ALTHEA ANGELA M.
GARCIA
PRACTICE OF LAW:
Cayetano v. Monsod
FACTS:
1. April 1991: Pres. Corazon Aquino nominated
respondent Christian Monsod as Chairman of the
COMELEC
2. June 1991: The COA confirmed the nomination.
Monsod took his oath and on the same daw, assumed
office as Chairman of COMELEC
3. Petitioner Reynato Cayetano filed a petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition challenging the validity of
the confirmation by the COA, alleging that Monsod
does not possess the required qualification of having
been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10
years
WORK EXPERIENCES: Atty Monsod passed the bar
in 1960, after which he:
a. worked in the law office of his father
b. worked as an Operations Officer in the World Bank
Group which include negotiating loans and
coordinating legal, economic and project work
c. worked with MERALCO group
d. worked as CEO of an investment bank
e. rendered services to various companies as a legal
and economic consultant or CEO
f. a former Secretary-General and National Chairman
of NAMFREL which work involved being
knowledgeable in election law
g. became a co-chairman of the Bishops
Businessmen’s Conference for Human Development
h. worked with under-privileged sectors
i. became a member of the Constitutional
Commission and Chairman of its Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers
September 3, 1991
ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
W/N Christian N/A N/A 1. Yes. The practice of law means any N/A
Monsod possess activity, in or out of court, which requires the Petition DISMISSED
the required application of law, legal procedure,
qualification of knowledge, training and experience. To
having been engage in the practice of law is to perform
engaged in the those acts which are characteristics of the
practice of law for at profession. Generally, to practice law is to
least 10 years give notice or render any kind of service
which requires the use of legal knowledge
or skill.
2. Work in government that requires the use
of legal knowledge is considered practice of
law
3. The practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases in court. A person is also
considered to be in the practice of law when
he: “x x x for valuable consideration
engages in the business of advising
person, firms, associations or corporations
as to their rights under the law, or appears
in a representative capacity as an advocate
in proceedings pending or prospective,
before any court, commissioner, referee,
board, body, committee, or commission
constituted by law or authorized to settle
controversies and there, in such
representative capacity performs any act or
acts for the purpose of obtaining or
defending the rights of their clients under
the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a
representative capacity, engages in the
business of advising clients as to their rights
under the law, or while so engaged
performs any act or acts either in court or
outside of court for that purpose, is
engaged in the practice of law.”
3. In light of various definitions of the term
“practice of law”, particularly in the modern
concept of law practice and taking into
consideration the liberal construction
intended by the framers of the Constitution,
Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a
LAWYER-ECONOMIST, LAWYER-
MANAGER, LAWYER-ENTREPRENEUR
OF INDUSTRY, LAWYER-NEGOTIATOR
OF CONTRACTS AND LAWYER-
LEGISLATOR OF THE RICH AND THE
POOR verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least
10 years.
PRACTICE OF LAW:
Lingan v. Calubaquib
FACTS:
1. In a resolution dated June 15, 2006, the SC found
Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga guilty of
violation Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR and of the
lawyer’s oath. Respondents allowed their secretaries
to notarize documents in their stead in violation of
Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law.
2. The SC suspended respondents from the practice
of law for one year, revoked their notarial
commissions and disqualified them from
reappointment as notaries public for 2 years.
3. Complainant Victor Lingan alleged that Atty. Baliga
continued practicing law and discharging his
functions as CHR Regional Director, in violation of the
court’s order of suspension.
4. Complainant further argued that the position of
CHR Regional Director requires the officer to be a
lawyer hence, Atty. Baliga’s suspension to practice
law disqualified him to hold the position of Regional
Director during the period of suspension
5. Atty. Baliga argued that he cannot be suspended
from his position as CHR Regional Director as his
suspension from the practice of law did not include
his suspension from public office
6. Atty. Baliga further argued that as CHR Regional
Director, he performed generally managerial
functions which did not require the practice of law
PRACTICE OF LAW:
Fajardo v. Alvarez
FACTS:
1. Complainant Teresita Fajardo was the Municipal
Treasuser of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija.
2. Respondent Atty. Nicanor Alvarez was then
working as a Legal Officer of the National Center for
Mental Health under the Dept. of Health.
2. Fajardo hired Atty Alvarez to handle several cases
filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman
3. Fajardo alleged that Atty. Alvarez assured her that
he had friends connected with the Ombudsman who
