nov10 cases

8/9/2019 NOV10 Cases

1/46

Renato Cayetano vs Christian MonsodPosted on November 27, 2012

201 SCRA 210

G.R. No. 100113September 3, 1991

a!ts:

Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Corazon C. Aquino as

chairman of the COMELEC. Cayetano questioned the appointment for

Monsod alleedly lac!ed the necessary qualification of ha"in been

enaed in the practice of law for at least #$ years.

%he #&'( constitution pro"ides in )ection #* Article +,-C: %here shall be a

Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and siCommissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and*

at the time of their appointment* at least thirty-fi"e years of ae* holders of

a collee deree* and must not ha"e been candidates for any electi"e

position in the immediately precedin elections./owe"er* a ma0ority

thereof* includin the Chairman* shall be members of the Philippine 1ar

who ha"e been enaed in the practice of law for at least ten years.

+t was established that after raduatin from the Collee of Law and

hurdlin the 1ar* respondent wor!ed in his father2s law office for a short

while* then wor!ed as an Operations Officer in the 3orld 1an! 4roup for

about 5 years* which in"ol"ed ettin acquainted with the laws of member-

countries* neotiatin loans* and coordinatin leal* economic and pro0ect

wor! of the 1an!. 6pon returnin to the Philippines* he wor!ed with the

Meralco 4roup* ser"ed as Chief Eecuti"e Officer of an in"estment ban!

and has subsequently wor!ed either as Chief Eecuti"e Officer or

Consultant of "arious companies.

"ss#e

#. 3hether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position ofChairman of the COMELEC.

5. 3hether or not the Commission on Appointments committed ra"e

abuse of discretion in confirmin Monsod2s appointment.

$e%d

#. 7E). +n the case of Philippine Lawyers Association "s. Ara"a: %he
http://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/cayetano-vs-monsod/http://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/cayetano-vs-monsod/


2/46

practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litiation in court8

+n eneral* all ad"ice to clients* and all action ta!en for them in matters

connected with the law incorporation ser"ices* assessment and

condemnation ser"ices* contemplatin an appearance before 0udicial body*

the foreclosure of mortae* enforcement of a creditor2s claim inban!ruptcy and insol"ency proceedins* and conductin proceedins in

attachment* and in matters of estate and uardianship ha"e been held to

constitute law practice.

Practice of law means any acti"ity* in or out court* which requires the

application of law* leal procedure* !nowlede* trainin and eperience.

9%o enae in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are

characteristics of the profession. 4enerally* to practice law is to i"e notice

or render any !ind of ser"ice* which de"ice or ser"ice requires the use inany deree of leal !nowlede or s!ill. +n eneral* a practice of law

requires a lawyer and client relationship* it is whether in or out of court.

A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: 9. . . for

"aluable consideration enaes in the business of ad"isin person* firms*

associations or corporations as to their rihts under the law* or appears in

a representati"e capacity as an ad"ocate in proceedins pendin or

prospecti"e* before any court* commissioner* referee* board* body*

committee* or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle

contro"ersies. Otherwise stated* one who* in a representati"e capacity*

enaes in the business of ad"isin clients as to their rihts under the law*

or while so enaed performs any act or acts either in court or outside of

court for that purpose* is enaed in the practice of law.

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine 1ar* ha"in passed

the bar eaminations of #&;$ with a rade of ';.


3/46

the poor ? "erily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement ? that

he has been enaed in the practice of law for at least #$ years.

5. @O. %he power of the COA to i"e consent to the nomination of the

Comelec Chairman by the president is mandated by the constitution. %he

power of appointment is essentially within the discretion of whom it is so

"ested sub0ect to the only condition that the appointee should possess the

qualification required by law. rom the e"idence* there is no occasion for

the )C to eercise its correcti"e power since there is no such ra"e abuse

of discretion on the part of the CA.

+n the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the 1ar of 6nsuccessful

Candidates of #&B; to #& AL1+@O C6@A@A@Desolution March #'* #&


4/46

DA @o. &(5 has for its ob0ect* accordin to its author* to admit to the 1ar*

those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of readin materials and

inadequate preparation.

+n the 0udicial system from which ours has been e"ol"ed* the admission*suspension* disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the

practice of the profession and their super"ision ha"e been indisputably a

0udicial function and responsibility. 3e ha"e said that in the 0udicial system

from which ours has been deri"ed* the admission* suspension* disbarment

or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is

concededly 0udicial.

%he power of admittin an attorney to practice ha"in been perpetually

eercised by the courts* it ha"in been so enerally held that the act of thecourt in admittin an attorney to practice is the 0udment of the court* and

an attempt as this on the part of the Leislature to confer such riht upon

any one bein most eceedinly uncommon* it seems clear that the

licensin of an attorney is and always has been a purely 0udicial function*

no matter where the power to determine the qualifications may reside.

On this matter* there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of

the 0udicial and leislati"e departments of the o"ernment.

+t is ob"ious* therefore* that the ultimate power to rant license for the

practice of law belons eclusi"ely to this Court* and the law passed by

Conress on the matter is of permissi"e character* or as other authorities

may say* merely to fi the minimum conditions for the license.

"n Re& Ar'osino (.M. No. 712 )#%y 13, 199*

AC%): %his is a matter for admission to the bar and oath ta!in of asuccessful bar applicant. Arosino was pre"iously in"ol"ed with hazin thatcaused the death of Daul Camalian but was sentenced with homicidethrouh rec!less imprudence after he pleaded uilty. /e was sentencedwith 5 years imprisonment where he applied for a probation thereafterwhich was ranted by the court with a 5 yr probation. /e too! the bar eamand passed but was not allowed to ta!e oath. /e filed a petition to allow


5/46

him to ta!e the attorney2s oath of office a"errin that his probation wasalready terminated. %he court note that he spent only #$ months of theprobation period before it was terminated.

+))6E: 3O@ Arosino may ta!e oath of office.

