Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

1

Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991


Cayetano vs. Monsod Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc.,
to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of
201 SCRA 210 Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from
making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those
September 1991 allowed by law.” The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:

Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Annex A
Monsod does not posses required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a
Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be SECRET MARRIAGE?
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty- P560.00 for a valid marriage.
five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, ANNULMENT. VISA.
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in Please call: 521-0767,
the practice of law for at least ten years. LEGAL5217232, 5222041
CLINIC, INC.8:30 am-6:00 pm
Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla.
in the practice of law for at least ten years. Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is DON PARKINSON
not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceeding, the management of beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext.
conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence.
with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign
an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.
and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. Practice LEGALErmita, Manila nr. US Embassy
of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232521-7251522-2041; 521-0767
procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champertous,
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the
work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought
verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC in his petition as herein before quoted.
chairman, The respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does
In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements
at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378 "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic
machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal
services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the
FACTS: caseof John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decidedby the
United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
2

Issue: best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good
and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is
constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be the subject rightand proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
of the advertisements herein complained of. to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able
service and the unwholesome result of propaganda.

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by the respondent constitute practice IN RE CUNANAN
of law. The definition of “practice of law” is laid down in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, as
defined:Black defines "practice of law" as:"The rendition of services requiring the knowledge FACTS:
and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his
consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title
litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and
and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and including 1955.”
the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken
for them in matters connected with thelaw." The contention of respondent that it merely Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
offers legal support services can neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said
proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering. 1946-1951………………70%
While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve
mechanical and technical know-how, such as the installation of computer systems and 1952 …………………….71%
programs for the efficient management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids
and materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule. What is 1953……………………..72%
palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and
lawyers. Its contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more 1954……………………..73%
apparent than real. In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage,
divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all that respondent corporation 1955……………………..74%
will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it
were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have
to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course
of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.
represent and for which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls
squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any
be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be
law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely to court appearances but included in the computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations.”
extends to legal research, giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth. That fact that
the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. What is ISSUE:
important is that it is engaged in the practice of law by virtueof the nature of the services it
renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now assailed in this proceeding.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. (SEE RULING:
CANON 2) A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents
or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The proscription against Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the
advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
postulate that the practice of law is a profession. The canons of the profession tell us that the
examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also
3

struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’
jurisprudence are not stationary. wife causing the injuries to the latter.

As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 Alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in his communications, as Secretary to
to 1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar.
under the following reasons:
MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy
The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle misunderstanding.
1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World
War II; Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has moral
ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that arose from a single incident as “closed
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the and terminated.”
said candidates;
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve moral
The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who may be turpitude.
admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and
supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only Use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his communications really contained
minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the court on who can practice the word “Attorney” as they were typed by the office clerk.
law; and
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling:
The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation.
Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases,
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough votes to not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are still
declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will pending.
not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner.
The same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same for the
rules of admission to the practice of law. Court to ascertain his good moral character.

In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee, Haron S. Meiling in the 2002 bar ISSUE:
examinations and for disciplinary action as member of Philippine Shari'a Bar, Melendrez.
WON Meling’s act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES.

HELD:
FACTS:
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the
MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S.
Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the
disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic (Meling did not
pass the bar).
Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he
has three (3) pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation and for Less Serious
Physical Injuries.
Rule 7.01: “A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.”
and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people.
4

He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he signed as for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar and,
“attorney” whoever may have typed the letters. i. Unauthorized consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of
use of the appellation “attorney” may render a person liable for indirect contempt of court. Filipino citizenship ipsojure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The
practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.The exception is when Filipino citizenship is
PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently
reacquiredpursuant to RA 9225. This is because “all Philippine citizens who become citizens of
Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications, duly another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the
ascertained and certified. conditions of [RA 9225].” Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in
Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater importance so far as the general accordance with RA 9225.Before he can can resume his law practice, he must first secure
public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than the possession of legal from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:o the updating and payment of of IBP
learning. membership dues;o the payment of professional tax;o the completion of at least 36 credit
hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially significant to refresh the
Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant that applicant to aver that applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments
he or she “has not been charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or ando the retaking of the lawyer’s oath.
regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or
convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is
there any pending case or charge against him/her.”
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), Enrique Entila and Victoriano Tenazas
Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company, Court of Industrial Relations and Quintin Muning
constitutes concealment, done under oath at that.

