PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA &

VICTORIANO TENAZAS petitioners,

vs.
BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, &
QUINTIN MUNING respondents.
Cipriano Cid & Associates for petitioners.
Ceferino Magat and Manuel C. Gonzales for respondent Quintin Muning.
Facts
The herein petitioner Enrique Entila and Victoriano Tenazas ere complainant
in the case no. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co.,
et al. which the Court of Industrial Relation rendered a decision in favor of the
complainant,ordering reinstatement and backwages. Cipriano Cid and Associates
and Atty. Atanacio Pacis filed a notice of attorneys lien equivalent to 30% of the
total backwages. Complainants Entila and Tenazas filed a manifestation indicating
their non-objection to an award of attorneys fees for 25% of their bacwages, and on
the same day, Quentin Muning filed a Petition for the Award of Services Rendered
equivalent to 20% of the backwages. Muning petition was opposed by the herein
petitioner on the ground that the former is not a lawyer.
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.
Issue:
Whether or not Quentin Muning, a non lawyer, can recover attorneys fees
Held:
Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle enunciated in Amalgamated
Laborers' Association, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-23467, 27
March 1968, that an agreement providing for the division of attorney's fees,
whereby a non-lawyer union president is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers,
is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot be justified.
An award by a court of attorney's fees is no less immoral in the absence of a
contract, as in the present case.
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated;
that acting as an attorney without authority constitutes contempt of court, which is
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, and the law will not assist a person to
reap the fruits or benefit of an unlawful act or an act done in violation of law; and
that if fees 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.
The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a non-lawyer may not be
awarded attorney's fees should suffice to refute the possible argument that
appearances by non-lawyers before the Court of Industrial Relations should be
excepted on the ground that said court is a court of special jurisdiction; such special
jurisdiction does not outweigh the aforesaid reasons and cannot justify an
exception.

G.R. No. L-40145

July 29, 1992

SEVERO SALES, ESPERANZA SALES BERMUDEZ, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and LEONILO GONZALES, respondents.
Facts:
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners seek to annul and set aside
the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the then Court of First Instance
of Tarlac, Branch III which upheld the validity of the deed of sale of a parcel of land
executed by petitioner Severo Sales in favor of respondent Leonilo Gonzales.
Severino Sales owned a parcel of land in Bugalon, Pangasinan. On July 4,
1955, Sales mortgaged the land together with two other parcel of land to Faustina P.
Agpoon and Jose Agpoon, to secure the payment of loan in the amount of P2,240.00
payable on or about July 4, 1956. More than a year later, Sales with the consent of
his wife, Margarita Ferrer, donated 900 sq. meters of the said land in favor of their
daughter , petitioner Espaeranza Sales Bermudez.
Faustina Agpoon filed a case againt Sales and as a consequence the
mortgages property of the latter was set for forclosure. To prevent such foreclosure,
Sales requested his friend, Ernesto Gonzales, to pay hiss indebtedness of P2700 to
the Agpoon spouses, hence the deed of sale between Sales and Gonzales was
registered to Pangasinan.
In October 1968, Sales received a photostat copy of the deed of sale
appearing to have been signed by him and his wife on January 29, 1959 before exofficio Notary Public Arturo Malazo in San Manuel, Tarlac.
On November 7, 1968, Leonilo Gonzales filed an action for illegal detainer
against Sales before the Municipal Court of Bugallon. Before the case could be tried,
Sales and his daughter, Esperanza Sales Bermudez filed in the Court of First
Instance of Tarlac, Branch III a complaint for annulment of the deed of sale between
Sales and Gonzales on the ground of fraud. Consequently, the municipal court
suspended the illegal detainer proceedings before it pending the outcome of the
annulment case. The Munipal court of Bugallon rendered a decision in favor of
defendant Sales. Hence the present petition
Issue:
Whether or not the validity of deed of sale will not be affected by notarization of
document in Tarlac though land located in Pangasinan?
Held:
No, the validity of the deed of sale will not be affected.
The court held that, The extrinsic validity of the deed of sale is not affected
by the fact that while the property subject thereof is located in Bugallon,
Pangasinan where the vendors also resided, the document was executed in San
Miguel, Tarlac. What is important under the Notarial Law is that the notary public
concerned has authority to acknowledge the document executed within his
territorial jurisdiction. A notarial acknowledgment attaches full faith and credit to
the document concerned. It also vests upon the document the presumption of
regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof. Such kind
of proof has not been presented by the petitioners.

G.R. No. 104599

March 11, 1994

JON DE YSASI III, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION), CEBU CITY, and JON
DE YSASI, respondents.
F.B. Santiago, Nalus & Associates for petitioner.
Ismael A. Serfino for private respondent.
Facts:
Petitioner Jon de Ysasi III was employed by his father, herein private
respondent, as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao in Hinigaran, Negros
Occidental. As farm administrator, petitioner was responsible for the supervision of
daily activities and operation of sugarcane farm.
Following his marriage on June 6, 1982, petition moved to Bacolod City with
his wife and commuted work daily. He suffered various ailments and was
hospitalized on two separate occasions. During the entire period that the petitioner
was ill, private respondent took care of his medical expenses and continuously
giving his salary. However, without due notice, private respondent ceased to pay the
petitioners salary. Petitioner made an oral and written demands for an explanation
for the sudden withholding of his salary from Atty. Apolinarion Sumbingco, private
respondents auditor and legal adviser.
Petitioner then filed to the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer
for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full backwages,
thirteenth month pay for 1983, consequential, moral and exemplary damages, as
well as attorney's fees. However the complaint was dismissed. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration but the same was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this
present petition.
Issue:
Whether or not both counsel petitioner and private respondent violated the Rule
1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Yes.
Under the Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall
encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair
settlement. The court found that both counsel herein fell short of what was
expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. The records
do not show that they took pains to initiate steps geared toward effecting a
rapprochement between their clients. On the contrary, their acerbic and protracted
exchanges could not but have exacerbated the situation even as they may have
found favor in the equally hostile eyes of their respective clients.