D6L+@4: %he court upheld the principle of maintainin the ood morals ofall 1ar members* !eepin in mind that such is of reater importance so faras the eneral public and the proper administration of 0ustice areconcerned* than the possession of leal learnin. /ence he was as!ed bythe court to produce e"idence that would certify that he has reformed andha"e become a responsible member of the community throuh swornstatements of indi"iduals who ha"e a ood reputation for truth and whoha"e actually !nown Mr. Arosino for a sinificant period of time to certifyhe is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. %he court also

ordered that said a copy of the proceedin be furnished to thefamilyFrelati"es of Daul Camalian

+n the matter of the Gisqualification of 1ar Eaminee* /aron ). Meilin inthe 5$$5 bar eaminations and for disciplinary action as member ofPhilippine )hariHa 1ar* Melendrez.

AC%):#. MELE@GDEI filed with the Office of the 1ar Confidant JO1CK

a Petition to disqualify /aron ). Melin JMelinK from ta!in the 5$$5 1arEaminations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty asa member of the Philippine )hari2a 1ar.

#. Allees that Melin did not disclose in his Petition to ta!e the5$$5 1ar Eaminations that he has three J>K pendin criminal cases bothfor 4ra"e Oral Gefamation and for Less )erious Physical +n0uries.

i. Melin alleedly uttered defamatory words aainstMelendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people.

ii. Melin also purportedly attac!ed and hit the face ofMelendrez2 wife causin the in0uries to the latter.

5. Allees that Melin has been usin the title 9Attorney in hiscommunications* as )ecretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City* despite thefact that he is not a member of the 1ar.

5. MEL+@4 eplains that he did not disclose the criminal casesbecause retired ude Corocoy Moson* their former professor* ad"ised himto settle misunderstandin.


6/46

5. 1elie"in in ood faith that the case would be settled becausethe said ude has moral ascendancy o"er them* considered the threecases that arose from a sinle incident as 9closed and terminated.

i. Genies the chares and added that the acts do not in"ol"emoral turpitude.

5. 6se of the title 9Attorney* Melin admits that some of hiscommunications really contained the word 9Attorney as they were typedby the office cler!.

>. Office of 1ar Confidant disposed of the chare of non-disclosureaainst Melin:

5. Melin should ha"e !nown that only the court of competent0urisdiction can dismiss cases* not a retired 0ude nor a law professor. +nfact* the cases filed aainst Melin are still pendin.

>. E"en if these cases were already dismissed* he is stillrequired to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his ood moral

character.

+))6E:3O@ Melin2s act of concealin cases constitutes dishonesty. 7E).

/ELG:PE%+%+O@ +) 4DA@%EG. MEM1ED)/+P +) )6)PE@GEG until furtherorders from the Court* the suspension to ta!e effect immediately. +nsofaras the Petitionsee!s to pre"ent /aron ). Melin from ta!in the Lawyer2s

Oath and sinin the Doll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine 1ar*the same is G+)M+))EG for ha"in become moot and academic JMelindid not pass the barK.

#. Dule (.$#: 9A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making afalse statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with hisapplication for admission to the bar.

#. /e is aware that he is not a member of the 1ar* there was no"alid reason why he sined as 9attorney whoe"er may ha"e typed theletters. i. 6nauthorized use of theappellation 9attorney may render a person liable for indirect contempt ofcourt.

5. PDAC%+CE O LA3 +) A /+4/ PED)O@AL PD++LE4E.#. Limited to citizens of good moral character* with special

educational qualifications* duly ascertained and certified.5. Dequirement of ood moral character is* in fact* of reater

importance so far as the eneral public and the proper administration of0ustice are concerned* than the possession of leal learnin.


7/46

>. Application form of 5$$5 1ar Eaminations requires the applicantthat applicant to a"er that he or she 9has not been chared with any act oromission punishable by law* rule or reulation before a fiscal* 0ude* officeror administrati"e body* or indicted for* or accused or con"icted by any courtor tribunal of* any offense or crime in"ol"in moral turpitude nor is there

any pendin case or chare aainst himFher.#. Melin did not re"eal that he has three pendin criminal

cases. /is deliberate silence constitutes concealment* done under oath atthat.

"n R+& etition -or Reinstatement in the Ro%% o- Attorneys, )AN /.("C

AC%):#. %/DEE PE%+%+O@) Jfrom Publico* faculty of Polytechnic 6ni"ersity*

Ci"ic Association in ManilaK:#. Petition to ta!e the 1ar Eam in #&;$ after failin in the #&. Leal Officer-+n"estiator* Dicardo Paras* r.* in"estiated andreported:

#. )eptember #&;#* Gulcisimo %apel dropped the complaint onthe round that his witnesses had turned hostile.

i. Motion denied* his witnesses had already testified.5. Decommended P61L+CO2s name to be stric!en off the roll of

attorneys.i. Despondent falsified his school records

ii. %hereby "iolatin the pro"isions of )ections < and ;* Dule#5( of the Dules of Court* which require completion by a bar eaminee orcandidate of the prescribed courses in elementary* hih* pre-law and lawschool* prior to his admission to the practice of law.

B. ## years later* P61L+CO filed a Petition for Deinstatement alleinthat he had ne"er recei"ed* for had he been informed* nor did he ha"e any


8/46

!nowlede of the Desolution of the Court orderin the 1ar Gi"ision to stri!ehis name from the Doll of Attorneys.

#. /e was ad"ised to inquire into the outcome of the disbarmentcase aainst him.

5. /e resined from all his positions in public and pri"ate offices*

and transferred to Manila.>. Prayed that Court allow reinstatement ta!in into

consideration his eemplary conduct from the time he became a lawyer*his ser"ices to the community the numerous awards* resolutions andFHorcommendations he recei"ed*

i. Court denied the Petition.ii. Petitioner mo"ed for reconsideration was denied by the

Court for lac! of merit.B.