FACTS:
In Re: Dacanay, B.M NO. 1678, December 17, 2007
Facts: COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ORDERED REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES FOR
ENTILA AND TENAZAS.
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he
migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for hisailments. He Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of Entila and Tenazas filed a notice of attorney's lien
subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’sfree medical aid program. equivalent to 30% of the total backwages.
His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.On July 14,
2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of i. Entila and Tenazas filed manifestation indicating their non-
2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship.On that day, he took his oath of objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their backwages
allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada.
Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice. ii. Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of Services
Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages.
Issue:
1. Opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer.
WON petitioner may still resume practice? YES
a. Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the backwages as compensation for
Held: professional services rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:

Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides an applicant for admission to the bar be a i. Cipriano 10%
citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character and a
resident of the Philippines.5 He must also produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of ii. Quintin Muning 10
good moral character and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement iii. Atanacio Pacis 5%
5

i. Respondent falsified his school records

iii. CANON 34: condemns an agreement providing for the division of ii. Thereby violating the provisions of Sections 5 and 6, Rule 127 of
attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union president is allowed to share in said fees with the Rules of Court, which require completion by a bar examinee or candidate of the
lawyers prescribed courses in elementary, high, pre-law and law school, prior to his admission to the
practice of law.
1. Sec 5(b) of RA 875 that —No justification for a ruling, that the person representing the
party-litigant in the Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is entitled to 11 years later, PUBLICO filed a Petition for Reinstatement alleging that he had never received,
attorney's fees for had he been informed, nor did he have any knowledge of the Resolution of the Court
ordering the Bar Division to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
a. Duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer to examine and cross examine
witnesses on behalf of the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of evidence.
He was advised to inquire into the outcome of the disbarment case against him.
b. Representation should be exclusively entrusted to duly qualified members of the bar.
He resigned from all his positions in public and private offices, and transferred to Manila.
The permission for a non-member does not entitle the representative to compensation for
such representation. Prayed that Court allow reinstatement taking into consideration his exemplary conduct from
the time he became a lawyer, his services to the community the numerous awards,
Sec 24, Rule 138 Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees: resolutions and/'or commendations he received,

i. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client i. Court denied the Petition.
no more than a reasonable compensation for his services.
ii. Petitioner moved for reconsideration was denied by the Court
for lack of merit.

a. Petition to take the Bar Exam in 1960 after failing in the 1959 Bar Examination. 5th plea avers that his enrollment in Third Year High School in Manila was through the
initiative of his uncle, Dulcisimo B. Tapel who accompanied him to school and enrolled him in
b. His uncle, TAPEL, opposed the petition alleging that his nephew is not a person of good a grade level above his qualifications in spite of his demonstrations
moral character for having misrepresented, sometime in 1950, when he was 16 years old,
that he was eligible for 3rd year high school by utilizing the school records of his cousin and i. Misrepresentation committed was precipitated by his uncle;
name-sake, Juan M. Publico. that being merely 16 year old, he could not be expected to act with discernment as he was
still under the influence of his uncle, who later on caused his disbarment
ii. PUBLICO has not completed Grade 4
ii. No opposition has been filed to any of the petitions.
iii. Tapel instituted an administrative case against his nephew for
falsification of school records or credentials.

PUBLICO PASSED THE BAR, took the lawyer's oath, and signed the Roll of Attorneys. ISSUE:

Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo Paras, Jr., investigated and reported: May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered?

September 1961, Dulcisimo Tapel dropped the complaint on the ground that his witnesses The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer according to the order, is sought to
had turned hostile. be voided in the present petition.

i. Motion denied, his witnesses had already testified.

