digests,, for legal ethics

8/13/2019 digests,, for legal ethics

1/8

Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210September 1991

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 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 natural-borncitizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their

appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a

college degree, and must not have been candidates for

any elective position in the immediately preceding elections.

However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be

members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the

practice of law for at least ten years.

Issue:

Whether the respondent does not posses the required

qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at

least ten years.

Held:

In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava,

stated: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of

cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of

pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special

proceeding, the management of such actions and

proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,

and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients,

and all action taken for them in matters connected with

the law incorporation services, assessment and

condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before

judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a

creditors claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings,

and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters ofestate and guardianship have been held to constitute law

practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court,

which requires the application of law, legal procedure,

knowledge, training and experience. The contention that

Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of

having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is

incorrect since Atty. Monsods past work experience as a

lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur

of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-

legislator of both rich and the poor verily more than satisfy

the constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC

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.*** The Supreme Court held that

the appointment of Monsod is in accordance with the

requirement of law as having been engaged in the practice of

law for at least ten years. Monsods past work experiences as

a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-

entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer negotiator of contracts

and a lawyer-legislator of both 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 ten years.

Again, in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs.

Agrava, the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of

cases and litigation in court; item braces the preparation ofpleadings and other papers incident to actions and social

proceedings and other similar work which involves the

determination by a legal mind the legal effects of facts

and conditions.

People v. Hon. Bonifacio Maceda January 24, 2000

FACTS:

This case stems from denial by the SC of the Peoples motion

seeking reconsideration of our August 13, 1990 decision

holding that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda

committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order

of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private respondent

Avelino T. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Antique RTC,

Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal

Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At that time, sufficient reason was

shown why Javellana should not be detained at the Antique

Provincial Jail. The trial courts order specifically provided for

private respondents detention at the residence of Atty. del

Rosario. However, private respondent was not to be allowed

liberty to roam around but was to be held as detentionprisoner in said residence. It was howevere found that the

order was not strictly complied with because Javellana was

not detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He went

about his normal activities as if he were a free man, including

engaging in the practice of law.

Held:

Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the

filing of criminal cases against him. By such arrest, he is

deemed to be under the custody of the law. The trial court

gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private

respondent Javellana with the obligation to hold and detain

him in Atty. del Rosarios residence in his official capacity as

the clerk of court of the regional trial court. Hence, when

Atty. del Rosario was appointed judge, he ceased to be the

personal custodian of accused Javellana and the succeeding

clerk of court must be deemed the custodian under the same

undertaking.

As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is

arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law.

He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may

be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He

must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case

against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be

released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all

prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving finalsentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any

business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive,

while in detention.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. ATTY. MISAEL

M. LADAGAA.M. , No. P-99-1287 January 26, 2001

Facts:

Atty. Misael Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional

Trial Court of Makati, appeared as counsel for and in behalf of

his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an accused in Criminal

Case No. 84-885 for Falsification of Public Documents

before the METC of Quezon City. It is also denied that the

appearance of said respondent in said case was without the

previous permission of the Court. During the occasions that

the respondent appeared as such counsel before the METC of

Quezon City, he was on official leave of absence.

Moreover, his Presiding Judge, Judge Napoleon Inoturan was

aware of the case he was handling. Respondent appeared as

pro bono counsel for his cousin-client Narcisa Ladaga.

Respondent did not receive a single centavo from her.

Helpless as she was and respondent being the only lawyer in

the family, he agreed to represent her out of his compassion

and high regard for her. This is the first time that respondent

ever handled a case for a member of his family who is like a

big sister to him. He appeared for free and for the purpose ofsettling the case amicably. Furthermore, his Presiding Judge

was aware of his appearance as counsel for his cousin. On top

of this, during all the years that hehas been in government

service, he has maintained his integrity and independence.

He failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of the

Department. The presiding judge of the court to which

respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department

contemplated by law.


2/8

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Ladaga, upon such several appearances,

was engages into private practice? NO

Held:

Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of

Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and

Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the

private practice of their profession. A similar prohibition is

found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court

which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in theprivate practice of their profession.

ATTY. VINCENTE RAUL ALMACEN, G.R.No. L-27654 February

18, 1970FACTS:

FACTS:

Before us is Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to

Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," filed on September

25, 1967, in protest against what he therein asserts is "a great

injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court."

