1. In the matter of the suspension of HOWARD D. TERRELL from the practice of law.

Facts: Atty. Terrell was being suspended for assisting in the organization of the "Centro Bellas Artes" Club,
which he knew as an organization made for the purpose of evading the law, and for acting as attorney for
said club.

Held: The knowledge and acts of the accused in connection with the organization of the "Centro Bellas
Artes" Club were of such a nature and character as to warrant his suspension from practice.

The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the purpose of violating or evading
the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer of the court, as
amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for which he may be removed or
suspended.

2. Kupers vs. Hontanosas

Facts: Willem Kupers alleged that Atty. Hontanosas had: (1) prepared and notarized contracts that are
both invalid and illegal as these contracts violated the limitations on aliens leasing private lands; (2)
served conflicting interests since he performed legal services for adverse parties; (3) refused to furnish
copies of the contracts he notarized to the parties thereof; (4) notarized documents without keeping
copies thereof and (5) failed to properly discharge his duty to his client Karl Novak, particularly when
respondent allegedly refused to accept his dismissal as counsel for Novak, failed to turn over Novaks
documents thereafter, handled legal matters without adequate preparation, betrayed Novaks trust and
refused to see Novak with a translator of Novaks choice.

He answered that if anyone should be penalized, it should be respondent for meddling in the affairs of
his clients and otherwise making a mockery of the Philippine legal system by deceitfully passing as
material facts opinionated, baseless and false allegations as well as a falsified document.

Held: Lawyers have a duty not only to their clients, but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public.
The lawyers diligence and dedication to his work and profession ideally should not only promote the
interests of his clients. A lawyer has the duty to attain the ends of justice by maintaining respect for the
legal profession.

Most of the charges are unsupported. However, administrative cases against lawyers are sui generes and
as such the complainant in the case need not be the aggrieved party. Thus even if complainant is not a
party to the contracts, the charge of drafting and notarizing contracts in contravention of law holds
weight. A plain reading of these contracts clearly shows that they violate the law limiting lease of private
lands to aliens for a period of twenty five (25) years renewable for another twenty five (25) years.

In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent violated the Attorneys Oath and
several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the foremost sworn duties of an
attorney-at-law is to obey the laws of the Philippines.
Canon 1 provides that (a) lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states: A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at decreasing confidence in the legal systems.

CANON 15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Rule 15.07- A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness.

CANON 17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

The acts of respondents also amount to gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, which provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. ― A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do. x x x

Atty. Hontanosas is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months with a WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

3. Castaneda vs Ago

Facts:

4. Ledesma vs Hon. Climaco

Facts: Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Province of Negros
Occidental. Then and there, he commenced to discharge its duties. As he was counsel de parte for one of
the accused in a case pending in the sala of respondent Judge, he filed a motion to withdraw as such.
Not only did respondent Judge deny such motion, but he also appointed him counsel de oficio for the
two defendants. Subsequently, on November 3, 1964, petitioner filed an urgent motion to be allowed to
withdraw as counsel de oficio, premised on the policy of the Commission on Elections to require full time
service as well as on the volume or pressure of work of petitioner, which could prevent him from
handling adequately the defense.Respondent Judge, in the challenged order of November 6, 1964,
denied said motion.

Held: Petition must fail. As found in the order, upon requests of the defense the case has been
postponed at least eight (8) times. There was also no incompatibility between the duty of petitioner to
the accused and to the court and the performance of his task as an election registrar of the Commission
on Elections and that the ends of justice "would be served by allowing and requiring Mr. Ledesma to
continue as counsel de oficio, since the prosecution has already rested its case."

Petitioner was less than duly mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. He ought to have known that
membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. Law is a profession dedicated to the ideal
of service and not a mere trade. It is understandable then why a high degree of fidelity to duty is
required of one so designated. Those enrolled in its ranks are called upon to aid in the performance of
one of the basic purposes of the State, the administration of justice.

5. Dacanay vs Baker & McKenzie

Facts: Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practising law under the
name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. He questioned the respondents' use of the
letterhead of said law firm.

Held: Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138,
Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a
professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities
around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the
firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes
a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest
quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment". This
is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here.

WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.