Recommended PUBLICO’s name to be stricken off the roll of attorneys.


6

WON a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay Usually, individual unionist is not in a position to bear the financial burden of litigations.
of some of its members. YES.

It was PAFLU that moved for an extension of time to file the present petition for review;
union members Entila and Tenazas did not ask for extension but they were included as CATU VS RELLOSA
petitioners in the present petition. Their inclusion in the petition as co-petitioners was
belated. FACTS: Petitioner initiated a complaint against Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor who were
occupying one of the units in a building in Malate which was owned by the former. The said
complaint was filed in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th
District of Manila where respondent was the punong barangay. The parties, having been
HELD: summoned for conciliation proceedings and failing to arrive at an amicable settlement, were
issued by the respondent a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.
ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE SET ASIDE AS THEY ARE AWARDED 10% OF BACKWAGES AS Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the
ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR MUNING. COSTS AGAINST MUNING. Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila where respondent entered his appearance as counsel for
the defendants. Because of this, petitioner filed the instant administrative complaint against
Lawyer-client relationship is only possible if one is a lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not the respondent on the ground that he committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a
one, he cannot establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided
Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees. over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay. In his defense,
respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he performed his task without bias and that he
Public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties litigant should be entrusted acceded to Elizabeth’s request to handle the case for free as she was financially distressed.
only to those possessing tested qualifications, for the ethics of the profession and for the The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where after
protection of courts, clients and the public. evaluation, they found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to them,
respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and, as an elective
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated: official, the prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713. Consequently, for the violation of
the latter prohibition, respondent committed a breach of Canon 1. Consequently, for the
Acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by violation of the latter prohibition, respondent was then recommended suspension from the
fine or imprisonment or both, practice of law for one month with a stern warning that the commission of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act done in violation of
law

If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to ISSUE: Whether or not the foregoing findings regarding the transgression of respondent as
whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from well as the recommendation on the imposable penalty of the respondent were proper.
the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures.

In response to UNION may appeal an award of attorney's fees which are deductible from the HELD: No. First, respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 the Code of
backpay of some of its members: Professional Responsibility as this applies only to a lawyer who has left government service
and in connection to former government lawyers who are prohibited from accepting
YES because such union or labor organization is permitted to institute an action in the employment in connection with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in their
industrial court on behalf of its members service. In the case at bar, respondent was an incumbent punong barangay. Apparently, he
does not fall within the purview of the said provision.
If an award is disadvantageous to its members, the union may prosecute an appeal as an
aggrieved party, under Sec 6, RA 875: Second, it is not Section 90 of RA 7160 but Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713 which governs the
practice of profession of elective local government officials. While RA 6713 generally applies
i. Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases — Appeals. — Any person to all public officials and employees, RA 7160, being a special law, constitutes an exception to
aggrieved by any order of the Court may appeal to the Supreme Court of the Philippines. RA 6713 .Moreover, while under RA 7160,certain local elective officials (like governors,
7