He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal

"peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice,

who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions

and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with

impunity." His client's he continues, who was deeply

aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment," has become

"one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy." In

the same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of

justice, he ridicules the members of this Court, saying

"that justice as administered by the present members of

the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb."

He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the people's

forum," so that "the people may know of the silent injustice's

committed by this Court," and that "whatever mistakes,

wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be

repeated." He ends his petition with a prayer that... aresolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the

certificate of the undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law

IN TRUST with reservation that at any time in the future

and in the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may

retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest

profession.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen must surrender his

Lawyers Certificate of Title.

RULING:

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty. Vicente

Raul Almacen be, as he is hereby, suspended from the

practice of law until further orders, the suspension to take

effect immediately.

IN RE: LANUEVO A.M. NO. 1162 AUGUST 29, 1975

FACTS:

Oscar Landicho sent a confidential letter to the Court for re-

correction and reevaluation of his answers to the 1971 Bar

examinations and respectively invited the attention of the

Court to the startling fact that the grade in one examination

(civil law) of at least one bar candidate was raised for one

reason or another, before the bar results were released this

year. He argued that if the bar examiners concerned

reconsidered their grades without formal motion, there is noreason why they may not do so now when proper request

and motion therefor is made. Upon checking of the records of

the 1971 Bar examinations, a successful bar candidate named

Ramon Galang underwent some changes which were

authenticated by the respective examiner concerned. Each of

the 5 examiners admitted having re-evaluated and/or re-

checked the notebook involved pertaining to his subject upon

the representation to him by Bar Confidant Lanuevo that he

has the authority to do the same and that the examinee

concerned failed only in his particular subject and/or was on

the borderline of passing. An investigation conducted by the

NBI further revealed that Romy Galang y Esguerra, alias

Ramon E. Galang, a student of MLQU was charged with the

crime of slight physical injuris in the MTC of Manila against

Eufrosino de Vera. Galang declared that he does not

remember having been charged with such crime. In all his

applications to take the bar examinations, he did not mention

of this fact which he is required under the rules to do.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Lanuevo should be disbarred.2. Whether or not Galang should be disbarred.

HELD:

1. Yes. The bar confidant does not possess any discretion eith

respect to the matter of admission of examinees to the bar.

He is not clothed with authority to determine whether or not

an examinees answers merit re-evaluation or whether the

examiners appraisal of such answers is correct. And whether

or not the examinee benefited was in connivance or a privy

thereto is immaterial. What is decisive is whether the

proceedings or incidents that led to the candidates

admission to the Bar were in accordance with the rules. The

facts show how the respondent adroitly maneuvered the

passing of the examinee in the 1971 Bar exams. The

respondent is therefore guilty of serious misconduct of

having betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him as

bar confidant, thereby impairing the integrity of the Bar

examinations and undermining public faith in the Supreme

Court.

2. Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964,

in connection, among others, with the character requirement

of candidates for admission to the Bar, provides that "every

applicant for admission as a member of the Bar must be ... of

good moral

character ... and must produce before the Supreme Court

satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that nocharges against him involving moral turpitude, have been

filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines." Prior to

1964, or under the old Rules of Court, a bar applicant was

required to produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory

testimonials of good moral character (Sec. 2, Rule 127).

Under both rules, every applicant is duty bound to lay before

the Court all his involvement in any criminal case, pending or

otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to fully ascertain

or determine applicant's moral character. Furthermore, as to

what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the supreme Court

to determine. Hence, the necessity of laying before or

informing the Court of one's personal record whether he

was criminally indicted, acquitted, convicted or the case

dismissed or is still pending becomes more compelling. The

forms for application to take the Bar examinations provided

by the Supreme Court beginning the year 1965 require the

disclosure not only of criminal cases involving moral turpitude

filed or pending against the applicant but also of all other

criminal cases of which he has been accused. In paragraph 4

of that form, the applicant is required under oath to declare

that "he has not been charged with any offense before a

Fiscal, Municipal Judge, or other officer; or accused of,

indicted for or convicted by any court or tribunal of any crime

involving moral turpitude; nor is there a pending case against

him" Yet, respondent Galang continued to intentionallywithhold or conceal from the Court his criminal case of slight

physical injuries which was then and until now is pending in

the City Court of Manila; and thereafter repeatedly omitted

to make mention of the same in his applications to take the

Bar examinations in 1967, 1969 and 1971.

