Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

C ANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE and the highly irregular manner in which he passed the

lar manner in which he passed the Bar, WE have

Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for
admission to the bar.
CASE NO. 2 / DIAO V. MARTINEZ / AC NO. 244, MARCH 29, 1963
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar
of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, FACTS: Telesforo Diao passed the bar in 1953. Two years later, Severino
education, or other relevant attribute. Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for
such Bar examination that he had the requisite academic qualifications.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on Upon investigation, the Solicitor General found that contrary to the
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, allegations in Diao’s petition for examination, he had not completed his high
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. school training and he never attended Quisumbing College, nor obtained his
A.A. diploma therefrom, before taking up law subjects. Such was the
required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private
Education. In his answer, Diao claims that although he had left high school in
CASE NO. 1 / IN RE: RAMON E. GALANG / AC NO. 1163, AUGUST 29, his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army and passed the
1975 General Classification Test given therein. The said test is alleged to be
equivalent to a high school diploma. Thus, the educational authorities
FACTS: Ramon Galang is a perennial bar candidate who flunked in considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high
the 1969, 1967, 1966, 1964, 1963, and 1962 bar examinations with a grade school. Further, Diao asserts that he had obtained his A.A. title from Arellano
of 67.55%, 68.65%, 72.75%, 68.2%, 56.45% and 57.3%, respectively. He University in April, 1949. He says he was erroneously certified, due to
passed in the 1971 bar examinations with a grade of 74.15% by virtue of a confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records.
Court of resolution making 74% as the passing mark for the 1971 bar
examinations. Oscar Landicho, who flunked the 1971, 1968, and 1967 bar ISSUE: WON Diao’s false representation that he had the required academic
examinations, invited the attention of the Court to the fact that the grade of qualifications to take the bar examinations a ground for revocation of his
Galang was raised in five subjects before the bar results were released. license to practice law.
Upon investigation, five examiners admitted having re-evaluated Galang's
notebook upon the representation to them by Bar Confidant Victorio Lanuevo HELD: YES. The applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath,
that they had the authority to do the same and that the examinee concerned "That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily
failed only their particular subject and/or was on the borderline of passing. completed the required pre-legal education as prescribed by the Department
Upon investigation by the NBI, it was found that Galang was a student in the of Private Education." Plainly, therefore, Telesforo Diao was not qualified to
School of Law of Manuel L. Quezon University, and that he was charged in take the bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he was
1959 with the crime of slight physical injuries committed against another allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar.
student of the same university. Respondent Galang, in all his application to Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is
take the bar examinations, did not make mention of this fact which he is hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial.
required under the rules to do. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an
attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular
ISSUE: WON respondent Galang’s concealment of his pending criminal case manner is equally essential.
for physical injuries is a ground for revocation of his license to practice law.
The Clerk is ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of
HELD: YES. Every applicant for admission as a member of the Bar is duty Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer's
bound to lay before the Court all his involvement in any criminal case, diploma within thirty days.
pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to fully ascertain or
determine applicant's moral character. Furthermore, as to what crime This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or
involves moral turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine. Hence, the "confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had his application disclosed
necessity of laying before or informing the Court of one's personal record — his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have
whether he was criminally indicted, acquitted, convicted or the case disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law
dismissed or is still pending — becomes more compelling. The forms for studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his
application to take the Bar examinations provided by the Supreme Court Associate in Arts degree.
beginning the year 1965 require the disclosure not only of criminal cases
involving moral turpitude filed or pending against the applicant but also of all
other criminal cases of which he has been accused. The concealment of an
attorney in his application to take the Bar examinations of the fact that he
had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for
revocation of his license to practice law.

Under the circumstances in which respondent Ramon E. Galang,

alias Roman E. Galang, was allowed to take the Bar examinations
CASE NO. 3 / IN RE: CHARGES OF LILIAN F. VILLASANTA / GR present petition, petitioner prays that he be allowed to take his
AC-UNAV, APRIL 30, 1957 lawyers oath at the Court’s most convenient time.