mayors, provincial board members and councilors) are expressly subjected to a total or 1. Felicisiomo Malinao , Court interpreter was charged with, illegally appearing in court, grave
partial proscription to practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no such misconduct in office, falsification, and violation of civil service
interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang
barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius since they are excluded from any prohibition, 2. It was alleged that Mr. Malinao appeared in the municipal court of his town , in Zumarraga,
the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession. Respondent, therefore, Talalora and Sta Rita as an attorney when he is not an attorney
is not forbidden to practice his profession.
3. It was alleged that he instigated persons telling them to commit crimes and tells them not
Third, notwithstanding all of these, respondent still should have procured a prior permission
to be afraid since he has influence over judges.
or authorization from the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations. The
failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. In acting as counsel for a 4. he is unfaithfully filing his time record. Even when he has been out practicing in the
party without first securing the required written permission, respondent not only engaged in municipal courts, he would fill his time record as present. He receives salary for those absent
the unauthorized practice of law but also violated a civil service rules which is a breach of days.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
5. It was also alleged that he violated civil service law which prohibited a civil service
employee to engage in private practice any profession or business without permission from
the Department Head.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
ISSUE: IS THE RESPONDENT AS COURT INTERPRETER ALLOWED TO PRACTICE LAW?
For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of
the legal profession, respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional HELD NO.
Responsibility:
Only members of the bar are allowed to practice law. The fact that respondent
court interpreter appeared a number of times as counsel indicates that he was
doing it as a regular practice obviously for considerations other than pure love of
justice; and his appearance as counsel, without being a member
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE
LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. The appearance as counsel in various municipal courts by a court interpreter, without prior
permission of his superiors in violation of civil service rules and regulations, and the
A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and falsification of his daily time record to make it appear therein that he was present in his office
disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a when in fact he was not, are grave offenses which warrant his separation from the service.
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for violation of the
lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Respondent Felicisimo Malinao is dismissed from his position as interpreter in the Court of
First Instance, CFI, Zumarraga, Western Samar, with prejudice to reemployment in the judicial
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY of professional branch of the government.
misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of six months effective from his receipt of this resolution. He is sternly WARNED that any
repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. In Re: Al C. Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995)
FACTS:

On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was charged with the crime of
ZETA VS MALINAO homicide in connection with the death of one Raul Camaligan. The death of Camaligan
stemmed from the affliction of severe physical injuries uponhim in course of "hazing"
BARREDO, J p: conducted as part of the university fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the
accused were consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period ranging from two
8

(2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years.Eleven (11) days later, Mr. time of the application for permission to take the barexaminations and more importantly at
Argosino and his colleagues filed an application for probation with the lower court. The the time of application for admission to the bar and to take the attorney's oath of office.
application was granted on June 18 1993. The period of probation was set at two (2) years,
counted from the probationer's initial report to the probation officer assigned to supervise Case digest of Caronan vs Caronan
him. Less than a month later, Argosino filed a petition to take the bar exam. He was allowed
and he passed the exam, but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office.On April 15, Facts:
1994, Argosino filed a petition to allow him to take the attorney's oath and be admitted to
the practice of law. He averred that his probation period had been terminated. It is noted that Complainant and respondent are full siblings and both completed their secondary education
his probation period did not last for more than 10 months.
at Makati High School where they graduated in 1993 and in 1991, respectively. Complainant
ISSUE: graduated at the University of Makati in 1997 with a degree in Business Administration. He
married Myrna G. Tapis in 2001 with whom he has two daughters. Concurrently, respondent
Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath of attorney and be admitted to the
enrolled at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) for one year and then transferred to
practice of law
Philippine Military Academy in 1992 where he was discharged after a year. Respondent was
HELD: not able to obtain any college degree since then. In 1999, respondent enrolled in St Mary’s
Law School in Nueva Vizcaya and passed the Bar examinations in 2004. Complainant had
Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may now be regarded as complying
with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those who are seeking knowledge of such events but did not mind as he did not anticipate any adverse
admission to the bar. He should show to the Court how he has tried to make up for the consequences to him. In 2009, complainant realized that respondent had been using his name
senseless killing of a helpless student to the family of the deceased student and to the to perpetrate crimes. Complainant filed the present Complaint-Affidavit to stop respondent's
community at large. In short, he mustshow evidence that he is a different person now, that
alleged use of the former's name and identity, and illegal practice of law. Respondent denied
he has become morally fitfor admission to the profession of law.
He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written manifestation, of the all the allegations against him and invoked res judicata as a defense. He maintained that his
names of the parents or brothers and sisters of Camaligan from notice. identity can no longer be raised as an issue as it had already been resolved in CBD Case No.
09-2362 where the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the administrative case filed against
NOTES:
 The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of goodmoral character, him, and which case had already been declared closed and terminated by the Supreme Court
with special education qualifications, duly ascertained and certified. in A.C. No. 10074.32 Moreover, according to him, complainant is being used by Reyes and her
 Requirement of good moral character is of greater importance so far as the general public
spouse, Brigadier General Joselito M. Reyes, to humiliate, disgrace, malign, discredit, and
and proper administration of justice is concerned.
 All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect of those seeking harass him because he filed several administrative and criminal complaints against them
admission to the Bar. before the Ombudsman. On June 15, 2015, IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva
 Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who wouldseek admission to Cabrera issued his Report and Recommendation, finding respondent GUILTY of illegally and
the bar must be a necessity more stringent than the norm of conduct expected from
falsely assuming complainant's name, identity, and academic records. Since respondent
members of the general public.
 Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan falsely assumed the name, identity, and academic records of complainant and the real
constituted evident rejection of that moral duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, which "Patrick A. Caronan" neither obtained the bachelor of laws degree nor took the Bar Exams,
makes impossible a finding that the participant was possessed of good moral character.
the Investigating Commissioner recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll
 Good moral character is a requirement possession of which must be demonstrated at the
of Attorneys No. 49069 be dropped and stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. He also
9