could help with dismissing her case for a certain fee
and that Atty. Alvarez asked for P1.4M as acceptance
fee and P500K to pay his friends
4. On the other hand, Atty Alvarez claims that he has
authority to engage in private practice of his
profession and that he accepted the case and asked
for P500K as acceptance fee considering the difficulty
of the case
5. Atty Alvarez also claimed that he did not enter his
appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor
sign any pleadings.
6. June 1, 2011, Fajardo filed a verified complaint
before the Office of the Bar Confidant praying for
disbarment of Atty. Alvarez
7. December 7, 2011, the case was referred to the
IBP for investigation, report and recommendation
June 30, 2014
ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
W/N the exercise of N/A N/A Yes. The powers and functions of the CHR The SC further SUSPEND Atty. Jimmy
powers and Regional Director are characteristics of the Baliga from the practice of law for SIX
functions of a CHR POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF CHR REGIONAL legal profession. Hence, the exercise of the (6) MONTHS, effective upon service on
Regional Director DIRECTOR: powers and functions of a CHR Regional Atty. Baliga of a copy of this resolution.
constitutes practice a. To administer oaths or affirmations with resoect to Director constitutes practice of law. Thus,
of law CHR matters; the Regional Director must be an attorney –
b. To issue mission orders in their respective regional a member of the bar in good standing and
offices; authorized to practice law. When the
c. To conduct preliminary evaluation or initial Regional Director loses this authority, such
investigation of human rights complaints in the as when he or she is disbarred or
absence of the legal officer or investigator; suspended from the practice of law, the
d. To conduct dialogues or preliminary conferences Regional Director loses necessary
among parties and discuss “immediate courses of qualification to the position he or she is
action and protection remedies and/or possible holding. The disbarred or suspended
submission of the matter to an alternative dispute lawyer must desist from holding the position
resolution; of Regional Director.
e. To issue CHR processes, including notices, letter-
invitations, orders, or subpoenas within the territorial
jurisdiction of the regional office;
f. To review and approve draft resolutions of human
rights cases prepared by the legal officer
April 20, 2016
ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
W/N Respondent 1. Guilty of The IBP Board of Governors resolved to ADOPT 1. Responded committed unauthorized government in general, respondent put
Atty. Alvarez, as a violating the CPR amd APPROVE the findings and recommendations practice of his profession himself in a situation of conflict of
lawyer working as and recommended of the Investigating Commissioner 2. Respondent practiced law even if he did interest.
Legal Officer of the Atty. Alvarez’s not sign any pleading. Not only did he do 5. There is basic conflict of interest
National Center for SUSPENSION - found Atty Alvarez guilty of unlawful, unauthorized practice, his acts also show here. Respondent is a public officer, an
Mental Health from the practice of immoral and deceitful acts and hereby badges of offering to peddle influence in the employee of government. The Office of
under the Dept of law for ONE (1) SUSPENDED from the practice of law Office of the Ombudsman the Ombudsman is part of government.
Health, is YEAR for ONE (1) YEAR with a WARNING that 3. Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act By appearing against the Office of the
authorized to repetition of the same acts shall be No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Ombudsman, respondent is going
engage in the 2. Atty Alvarez was dealth with more severely. Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public against the same employer he swore to
private practice of also ordered to Officials and Employees, and serve.
law return the amount - Ordered to RETURN the amount of Memorandum Circular No. 17, Series of
of P700K to P700K to Fajardo 1986,53 government officials or employees PENALTY:
Fajardo with legal are prohibited from engaging in private Respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is
interest from the practice of their profession unless guilty of violating the Code of Conduct
time of demand authorized by their department heads. and Ethical Standards for Public
until its full More importantly, if authorized, the practice Officials and Employees, the Lawyer’s
payment of profession must not conflict nor tend to Oath, and the Code of Professional
conflict with the official functions of the Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED
government official or employee from the practice of law for one (1)
4. Respondent was given written year with a WARNING that a repetition
permission by the Head of the National of the same or similar acts shall be
Center for Mental Health. However, by dealt with more severely.
assisting and representing complainant in a
suit against the Ombudsman and against
Canon 1:
Heenan v. Espejo 3 December 2013
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
1. Sometime in January 2009, complainant Victoria W/N the IBP Board The CBD The IBP Board of Governors ADOPTED the The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT
Heenan met Atty. Erlinda Espejo through her of Governors is recommended the Report and Recommendation of the CBD WITH and issued the worthless checks in her ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
godmother, Corazon Eusebio correct in SUSPENSION of MODIFICATION lowering Atty. Espejo’s private capacity and not as an attorney of INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE
2. Corazon told Victoria that Atty Espejo was her suspending Atty Atty. Espejo from the suspension from five (5) years to two (2) years. Victoria is of no moment. As We have held LEGAL PROFESSION AND
lawyer in need of money and wanted to borrow P250K Espejo from the practice of for a Atty. Espejo was also ordered to RETURN to in several cases, a lawyer may be SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
3. Victoria found no reason to distrust Atty Espejo practice of law for 2 period of FIVE (5) Victoria the amount of P250K within thirty (30) disciplined not only for malpractice and INTEGRATED BAR.
since she was introduced by her godmother hence, years YEARS. days from receipt of notice with legal interest dishonesty in his profession but also for Rule 7.03. – A lawyer shall not engage
she agreed to accommodate Atty Espejo and then reckoned from the time the demand was made. gross misconduct outside of his in conduct that adversely reflects on
and there handed the amount of P250K The failure of a professional capacity. While the Court may his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
4. Atty Espejo issued and turned over a check dated lawyer to answer the not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for whether in public or private life, behave
Feb 2, 2009 for P275K to secure payment of the loan complaint for misconduct committed in his in a scandalous manner to the discredit
5. On due date, Atty Espejo requested Victoria to disbarment despite nonprofessional or private capacity, the of the legal profession.
delay the deposit of the check. However, after several due notice and to Court may be justified in suspending or CANON 11 – A LAWYER SHALL
months, Victoria received no word from Atty Espejo appear on the removing him as an attorney where his OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
6. July 2009, Atty Espejo issued another check scheduled hearings misconduct outside of the lawyer’s RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
amounting to P50K representing interest which set, shows his professional dealings is so gross in AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICES AND
accrued due to the late payment flouting resistance to character as to show him morally unfit and SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR
7. Victoria deposited the check but it was dishonored lawful orders of the unworthy of the privilege which his licenses CONDUCT BY
due to insufficiency of funds court and illustrates and the law confer. OTHERS.
8. Worried that she would not be able to recover the his deficiency for his
amount she lent, Victoria deposited the first check in oath of office as a Further, the misconduct of Atty Espejo is
the amount of P250K without informing Atty Espejo. lawyer, which aggravated by her unjustified refusal to PENALTY:
The said check was also dishonored due to deserves disciplinary obey the orders of the IBP directing her to We find Atty Erlinda B. Espejo GUILTY
insufficiency of funds sanction. Moreover, file an answer to the complaint of Victoria of gross misconduct and of violating
9. August 18, 2009, Victoria filed a complaint against respondent’s acts of and to appear at the scheduled mandatory Canons 1, 7 and 11 of the Code of
Atty Espejo for violation of BP 22 and Estafa under issuing checks with conference. This constitutes blatant Professional Responsibility. We
Art 315 of the RPC insufficient funds and disrespect for the IBP which amounts to SUSPEND respondent from the
10. Atty Espejo disregarded the notices and despite repeated conduct unbecoming a lawyer. practice of law for two (2) years,
subpoenas issued by the Prosecutor’s Office and demands she failed effective immediately.
continued to ignore Victoria’s demands to comply with her Undoubtedly, Atty. Espejo’s issuance of
11. Victoria filed this administrative case against Atty obligation and her worthless checks and her blatant refusal to
Espejo before the IBP CBD disregard and failure heed the directives of the Quezon City
to appear for Prosecutor’s Office and the IBP contravene
preliminary Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule 7.03;
investigation and to and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
submit her Responsibility, which provide:
counteraffidavit to CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD
answer the charges THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
against her for Estafa OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
and Violation of BP RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL
22, constitute grave PROCESSES.
misconduct that also Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in
warrant disciplinary unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
action against conduct.
respondent.
 Ventura v. Samson 27 November 2012
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Anacta v. Resurreccion 14 August 2012