9/46


10/46

%he appointment* qualification* 0urisdiction and powers of notaries publicare o"erned by the pro"isions of the @otarial Law embodied in )ections

5># to )ection 5B#* Chapter ## of the De"ised Administrati"e Code*)ection 5>5 of the De"ised Administrati"e Code as amended by Eecuti"e

Order @o. B#* May ##* #&B< pro"ides:

Se!tion 232.Appointment of notaries public. ? udesof Court of irst +nstance Jnow Deional %rial CourtK inthe respecti"e may appoint as many notaries public as

the public ood requires* and there shall be at least onefor e"ery municipality in each pro"ince. @otaries publicin the City of Manila shall be appointed by one of the

0udes of the Court of irst +nstance Jnow Deional %rialCourtK of Manila to be chosen by the 0udes of the

branches of said courtN J3ords in parenthesis suppliedK

)trictly spea!in* )hariHa Gistrict Courts do not form part of the interated0udicial system of the Philippines. )ection 5 of the udiciary Deoranization

Acts of #&'$ J1.P. 1l. #5&K enumerates the courts co"ered by the Act*comprisin the interated 0udicial system. )hariHa Courts are not included

in the enumeration notwithstandin that* when said 1.P. 1l. #5& too!effect on Auust #B* #&'#* P.G. @o. #$'> Jotherwise !nown as NCode of

Muslim Personal Laws of the PhilippinesNK was already in force. %he)hariHa Courts are mentioned in )ection B< of the Act only for the purpose

of includin them Nin the fundin appropriations.N

%he fact that 0udes thereof are required by law to possess the samequalifications as those of Deional %rial Courts does not sinify that the

)hariHa Court is a reular court li!e the Deional %rial Court. %he latter is acourt of eneral 0urisdiction* i.e.* competent to decide all cases* ci"il and

criminal* within its 0urisdiction. A )hariHa Gistrict Court* created pursuant toArticle #>( of Presidential Gecree @o. #$'>* is a court of limited

0urisdiction* eercisin oriinal only o"er cases specifically enumerated inArticle #B> thereof. +n other words* a )hariHa Gistrict Court is not a reularcourt eercisin eneral 0urisdiction within the meanin of )ection 5>5 of

the @otarial Law.

%he fact* too* that )hariHa Courts are called NcourtsN does not imply thatthey are on equal footin or are identical with reular courts* for the word

NcourtN may be applied to tribunals which are not actually 0udicial incharacter* but are quasi-0udicial aencies* li!e the )ecurities and Echane

Commission* Land Deistration Authority* )ocial )ecurity Commission*


11/46

Ci"il Aeronautics 1oards* 1ureau of Patents* %rademar! and %echnoloy*Enery Deulatory 1oard* etc. 1

Moreo"er* decisions of the )hariHa Gistrict Courts are not ele"ated to thisCourt by appeal under Dule B#* or by petition for re"iew under Dule B


12/46

0udes of the )hariHa Gistrict Court with the same statutory authority. %heauthority to appoint notaries public contemplated under )ection 5>5 of the

@otarial Law and the correspondin super"isin authority o"er themauthorized under )ection 5B' thereof require the qualifications and

eperience of an D%C ude.

+t must be made clear in this reard that since a person who has passedthe )hariHa 1ar Eamination does not automatically become a reular

member of the Philippine 1ar* he lac!s the necessary qualification to beappointed a notary public. )ection 5>> of the @otarial Law pro"ides for the

qualifications for appointment as notary public* thus:

Se!tion 233. Qualifications for Appointment. ? %o beeliible for appointment as notary public* a person mustbe a citizen of the Philippines Jor of the 6nited )tatesK

and o"er twenty-one years of ae. /e must*furthermore* be a person who has been admitted to thepractice of law or who has completed and passed in thestudies of law in a reputable uni"ersity or school of law*

or has passed the eamination for the office of thepeace or cler! or deputy cler! of court* or be a personwho had qualified for the office of notary public under

the )panish so"ereinty.

+n the chartered cities and in the capitals of thepro"inces* where there are two or more lawyers

appointed as notaries public* no person other than alawyer or a person who had qualified to hold the officeof notary public under the )panish so"ereinty shall

hold said office.

+n municipalities or municipal districts where no personresides ha"in the qualifications herein before specified

or ha"in them* refuses to hold such office* 0udes offirst instance may appoint other persons temporarily to

eercise the office of notary public who ha"e the

requisite qualifications or fitness and morality.

+n an En Bancresolution of the Court dated Auust * in 1ar Matter@o. ;'# NDe: Petition to Allow )hariHa Lawyers to eercise their professionat the reular courts*N this Court cateorically stated that a person who has

passed the )hariHa 1ar Eamination is only a special member of thePhilippine 1ar and not a full-fleded member thereof e"en if he is a


13/46

1achelor of Laws deree holder. As such* he is authorized to practice onlyin the )hariHa courts.

Only a person duly admitted as members of the Philippine 1ar inaccordance with the Dules of Court are entitled to practice law before the

reular courts. )ection #* Dule #>' of the De"ised Dules of Court pro"ides:

Se!tion 1. $ho may practice law. ? Any personheretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar* orhereafter admitted as such in accordance with the

pro"isions of this rule* and who is in ood and reularstandin* is entitled to practice law.

%his Court further emphasized in its resolution in 1ar Matter ;'#* that:

+n order to be admitted as member of the Philippine 1ar*the candidate must pass an eamination for admissionco"erin the followin sub0ects: Political and

+nternational Law Labor and )ocial Leislation Ci"ilLaw and %aation Mercantile Law Criminal Law

Demedial Law and Leal Ethics and PracticalEercises J)ec. ##* Dule #>'K urther* in order that acandidate may be deemed to ha"e passed the bar

eamination* he must ha"e obtained a eneral a"eraeof (K.