FACTS: In 1939, respondent Hilarion Peralta married Rizalina ISSUE: WON petitioner Cuevas, Jr. should be allowed to take the
Valdez. In 1951, he courted the complainant Lilian Villasanta who fell lawyers’ oath despite his participation in the initiation rites which
in love with him. To have carnal knowledge of her, the respondent resulted in the death of a neophyte.
then procured a fake marriage contract, which was then a blank
document, and made the complainant sign it. Since then the HELD: YES. Petitioner’s discharge from probation and the various
complainant and the respondent lived together as husband and wife. certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented
Sometime later, the complainant insisted on a religious ratification of character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of
their marriage so the said ceremony was performed in Aparri by the his deficiency in moral character and atone for the unfortunate death
parish priest of said municipality. The priest no longer required the of the victim. The Court is prepared to give him the benefit of the
production of a marriage license because of the civil marriage doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of the youth to
contract shown to him. After a while, complainant then discovered be rash, temerarious and uncalculating. Petitioner, however, is
that the respondent was previously married to someone else. Thus, exhorted to conduct himself beyond reproach at all times and to live
she filed the criminal action for a violation of Article 350 of the strictly according to his oath and the Code of Professional
Revised Penal Code in the CFI of Cagayan of which the respondent Responsibility. Further, the Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Cuevas,
was found guilty. Respondent also filed the present complaint for Jr., will continue with the assistance he has been giving to his
immorality which seeks to disqualify the respondent, a 1954 community. As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to render
successful bar candidate, from being admitted to the bar. legal and other services to the more unfortunate members of society.

ISSUE: WON respondent Hilarion Peralta engaged in immoral ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolved to allow petitioner
conduct which is a ground for disqualification from being admitted to arthur m. Cuevas, jr., to take the lawyers oath and to sign the
the bar. roll of attorneys on a date to be set by the Court, subject to
the payment of appropriate fees.
HELD: YES. Respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His conviction in Attaching thereto the Order of the RTC of Antique discharging him
the criminal case involves moral turpitude. The act of respondent in from his probation, and certifications attesting to his righteous,
contracting the second marriage (even his act in making love to peaceful and law abiding character issued by: (a) the Mayor of the
another woman while his first wife is still alive and their marriage still Municipality of Hamtic, Antique; (b) the Officer-in-Charge of Hamtic
valid and existing) is contrary to honesty, justice, decency, and Police Station; (c) the Sangguniang Kabataan of Pob. III, Hamtic,
morality. Thus lacking the good moral character required by the through its chairman and officers; (d) a member of the IBP Iloilo
Rules of Court, the respondent is disqualified from being admitted to Chapter; (e) the Parish Priest and Vicar General of St. Joseph
the bar. Cathedral, San Jose, Antique, and (f) the President of the Parish
Pastoral Council, Parish of Sta. Monica, Hamtic, Antique.
Thus lacking the good moral character required by the Rules
of Court, the respondent is hereby declared DISQUALIFIED
from being admitted to the bar.

CASE NO. 4 / IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE LAWYERS' OATH BY FACTS: Early in 1996, complainant Marjorie Samaniego met
ARTHUR M. CUEVAS / BM NO. 810, JANUARY 27, 1998 respondent Atty. Andrew Ferrer and the latter agreed to handle her
cases. Soon, Atty. Ferrer allegedly courted the complainant and the
FACTS: Petitioner Arthur Cuevas, Jr., recently passed the 1996 Bar two lived together as "husband and wife". In 1997, their daughter was
Examinations. His oath-taking was held in abeyance in view of a born, but their affair, however, ended in 2000. Since then, Atty. Ferrer
Court resolution which permitted him to take the Bar Examinations has failed to give support to their daughter. Thus, complainant filed
subject to the condition that should he pass the same, he shall not be this petition before the IBP against respondent Atty. for immorality,
allowed to take the lawyers’ oath pending approval of the Court due abandonment and willful refusal to give support to their daughter.
to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Complainant alleged that she knew that Atty. Ferrer was in a
Homicide. The conviction stemmed from petitioners participation in relationship but did not think he was already married. On the other
the initiation rites of the Lex Talionis Fraternitas, a fraternity in the hand, Atty. Ferrer manifested his willingness to support their
San Beda College of Law, sometime in September 1991, where Raul daughter. However, he prayed that the IBP consider Ms.
Camaligan, a neophyte. Thereafter, petitioner applied for and was Samaniego's complicity as she was acquainted with his wife and
granted probation. On May 16, 1995, he was discharged from children. He further reasoned that he found it unconscionable to
probation and his case was considered closed and terminated. In this abandon his wife and 10 children to cohabit with Ms. Samaniego.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Ferrer lacked the degree of morality required of a character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral
member of the bar. standards of the community. A member of the bar and an officer of
the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships
HELD: YES. As provided by the Code of Professional Responsibility or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid
under Canon, “ A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the those moral standards. The fact that respondent’s philandering ways
integrated bar.” Rule 7.03 also provides that, “A lawyer shall not are far removed from the exercise of his profession would not save
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.” Atty. profession, would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of
Ferrer admitted his extra-marital affair which ended in 2000. The the privileges with which his license and the law invest him. The
Court considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court are
conduct subject to disciplinary action. On another point, even though not limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct of a
the complainant was not entirely blameless, that one complicit in the lawyer in his professional or private capacity. Undoubtedly,
affair complained of immorality against her co-principal does not respondent’s act of leaving his wife and 12 children to cohabit and
make this case less serious since it is immaterial whether Ms. have children with another woman constitutes grossly immoral
Samaniego is in pari delicto. The Court's investigation is not about conduct.
Ms. Samaniego's acts but Atty. Ferrer's conduct as one of its officers
and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED.

Respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer guilty of GROSS Immoral conduct has been described as that conduct which is so
IMMORALITY and, as recommended by the integrated bar of willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion
the philippines and the office of the bar confidant, SUSPEND of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis
him from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but
notice hereof, with WARNING that the same or similar act in grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually
the future will be dealt with more severely. constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
We agree with the IBP on Atty. Ferrer's failure to give support to his circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
daughter with Ms. Samaniego. We also agree with the Office of the
Bar Confidant that Atty. Ferrer's affair with Ms. Samaniego showed CASE NO. 7 / ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY V. DELA CRUZ / AC NO
his lack of good moral character as a member of the bar. We 6010, AUGUST 28, 2006
dismiss, however, Ms. Samaniego's charge of abandonment since
Atty. Ferrer did not abandon them. He returned to his family. FACTS: Respondent Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz is a principal of Saint
Louis University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS). Faculty
CASE NO. 6 / ARNOBIT V. ARNOBIT / AC NO. 1481, OCTOBER 17, members and Staff of the aforementioned university filed a case for
2008 disbarment against respondent on grounds of gross misconduct,
grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice. On the charge of grossly
FACTS: Complainant Rebecca Arnobit and respondent Atty. immoral conduct, it was alleged that in 1982, respondent married
Ponciano Arnobit were married in 1942, and 12 children were born Teresita Rivera, but they separated in less than a year into the
out of this union. Rebecca allegedly supported respondent through marriage without seeking judicial recourse. Seven years after,
law school, and she continuously supported him until he passed the respondent married Mary Jane Pascua, who was also a faculty
bar examinations. In 1968, however, respondent left the conjugal member of SLU-LHS. When the second marriage was entered into,
home and started cohabiting with Benita Navarro, who later bore him however, respondent’s prior marriage with Teresita Rivera was still
four more children. Benita was then already married to Melecio subsisting. Then, in 1994, said second marriage was subsequently
Navarro, a fact which was allegedly known to the respondent. annulled for being bigamous. Then, on the charge of malpractice, it
Respondent’s infidelity, according to Rebecca, impelled her to file a was alleged that respondent notarized certain legal documents on
complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case for different dates from 1988 to 1997, despite expiration of respondent’s
adultery against Benita and respondent later followed. In this present notarial commission in 1987.
case, Rebeca prays that the Court exercise its disciplinary power
over her husband on the grounds of Immorality and Abandonment. ISSUE: WON respondent’s act constitutes gross immoral conduct
which warrant disbarment
ISSUE: WON respondent Atty. Arnobit is guilty of immorality and
abandonment which is a ground for disbarment. HELD: NO. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly
immoral conduct as a ground for disbarment. The Court has laid
HELD: YES. As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be down with a common definition of what constitutes immoral conduct,
of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral vis--vis, grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is that conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of counsel.
the community and what is grossly immoral, that is, it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as
to be reprehensible to a high degree. Undoubtedly, respondent CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR
exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE
as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of OF LAW.
marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
His act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
still in place, is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a
However, measured against the definition, the Court is not prepared
member of the bar in good standing.
to consider respondent’s act as grossly immoral.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for
Respondent Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz is SUSPENDED from the
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
practice of law for a period of two years, and another two
years for notarizing documents despite the expiration of his (a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or
commission or a total of four years of suspension. associate that, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over a
reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the
The uncontested assertions of the respondent belies any intention to
flaunt the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession, to agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business
a. After his first failed marriage and prior to his second marriage or of a deceased lawyer; or
for a period of almost seven (7) years, he has not been romantically
involved with any woman; (c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a
b. His second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and total retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a
love for his wife, whom he described to be very intelligent person; profit sharing agreement.
c. He never absconded from his obligations to support his wife and
d. He never disclaimed paternity over the child and husbandry with
relation to his wife; CASE NO. 8 / ULEP V. LEGAL CLINIC, INC. / BM NO. 553, JUNE
e. After the annulment of his second marriage, they have parted 17, 1993
ways when the mother and child went to Australia;
f. Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate. FACTS: Petitioner Mauricio Ulep seeks to prohibit respondent The
Legal Clinic from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of
Other charges constituting respondents misconduct such as the
the law profession other than those allowed by law. Petitioner alleges
pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly committed by him
against a high school student filed before the Prosecutors Office of that the advertisements of the respondent are champterous,
Baguio City; the pending administrative case filed by the Teachers, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the
Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating Board created by confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the
SLU; and the pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed
the NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal and offended by the said advertisements. In its answer, respondent
deduction of salary by respondent, need not be discussed, as they
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering
are still pending before the proper forums. At such stages, the
presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern
respondent. computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS advertising these services should be allowed supposedly.
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. ISSUE: WON the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic,
Inc., as advertised by it, can be performed by paralegals in the
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. HELD: NO. In our jurisdiction, the services being offered by private
respondent which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of the
right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and Rules of Court, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited
to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. granted by respondent Judge. Subsequently, petitioner filed a
The permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and Petition for Relief from Judgment alleging his discovery that Irineo
limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper Vida Jr., who prepared his Answer to the Complaint is not a member
standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to of the Philippine Bar and that consequently, his rights had not been
protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from the adequately protected and his properties are in danger of being
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and confiscated and/or levied upon without due process of law.
not subject to the disciplinary control of the court.
ISSUE: WON the fact that petitioner was represented at the initial
The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein stage of the litigation by a person who is not a member of the Bar
respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the amounted to a denial of petitioner's day in court.
publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form,
and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, HELD: NO. It should be noted that in the subsequent stages of the
operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of proceedings, after the rendition of the judgment by default, petitioner
Professional Ethics as indicated herein. was duly represented by bona fide members of the Bar in seeking a
reversal of the judgment for being contrary to law and jurisprudence
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It and the existence of valid, legal and justifiable defenses. In other
includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal words, petitioner's rights had been amply protected in the
instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although proceedings before the trial and appellate courts as he was
such matter may or may not be pending in a court. The practice of subsequently assisted by counsel. Moreover, petitioner himself was
law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. at fault as the order of treatment as in default was predicated, not
Thus, the activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice only on the alleged counsel's failure to attend the pretrial conference
of law." That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out on April 6, 1972, but likewise on his own failure to attend the same,
its services is not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged without justifiable reason. To allow this petition due course is to
in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders countenance further delay in a proceeding which has already taken
which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions well over six years to resolve,
against the advertisements which it has caused to be published
Further, facts sufficiently establish that the main purpose of WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Petition for certiorari with
respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for various legal Preliminary Injunction is hereby dismissed. The law firm "Vida,
problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple Enriquez, Mercado & Associates" is hereby ordered to
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. explain, within 10 days from notice this Resolution, why Irineo
Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of W. Vida Jr. was permitted to sign the Answer when he is not a
paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in member of the Bar.
the practice of law.


