicitation of business from the public.

calling card of Labiano.

. It is highly

unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as

a merchant advertises his wares. The Supreme Court again
emphasized that best advertisement for a lawyer is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust. But because of Bayots plea
for leniency and his promise and the fact that he did not
earn any case by reason of the ad, the Supreme Court
merely reprimanded him.

HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of
Professional

Responsibility.

A lawyer

should

not

steal

another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him

by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees
for his services. By recruiting Atty. Linsangans clients, Atty.
Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep into
anothers legal practice.
2. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04

Linsangan vs Tolentino

of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although Atty.

In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative

Tolentino initially denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he

complaint against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino alleging that

actually knew her later in the proceedings. It is thus clear

Atty. Tolentino, through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,

that Labiano was connected to his law office. Through

pirated a client of Atty. Linsangan. Said client later

Labianos

executed an affidavit in support of Atty. Linsangans

benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer

allegations.

representation on the strength of Labianos word that Atty.

Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labianos

calling card which appears as follows:
FRONT

actions,

Atty.

Tolentinos

law

practice

was

Tolentino could produce a more favorable result.

Labianos calling card is improper. The card made it appear
that the law office will finance legal actions for the clients.
The rule is, a lawyer shall not lend money to a client
except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance

necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the

(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at

client.

this time?

The

rule

is

intended

to

safeguard

the

lawyers

independence of mind so that the free exercise of his

HELD:
YES. On all issues.

judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure

his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as

RATIO:

his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the

[T]he Court is of the view that it may integrate the

lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the

Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power, under Article VIII,

clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the

Sec. 13 of the Constitution, to promulgate rules

subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its

outcome. Either of these circumstances may lead the
lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his

concerning x x x the admission to the practice of law.

The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing
conscientious study of all the arguments adduced in Adm.

client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his

Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass

interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in

of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the

violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the clients

Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration of the

cause.

Philippine Bar is perfectly constitutional and legally

The phrase in the calling card which states w/ financial

assistance, was clearly used to entice clients (who

unobjectionable, within the context of contemporary

conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative
means to raise the standards of the legal profession,

already had representation) to change counsels with a

improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to

promise of loans to finance their legal actions.

discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively.

However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove

[T]he Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section

that Atty. Tolentino had a personal and direct hand in the

printing of said calling cards, he cannot be punished with
severity. At any rate, for all the infractions Atty. Tolentino
committed, he was suspended for 1 year.
In re: IBP

13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, ordained the

integration of the Bar of the Philippines effective January
16, 1973.
In Re: Edillon
FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed

FACTS:

practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of

[T]he Commission on Bar Integration submitted its Report

with the earnest recommendation on the basis of the
said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative
Case No. 526 of the Court, and consistently with the
views and counsel received from its [the Commissions]
Board of Consultants, as well as the overwhelming
nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar
that (the) Honorable (Supreme) Court ordain the
integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible
through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate
Court Rule. The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally
prays the Court to order the integration of the Philippine
Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible
and practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar
associations.

Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the

ISSUES:

invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is

(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the

being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status

Philippine Bar?
(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?

name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for

stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing
the provisions of

the

Rule

of

Court

139-A

and

the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP ByLaws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment
ofmembership fee

and suspension for failure to

pay

the

same.

Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an

as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP

and

to

pay

the

corresponding

dues,

and

that

as

aconsequence of this compelled financial support of the

said organization to which he is admitted personally

Perez for the latters failure to pay a debt of P17k. Hermoso

antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty

won and a writ of execution was issued in his favor. The

and properly guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence,

sheriff was to conduct a public sale of a property owned by

the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court

Damaso worth P300k. This was opposed by Damaso as he

Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force

claimed the amount of said property was more than the

and

amount of the debt. Judge Lantin, issuing judge, found

effect.

merit on this hence he amended his earlier decision and so

ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion

he issued a second writ this time directing the sheriff to

to

conduct a public sale on Damasos 210 shares of stock

pay

hismembership fee

to

the

IBP.

approximately worth P17k.

HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which
every lawyer must be a member of as distinguished from
bar associations in which membershipis merely optional
and voluntary. All lawyers are subject to comply with the
rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including
payment

reasonable

annual

fees

as

one

of

the requirements. The Rules of Court only compels him to

pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his
constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does
not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free
to attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter
or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. The
only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of

Subsequently, Damaso and his wife filed five more

petitions for injunction trying to enjoin the public sale. The
case eventually reached the Supreme Court where the SC
ruled that the petition of the Perez spouses are without
merit; that their numerous petitions for injunction are
contemplated for delay. In said decision, the Supreme
Court ordered petitioners to pay the cost of the suit but
said cost should be paid by their counsels. The counsels
now appeal said decision by the Supreme Court as they
claimed that such decision reflected adversely against their
professionalism; that If there was delay, it was because
petitioners counsel happened to be more assertive . . . a
quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be condemned.

annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to further the

States legitimate interest in elevating the quality of

ISSUE: Whether or not the counsels for the Spouses Perez

professional legal services, may require thet the cost of the

are excused.

regulatory

HELD: No. A counsels assertiveness in espousing with

program

the

lawyers.

candor and honesty his clients cause must be encouraged

Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police

and is to be commended; what is not tolerated

power of the State. The right to practice law before the

lawyers insistence despite the patent futility of his clients

courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to

position, as in the case at bar. It is the duty of a counsel to

regulation and inquiry. And if the power to impose the fee

advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and

as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty

vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his

designed

as

case. If he finds that his clients cause is defenseless, then

unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has

it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and

jurisdiction

submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer

disbarment,

to enforce its

over
and

payment

matters
reinstatement

is

not

void

of admission, suspension,
of

lawyers

and

is a

their

must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and

regulation as part of its inherent judicial functions and

temper his clients propensity to litigate. A lawyers oath to

responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of

uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his

the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.

client; its primacy is indisputable.

Cobb Perez vs Lantin

A civil case was filed by Ricardo Hermoso against Damaso

EVANGELINE

ARGAOZA, complainant,

vs.

license was issued on the 21st day of August, 1970 by the

Quezon City Civil Registrar." 5

Complainant Evangeline Argaoza sent a telegram to this

Court on April 7, 1970 requesting that "the oath-taking of
Atty. Benito P. Tubaces be held in abeyance." It was therein
further stated that the reason relied upon was immorality
and that a letter would follow. Subsequently, four days
later, a letter duly subscribed and sworn by the
complainant was receivedby this Court. It was therein
alleged: "In 1966, I agreed to live with Benito who was then
a sophomore student in Cebu and we had a child. Per his
request, I left with our kid in July 1967 so he can muster the
usual financial support from his parents. As agreed I
sacrificed almost two years of painful seclusionalthough, I
received constant communication from him as he likewise
did from me. We saw each other again in 1968 when he
came to Manila for his review and participation in the bar
examinations. In November of the same year, however, he
returned to his home province, leaving me and the kid
behind giving flimsy excuse the uncertainty of his passing
in the exam." 1 The next paragraph of such letter was
worded thus: "He did flunk in the first exam and having
decidedto take the next, he further requested me to stop
communicating with him untilthe examination was over. I
wrote him several letters immediately after especially
when I delivered our second baby but I constantly faced a
blank wall. This never put me off, though. Instead, my
eagerness to hear from him kept on mounting until that
eventful day came the release of the results ofthe bar
examinations. He made the grade this time and I was no
more glad than my folks. We sent him two congratulatory
messages and again we were disappointed to hear no word
from him." 2 This Court was likewise informed therein that
they met accidentally, on which occasion she tried to
convince him that they should live together but instead of
agreeing, his proposal was just to get the two children to
live with him and for them to separate for good. 3 She
would plead then that "he be barred from membership in
the Philippine Bar."

Then came the resolution of this Court of August 31, 1970

to the following effect: "Complainant is required to
comment, within 10 days from notice hereof,on the petition
of the respondent with the latter's affidavit attached
thereto,praying that he be allowed to take the lawyer's
oath in view of the complainants withdrawal of her
complaint." 6 The reply of complainant was received on
September 21, 1970. It was stated therein: "In reply
thereto, I amhereby informing your good office that I am
objecting to said lawyer's oathtaking of Mr. Benito P.
Tubaces on grounds of immorality on one hand and deceit
on the either. Accordingly, I thereby request that my letter
dated August 26, 1970 to your Office be withdrawn and
considered without force and effect. Evidently, I am
reviving my complaint against Mr. Benito P. Tubaces on
grounds of immorality because of his refusal, upon my
request, to put in writing the fulfillment of his promise to
marry me not later than December 21, 1971." 7 This Court,
however, on September 28, 1970, considering the petition
of respondent Tubaces praying that he be allowed to take
the lawyer's oath in view of the withdrawal of the
complaint filed against him and the comment therein,
denied the petition, respondent being further required
tofile an answer on the charges lodged against him ten
days from notice. There was a motion for the
reconsideration of the above action taken by this Court
filed by respondent on October 21, 1970, wherein he
justified his failure to file an answer thus: "The petitioner, in
view of the retraction or withdrawal of complainant, felt it
needless to file his answer to her complaint as required by
the resolution of this Court as there is no more to answer
for the complaint was withdrawn and instead file this
motion for reconsideration which filing is delayed because
of the honest and innocent belief that the letter of
withdrawal or retraction is already sufficient and will serve
as petition of the undersigned to take the oath of
attorney." 8 The prayer in such motion for reconsideration
was a reiteration of his plea that he be allowed to take the
oath of an attorney. The above motion for reconsideration
was referred to complainant for comment in a resolution of
October 26, 1970. The comment came on November 16,
1970, complainant "retracting or withdrawing [her]
complaint against Mr. Tubaces on the reasons stated in
[her] letter of withdrawal and [interposing] no objection to
his oath-taking in the earliest time possible, as prayed for
in his motion." 9

This Court, on April 16, 1970, resolved: "... (a) to note the
contents of the telegram of Evangeline Argaoza
requesting that the oath-taking of Benito P. Tubaces be
withheld on the ground of immorality; (b) to require that a
copyof the letter of Evangeline Argaoza be sent to Benito
P. Tubaces and (c) require respondent Tubaces to answer
said
letter-complaint,
within
10
daysfrom
notice
hereof." 4 Instead of answering, respondent Benito P.
Tubaces waited until August 26, 1970 when he filed a
petition alleging that complainantwas retracting or
withdrawing her complaint and that therefore he should be
allowed to take the lawyer's oath. Enclosed in such petition
is a letter signedby Evangeline Argaoza where, after
referring to the complaint filed by her against respondent,
there was this declaration of retraction or withdrawal. Thus:
"Without pressure nor influence exerted upon me, I
voluntarily, irrevocably, and unconditionally retract or
withdraw the said complaint on theground that we have
applied and was granted a marriage license having agreed
to get married on December of this year. The marriage

Both complainant and respondent were required by

resolution of this Court of November 18, 1970 it on appear
personally before it on December 16, 1970. Both
complainant and respondent duly appeared and informed
the Court thatthey had settled their differences and were
intending to get married. Five dayslater, on December 21,
1970, in a pleading filed with this Court by
respondent,there was an allegation of such marriage
having taken place on December 18, 1970 with City Judge
Oscar A. Inocentes of Quezon City having performed the
ceremony, a photostat copy of the marriage contract
accompanying such manifestation. To satisfy itself, this
Court resolved, on January, 5, 1971, torequire that both
complainant and respondent appear before it on Monday,
February 22, 1971. At such a date, the parties appeared
before this Court withthe additional information that they
intended to get married in a religious ceremony, such a
marriage to take place on March 1, 1971 in the Immaculate
Concepcion Parish Church with Rev. Fr. Emilio Castro
officiating. A photostat copy of the marriage contract was

BENITO P. TUBACES, respondent.

RESOLUTION

FERNANDO, J.:p

submitted by complainant and respondent in an urgent

joint motion praying that the respondent be allowed to take
the oath of attorney, filed with this Court on March 3, 1971.
Included in such motion is a photostat copy of the marriage
contract resulting from the religious ceremony.
This Court takes due cognizance that respondent Benito P.
Tubaces appears to have mended his ways and that a
satisfactorily long period had elapsed from the time the
results of the 1969 bar examinations were announced on
March 5, 1970. Under the circumstances, it is of the opinion
that his plea to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath may
be favorably acted on. Respondent is admonished to be
duly mindful of the standard of rectitude to which a
memberof the bar is expected to live up to. The delay in his
being duly admitted to the practice of his profession, a
matter traceable solely to his far-from-exemplary conduct,
ought to admonish him to observe with fidelity itscanons of
behavior. He must by this time be fully cognizant that a
failure to do so would be sufficient cause for the
appropriate disciplinary action.
WHEREFORE, the urgent joint motion of March 3, 1971,
praying that respondent Tubaces be allowed to take the
lawyer's oath, is granted