32 IN RE CUEVAS

Facts:
Petitioner Arthur Cuevas Jr., recently passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. His oath taking was held in abeyance in view of the
Court's resolution which permitted him to take the Bar Exams subject to the condition that should he pass the same he shall not
be allowed to take the lawyer's oath pending approval of the court. This resolution was due to his previous conviction for
Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide. The conviction stemmed from Cuevas' participation in the initiation rites of the
LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the SAN BEDA College of Law, where Raul Camaligan, a neophyte, died as a
result of personal violence inflicted upon him.

Thereafter, petitioner applied for and was granted probation. He was later discharged from probation and his case considered
closed and terminated.

In this petition, Cuevas prays that he be allowed to take the lawyer's oath at the court's most convenient time.

Issue:
W/n Cuevas should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath...

Held:
YES.
His deliberate participation in the senseless beatings over a helpless neophyte shich resulted to the latter's untimely demise
indicates absence of that moral fitness required for admission to the bar. The court nonetheless is willing to give Cuevas a
chance in the same manner that it recently allowed Al Caparros Argosino (case sa legprof), petitioner's co-accused below, to
take the lawyer's oath.

His discharge from probation without any infraction of the attendant conditions therefor and the various certification attesting
to his righteous peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency
in moral character.

31 IN RE GALANG

FACTS:
 Ramon Galang has a pending criminal case of slight physical injuries in the City Court of Manila
 He took the Bar Exams 7 times and was allowed to take the lawyer’s oath in 1972. BUT, he was allowed to do so only
because he fraudulently concealed and withheld from the Court his pending criminal case in 1962,63,64,66,67,69 and
71. And in 1966,67,69 and 71… he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal
case in court

ISSUE: WoN Galang should be disbarred?

HELD: YES!

RATIO:
1. It is well-settled in a long string of cases that concealment of an atty in his application to take the Bar 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.
(Guilty of Fraud upon the Court)
2. Galang’s persistent denial of his involvement in any criminal case (which he later admitted) and his failure to clear
his name for 13 years indicate his lack of the requisite attributes of honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is
therefore unworthy to be a lawyer. (he did not offer any explanation for such omission).
3. Among other grounds for disbarment:
a. Misrepresentations of, or false pretenses relative to, the reqt on applicant’s educational attainment
b. Lack of good moral character
c. Fraudulent passing of the Bar exams

20 IN RE TAGORDA

Facts:
 Luis Tagorda is a member of the provincial board of Isabela
 Previous to the last election, he used placards which in a way was advertising his services as a lawyer and notary
public
 He also wrote a letter to a lieutenant of a barrio in Echague,Isabela. In essence he was informing the lieutenant that
he will be in Echague during the weekends and the lieutenant should convey this information to the other people in
his town.

Issue:
 W/N the acts of Tagorda is advertising
Held:
 Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and this is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics (wala pa
yung code of professional responsibility, 1929 case to)
 The most worthy and effective advertising for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity.
 Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted
by personal relations, is unprofessional.
 It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring lawsuit.
 Solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the members of the
bar. It results in needless litigations and in incenting to strife.
 Tagorda suspended for a month.

TSU1 LEDESMA V CLIMACO

FACTS:
▪ Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. Thereafter, he was appointed as Election Registrar of Cadiz, Negros
Occidental by COMELEC
▪ Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his appointment as Election Registrar would require full time service
as well as on the volume or pressure of work will prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
▪ Judge Climaco denied his motion, and even appointed him as counsel de officio of the accused.

ISSUE: WoN the withdrawal of Ledesma should be allowed

HELD: No.

RATIO:
1. There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel de oficio. Then, even assuming
that he continues his position, his volume of work is likely to be very much less than present. There is no excuse for
him to shirk from his obligation as member of the bar, who expects to remain in good standing, should fulfill.
2. Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. He ought to know that membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions. Being appointed as counsel de oficio requires a high degree of fidelity (law is a
profession and not a mere trade). Requires counsel of repute and eminence.
3. In criminal cases, right to counsel is absolute. No fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard
by counsel.
4. The denial by Judge Climaco was due to the principal effect to delay the case (case has already been postponed for 8
times)

27 PNB v ATTY CEDO

Facts: PNB filed a complaint against Atty. Cedo for violation of Rule 6.02 that states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving gov’t.
service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter which he had intervened with in said service. Cedo was
the former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset management Group of PNB.
During Cedo’s stint with PNB, he became involved in 2 transactions: 1.) sale of steel sheets to Ms. Ong and
2.) intervened in the handling of a loan of spouses Almeda. When a civil action arose because of #1, Cedo, after leaving
the bank appeared as one of the counsel of Ms. Ong. Also, when #2 was involved in a civil action, the Almedas were
represented by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates of which Cedo was a Senior Partner.
Cedo claims that he did not participate in the litigation of Ms. Ong’s case. He also claims that even if it was
his law firm handling the Almeda case, the case was being handled by Atty. Ferrer.