1977 NOVEMBER 29, 1971

FACTS: PetitionerJose Guballa is an operator of a public utility FACTS: Petitioners Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas were
vehicle which was involved, on October 1, 1971, in an accident complainants in the case of PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela
resulting to injuries sustained by private respondent Domingo Sugar Co., et al. After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered
Forteza Jr. A complaint for damages was filed by Forteza against a decision ordering the reinstatement with backwages of the
petitioner with the CFI of Bulacan. An Answer thereto was filed on complainants. Thereafter, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of
behalf of petitioner by Irineo Vida Jr., of the law firm of Vida Enriquez, record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien
Mercado & Associates. Because petitioner and counsel failed to equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. Atty. Atanacio Pacis also
appear at the pretrial conference on April 6, 1972, despite due notice, filed a similar notice for a reasonable amount. Complainants filed a
petitioner was treated as in default and private respondent was manifestation indicating their non-objection to an award of attorney's
allowed to present his evidence ex parte. Thereafter, a decision was fees for 25% of their backwages. On the same day, Quentin Muning
rendered by the trial court in favor of private respondent Forteza Jr. filed a "Petition for the Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the CFI. 20% of the backwages. Muning’s petition was opposed by Cipriano
Then, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioner, through a Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer. Subsequently,
different counsel, Atty. Isabelo Santos II. However the same was CIR awarded 25% of the backwages as compensation for
denied and the decision became final. A Motion for Execution was professional services rendered in the case, with the award of 10% to
later filed by private respondent with the lower Court which was Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates, 10% to Quintin Muning, and 5% to
Atty. Atanacio Pacis. The award of 10% to Quintin Muning, who is not HELD: NO. Article 222 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 3
a lawyer, is sought to be voided in the present petition. of PD 1691, states that non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or
any labor arbiter only (1) if they represent themselves, or (2) if they
ISSUE: WON a non-lawyer may recover attorney's fees for legal represent their organization or the members thereof. While it may be
services rendered. true that Pulia was the authorized representative of private
respondents, he was a non-lawyer who did not fall in either of the
HELD: NO. It has been previously held by the Court that an
foregoing categories. Hence, by clear mandate of the law, he is not
agreement providing for the division of attorney's fees, whereby a
entitled to attorney's fees. Furthermore, the statutory rule that an
non-lawyer union president is allowed to share in said fees with
attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client a
lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral
reasonable compensation for his services necessarily imports the
and cannot be justified. An award by a court of attorney's fees is no
existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition for the
less immoral in the absence of a contract, as in the present case.
recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship cannot exist unless
The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear
the client's representative is a lawyer.
or defend in court on behalf of a party-litigant does not by itself entitle
the representative to compensation for such representation. The WHEREFORE, the questioned judgment of respondent
award for attorney’s fees provided by law imports the existence of an National Labor Relations Commission is hereby MODIFIED by
attorney-client relationship. No one is entitled to recover deleting the awards for reimbursement of car wash expenses
compensation for services as an attorney at law unless he has been and attorney's fees and directing said public respondent to
duly admitted to practice and is an attorney in good standing at the order and effect the computation and payment by petitioners
time. of the refund for private respondent Domingo Maldigan's
deposits, plus legal interest thereon from the date of finality of
WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby set aside
this resolution up to the date of actual payment thereof.
insofar as they awarded 10% of the backwages as attorney's
fees for respondent Quintin Muning. Said orders are affirmed
in all other respects. Costs against respondent Muning.
CASE NO. 11 / FIVE J TAXI V. NLRC / GR NO. 111474, AUGUST 22, 6290, JULY 14, 2004
FACTS:Complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former employee of
FACTS: Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto respondent Atty. Ana Luz Cristal-Tenorio, charged the latter with
Sabsalon were hired by the petitioner Five J Taxi as taxi drivers. As deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other gross
such, they worked for 4 days weekly on a 24-hour shifting schedule. misconduct in office. The complainant alleged that the respondent,
Aside from the daily "boundary" of P700.00 for air-conditioned taxi or among others, cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her