All told, respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang,

is guilty of fraudulently concealing and withholding from the

Court his pending criminal case for physical injuries in 1962,

1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1969 and 1971; and in 1966,

1967,1969 and 1971, he committed perjury when he declared


3/8


4/8

Through Alawi's agency, a contract was executed for the

purchase on installments by Alauya of one of the housing

units of Villarosa. In connection, a housing loan was also

granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance

Corporation (NHMFC).

Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the

President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of his

contract with the company. He claimed that his consent was

vitiated because Alawi had resorted to gross

misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse ofconfidence. He laso wrote similar letters to the Vice President

of Villarosa and the Vice President of NHMFC.

On learning of Alauya's letters, Alawi filed an administrative

complaint against him. One of her grounds was Alauyas

usurpation of the title of "attorney," which only regular

members of the Philippine Bar may properly use.

Alauya justified his use of the title, "attorney," by the

assertion that it is "lexically synonymous" with "Counsellors-

at-law." a title to which Shari'a lawyers have a rightful claim,

adding that he prefers the title of "attorney" because

"counsellor" is often mistaken for "councilor," "konsehal" or

the Maranao term "consial," connoting a local legislator

beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself

a lawyer.

Issue:

Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Sharia bar, can use

the title of Attorney

Held:

He cant. The title is only reserved to those who pass the

regular Philippine bar.

As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney," this Court

has already had occasion to declare that persons who pass

the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine

Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari'a courts. While

one who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one whohas been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be

considered "counsellors," in the sense that they give counsel

or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an

"attorney." The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who,

having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and

successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted

to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members

thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are

authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.

AGUIRRE V. RAMA

FACTS

Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the

2000 Bar Examinations. On 21 May 2001, one day before the

scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as

members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie

Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of

Admission to the Bar, charging respondent with unauthorized

practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave

misrepresentation.

The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member

of the Bar during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001

but ruled that he cannot sign the Roll of Attorneys pending

the resolution of the charge against him.

Complainant charged respondent for unauthorized practiceof law and grave misconduct, alleging that respondent, while

not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for Vice Mayoralty

candidate George Bunan in the May 2001 elections before

the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of

Mandaon, Masbate, and filed with the MBEC a pleading as

counsel entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the

Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-

Mayor. Respondent also signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao

in her petition to be declared the winning mayoralty

candidate.

On the charge of violation of law, respondent is not allowed

by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or

administrative body, respondent being a municipal

government employee (Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan

of Mandaon, Masbate).

The Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar

Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and

recommendation.

OBCs Report and Recommendation

The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before theMBEC as counsel for Bunan in the May 2001 elections. The

minutes of the MBEC proceedings show that respondent

actively participated in the proceedings. The OBC likewise

found that respondent appeared in the MBEC proceedings

even before he took the lawyers oath on 22 May 2001.

Respondents misconduct casts a serious doubt on his moral

fitness to be a member of the Bar. Such unauthorized

practice of law is a ground to deny his admission to the

practice of law.

HELD

Respondent is guilty of unauthorized practice of law and was

thus denied admission to the Philippine bar.

1. SC agreed with the finding of the OBC that

respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and

thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.

- Respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan and signed as

counsel in the pleadings

- was also retained as counsel of mayoralty candidate Emily

Estipona-Hao and of party REFORMA LM-PPC

*all these took place before Respondent took his oath and

signed the Roll of Attorneys

2. What constitutes the practice of law

- The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases

or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings

and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf

of clients before judges and courts

- all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in

matters connected with the law, incorporation services,

assessment and condemnation services contemplating an

appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a

mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy

and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in

attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have

been held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation

and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done

involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the

legal effect of facts and conditions.

- any activity, in or out of court, which requires the

application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and

experience.

- perform acts which are usually performed by members of

the legal profession.

- render any kind of service which requires the use of legal

knowledge or skill.

* respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he

appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed

various pleadings, without license to do so.