BAR MATTER NO. 810. JANUARY 27,1998

IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS, JR.
Facts:
Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr., recently passed 1996 Bar Examinations. His
oath-taking was held in abeyance in view of the courts resolution which permitted
him to take the Bar examinations but subject to condition, that he should pass the
same but shall not allowed to take the lawyers oath pending approval of the Court
due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide.
In this petition, petitioner prays that he be allowed to take his lawyers oath at
the Courts most convenient time attaching the Order of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 0 of Antique discharging him from probation and certifications attesting to
his righteous, peaceful and law abiding character issued by the Mayor of the
Municipality of Hamtic, Antique, officer-in-charge of Hamtic Police Station,
Sangguniang Kabataan of Pob. III Hamtic, etc.
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner be allowed to take the lawyers oath?
Held:
Yes
The court allow petitioner Cuevas to take his lawyers oath. The latter
discharge from probation without any infraction of the attendant conditions therefor
and the various certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented
character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency
in moral character and atone for the unfortunate death of Raul I. Camaligan. The
court is prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the
general tendency of the youth to be rash, temerarious, and uncalculating. It is
stressed out by the Court that lawyers oath is not a mere formality recited in the
glare of flashing cameras. Petitioner is exhorted to conduct himself beyond reproach
at all times and to live strictly according to his oath and Code of professional
Responsibility.

Judge Laquindanum vs Quintana

Facts:
Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum filed an administrative case
against Atty. Nestor Quintana requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed
against the latter for performing notarial function in Midsayap, Cotabato which is
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial
commission and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence. Judge
Laquindanum also presented a Deed of Donation on which one of the signatories
was already dead. She adds that Atty. Quintana continued to notarize documents in
the years 2007-2007 despite the fact that his commission for notary public for and
in the Province of Maguindanao and Cotabato City had already expired on
December 31, 2005 and he had not renewed the same.
However, despite such directive, respondent continuously performed notarial
function in Midsayap, Cotabato and contended that he is not performing notarial
function beyond his territorial jurisdiction because Midsayap Cotabato is part of
Province of Cotabato. Furthermore, he claimed that as a lawyer of good moral
standing, he could practice his legal profession throughout the Philippines. He also
denied that he authorized his wife to notarize documents. According to him, he
slapped his wife and told her to stop doing it as it would ruin his profession.
Issues:
Whether or not Atty Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
and the Code of Professional responsibility
Held:
Yes.
The act of notarizing documents outside ones area of commission is not to be
taken lightly. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. Notarizing
documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey
the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is
deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to
indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes. Notarizing
documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of
Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the lawyers oath which unconditionally requires
lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally
accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot
relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of
violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers
not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
All told, Atty. Quintana fell miserably short of his obligation under Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all
times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Atty. Quintana contention that he relies on his notarial commission as the
sole source of income for his family will not serve to lessen the penalty that should
be imposed on him. On the contrary, we feel that he should be reminded that a
notarial commission should not be treated as a money-making venture. It is a
privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with
public interest.

FIL-GARCIA, INC., A.C. NO. 7129,represented by its president

Filomeno Garcia, Complainant
Vs.
ATTY. FERNANDO CRESENTE C HERNANDEZ,respondent
Facts:
Complainant entered into an agreement with Magdalena T. Villasi for the
completion of the construction of a condominium building owned by the latter
located in Quezon City. But controversy arises regarding the billing and payments.
Complainant, with Atty.Bernardo Ligsay as a counsel, then filed an action for
recovery of sum of money with damages against Villasi before the Regional Trial
Court(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of the
complainant. Villasi, feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal to Court of Appeals, which
was granted. The Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration but this time by
the legal service of the hereby respondent Atty. Hernandez.
Ca denied the motion for reconsideration. Respondent received a copy of the
resolution on May 8, 2001, thus he had until May 23, 2001to file an appeal in
accordance with Rule 45 in relation to Rule56 of the Rules of Court. However,
instead of filing an appeal within the reglementary period, respondent filed three(3)
successive motions for extension of time with the court.
Afterwards, Hernandez learned that all three Motions for Extensions were
denied by the court, and to his dismay, received a copy of the resolution denying
the appeal all together. However, instead of informing his client, Fil-Garcia, he
decides to forward the resolution of denial of the appeal some 7 months later, which
greatly angered his client, pushing him to file for his disbarment.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Hernandez violates Cannon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Yes.
Under the Cannon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence. The court held after the
records and evidence, respondent conduct relative to the belated filing of
complainants petition for review on certiorari falls short of his obligation under
Cannon 18.
In every case that a lawyer accepts deserves his full competence, skill and
attention regardless of the importance and whether he accepts it for free or for fee.
He should keep in mind that whatever happens to the case it will always be binding
on his client. In the case that he filed a motion for extension, he should exert effort
or full diligence to inform himself as soon as possible of the Courts action on his
motion, by timely inquiry to the Clerk of Court. Thus he violated rule 18.03 which
states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Furthermore, respondent violates Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, when it took him 7 months from the time he received a copy of the
Courts resolution denying petition to inform complainant of the same. A lawyer

under Rules 18.04 shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within reasonable time to the clients request for information.