P450.00 for non-air-conditioned taxi, they were also required to pay husband, who is not a member of the Philippine Bar. Complainant
P20.00 for car washing, and to further make a P15.00 deposit to bolstered her claim by submitting: (1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio
answer for any deficiency in their "boundary," for every actual Law Office where the name of Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a
working day. Sometime in 1989, Maldigan requested petitioners for senior partner; and (2) a Sagip Communication Radio Group
the reimbursement of his daily cash deposits for 2 years, but herein identification card signed by the respondent as Chairperson where
petitioners told him that not a single centavo was left of his deposits her husband is identified as Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr. She added
as such was spent on repairs. When Maldigan insisted on the that respondent’s husband even appeared in court hearings. Upon
reimbursement, petitioners terminated his services. Sabsalon, on his cross-examination, when confronted with the letterhead of Cristal-
part, claimed that his termination from employment was effected Tenorio Law Office bearing her signature, respondent admitted that
when he refused to pay for the washing of his taxi seat covers. Thus, Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo
private respondents filed a complaint with the Manila Arbitration Panghulan, who is also not a lawyer, are named as senior partners
Office of NLRC, which later dismissed said complaint. Upon appeal, because they have investments in her law office.
NLRC affirmed the ruling of the labor arbiter, but modified the
decision by ordering petitioners to pay private respondents their ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of the charge of cooperating in the
accumulated deposits and car wash payments, plus interest thereon illegal practice of law by Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr.
at the legal rate from the date of promulgation of judgment to the
date of actual payment, and 10% of the total amount as and for HELD: YES. A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to
attorney's fees. misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of
violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
ISSUE: WON Guillermo Pulia, private respondents' authorized Responsibility. The term practice of law implies customarily or
representative and a non-lawyer, is entitled to attorney’s fees. habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for
compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his
services. In this case, Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he
holds himself out as one. His wife, the respondent herein, abetted signatures in the aforesaid exhibits is that the same could have been
and aided him in the unauthorized practice of the legal profession. effected by Atty. Beltran to show the Supreme Court that he
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the (respondent) was still illegally practicing law. As to the motion for
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. examination and analysis of respondent's signature, the Investigator,
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those to afford respondent full opportunity to prove his defense, sought the
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation to compare
permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited respondent's signature in the aforesaid exhibits with the signatures
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards appearing in the pleadings that he filed in the Supreme Court, which
of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the latter signature he admits as genuine and as his own. The aforesaid
public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or documentary and testimonial evidence, as well as the above report of
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the the NBI, have clearly proved that respondent Abad is still practicing
disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that law despite the decision of this Court of March 28, 1983.
this purpose is attained.
ISSUES: WON Atty. Jacobe is liable in his collaboration with the
WHEREFORE, for culpable violation of Canon 9 and Rule respondent.
9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent
Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio is hereby SUSPENDED from HELD: YES. He violated Canon 9 Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
immediately, with a warning that a repetition of the same or which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar. in good
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. 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
Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to partner or associate in his law firm a person who is not a lawyer, a
permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or lawyer who has been disbarred and a lawyer who has been
to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, suspended from practice of law. The lawyer who assists in an
personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his unauthorized practice of law whether directly or indirectly is subject to
part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the disciplinary action. Finally, Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe is required to
unauthorized practice of law. 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.