3. The right to practice law is not a natural or

constitutional right but is a privilege.- limited to persons of good moral character with special

qualifications duly ascertained and certified.

- A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law

simply by passing the bar examinations.

- although respondent passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and

took the lawyers oath, it is the signing in the Roll of

Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer.


5/8

People v Leoncio Santocildes, Jr. Y Siga-an

FACTS:

Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape of a

girl less than nine years old. The court rendered a decision

finding appellant guilty as charged. However, during the

proceeding, accused-appellant was not represented by a

member of the Bar. Hence, he filed a Notice of Appeal and

praying that the judgment against him be set aside on the

ground that he was denied of his right to be represented by a

counsel which results to the denial of due process. The Officeof the Solicitor General maintains that notwithstanding the

fact that appellant's counsel during the trial was not a

member of the Bar, he was afforded due process since he

was given opportunity to be heard and records reveal that

said person handled the case in a professional and skillful

manner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a person not member of the Philippine Bar

may represent an accused in a criminal proceeding.

HELD:

NO.

The presence and participation of counsel in criminal

proceedings should never be taken lightly. Even the most

intelligent or educated man may be convicted without a

counsel, not because he is guilty but because he does not

know how to establish his innocence.

The right of the accused to counsel is guaranteed to minimize

the imbalance in the adversarial system where the accused is

pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the

State. A person has the right to due process, he must be

heard before being condemned - a part of person's basic

rights. The right to counsel of an accused is enshrined in the

Constitution (Art. III,Secs. 12 & 14(2)], Rules of Criminal

Procedure (Sec. 1 of Rule 115), Art. 8, Sec. 5 of the

Constitution and the Rules of Court (Sec. 1 of Rule 138)The assailed judgment is Set Aside, and the case is hereby

Remanded to the trial court for new trial.

Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), Enrique

Entila and Victoriano Tenazas vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar

Company, Court of Industrial Relations and Quintin Muning

FACTS:

1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ORDEREDREINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES FOR ENTILA AND

TENAZAS.

1. Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of Entila and Tenazasfiled a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total

backwages.

i. Entila and Tenazas filed manifestation indicating their

non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their

backwages

ii. Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of

Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages.

1. Opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that he

is not a lawyer.

a. Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the

backwages as compensation for professional services

rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:

i. Cipriano 10%

ii. Quintin Muning 10%iii. Atanacio Pacis 5%

iii. CANON 34: condemns an agreement providing for

the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union

president is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers

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

attorney's fees

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.

b. Representation should be exclusively entrusted to duly

qualified members of the bar.

2. The permission for a non-member does not entitle therepresentative to compensation for such representation.

1. Sec 24, Rule 138Compensation of attorney's agreement asto fees:

i. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover fromhis client no more than a reasonable compensation for his

services.

a. Petition to take the Bar Exam in 1960 after failing in the

1959 Bar Examination.

b. His uncle, TAPEL, opposed the petition alleging that his

nephew is not a person of good 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 name-sake, Juan M.

Publico.

ii. PUBLICO has not completed Grade 4

iii. Tapel instituted an administrative case against his

nephew for falsification of school records or credentials.

3. PUBLICO PASSED THE BAR, took the lawyer's oath, andsigned the Roll of Attorneys.

4. Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo Paras, Jr., investigatedand reported:

1. September 1961, Dulcisimo Tapel dropped the complainton the ground that his witnesses had turned hostile.

i. Motion denied, his witnesses had already testified.

2. Recommended PUBLICOs name to be stricken off the rollof attorneys.

i. Respondent falsified his school records

ii. Thereby violating the provisions of Sections 5 and 6,

Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, which require completion by abar examinee or candidate of the prescribed courses in

elementary, high, pre-law and law school, prior to his

admission to the practice of law.

5. 11 years later, PUBLICO filed a Petition for Reinstatementalleging that he had never received, 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.

1. He was advised to inquire into the outcome of thedisbarment case against him.

2. He resigned from all his positions in public and privateoffices, and transferred to Manila.

3. Prayed that Court allow reinstatement taking intoconsideration his exemplary conduct from the time he

became a lawyer, his services to the community the

numerous awards, resolutions and/'or commendations he

received,

i. Court denied the Petition.

ii. Petitioner moved for reconsideration was denied by

the Court for lack of merit.