Issue: W/N violated Rule 6.02.

Held: Cedo violated Rule 6.02.

In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between the atty. and the client, inquiry of the
nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further
prejudice the complainant cause. Whatever may be said as to w/n the atty. utilized against his former client
information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact that their previous relationship should have
precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side.
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all the parties
concerned after the disclosure of facts. A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is
his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.

18 PEOPLE v STA TERESA

Facts:
Angeles Sta. Teresa was found by the trial court to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his 12-year old daughter, and
was given the penalty of death. The case is now on automatic review.
When accused was arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. After 9 days, his counsel de oficio made a manifestation that the accused
wanted to change his plea to “guilty.” The prosecution no longer presented testimonial evidence and merely presented
exhibits to which counsel de oficio did not comment nor object. During the promulgation of RTC’s decision, counsel failed to
appear and the trial judge had to appoint
another counsel de oficio for the purpose of promulgation.

Issue: W/N counsel de officio discharged his duties properly

Held: NO.
 The abbreviated and aborted presentation of the prosecution evidence and the improvident plea of guilty was not in
accordance with requirements of due process
 Considering the gravity of the offense charged and the finality of the penalty, the counsel de oficio’s performance was
utterly wanting. As a lawyer sworn to uphold justice and the law, he had the duty to exert utmost efforts to defend his
client and protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he appears to be. This duty becomes more compelling is his
client is accused of a grave crime and is in danger of forfeiting his life
 The right to counsel means more that just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of
standard questions and objections. Counsel must provide effective legal assistance and commit himself to the cause for
the defense. There must be active involvement by the lawyer and he must be well-versed on the case, the procedures,
law, and jurisprudence.

2 IN RE SYCIP

FACTS:
 This is a consolidated petition. The first one filed by the surviving partners of atty. Alexander Sycip and the other
filed by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ovaepa. They pray that they be allowed to continue using the
names of partners who had passed away.
 Petitioners based their petitions on the following arguments:
o Art. 1840 of the Civil Code,
o in regulating other professions, the legislature has authorized the adoption of firm names without any
restriction as to the use of the name of a deceased partner,
o the Canons of Professional Ethics allows the continued use of a deceased partner when permissible by local
custom.

ISSUE:
 W/N law firms may continue to use the names o deceased partners in their firm names

HELD:
 NO!
 Art. 1840 primarily deals with the exception of liability on cases of a dissolved partnership, of the individual
property of the deceased partner for debts contracted by the person who continues the business using the
partnership name. what the law contemplates is a hold over situation preparatory to formal reorganization. Art.
1840 treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather than a professional partnership
whose reputation depends on the personal qualifications of its individual members.
 A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or for business.
a partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is not a partnership formed for then purpose of carrying
on trade or business or of holding property. Thus, assumed or trade name in law practice is improper. The right to
practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise.
It must be considered that in the Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased partner’s name.
Therefore, the cited provision o4 CUI V CUI

Facts:
 The main concern in this case is the respective qualifications of Jesus Cui and Antonio Cui to the position of
administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de Barii, a charitable institution established by Don Pedro Cui and Dona
Benigna Cui.
 Jesus and Antonio are the sons of Mariano Cui, a nephew of the founders of the institution. Antonio’s claim to the
position is based on a “convenio” where then administrator Teodoro resigned in favor of him. Jesus, however, had
no prior notice of this.
 Jesus’s claim is that he should be preferred pursuant to the deed of donation (which recognized their father Mariano
as a legitimate descendant to the position) as he is the older of the two.
 The deed, however, gives preference to a descendant who has a “titulo de abogado” or a doctor, or a civil engineer,
or a pharmacist (in order). Or to the one who pays the highest taxes. Jesus holds the degree of Bachelor of Laws but is
not a member of the Bar, while Antonio is a member of the Bar (he was formerly disbarred, though, by the SC and
was just reinstated weeks before assuming the position)

Issue:
Who has a better right to the position of administrator between Jose and Antonio?
What does the term “titulo de abogado” mean?
Held:
Antonio. The term “titulo de abogado” is not just mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws but membership
in the bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one to the practice of law. Possession of the degree is not indispensable to
qualify as a lawyer since completion of the prescribed courses may be shown in some other way.

It was also argued that Antonio is disqualified for having been previously disbarred since the deed also provided that an
administrator may be removed if found to lack a sound moral character. However, Antonio was reinstated. This reinstatement
is a recognition of his moral rehabilitation after proving what was required by the Bar. Antonio’s restoration to the roll of
lawyers wiped out restrictions and disabilities resulting from the previous disbarment.

 n Canons of Professional Ethics is not applicable.