In Re: Lanuevo 66 SCRA 254 August 29, 1975

FACTS: This is an administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanueva who

was the Bar Confidant during the 1971 Bar Examination emanating from the
revelation of one Oscar Landicho, a bar examinee of the same bar exam, in
his confidential letter that the result of the bar exam of one of the bar
examinee later identified as Ramon Galang was raised before the result was
released to make him pass the bar. Acting upon said letter, the court called
the 5 bar examiners and the Bar Confident Lanuevo to submit their sworn
statements on the matter. It appears that each of the 5 bar examiners were
approached by Lanuevo with the examination booklet asking them to reevaluate the grades of the bar examiner explaining that it is a practice policy
in bar exams that he will review the grades obtained in all subjects by an
examinee and when he finds a candidate to have extraordinary high grades
in other subjects and low grade in one subject he can bring it to the examiner
for reconsideration to help the candidate pass. In good faith of trust and
confidence to the authority of Lanuevo, the examiners re-evaluated the exam
of the candidate and reconsider the grade they give for each subject matter.
Further investigation also revealed that Ramon Galang was charged with
crime of slight physical injuries in the Mla. MTC but did not revealed the
information in his application to take the bar examination.
ISSUE: WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar examiners to re-evaluate
and re-correct the examination result of a bar candidate.
RULING: The court ruled that it is evident that Lanuevo has deceptively
staged a plot to convince each examiner individually to re-evaluate the
grades of Galang in order to help him pass the bar without prior authorization
of the Court. His duty as a Bar Confident is limited only as a custodian of the
examination notebooks after they are corrected by the examiners where he is
tasked to tally the general average of the bar candidate. All requests for reevaluation of grades from the bar exam shall be made by the candidate
themselves. With the facts fully established that Lanuevo initiated the reevaluation of the exam answers of Galang without the authority of the Court,
he has breached the trust and confidence given to him by the court and was
disbarred with his name stricken out from the rolls of attorneys. Galang was
likewise disbarred for fraudulently concealing the criminal charges against
him in his application for the bar exam while under oath constituting perjury.
The court believed that the 5 bar examiners acted in good faith and thereby
absolved from the case but reminded to perform their duties with due care.
Diao v Martinez 7 SCRA 745 3.29.63
FACTS: 2 years after passing the Bar exam, a complaint was filed against
Diao on false representation of his application to the Bar examination that he
has the requisite academic qualification. The Solicitor General made an
investigation and recommended to strike the name of Diao off the rolls of
attorney because contrary to the allegations in his petition for examination in

this Court, he had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required
pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education.
I: WON Diao may continue to practice the law profession.
RULING: The court held that his admission to the bar was under the
pretense that he had acquired a pre-legal education, an academic
requirement before one could take the bar exam. Such admission having
been obtained under false pretenses is thereby revoked. The fact that he
hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is
not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law, taking the prescribed
courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential. His name
thus was stricken out from the Rolls of Attorneys.
Fernandez vs. Bello
Atty. Manuel Fernandez won a civil case for Florentino Perreyras however,
Florentino died without paying Fernandez. Fernandez then assisted the
eldest child of Perreyras in a guardianship proceeding so that the eldest may
properly dispose of their property in order to pay their fathers indebtedness.
Eventually, Florentinos nipa land was sold for P1,000.00. Thereafter,
P200.00 was paid to Atty. Fernandez for his legal services both for Florentino
and his heirs. Judge Bello found out about said payment and so directed
Fernandez to explain (because under the guardianship, proceeds of any
sale must first be accounted for and no payment to creditors shall be made
without prior authorization from the court).
In the course of the proceeding however, Judge Bello stated that Fernandez
does not deserve the P200.00 attorneys fees because Fernandez is a
below average standard of a lawyer. Fernandez then responded with strong
language (which were not specified).
ISSUE: Whether or not the strong language used by Fernandez against the
judge is proper.
HELD: The Supreme Court seem to say yes. The Supreme Court stated that
the strong language used by Fernandez must have been impelled by the
same language used by Bello in characterizing the act of Fernandez as
anomalous and unbecoming and in charging him of obtaining his fee
through maneuvers of documents from the guardian-petitioner. If anyone is
to blame for the language used by Fernandez, it is Bello himself who has
made insulting remarks in his orders, which must have provoked Fernandez..
If a judge desires not to be insulted he should start using temperate language
himself; he who sows the wind will reap a storm.
On the issue of attorneys fees, the opinion of a judge as to the capacity of a
lawyer is not the basis of the right to a lawyers fee. It is the contract between
the lawyer and client and the nature of the services rendered.