4. 5th plea avers that his enrollment in Third Year HighSchool in Manila was through the initiative of his uncle,

Dulcisimo B. Tapel who accompanied him to school and

enrolled him in a grade level above his qualifications in spite

of his demonstrationsi. Misrepresentation committed was precipitated by his

uncle; 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. No opposition has been filed to any of the petitions.

ISSUE:

May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services

rendered?
http://lawatworkdiva.blogspot.com/2013/10/people-v-leoncio-santocildes-jr-y-siga.htmlhttp://lawatworkdiva.blogspot.com/2013/10/people-v-leoncio-santocildes-jr-y-siga.html


6/8

The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer

according to the order, is sought to be voided in the present

petition.

WON a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees which

are deductible from the backpay 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

petitioners in the present petition. Their inclusion in thepetition as co-petitioners was belated.

HELD:

ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE SET ASIDE AS THEY ARE

AWARDED 10% OF BACKWAGES AS ATTORNEYS FEES FOR

MUNING. COSTS AGAINST MUNING.

1. Lawyer-client relationship is only possible if one is alawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot

establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila

and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot,

therefore, recover attorney's fees.

2. Public policy demands that legal work in representation ofparties litigant should be entrusted only to those possessing

tested qualifications, for the ethics of the profession and for

the protection of courts, clients and the public.

3. The reasons are that the ethics of the legal professionshould not be violated:

1. Acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contemptof court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both,

2. Law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit ofan act or an act done in violation of law

3. If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave thepublic in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case of

necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside

from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to

disciplinary measures.4. In response to UNION may appeal an award of attorney'sfees which are deductible from the backpay of some of its

members:

1. YES because such union or labor organization is permittedto institute an action in the industrial courton behalf of its

members

2. If an award is disadvantageous to its members, the unionmay prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party, under Sec 6,

RA 875:

i. Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases Appeals. Any

person aggrieved by any order of the Court may appeal to the

Supreme Court of the Philippines.

3. Usually, individual unionist is not in a position to bear thefinancial burden of litigations.

PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered

financial difficulties. Later on, Central Bank issued a

resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent.

Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition

with the then Court of First Instance praying for the

assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANK's

liquidation.

After EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG for thepurpose of recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG, on July 17,

1987, filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for

'reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and

damages against respondents Tan, et al. so PCGG issued

several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly

acquired by the above-named persons by taking advantage of

their close relationship and influence with former President

Marcos. These respondents were represented by Mendoza.

PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as

counsel for respondents. The motions alleged that

respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor General and counsel

to Central Bank, 'actively intervened in the liquidation of

GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by respondents

Tan, et al.and became Allied Banking Corporation.

The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former

government lawyers from accepting 'engagement or

employment in connection with any matter in which he had

intervened while in said service.

ISSUEW/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

applies to respondent Mendoza?

HELD

NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. The matter or the act of respondent

Mendoza as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is

'advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said

bank's liquidation and even filing the petition for its

liquidation with the CFI of . In fine, the Court should resolve

whether his act of advising the Central Bank on the legal

procedure to liquidate GENBANK is included within the

concept of 'matterunder Rule 6.03.

The 'matter where he got himself involved was in informing

Central Bank on the procedure provided by law to liquidate

GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the necessary petition.

The subject 'matter of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not

the same nor is related to but is different from the subject

'matter in Civil Case No. 0096 which is about the

sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al.

The jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution

and liquidation of banks. It goes without saying that Code

6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply

to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention

while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an

intervention on a matter different from the matter involved

in Civil Case No. 0096.Secondly, the supposed intervention of Mendoza in the

liquidation case is not significant and substantial. We note

that the petition filed merely seeks the assistance of the court

in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the court

in this type of proceedings is to assist the Central Bank in

determining claims of creditors against the GENBANK.

Also, The disqualification of respondent Mendoza has long

been a dead issue. For a fact, the recycled motion for

disqualification in the case at bar was filed more than four

yearsafter the filing of the petitions for certiorari, prohibition

and injunction with the Supreme Court which were

subsequently remanded to the Sandiganbayan. At the very

least, the circumstances under which the motion to disqualify

in the case at bar were refiled put petitioner's motive as

highly suspect.