+t is quite ob"ious that the sub0ect matter of the twoeaminations are different. %he Philippine 1ar

Eamination co"ers the entire rane of the PhilippineLaws and 0urisprudence* while the )hariHa 1arEamination co"ers Muslim personal laws and

0urisprudence only. /ence* a person who has passedthe )hariHa 1ar Eamination* who is not a lawyer* is not

qualified to practice law before the reular courtsbecause he has not passed the requisite eaminations


14/46

for admission as a member of the Philippine 1ar./owe"er* the )hariHa bar lawyer may appear before theMunicipal %rial Courts as aent or friend of a litiant* ifappointed by the latter for the purpose but not before

the Deional %rial Courts as only duly authorized

members of the 1ar may conduct litiations in the lattercourt J)ec. >B* Dule #>'K.

Considerin* therefore that a person who has passed the )hariHa 1arEamination is only a special member of the Philippine 1ar and not a full-fleded member thereof e"en if he holds a 1achelor of Laws Geree* he is

not qualified to practice to qualified to practice law before the reularcourts. As a eneral rule* a )hariHa Lawyer is not possessed of the basicrequisite of Npractice of lawN in order to be appointed as a notary public

under )ection 5>> of the @otarial Law in relation to )ection #* Dule #>' of

the De"ised Dules of Court.

3/EDEODE* the petition to authorize )hariHa Gistrict Court udes toappoint )hariHa Lawyers as notaries public in their respecti"e 0urisdiction is

GE@+EG.

Philippine Association of ree Labor 6nions JPAL6K* Enrique Entila andictoriano %enazas "s. 1inalbaan +sabela )uar Company* Court of+ndustrial Delations and uintin Munin

AC%):#. CO6D% O +@G6)%D+AL DELA%+O@) ODGEDEG

DE+@)%A%EME@% 3+%/ 1AC3A4E) OD E@%+LA A@G %E@AIA).#. Cipriano Cid Q Associates* counsel of Entila and %enazas filed

a notice of attorneyHs lien equi"alent to >$= of the total bac!waes.i. Entila and %enazas filed manifestation indicatin their non-

ob0ection to an award of attorneyHs fees for 5


15/46

iii. CA@O@ >B: condemns an areement pro"idin for thedi"ision of attorneyHs fees* whereby a non-lawyer union president isallowed to share in said fees with lawyers

#. )ec


16/46

. Prayed that Court allow reinstatement ta!in into

consideration his eemplary conduct from the time he became a lawyer*his ser"ices to the community the numerous awards* resolutions andFHorcommendations he recei"ed*

i. Court denied the Petition.ii. Petitioner mo"ed for reconsideration was denied by the

Court for lac! of merit.

B. . %he reasons are that the ethics of the leal profession should not be

"iolated:#. Actin as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt of

court* which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both*5. Law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an

act or an act done in "iolation of law>. +f were to be allowed to non-lawyers* it would lea"e the public

in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case of necessity and alsolea"e the bar in a chaotic condition* aside from the fact that non-lawyers

are not amenable to disciplinary measures.B. +n response to 6@+O@ may appeal an award of attorneyHs fees which

are deductible from the bac!pay of some of its members:#. 7E) because such union or labor oranization is permitted to

institute an action in the industrial courton behalf of its members5. +f an award is disad"antaeous to its members* the union may

prosecute an appeal as an arie"ed party* under )ec ;* DA '(


18/46

5. )ummons ser"ed only upon Eladio Damos* who ac!nowlede the ser"icein his own behalf and in that ser"ices of Attorney Lauro C. Maiquez* whoput in his appearance for all the defendants* and submitted an answer intheir behalf.

>. Court ordered Eladio Damos to pay to the plaintiff his obliation of >$$*

with interest thereon at the rate of #5 per centper annum* from Auust &*#&>B* until its full payment* plus the sum of #$$ as attorneyHs fees* andorderin the foreclosure of the mortae upon failure of Eladio Damos topay the 0udment within ninety J&$K days from the date the decisionbecomes final.

iii. ELAG+O DAMO) failed to pay the 0udment within the period.#. Court ordered the sale at public auction of the mortaed properties*

which were sold D+EDA Jhihest bidderKi". D+EDA sold properties to elipa Lopez* who later filed a

motion prayin that she be placed in possession.

". DAMO) did not heed the order.#. )ummoned by the court to eplain why they should no be punished for

contempt for their refusal to comply with the writ of possession.5. DAMO) answered contendin that said writ parta!es of the nature of an

action and as it was issued after more than fi"e years* the court acted inecess of its 0urisdiction* and that the sale conducted by the sheriff wasilleal because petitioners were not properly ser"ed with summons asdefendants in the foreclosure suit.

a. E,PLA@A%+O@ 6@)A%+)AC%OD7.b. ollow or contempt of court.

+))6E:3O@ decision of lower court orderin foreclosure of mortae ecluded byELAG+O DAMO) is "alid.7E).3O@ order directin issuance of writ of possession to place LOPEI inpossession of properties purchased by her from mortaee "alid. 7E).

/ELG:PE%+%+O@ G+)M+))EG with costs aainst the petitioners.

#. #st+))6E:#. CLA+M CA@@O% 1E )6)%[email protected]. @ature of a collateral attac! to a 0udment which on its face is

"alid and reular and has become final lon ao.i. alid 0udment can only be attached in separate action

brouht principally for the purpose.ii. 4rantin that DAMO) were not ser"ed* defect in ser"ice was

cured when DAMO) "oluntarily appeared and answered the complaint thrutheir attorney of record.


19/46

iii. )ince Attorney Maiquez appeared for DAMO)* it must bepresumed him to ha"e been authorized by them.

5. 5nd+))6E:#. +ssuance of a writ of possession in a foreclosure proceedin is

not an eecution of 0udment but a ministerial and complementary duty of

the cour.5. Can underta!e e"en after the lapse of fi"e J


20/46

Appelles 1ut +n 4ood aith* + sined for and in 1ehalf of the appellee3ithout Gesinatin %hat + am Practicin as attorney-at-law.

+))6E: 3hether the acts of Atty eli Ga"id is tantamount to practice oflaw.

/ELG: 7es. @either can he allow his name to appear in such pleadin byitself or as part of firm name under the sinature of another qualifiedlawyer because the sinature of an aent amounts to sinin of a non-qualified senator or conressman* the office of an attorney bein oriinallyan aency* and because he will* by such act* be appearin in court orquasi-0udicial or administrati"e body in "iolation of the constitutionalrestriction. 9/e cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits directly.

G.R. No. 443 May 30, 19*1

+R5"NAN5 +. MARCS and MAN+ CNCR5"A,petitioners*"s.C$"+ S/A, ARM+5 RC+S /$+ $"""N+S, +/A.,respondents.

---------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 471 May 30, 19*1

MAN+ A. CNCR5"A and +R5"NAN5 +. MARCS,petitioners*"s.C$"+ S/A, ARM+5 RC+S /$+ $"""N+S, +/A.,respondents.

Petitioners in their own behalf&-udge Ad+ocate .eneral /red Rui0 Castro and (eonardo R& (ucena forrespondents&

+R"A, J.&

%hese are two special ci"il actions of mandamusinstituted by the samepetitioners aainst the respondents 4eneral Court-Martials composedeach of different members or officers of the Philippine Army* in which it isalleed that the respondents Military %ribunals ecluded unlawfully thepetitioners from the en0oyment of their riht to appear as counsel for the


21/46

accused prosecuted before said tribunals* to which the petitioners areentitled because they are attorneys duly admitted to practice law in thePhilippine Courts* on the round that they are disqualified or inhibited bysection #(* Article #( of the Constitution to appear as counsel for saiddefendants. )aid )ection #( reads as follows:

)EC. #(. @o )enator or Member of the /ouse of Depresentati"esshall directly or indirectly be financially interested in any contractwith the 4o"ernment or any subdi"ision or instrumentality thereof* orin any franchise or special pri"ilee ranted by the Conress durinhis term of office. /e shall not appear as counsel before theElectoral %ribunals or before any court in any ci"il case wherein the4o"ernment or any subdi"ision or instrumentality thereof is thead"erse party* or in any criminal case wherein an offer or employeeof the 4o"ernment is accused of an offense committed in relation to

his office. . . ..

%he only question for this Court to determine in these two cases is whetherthe prohibition contained in the abo"e quoted section #( of our Constitutionis applicable to the petitioners.

3e are of the opinion and therefore hold that it is applicable* because thewords Nany courtN includes the 4eneral Court-Martial* and a court-martialcase is a criminal case within the meanin of the abo"e quoted pro"isionsof our Constitution.

+t is ob"ious that the words Nany court*N used in prohibitin members ofConress to appear as counsel Nin any criminal case in which an officer oremployee of the 4o"ernment is accused of an offense committed inrelation to his office*N refers* not only to a ci"il* but also to a military court ora Court-Martial. 1ecause* in construin a Constitution* Nit must be ta!en asestablished that where words are used which ha"e both a restricted and aeneral meanin* the eneral must pre"ail o"er the restricted unless thenature of the sub0ect matter of the contet clearly indicates that the limitedsense is intended.N J## American urisprudence* pp. ;'$-;'5K.

+n the case ofRamon Ruffy +s& Chief of 1taff of the Philippine Army,SB>Off. 4az.* '


22/46

as pro"ided for in section 5* Article +++* of the Constitution* do not refer toCourts-Martial or Military Courts.

3inthropHs Military Law and Precedents* quoted by the petitioners and bythis Court in the case of Ramon Ruffy et al +s& Chief of 1taff of the

Philippine Army, supra* has to say in this connection the followin:

@otwithstandin that the court-martial is only an instrumentality ofthe eecuti"e power ha"in no relation or connection* in law* with the

0udicial establishments of the country* it is yet* so far as it is a courtat all* and within its field of action* as fully a court of law and 0usticeas is any ci"il tribunal. As a court of law* it is bound* li!e any court*by the fundamental principles of law* and* in the absence of specialpro"ision of the sub0ect in the military code* it obser"es in eneralthe rules of e"idence as adopted in the common-law courts. As a

court of 0ustice* it is required by the terms of its statutory oath* Jart.'B.K to ad0udicate between the 6.). an the accused Nwithoutpartiality* fa"or* or affection*N and accordin* not only to the laws andcustoms of the ser"ice* but to its Nconscience*N i.e. its sense ofsubstantial riht and 0ustice unaffected by technicalities. +n the wordsof the Attorney 4eneral* court-martial are thus* Nin the strictest sensecourts of 0ustice. J3inthropHs Military Law and Precedents* ol. # and5* 5nd Ed.* p. ed. Cas.* (&;* '$#* citin ; Op. Attys. 4en. B5


23/46

And lastly* American urisprudence says:

)EC. &&. Representation by Counsel. ? +t is the eneral rule thatone accused of the crime has the riht to be represented before thecourt by counsel* and this is epressly so declared by the statues

controllin the procedure in court-martial. +t has been held that aconstitutional pro"ision etendin that riht to one accused in anytrial in any court whate"erapplies to a court2martial and i"es theaccused the undeniable riht to defend by counsel* and that a court-martial has no power to refuse an attorney the riht to appear beforeit if he is properly licensed to practice in the courts of the state.JCitin the case of )tate e rel /uffa!er +s&Crosby* 5B @e". ##


24/46

+n @. 7. it was held that the term Ncriminal case*N used in the clause*must be allowed some meanin* and none can be concei"ed* otherthan a prosecution for a criminal offense. E parte Carter. ;; ). 3.


25/46

CA vs. ada'a"C+ /$+ CR/ A5M"N"S/RA/R vs. A//6.M"SA+ M. A5AGAA.M.No. 99127 )an#ary 24, 200#

acts:Atty. Misael Ladaa* 1ranch Cler! of Court of the Deional %rialCourt of Ma!ati* appeared as counsel for and inbehalf of his cousin*

@arcisa @aldoza Ladaa* an accused in Criminal Case @o. 'B-''< for Talsification of Public Gocuments before the ME%C of uezonCity. +t is also denied that the appearance of said respondent in said casewas without the pre"ious permission of the Court. Gurin the occasionsthat the respondent appeared as such counsel beforethe ME%C of uezonCity* he was on official lea"e of absence. Moreo"er* his Presidin ude*ude @apoleon +noturanwas aware of the case he was handlin.Despondent appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin-client@arcisa Ladaa.Despondent did not recei"e a sinle centa"o from her./elpless as she was and respondent bein the only lawyer in thefamily* he

areed to represent her out of his compassion and hih reard for her.%his is the first time that respondente"er handled a case for a member ofhis family who is li!e a bi sister to him. /e appeared for free and for thepurpose of settlin the case amicably. urthermore* his Presidin udewas aware of his appearance as counsel for his cousin. Ontop of this*durin all the years that hehas been in o"ernment ser"ice* hehas maintained his interity and independence./e failed to obtain aprior permission from the head of the Gepartment. %he presidin 0ude ofthe court to whichrespondent is assined is not the head of theGepartment contemplated by law.

+ssue:3hether or not Atty. Ladaa* upon such se"eral appearances* wasenaes into pri"ate practice @O

/eld:Despondent is chared under )ec. (JbKJ5K of the Code of Conductand Ethical )tandards for Public Officials andEmployees which prohibitsci"il ser"ants from enain in the pri"ate practice of their profession. Asimilar prohibition isfound under )ec. >' of the De"ised Dules ofCourt which disallows certain attorneys from enain in thepri"atepractice of their profession.

OLAIO "s %+@4A

1efore us is the disbarment case aainst retired )upreme Court

Associate ustice Gante O. %ina JrespondentKfiled by Mr. o"ito ). Olazo

JcomplainantK. %he respondent is chared of "iolatin Dule ;.$5*U#VDule
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn2


26/46

;.$>U5Vand Dule #.$#U>Vof the Code of Professional Desponsibility for

representin conflictin interests.

a!t#a% (a!8'ro#nd

+n March #&&$* the complainant filed a sales application co"erin a

parcel of land situated in BarangayLower 1icutan in the Municipality of

%aui. %he land Jsub4ect landK was pre"iously part of ort Andres

1onifacio that was sereated and declared open for disposition pursuant

to Proclamation @o. 5B(;*UBVissued on anuary (* #&';* and Proclamation

@o. #(5*U


27/46

influence o"er the complainant2s father* Miuel P. Olazo*for the latter to

contest the complainant2s sales application and claim the sub0ect land for

himself. %he complainant also alleed that the respondent pre"ailed upon

Miuel Olazo to accept* on "arious dates* sums of money as payment ofthe latter2s alleed rihts o"er the sub0ect land. %he complainant further

claimed that the respondent bro!ered the transfer of rihts of the sub0ect

land between Miuel Olazo and oseph effrey Dodriuez* who is the

nephew of the respondent2s deceased wife.

As a result of the respondent2s abuse of his official functions* the

complainant2s sales application was denied. %he con"eyance of rihts to

oseph effrey Dodriuez and his sales application were subsequently

i"en due course by the Gepartment of En"ironment and @atural

Desources J*E5RK.

The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03

%he second chare in"ol"es another parcel of land within the

proclaimed areas belonin to Manuel Olazo* the complainant2s

brother. %he complainant alleed that the respondent persuaded Miuel

Olazo to direct Manuel to con"ey his rihts o"er the land to oseph effrey

Dodriuez. As a result of the respondent2s promptins* the rihts to the

land were transferred to oseph effrey Dodriuez.

+n addition* the complainant alleed that in May #&&&* the

respondent met with Manuel for the purpose of nullifyin the con"eyanceof rihts o"er the land to oseph effrey Dodriuez. %he complainant

claimed that the respondent wanted the rihts o"er the land transferred to

one Dolando Olazo* the BarangayChairman of /aonoy* %aui. %he


28/46

respondent in this reard eecuted an 9Assurance where he stated that he

was the lawyer of Damon Lee and oseph effrey Dodriuez.

The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01

%he complainant alleed that the respondent enaed in unlawful

conduct considerin his !nowlede that oseph effrey Dodriuez was not

a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum @o. ##&. %he complainant

a"erred that oseph effrey Dodriuez is not a bona fideresident of the

proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award. %hus* the appro"al of

his sales application by the Committee on Awards amounted to a "iolation

of the ob0ecti"es of Proclamation @o. #(5 and Memorandum @o. ##&.

%he complainant also alleed that the respondent "iolated )ection

(JbKJ5K of the Code of Conduct and Ethical )tandards for Public Officials

and Employees or Depublic Act JR&A&K @o. ;(#> since he enaed in the

practice of law* within the one-year prohibition period* when he appeared

as a lawyer for Damon Lee and oseph effrey Dodriuez before the

Committee on Awards.

+n his Comment*U(Vthe respondent claimed that the present complaint

is the third malicious chare filed aainst him by the complainant. %he first

one was submitted before the udicial and 1ar Council when he was

nominated as an Associate ustice of the )upreme Court the second

complaint is now pendin with the Office of the Ombudsman* for alleed

"iolation of )ection >JeK and JiK of D.A. @o. >$#&* as amended.3ith his own supportin documents* the respondent presented a

different "ersion of the antecedent e"ents.


29/46

%he respondent asserted that Miuel Olazo owned the rihts o"er

the sub0ect land and he later con"eyed these rihts to oseph effrey

Dodriuez. Miuel Olazo2s rihts o"er the sub0ect land and the transfer of

his rihts to oseph effrey Dodriuez were duly reconized by the)ecretary of the GE@D before whom the conflict of rihts o"er the sub0ect

land Jbetween Miuel Olazo and oseph effrey Dodriuez* on one hand*

and the complainant on the other handK was brouht. +n its decision* the

GE@D found oseph effrey Dodriuez a qualified applicant* and his

application o"er the sub0ect land was i"en due course. %he respondent

emphasized that the GE@D decision is now final and eecutory. +t was

affirmed by the Office of the President* by the Court of Appeals and by the

)upreme Court.

%he respondent also ad"anced the followin defenses:

J#K /e denied the complainant2s alleation that Miuel Olazo told

him JcomplainantK that the respondent had been orchestratin to

et the sub0ect land. %he respondent arued that this alleation

was without corroboration and was debun!ed by the affida"its of

Miuel Olazo and rancisca Olazo* the complainant2s sister.

J5K /e denied the complainant2s alleation that he offered the

complainant P


30/46

JBK /e asserted that he and Miuel Olazo were cousins and that the

latter decided to sell his rihts o"er the sub0ect land for the

medical treatment of his heart condition and the illness of hisdauhter* rancisca Olazo. %he respondent insisted that the

money he etended to them was a form of loan.

J


31/46

Conressman from #&&< to #&&(* the conflictin applications of the

complainant* Miuel Olazo and oseph effrey Dodriuez were not

included in the aenda for deliberation of the Committee on

Awards. Dather* their conflictin claims and their respecti"e supportindocuments were before the Office of the Deional Girector* @CD of the

GE@D. %his office ruled o"er the conflictin claims only on Auust 5* 5$$$.

%his rulin became the basis of the decision of the )ecretary of the

GE@D.

)imilarly* the respondent cannot be held liable under Dule ;.$5 of

the Code of Professional Desponsibility since the pro"ision applies to

lawyers in the o"ernment ser"ice who are allowed by law to enae in

pri"ate law practice and to those who* thouh prohibited from enain in

the practice of law* ha"e friends* former associates and relati"es who are

in the acti"e practice of law.U'V+n this reard* the respondent had already

completed his third term in Conress and his stint in the Committee on

Awards when he represented oseph effrey Dodriuez on May 5B* #&&&.

Lastly* the respondent claimed that he cannot be held liable under

Dule ;.$> of the Code of Professional Desponsibility since he did not

inter"ene in the disposition of the conflictin applications of the

complainant and oseph effrey Dodriuez because the applications were

not submitted to the Committee on Awards when he was still a member.

/he Co#rts R#%in'

4enerally* a lawyer who holds a o"ernment office may not be

disciplined as a member of the 1ar for misconduct in the dischare of his

duties as a o"ernment official.U&V /e may be disciplined by this Court as a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn10


32/46

member of the 1ar only when his misconduct also constitutes a "iolation of

his oath as a lawyer.U#$V

%he issue in this case calls for a determination of whether therespondent2s actions constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct

W first* while the respondent was still an electi"e public official and a

member of the Committee on Awards and second* when he was no loner

a public official* but a pri"ate lawyer who represented a client before the

office he was pre"iously connected with.

After a careful e"aluation of the pleadins filed by both parties and

their respecti"e pieces of e"idence* we resol"e to dismiss the

administrati"e complaint.

Accountailit! of a go"ern#ent la$!er in %ulic office

Canon ; of the Code of Professional Desponsibility hihlihts the

continuin standard of ethical conduct to be obser"ed by o"ernment

lawyers in the dischare of their official tas!s. +n addition to the standard ofconduct laid down under D.A. @o. ;(#> for o"ernment employees* a

lawyer in the o"ernment ser"ice is oblied to obser"e the standard of

conduct under the Code of Professional Desponsibility.

)ince public office is a public trust* the ethical conduct demanded

upon lawyers in the o"ernment ser"ice is more eactin than the

standards for those in pri"ate practice. Lawyers in the o"ernment ser"ice

are sub0ect to constant public scrutiny under norms of public

accountability. %hey also bear the hea"y burden of ha"in to put aside

their pri"ate interest in fa"or of the interest of the public their pri"ate

acti"ities should not interfere with the dischare of their official functions.U##V


33/46

%he first chare in"ol"es a "iolation of Dule ;.$5 of the Code of

Professional Desponsibility. +t imposes the followin restrictions in the

conduct of a o"ernment lawyer:

A lawyer in the o"ernment ser"ice shall not use his publicposition to promote or ad"ance his pri"ate interests* nor allowthe latter to interfere with his public duties.

%he abo"e pro"ision prohibits a lawyer from usin his or her public

position to: J#K promote pri"ate interests J5K ad"ance pri"ate interests or

J>K allow pri"ate interest to interfere with his or her public duties. 3e

pre"iously held that the restriction e:tends to a%% 'overnment

%a;yerswho use their public offices to promote their pri"ate interests.U#5V

+n 7uyssen +& .utierre0*U#>Vwe defined promotion of pri"ate

interestto include solicitin ifts or anythin of monetary "alue in any

transaction requirin the appro"al of his or her office* or may be affected by

the functions of his or her office. +nAli +& Bubong*U#BVwe reconized that

pri"ate interest is not limited to direct interest* but etends to ad"ancin theinterest of relati"es. 3e also ruled that pri"ate interest interferes with

public duty when the respondent uses the office and his or her !nowlede

of the intricacies of the law to benefit relati"es.U#


34/46

e"idence showin that he demanded money from the complainant who

had a pendin application for "isas before his office.U#'V

)imilarly* in 9goy +& 1orianoU#&Vwe found the respondent Ja Court

Attorney of this CourtK liable for "iolatin Dule ;.$5 of the Code ofProfessional Desponsibility* after considerin the e"idence showin that he

demanded and recei"ed money from the complainant who had a pendin

case before this Court.