recommended that respondent and the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being On June 8, 2009, a petition was filed by Epifanio B. Muneses with the Office of the Bar
admitted as a member of the Bar; and finally, for making a mockery of the judicial institution, Confidant praying that he be granted the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.

the IBP was directed to institute appropriate actions against respondent.

Issue: Whether or not the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) erred in their ordering that The petitioner alleged that he became a member of the IBP on March 21, 1966; that he lost
(a) the name “Patrick A. Caronan” be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name his privilege to practice law when he became a citizen of the USA on August 28, 1981; that on
September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 or the
“Richard A. Caronan” be barred from being admitted to the Bar.
"Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003" by taking his oath of allegiance as a
Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Washington, D.C., USA; that he
Ruling: intends to retire in the Philippines and if granted, to resume the practice of law.

No. Respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" (respondent) is found
GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity, and academic records of complainant Patrick
Issue: Whether or not to grant the petition to resume the privilege to practice law in the
A. Caronan (complainant) to obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations. The Court Philippines
hereby resolves that: (1) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 is
ordered DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys; (2) respondent is PROHIBITED
from engaging in the practice of law or making any representations as a lawyer; (3) Ruling:
respondent is BARRED from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar in the future; (
4) the Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to respondent under
the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" and the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar and is,
in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss thereof means termination
Certificates issued in such name are CANCELLED and/or REVOKED; and (5) the Office of the
of the petitioner’s membership in the bar;ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of
Court Administrator is ordered to CIRCULATE notices and POST in the bulletin boards of all law. Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by
courts of the country a photograph of respondent with his real name, " Richard A. Caronan," reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired
with a warning that he is not a member of the Philippine Bar and a statement of his false their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. Thus, a Filipino
lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine
assumption of the name and identity of "Patrick A. Caronan."
citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, as
stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225
IN RE: PETITION RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES, provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply
EPIFANIO B. MUNESES with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.

B.M. No. 2112 July 24, 2012

Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the practice of law, the
OBC required the herein petitioner to submit the original or certified true copies of the
following documents in relation to his petition:

Facts: 1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;


10

2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship); return the same provided that the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) be deducted
to answer for his professional fees.
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an attorney-client relationship
4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration; between them, Atty. Guaren made a special appearance against them in a case pending
before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu (MCTC).
5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
Issue:

6. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues; Whether or not resondent violated the code of professional responsibility

7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and Ruling:

8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office. The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance, particularly with the MCLE. administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
After all the requirements were satisfactorily complied with and finding that the petitioner
has met all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for membership in the bar, the
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
OBC recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law.
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.

STEPHAN BRUNET AND VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS BRUNET, COMPLAINANTS, CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

VS. In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of P7,000.00 as
partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the
ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, RESPONDENT. case for the titling of complainants’ lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren breached his
duty to serve his client with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him.