It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in

all its strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who 'switch

sides. It is claimed that 'switching sides' carries the danger

that former government employee may compromise

confidential official information in the process. But this

concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As afore-

discussed, the act of respondent Mendoza in informing the

Central Bank on the procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a

different matter from the subject matter of Civil Case No.

0005 which is about the sequestration of the shares ofrespondents Tan, etal., in Allied Bank. There is no switching

sides for there were no sides.

CATU V. RELLOSA

FACTS

Catu co-owns a lot and building and contested the possession

of one of the units in the said building by Elizabeth (sister in

law of Catu) and Pastor, who ignored demands to vacate the

place. The parties went to the Lupon Tagapamayapa to try to

settle the issue amicably. Respodent Rellosa as Punong


7/8

Barangay presided over the conciliation proceedings. The

parties failed to settle their case, and the petitioner brought

the case to court.

Surprisingly, Rellosa appeared in court as counsel for

Elizabeth and Pastor. This prompted Catu to file an

administrative complaint against Rellosa for his act of

impropriety.

IBP committee on bar discipline, after investigation, ruled

that Rellosa violated Rule 6.031 and RA 67132. The

committee recommended Rellosas suspension from practicefor 1 month.

ISSUE

W/N Rellosa violated Rule 6.03

HELD

No.

Rule 6.03 applies only to a lawyer who has left government

service. Rellosa was an incumbent punong barangay at the

time he committed the act complained of.

As such incumbent, the proper law that governs him is RA

71603, which actually allows him to practice his profession.

However, being a public official, he is also governed by

Revised Civil Service Rules, which requires him first to obtain

a written permission from his department head who is the

Sec. of DILG. This he failed to do.

SC ruled that Rellosa violated the lawyers oath (to uphold

and obey law), Rule 1.01 (lawyer shall not engage in unlawful

conduct), and Canon 7 (lawyer shall uphold integrity and

dignity of the profession), for a lawyer who disobeys law

disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.

SC punished Rellosa with 6 months suspension and strongly

advised him to look up and take to heart the meaning of the

word delicadeza.

__________

Hofilena question: under RA 6713, are lawyers allowed topractice their profession?

Answer: Yes, RA 6713 says if the constitution or law allows

it Public officers however are subject to Civil Service Rules

which state that should they engage in private practice of

their profession, they should first secure a written permission

from their department head.

Spouses OLBES VS. Atty. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE, AC-5365.

April 27, 2005

Facts:

Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by

Spouses Olbes for security of a loan. After the loan was paid

and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five

checks for P50, 000 with different maturity date. All checks

were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case for estafa

against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the spouses Olbes

to file a disbarment case against Atty. Deciembre with the

Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the report,

Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be

suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:

Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in

accord with his fault.

Held:

1A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept

engagement or employment in connection with any matter in

which he intervened while in service2Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers

and Employees3Local Government Code of 1991

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege

burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals

who are not only learned in the law, but also known to

possess good moral character. A lawyer is an oath-bound

servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by

inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is

the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which

he has sworn to be a fearless crusader. By taking the

lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and

the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fairand impartial administration of justice. Lawyers should act

and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a

manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics

faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly clear that the

Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously

transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank

checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon

at all and despite respondents full knowledge that the loan

supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid.

His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial

document, resorted to for his material gain.

Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely

unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable;

they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal

profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables

one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. Considering the

depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we find

the penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for two

years from the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity

for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible.

His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of

one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended

indefinitely from the practice of law effective immediately.

In Re: Argosino, 270 SCRA 26

FACTS:

Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but

was denied of taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls

of Attorneys due to his conviction of reckless imprudence

resulting in homicide from a hazing incident. Later in his

sentence, he was granted probation by the court. He filed a

petition to the Supreme Court praying that he be allowed to

take the Lawyers Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a

proof of the required good moral character he now possess,

he presented no less than fifteen (15) certifications among

others from: two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and

six (6) members of religious order. In addition, he, together

with the others who were convicted, organized a scholarship

foundation in honor of their hazing victim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the

Lawyers Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and practice law.

HELD:

YES. Petition granted.