11, 1984
CASE NO. 14 / AGUIRRE V. RANA / BM NO. 1036, JUNE 10, 2003
FACTS: Court held respondent Elmo S. Abad, a successful bar
examinee but has not been admitted to the Philippine Bar, in FACTS: Respondent Edwin Rana passed the 2000 Bar
contempt of Court for unauthorized practice of law and he was fined Examinations. On May 21, 2001, one day before he took his oath as
P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case he failed to pay the a member of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre
fine. (121 SCRA 217). He paid the fine. Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., filed a petition charging respondent with unauthorized practice of law
the complainant, filed a MOTION TO CIRCULARIZE TO ALL METRO and grave misconduct. Complainant alleges that respondent, while
MANILA COURTS THE FACT THAT ELMO S. ABAD IS NOT not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel before the Municipal Board of
AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW. The Report has found as a fact, Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon, Masbate wherein he filed
over the denials of the respondent under oath, that he signed with the MBEC a pleading dated May 19, 2001 that objected to the
Exhibits B, C, and D, and that he made appearances in Metro Manila inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing for the Office of Vice-
courts. This aspect opens the respondent to a charge for perjury. Mayor for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan.
The Report also reveals that Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe collaborated with However, respondent claims that he decided to assist and advice
the respondent as counsels for Antonio S. Maravilla one of the Bunan, not as a lawyer, but as a person who knows the law.
accused in Criminal Case Nos. 26084, 26085 and 26086 of the Respondent admits signing the May 19, 2001 pleading, but he
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. (Exhibit D.) Atty. Jacobe should explains that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or represented
be called to account for his association with the respondent. himself as an attorney in the pleading.

Respondent, when asked about the aforesaid motions, Exhibits "B" ISSUE: WON respondent is liable for indirect contempt of court for
and "D", and the signatures therein, denied that he filed the same having engaged in unauthorized practice of law.
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 HELD: YES. The Court held that respondent was engaged in
said trial court. According to him, he was in Batangas at the time. He unauthorized practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings
also testified that the only explanation he could give regarding the before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do
so. The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. In IN VIEW WHEREOF, the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor
Beltran, Jr. v. Abad, a candidate passed the bar examinations but had Q. Quintana, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is
not taken his oath and signed the Roll of Attorneys. He was held in DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for
contempt of court for practicing law even before his admission to the a period of two years. He is also SUSPENDED from the
Bar. Under Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person practice of law for six months effective immediately, with a
who engages in the unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect WARNING that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt
contempt of court. True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar with even more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date
Examinations and took the lawyers oath. However, it is the signing in of his receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to
the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The determine when his suspension shall take effect.
fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial.
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at- After a careful review of the records and evidence, there is no doubt
law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and
becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers the Code of Professional Responsibility when he committed the
oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of following acts: (1) he notarized documents outside the area of his
Attorneys. commission as a notary public; (2) he performed notarial acts with an
expired commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his
Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar. absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the
signatories therein was already dead at that time.