Facts: LINGAN V. CALUBAQUIB A.C. NO. 5377, [JUNE 30, 2014]

Complainants alleged that they engaged the services of Atty. Guaren for the titling of a FACTS:
residential lot they acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres; that Atty. Guaren asked for a fee of
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) including expenses relative to its proceeding; that it was In the resolution dated June 15, 2006, this court found Attys. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Jimmy
agreed that full payment of the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title; that Atty. P. Baliga guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Guaren asked for an advance fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) which they gave; that of the Lawyer’s Oath. Respondents allowed their secretaries to notarize documents in their
Atty. Guaren took all the pertinent documents relative to the titling of their lot-certified true stead, in violation of Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law. This court suspended
copy of the tax declaration, original copy of the deed of exchange, sketch plan, deed of respondents from the practice of law for one year, revoked their notarial commissions, and
donation, survey plan, and original copy of the waiver; that on March 10, 1997, Atty. Guaren disqualified them from reappointment as notaries public for two years.
asked for additional payment of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) which they dutifully gave;
that from 1997 to 2001, they always reminded Atty. Guaren about the case and each time he
would say that the titling was in progress; that they became bothered by the slow progress of
the case so they demanded the return of the money they paid; and that respondent agreed to
11

Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed his motion for reconsideration, praying that respondents
be disbarred, not merely suspended from the practice of law. In the resolution dated
September 6, 2006, this court denied complainant Lingan’s motion for reconsideration for ISSUE:
lack of merit.
A.) WON the duties of a Regional Director of CHR constitutes practice of law.
On March 22, 2007, Atty. Baliga, also the Regional Director of the Commission on Human
Rights Regional Office for Region II, filed the undatedex parte clarificatory pleading with leave B.) WON the CHR has the power to reinstate Atty. Baliga despite the fact that he is still
of court.C suspended in the practice of law.

In his ex parte clarificatory pleading, Atty. Baliga alleged that on July 14, 2006, complainant HELD:
Lingan wrote the Commission on Human Rights. Lingan requested the Commission to
investigate Atty. Baliga following the latter’s suspension from the practice of law. A.) YES. The Commission on Human Rights is an independent office created under the
Constitution with power to investigate “all forms of human rights violations involving civil
After this court had suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law, the Commission on andpolitical rights[.]” It is divided into regional offices with each office having primary
Human Rights En Banc issued the resolution dated January 16, 2007, suspending him from his responsibility to investigate human rights violations in its territorial jurisdiction. Each regional
position as Director/Attorney VI of the Commission on Human Rights Regional Office for office is headed by the Regional Director who is given the position of Attorney VI.
Region II. According to the Commission on Human Rights En Banc, Atty. Baliga’s suspension
from the practice of law “prevented] [him] from assuming his post [as Regional Director] for Under the Guidelines and Procedures in the Investigation and Monitoring of Human Rights
want of eligibility in the meantime that his authority to practice law is suspended.” Violations and Abuses, and the Provision of CHR Assistance, the Regional Director has the
following powers and functions:
Atty. Baliga argued that he cannot be suspended for acts not connected with his functions as
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director. According to Atty. Baliga, his suspension a. To administer oaths or affirmations with respect to “[Commission on Human Rights]
from the practice of law did not include his suspension from public office. He prayed for matters;”
clarification of this court’s resolution dated June 15, 2006 “to prevent further injury and
prejudice to [his] rights.” b. To issue mission orders in their respective regional offices;

As to Atty. Baliga’s claim that he did not practice law while he held his position as Regional c. To conduct preliminary evaluation or initial investigation of human rights complaints in the
Director and only performed generally managerial functions, complainant Lingan countered absence of the legal officer or investigator;
that Atty. Baliga admitted to defying the order of suspension. Atty. Baliga admitted to
performing the functions of a “lawyer-manager,” which under the landmark case of Cayetano d. To conduct dialogues or preliminary conferences among parties and discuss “immediate
v. Monsod constituted practice of law. Complainant Lingan reiterated that the position of courses of action and protection remedies and/or possible submission of the matter to an
Regional Director/Attorney VI requires the officer “to be a lawyer [in] good standing.” alternative dispute resolution”;
Moreover, as admitted by Atty. Baliga, he had supervision and control over Attorneys III, IV,
and V Being a “lawyer-manager,” Atty. Baliga practiced law while he held his position as e. To issue Commission on Human Rights processes, including notices, letter-invitations,
Regional Director. orders, or subpoenas within the territorial jurisdiction of the regional office; and

f. To review and approve draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the legal officer.