RATIO:Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent

proof that he possessed the required good moral character as

required before taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls

of Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the premises

that he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the

benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that

the Lawyers Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality

before the practice of law, and that the community assistance

he had started is expected to continue in serving the more

unfortunate members of the society.


8/8

Emilio Grande vs Evangeline de Silva

Facts:

Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party in

a criminal case, for Estafa and BP22 in RTC Marikina against

Sergio Natividad. During the proceedings, respondent Atty.

Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the accused, tendered to

complainant a check in the amount of P144,768.00, drawn

against her account with the Philippine National Bank, as

settlement of the civil aspect of the case against her

client. Complainant refused to accept the check, butrespondent assured him that the same will be paid upon its

presentment to her drawee bank. She manifested that as a

lawyer, she would not issue a check which is not sufficiently

funded. Thus, respondent was prevailed upon by

complainant to accept the check. Consequently, he desisted

from participating as a complaining witness in the criminal

case, which led to the dismissal of the same and the release

of the accused, Sergio Natividad.

When complainant deposited the check he was told the

account was closed. He demanded the payment of the check

from respondent which she ignored so she filed a criminal

case, for Estafa and BP22 in RTC Marikina against Atty. De

Silva and a disbarment case of respondent for deceit and

violation of the Lawyers Oath.

IBP found respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and

violation of the Lawyers Oath. Thus, he recommended that

respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2)

years.

Issue:

WON respondent should be suspended.

Held:

The record shows that respondent prevailed upon

complainant to accept her personal check by way of

settlement for the civil liability of her client, Sergio Natividad,

with the assurance that the check will have sufficient fundswhen presented for payment. In doing so, she deceived

complainant into withdrawing his complaint against her client

in exchange for a check which she drew against a closed

account.

It is clear that the breach of trust committed by

respondent in issuing a bouncing check amounted to deceit

and constituted a violation of her oath, for which she should

be accordingly penalized.Such an act constitutes gross

misconduct and the penalties for such malfeasance is

prescribed by Rule 138, Section 27of the Rules of Court, to

wit:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme

Court, grounds therefore. A member of the bar may be

disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the

Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross

misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by

reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,

or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take

before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience

appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.

The nature of the office of an attorney requires that a

lawyer shall be a person of good moral character. Since this

qualification is a condition precedent to a license to enter

upon the practice of law, the maintenance thereof is equally

essential during the continuance of the practice and theexercise of the privilege. Gross misconduct which puts the

lawyers moral character in serious doubt may render her

unfit to continue in the practice of law.[9]

The loss of moral character of a lawyer for any reason

whatsoever shall warrant her suspension or

disbarment,[10] because it is important that members of the

legal brotherhood must conform to the highest standards of

morality.[11] Any wrongdoing which indicates moral

unfitness for the profession, whether it be professional or

non-professional, justifies disciplinary action. Thus, a lawyer

may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly

incurred. Such conduct is unbecoming and does not speak

well of a member of the bar, for a lawyers professional and

personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond reproach

and above suspicion.[12]

Moreover, the attitude of respondent in deliberately

refusing to accept the notices served on her betrays a

deplorably willful character or disposition which stains the

nobility of the legal profession.[13] Her conduct not only

underscores her utter lack of respect for authority; it alsobrings to the fore a darker and more sinister character flaw in

her psyche which renders highly questionable her moral

fitness to continue in the practice of law: a defiance for law

and order which is at the very core of her profession.

Such defiance is anathema to those who seek a career in

the administration of justice because obedience to the

dictates of the law and justice is demanded of every

lawyer. How else would respondent even endeavor to serve

justice and uphold the law when she disdains to follow even

simple directives? Indeed, the first and foremost command

of the Code of Professional Responsibility could not be any

clearer:

A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE

CONSTITUTION OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE

RESPECT FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.

Needless to state, respondents persistent refusal to

comply with lawful orders directed at her with not even an

explanation for doing so is contumacious conduct which

merits no compassion. The duty of a lawyer is to uphold the

integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. She

can only do this by faithfully performing her duties to society,

to the bar, to the courts and to her clients .[14] We cannot

tolerate any misconduct that tends to besmirch the fair name

of an honorable profession.

SUSPENDED FOR 2 YEARS.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_4838.htm#_ftn9