Beltran vs. Abad

FACTS: Court held respondent Elmo S. Abad a successful bar examinee but
has not been admitted to the Philippine Bar in contempt of Court for
unauthorized practice of law and he was fined P500.00 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case he failed to pay the fine. (121 SCRA 217). He paid the
fine. Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., the complainant, filed a MOTION TO
CIRCULARIZE TO ALL METRO MANILA COURTS THE FACT THAT ELMO
S. ABAD IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW. The Report has found
as a fact, over the denials of the respondent under oath, that he signed
Exhibits B, C, and D, and that he made appearances in Metro Manila courts.
This aspect opens the respondent to a charge for perjury. The Report also
reveals that Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe collaborated with the respondent as
counsels for Antonio S. Maravilla one of the accused in Criminal Case Nos.
26084, 26085 and 26086 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. (Exhibit
D.) Atty. Jacobe should be called to account for his association with the
respondent.
Respondent, when asked about the aforesaid motions, Exhibits "B" and "D",
and the signatures therein, denied that he filed the same and that the
signatures therein are his. He also denied that he appeared in the hearing in
the afternoon of December 8, 1983 in the said trial court. According to him,
he was in Batangas at the time. He also testified that the only explanation he
could give regarding the signatures in the aforesaid exhibits is that the same
could have been effected by Atty. Beltran to show the Supreme Court that he
(respondent) was still illegally practicing law. As to the motion for examination
and analysis of respondent's signature, the Investigator, to afford respondent
full opportunity to prove his defense, sought the assistance of the National
Bureau of Investigation to compare respondent's signature in the aforesaid
exhibits with the signatures appearing in the pleadings that he filed in the
Supreme Court, which latter signature he admits as genuine and as his own.
The aforesaid documentary and testimonial evidence, as well as the above
report of the NBI, have clearly proved that respondent Abad is still practicing
law despite the decision of this Court of March 28, 1983.
ISSUES: Whether or not Abad can engage in practice of law.
Whether or not Atty. Jacobe liable in his collaboration with the respondent.

HELD: No. Only those licensed by the Supreme Court may practice law in
this country. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but
is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege
presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment
and even public trust, since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar
candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar
examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even
from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking
admission had practiced law without license. Respondent Abad should know
that the circumstances which he has narrated do not constitute his admission
to the Philippine Bar and the right to practice law thereafter. He should know
that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed,
namely: his lawyer's oath to be administered by this Court and his signature
in the Roll of Attorneys. (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.) The
regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. Under Section 3 (e)
of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in the unauthorized
practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court. Mr. Elmo S. Abad is
hereby fined Five Hundred (P500.00) pesos payable to this Court within ten
(10) days from notice failing which he shall serve twenty-five (25) days
imprisonment.
Yes. He violated Canon 9 Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be
performed by a member of the Bar. in good standing. A lawyer shall not
assist anyone who is not a member of the Bar to practice law in this country.
Thus, he must not take as partner or associate in his law firm a person who
is not a lawyer, a lawyer who has been disbarred and a lawyer who has been
suspended from practice of law. The lawyer who assists in an unauthorized
practice of law whether directly or indirectly is subject to disciplinary
action. Finally, Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe is required to explain within ten (10)
days from notice why he should not be disciplined for collaborating and
associating in the practice of the law with the respondent who is not a
member of the bar.