Canon 10
7036, JUNE 29, 2009 1. Director of Lands v. Adorable

FACTS: Executive Judge Lily Lydia Laquindanum of the RTC of Facts: Adorable files a land claim before the Director of Lands. The
Midsayap, Cotabato filed an administrative case against Atty. Nestor case went to the CA for appeal. However, the war broke out. After the
Quintana for the latter’s act of performing notarial functions in war, Adorable files a reconstitution case before the SC believing that
the case was not resolved by the CA. Atty. Zamora, counsel of the
Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
appellee of the case informed the Court that the case was already
commissioning court that issued his notarial commission, and for settled by the CA in favor of Adorable.
allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence. Upon
investigation, Judge Laquindanum allegedly discovered that it was Issue: WON the conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper.
Atty. Quintana’s wife who performed notarial acts whenever he was
out of the office as attested to by the Joint Affidavit executed by Held: Yes. The conduct of Atty. Zamora is proper.
Kristine Guro and Elenita Ballentes. For his part, Atty. Quintana The Court in this case praised Atty. Zamora’s conduct as the highest
standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes of the
admitted that the evidence presented by Guro and Ballentes were
deserving member of the bar. Hence, the act of Atty. Zamora is
signed by his wife, but such were the result of an entrapment proper.
operation of Judge Laquindanum: to let somebody bring and have
them notarized by his wife, when they knew that his wife is not a 2. Carlet v. CA and Zarate
lawyer. He also denied the he authorized his wife to notarize
documents. According to him, he slapped his wife and told her to Facts: Carlet who is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Sevillo
stop doing it as it would ruin his profession. through Atty. Jimenez files before the Trial Court an action for
reconvenyance of property of Sevillo. Zarate then moved to dismiss
ISSUE: WON respondent Atty. Quintana is liable for the act of his such action invoking res judicata since it was the same facts that had
been settled by the trial court, CA and SC. The action was then
wife despite not having authorized the latter to notarize documents in dismissed by the Trial Court and ordered Atty. Jimenez regarding
his absence. forum-shopping. Atty. Jimenez then appealed it before the CA, but to
no avail.
HELD: YES. A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes
full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent Issue: WON the action of Atty. Jimenez is proper.
cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wife’s act and that he did
not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally Held: No. The action of Atty. Jimenez is not proper.
accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A
lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court”.
personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary. Atty. Quintana
In the case at bar, the action of Atty Jimenez of filing a reconveyance
is personally accountable for the documents that he admitted were case despite his knowledge that there is finality of the case shows
signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing that he does not have good faith towards the court.
the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Hence, his conduct is not proper.
Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to
directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
The Insurance Life Assurance Co. Employees Assoc. v. reconsideration was submitted by him where the following paragraph
Insular Life Assurance Co. was stated:

Facts: The Employees Assoc. Files before the CIR a complaint for 6. Unfortunately for our people, it seems that many of our judicial
unfair labor practice against the Company. The CIR then dismissed authorities believe that they are the chosen messengers of God in all
such complaint. In its decision, CIR Judge Martinez misquoted a SC matters that come before them, and that no matter what the
decision in the case of Lopez Sr v. Chronicle Publication Employees circumstances are, their judgment is truly ordained by the Almighty
Ass’n: (1) 60 words of the paragraph quoted by Martinez do NOT unto eternity. Some seem to be constitutionally incapable of
appear in the original; considering that any emanation from their mind or pen could be the
(2) Martinez used “For it is settled that...”; the original reads, “For it product of unjudicial prejudice or unjudicial sympathy or favoritism for
must be remembered...” (3) Last sentence in the quoted paragraph of a party or an issue. Witness the recent absurdity of Judge Alikpala
Martinez is actually part of the immediately succeeding paragraph in daring to proceed to judge a motion to hold himself in contempt of
the SC decision. court — seemingly totally oblivious or uncomprehending of the
In the respondents’ brief, counsels for respondents quoted the CIR’s violation of moral principle involved — and also of Judge Geraldez
decision who refuses to inhibit himself in judging a criminal case against an
accused who is also his correspondent in two other cases. What is
Issue: Whether or not the Judge and the respondent’s counsel are the explanation for such mentality? Is it outright dishonesty? Lack of
liable for contempt. intelligence? Serious deficiency in moral comprehension? Or is it that
many of our government officials are just amoral?
Held: No. The Judge and the respondent’s counsel are not liable for
contempt. Scattered in his motion were other statements where he attacked the
In citing SC’s decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, 1968 decision of the Supreme Court as false, erroneous, and illegal.
judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word
and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. This In another motion, Atty. Santiago sought the inhibition of two
is because “only the decisions of this Honorable Court establish Justices: Justice Fred Castro, because allegedly, he is the brother of
jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction.” (Miranda v. Imperial). the vice president of the opposing party. And Chief Justice Roberto
However, there was good faith in both the Judge and the Concepcion because immediately after the 1968 decision, his son
respondent’s counsel, hence their action is not liable for contempt. was appointed to a significant position in the government. (Here Atty.
Santiago implied that the justices were not fair and that their decision
4. Del Rosario v. Chingcuanco and Imperio was influenced).