The Commission on Human Rights filed its comment dated November 27, 2009. It argued These powers and functions are characteristics of the legal profession. Oaths and affirmations
that “the penalty imposed upon Atty. Baliga as a member of the bar is separate and distinct are usually performed by members of the judiciary and notaries public — officers who are
from any penalty that may be imposed upon him as a public official for the same acts.” necessarily members of the bar. Investigating human rights complaints are performed
According to the Commission, Atty. Baliga’s suspension from the practice of law is a “bar primarily by the Commission’s legal officer. Discussing immediate courses of action and
matter” while the imposition of penalty upon a Commission on Human Rights official “is an protection remedies and reviewing and approving draft resolutions of human rights cases
entirely different thing, falling as it does within the exclusive authority of the [Commission as] prepared by the legal officer require the use of extensive legal knowledge.
disciplining body.” Nevertheless, the Commission manifested that it would defer to this
court’s resolution of the issue and would “abide by whatever ruling or decision [this court]
arrives at on [the] matter.”
12

The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director respondent’s services. Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to
constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must be an attorney — a member of prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
the bar in good standing and authorized to practice law. When the Regional Director loses this
authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, the
Regional Director loses a necessary qualification to the position he or she is holding. The Issue:
disbarred or suspended lawyer must desist from holding the position of Regional Director.

B.) NO. The Commission on Human Rights erred in issuing the resolution dated April 13, 2007. Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not
This resolution caused Atty. Baliga to reassume his position as Regional Director/Attorney VI deserve admission to the Philippine Bar
despite lack of authority to practice law.
Ruling:
We remind the Commission on Human Rights that we have the exclusive jurisdiction to
regulate the practice of law. The Commission cannot, by mere resolutions and other
issuances, modify or defy this court’s orders of suspension from the practice of law. Although the Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
the Commission on Human Rights has the power to appoint its officers and employees, it can application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the
only retain those with the necessary qualifications in the positions they are holding. practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal
profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use
of legal knowledge or skill.
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT,

VS. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited
to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified.
EDWIN L. RANA, RESPONDENT The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge,
educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar
Facts: candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations.
The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.
Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the scheduled mass
oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission
to the Bar. True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath.
However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer.
The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential
scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be
administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys

Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a
candidate in an election. IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO, PETITIONER.
(CASE DIGEST)

On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a municipal


government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As
such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Canon 9, Signing of the Roll of Attorneys
administrative body.

On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses respondent FACTS:
of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan without the latter engaging
13

However, Medado is not free from all liability for his years of inaction.

Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 May 1980, he took the
Attorney’s Oath at the PICC. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May
1980, but failed to do so allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to
Attorneys. Several years later, while rummaging through his things, he found said Notice. He know the law and its consequences.
then realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance
of the PICC was probably just an attendance record.

He thought that since he already took the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact when he thought that
important. The matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys was subsequently forgotten. what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of
Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that what he had signed was just an attendance
In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to provide his roll number record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that
for his MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was point, he should have known that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar, as it
unable to provide his roll number. was the act of signing therein that would have made him so. When, in spite of this
knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized
About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be practice of law.
allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse by characterizing his acts
as “neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code
judgment of Professional Responsibility. At the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the
unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant petition be denied for As aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to conduct themselves in accordance with
petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit, saying that petitioner the ethical standards of the legal profession.
could offer no valid justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. However, the Court
ISSUE: imposed upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of the Resolution. He was also made to pay a fine of
Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. P32,000. Also, during the one-year period, petitioner was not allowed to engage in the
practice of law.

RULING:

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of a fine and the
imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.

Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him the
ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most serious ethical
transgressions. In this case, said action is not warranted.

The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good faith in filing the petition himself,
albeit after the passage of more than 30 years; that he has shown that he possesses the
character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar; and that he appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at different firms and
companies.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen