48. Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr.

B.M. No. 1370 May 9, 2005

FACTS: Petitioner filed a motion for exemption for paying his IBP dues from 19772005 in the amount of P12,035.00. He contends that after admission to the Bar he
worked at the Phil. Civil Service then migrated to the US until his retirement. His
contention to be exempt is that his employment with the CSC prohibits him to
practice his law profession and he did not practice the same while in the US. The
compulsion that he pays his IBP annual membership is oppressive since he has an
inactive status as a lawyer. His removal from the profession because of nonpayment of the same constitutes to the deprivation of his property rights bereft of
due process of the law.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during
the time that he was inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil
Service from 1962-1986 and he was working abroad from 1986-2003?
HELD: NO. The imposition of the membership fee is a matter of regulatory measure
by the State, which is a necessary consequence for being a member of the
Philippine Bar. The compulsory requirement to pay the fees subsists for as long as
one remains to be a member regardless whether one is a practicing lawyer or not.
Thus, his petition for exemption from paying his IBP membership fee dues is
denied.
Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its being one that
entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not here pause to
consider at length, as it [is] clear that under the police power of the State, and
under the necessary powers granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the
respondents right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a
matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a
regulatory measure is recognize[d], then a penalty designed to enforce its payment,
which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable
or arbitrary.
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a
mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court
to exact compliance with the lawyers public responsibilities.
49. Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. Mauricio, Jr.
[AC No. 7199. July 22, 2009]
FACTS: A certain Alberto Cordero purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela
City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. As Cordero and his
relatives were eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be
sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the can. This was complained
before the BFAD. After conciliation meetings between Cordero and the petitioner,
the Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their
complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent,

Atty. Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later
wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the document.
Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for
Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised
Penal Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela
City. The complaints were pending at the time of the filing of the present
administrative complaint. Despite the pendency of the civil case against him and
the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising
and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent
continued with his attacks against complainant and its products.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law.
The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon
of Professional Responsibility which reads: A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion
for or against a party.
The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the
integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with
said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said
Office in handling cases filed before it and did not even design to submit any
evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the abovequoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11 and the
fundamental Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes. Respondent defied said status quo
order, despite his (respondents) oath as a member of the legal profession to obey
the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandate, and by failing to live up to his oath and to comply
with the exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent also violated Canon
7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to at all times
uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.
50. YOUNG vs. BATUEGAS
403 SCRA 123
FACTS: Young is the private prosecutor in People of the Phil v Arana. Batuegas, et al
are the counsels for the accused in the said criminal case. On Dec 13, 2000,
Batuegas filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail alleging that the accused has
voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and, as such, is now under
detention. Upon verification with the NBI, YOUNG discovered that the accused
surrendered on Dec 14,2000 (not 13). BATUEGAS, et al in their defense alleged that
on Dec 13, 2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their

client, they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail. They immediately fetched
accused from Cavite and brought him to NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due
to heavy traffic, they arrived at NBI at 2am the next day. That was why the
Certificate of Detention indicated that the accused surrendered on Dec 14, 2000
and not 13. As to lack of notice, YOUNG being a private prosecutor, is not entitled to
such as only the State and City prosecutors should be given notices. Investigating
Commissioner recommended suspension of 6 months. IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline in a resolution approved said recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether Batuegas et al are guilty of falsehood and hence must be
suspended.
HELD: YES. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission that
he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. As officer of the
court, his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and facts of the
case to aid it in arriving at the correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are
entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading
before them. His lawyers solemn duty is to defend his client, his conduct must
never be at the expense of truth. In the case at bar, Batuegas, et al feel short of the
duties and responsibilities expected of them as members of the bar. Anticipating
that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the Court found that it had no jurisdiction
over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed the truth alleging that the
accused had voluntarily surrendered. To knowingly allege an untrue statement in
the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that the Court strongly condemns.
BATUEGAS, et al violated their oath when they resorted to deception. Hence,
Batuegas, et al should be suspended for 6 months.