Facts: The CAR rendered a decision evicting Del Rosario from the In his defense, Atty. Santiago said that he originally deleted the
land which he leases from Imperio. However, the former refused to above paragraph and was only included due to inadvertence. But
vacate the land since the latter does not want to refund him of the that any rate, he averred that the language he used was necessary
improvement he had done to the property. Del Rosario, further, filed a to defend his client.
motion before the SC to stay such execution. Due this, Imperio filed a
petition to cite Del Rosario’s counsel in contempt since said counsel ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Vicente Santiago is guilty of contempt.
quoted a non-existing SC decision. However, it was discovered that
such belief was brought by a mere typographical error. HELD: Yes. Lawyers are administrators of justice, oath-bound
servants of society, their first duty is not to their clients, as many
Issue: WON the conduct of Del Rosario’s counsel deserves a suppose, but to the administration of justice; to this, their clients’
disciplinary action. success is wholly subordinate; and their conduct ought to and must
be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. Thus, Santiago’s
Held: No. The conduct of Del Rosario’s counsel does not deserve a defense is not tenable.
disciplinary action.
In this case, the Court ruled that the name of the case was given A lawyer must avoid language that tend to create an atmosphere of
correctly and there was clearly no deception on the part of the distrust, of disbelief in the judicial system. A lawyer’s duties to the
counsel. Court have become common place. Really, there could hardly be any
Hence, the conduct of said counsel does not deserve a disciplinary valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof.
Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in categorical terms,
SURIGAO MINERAL VS. CLORIBEL (31 SCRA 1 01/09/1970) spells out one such duty: ‘To observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice and judicial officers.’
In Re: Contempt Proceedings Against Attorneys Vicente L.
Santiago, Jose Beltran Sotto, Graciano C. Regala and It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful
Associates, Erlito R. Uy, Juanito M. Caling; and Morton F. attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial
Meads office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.
In 1968, the Supreme Court promulgated a unanimous decision (24
SCRA 491; G.R. No. L-27072) which was not favorable to MacArthur Atty. Santiago was fined for his infractions.
International Minerals Co. The latter’s lawyer, Atty. Vicente Santiago
then filed a motion for reconsideration. Eventually, a third motion for
5. Munoz v. CA and Sutton
adverse claim by petitioner on said certificates for the properties
Facts: Sutton made some misrepresentations in the facts of the consolidated by the redemption price he paid for said properties. The
case where she seeks a review before the SC. private respondent filed a suit for the annulment of judgment in the
Court of appeals which ruled over the same.
Issue: WON such conduct deserves disciplinary action.

Held: Yes.The conduct of Atty. Sutton deserves disciplinary action. Issue: whether the petitioner is on solid ground on the reacquisition
Under the Canon 10 of the CPR, a lawyer shall owes candor and over the said properties.
honesty to the court.
In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Sutton made false facts in her Ruling: By Atty. Canlas' own account, "due to lack of paying capacity
pleading for review in SC is a clear manifestation that she lacks of respondent Herrera, no financing entity was willing to extend him
candor for the court.
any loan with which to pay the redemption price of his mortgaged
Hence, her conduct warrants a disciplinary action.
properties and petitioner's P100,000.00 attorney's fees awarded in
6. Adez Realty v. CA the Compromise Judgment," a development that should have
tempered his demand for his fees. For obvious reasons, he placed
Facts: Atty. Dacanay made some intercalation in the decision of the his interests over and above those of his client, in opposition to his
Court of Appeals when he appealed before the SC. Due this, the oath to "conduct himself as a lawyer ... with all good fidelity ... to [his]
Court had suspended him indefinitely. Dacanay argued that it was his clients." The Court finds the occasion fit to stress that lawyering is not
client who made the intercalation and later on he admitted that his
a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants, a
secretary made the intercalation on the document.
fundamental standard that has, as a matter of judicial notice, eluded
Issue: WON the conduct of Dacanay warrants a suspension. not a few law advocates. The petitioner's efforts partaking of a
shakedown" of his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and
Held: Yes. The conduct of Dacanay warrants suspension. certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to "delay no man
Rule 10.01 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly for money."
misquote or misrepresent the contents of the paper, language or the We are not, however, condoning the private respondent's own
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority.
shortcomings. In condemning Atty. Canlas monetarily, we cannot
In the case at bar, the fact that Atty. Dacanay made the intercalation
on the CA decision makes him liable under such rule. overlook the fact that the private respondent has not settled his
Hence, his conduct warrants a disciplinary action. liability for payment of the properties. To hold Atty. Canlas alone liable
for damages is to enrich said respondent at the expense of his
PATERNO R. CANLAS, petitioner,vs. lawyer. The parties must then set off their obligations against the

Facts: The private respondent own several parcels of land located in

Quezon City for which he is the registered owner. He secured loans
from L and R corporations and executed deeds of mortgage over the
parcels of land for the security of the same. Upon the maturity of said
loans, the firm initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties
in question after private respondent failed to pay until maturity. The
private respondent filed a complaint for injunction over the said
foreclosure and for redemption of the parcels of land. Two years after
the filing of the petition, private respondent and L and R corporation
entered into a compromise agreement that renders the former to be
insured another year for the said properties. Included in the
stipulations were the attorney’s fees amounting to Php 100,000.00.
The private respondent however, remained to be in turmoil when it
came to finances and was apparently unable to pay and secure the
attorney’s fees, more so the redemption liability. Relief was discussed
by petitioner and private respondent executed a document to redeem
the parcels of land and to register the same to his name.

Allegations were made by the private respondent claiming the

parcels of land to his name but without prior notice, the properties
were already registered under the petitioner’s name. The private
respondent calls for a review and for the court to act on the said