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Tumbokon v. Pefianco 1 August 2012

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Atty. Alonso v. Atty. Relamida 3 August 2010

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Santeco v. Avance 22 February 2011

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
 A-1 Financial Services 2 July 2010
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Roa v. Atty Moreno 21 April 2010

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Yuhico v. Gutierrez 23 November 2010

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Overgaard v. Valdez 30 September 2008

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
 San Jose Homeowners v, Romanillos 15 June 2005
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Re: Financial Audit of Atty. Kho 13 April 2007

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Guevarra v. Eala 1 August 2007

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
 Toledo v. Toledo 6 February 2008
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Huyssen v. Gutierrez 24 March 2006

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Donton v. Tansingco 27 June 2008

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

OCA v. Morante 16 April 2004

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
 Tadlip v. Borres 11 November 2005
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Sarmiento v. Oliva 10 September 2009

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Canon 2:
Linsangan v. Tolentino 4 September 2009
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Rodica v, Lazaro 23 August 2012

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
 Villatuya v. Tabalingcos 10 July 2012
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Canon 3:
Bernardo v. CA 14 July 1997
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Bengco v. Bernardo 13 June 2012

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Paas v. Almarvez 4 April 2003

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Canon 6:
Facturan v. Barcelona 8 June 2016
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

NPC Drivers v. NPC 30 June 2014

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Olazo v. Tinga 7 December 2010

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Catu v. Rellosa 19 February 2008

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Query of Atty. Buffe 19 August 2009

 FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

2. Chapter II: The Lawyer and the Legal Profession

Canon 7:
Ricafort v. Medina 31 May 2016
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Campos v. Campos 22 January 2014

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Francia v. Abdon 23 July 2014

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Embido v. Pe 22 October 2013

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
 Tiong v. Florendo 12 December 2011
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Garrido v. Garrido 4 February 2010

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

OCA v. Indar 10 April 2012

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Canon 8:
Nuezca v. Villagarcia 8 August 2016
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

The Law Firm of Aseoche v.

Lazaro and Morta 5 September 2016
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Bacatan v. Dadula 7 September 2016

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Metrobank v. Chiok 26 November 2014

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Pobre v. Defensor Santiago 25 August 2009

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
 Foodsphere v. Mauricio 22 July 2009
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Canon 9:
In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of
Attorneys , Medado, Petitioner 24 September 2013
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Noe-Lacsamana v. Bustmente 23 November 2011

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Ana Marie Cambaliza v.

Atty. Cristal-Tenorio 14 July 2004
 FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

3. Chapter III: The Lawyer and the Courts

Canon 10:
Lim v. Mejica 13 September 2016
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Paras v. Paras 27 September 2016

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Francisco v. Flores 26 January 2016

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
 Conlu v. Aredonia 12 September 2011
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Maligaya v. Doronilla 15 September 2006

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Bondoc v. Judge Simbulan 26 October 2009

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Molina v. Magat 13 June 2012

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
Canon 11:
Pantanosas v. Pamatong 14 June 2016
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty 8 March 2011

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Saberon v. Larong 16 April 2008

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Baculi v. Battung 28 September 2011

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY
 Canon 12:
Sps. Floran v. Ediza 9 February 2016
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Avida v. Argosino 17 August 2016

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Teodoro III v. Gonzales 30 January 2013

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Saa v. IBP 3 September 2009

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Re: Priscilla Hernandez 14 July 2009

FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Canon 13:
Jimenez v. Verano, Jr. 15 July 2014
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Bagabuyo,

Former Senior State Pros. 9 October 2007
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

Ilusorio v. Ilusorio 5 June 2009

 FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY

4. Chapter IV: The Lawyer and the Client

Canon 14:
P v. Nadera 2 February 200
FACTS: ISSUE: IBP CBD IBP- BOARD OF GOVERNORS SUPREME COURT PENALTY