Applyin these leal precepts to the facts of the case* we find the

absence of any concrete proof that the respondent abused his position as

a Conressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the

manner defined under Dule ;.$5 of the Code of Professional

Desponsibility.

/irst* the records do not clearly show if the complainant2s sales

application was e"er brouht before the Committee on Awards. 1y the

complaint2s own account* the complainant filed a sales application in March

#&&$ before the Land Manaement 1ureau. 1y #&&;* the complainant2s

sales application was pendin before the Office of the Deional Girector*

@CD of the GE@D due to the conflictin claims of Miuel Olazo* and*

subsequently* of oseph effrey Dodriuez. %he records show that it was

only on Auust 5* 5$$$ that the Office of the Deional Girector* @CD of the

GE@D rendered its decision* or after the term of the respondent2s electi"e

public office and membership to the Committee on Awards* which epired

in #&&(.

%hese circumstances do not show that the respondent did in any

way promote* ad"ance or use his pri"ate interests in the dischare of his

official duties. %o repeat* since the sales application was not brouht before

the Committee on Awards when the respondent was still a member* no


35/46

sufficient basis eists to conclude that he used his position to obtain

personal benefits. 3e note in this reard that the denial of the

complainant2s sales application o"er the sub0ect land was made by the

GE@D* not by the Committee on Awards.1econd* the complainant2s alleation that the respondent

9orchestrated the efforts to et the sub0ect land does not specify how the

orchestration was underta!en. 3hat appears clear in the records is the

uncorroborated 1inumpaang 1alaysay of Miuel Olazo* dated May 5*U5$V cateorically statin that the respondent had no interest in the

sub0ect land* and neither was he a contractin party in the transfer of his

rihts o"er the sub0ect land. +n the absence of any specific chare* Olazo2s

disclaimer is the nearest rele"ant statement on the respondent2s alleed

participation* and we find it to be in the respondent2s fa"or.

:hird* the other documents eecuted by Miuel Olazo* that the

complainant presented to support his claim that the respondent eerted

undue pressure and influence o"er his father Jnamely: the letter* dated

une 55* #&&;* to the GE@D Deional Girector-@CD U5#Vthe 1inumpaang

1alaysay dated uly #5* #&&;U55Vand the 1inumpaang 1alaysay dated uly

#(* #&&;U5>VK* do not contain any reference to the alleed pressure or force

eerted by the respondent o"er Miuel Olazo. %he documents merely

showed that the respondent helped Miuel Olazo in ha"in his farm lots

Jco"ered by the proclaimed areasK sur"eyed. %hey also showed that the

respondent merely acted as a witness in the 1inumpaang 1alaysay dated

uly #(* #&&;. %o our mind* there are neutral acts that may be rendered by

one relati"e to another* and do not show how the respondent could ha"einfluenced the decision of Miuel Olazo to contest the complainant2s sales

application. At the same time* we cannot i"e any credit to

the 1inumpaang 1alaysay* dated anuary 5$* 5$$$* of Manuel. %hey are

not only hearsay but are contrary to what Miuel Olazo states on the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn24


36/46

record. 3e note that Manuel had no personal !nowlede* other than what

Miuel Olazo told him* of the force alleedly eerted by the respondent

aainst Miuel Olazo.

+n turn* the respondent was able to pro"ide a satisfactory

eplanation - bac!ed by corroboratin e"idence - of the nature of the

transaction in which he a"e the "arious sums of money to Miuel Olazo

and rancisca Olazo in the year #&&


37/46

alleation that Miuel Olazo decided to sell his rihts o"er the sub0ect land

to pay the loans he obtained from the respondent and* also* to finance his

continuin medical treatment.

&ri"ate %ractice of la$ after se%aration fro# %ulic office

As proof that the respondent was enaed in an unauthorized

practice of law after his separation from the o"ernment ser"ice* the

complainant presented the 1inumpaang 1alaysay* dated anuary 5$*

5$$$* of Manuel and the document entitled 9Assurance where the

respondent leally represented Damon Lee and oseph effrey Dodriuez.

@e"ertheless* the foreoin pieces of e"idence fail to persuade us to

conclude that there was a "iolation of Dule ;.$> of the Code of

Professional Desponsibility.

+n Cayetano +& Monsod*U5'Vwe defined the practice of law as any

acti"ity* in and out of court* that requires the application of law* leal

procedure* !nowlede* trainin and eperience. Moreo"er* we ruled that to

enae in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are

characteristics of the profession to practice law is to i"e notice or render

any !ind of ser"ice* which de"ice or ser"ice requires the use in any deree

of leal !nowlede or s!ill.

6nder the circumstances* the foreoin definition should becorrelated with D.A. @o. ;(#>and Dule ;.$> of the Code of Professional

Desponsibility which impose certain restrictions on o"ernment lawyers to

enae in pri"ate practice after their separation from the ser"ice.


38/46

)ection (JbKJ5K of D.A. @o. ;(#> reads:

Section '. &rohiited Acts and Transactions. ? +n additionto acts and

omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed inthe Constitution and eistin laws* the followin shallconstitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public officialand employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

JbK ;utside employment and other acti+ities related thereto. WPublic officials and employees durin their incumbency shallnot:

J5K Enae in the pri"ate practice of their profession unlessauthorized by the Constitution or law* pro"ided* that suchpractice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their officialfunctions %hese prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of oneJ#K year after resination* retirement* or separation from publicoffice* ecept in the case of subpararaph JbK J5K abo"e* but

the professional concerned cannot practice his profession inconnection with any matter before the office he used to bewith* in which case the one-year prohibition shall li!ewiseapply.

As a rule* o"ernment lawyers are not allowed to enae in the

pri"ate practice of their profession durin their incumbency.U5&V1y way of

eception* a o"ernment lawyer can enae in the practice of his or her

profession under the followin conditions: first* the pri"ate practice is

authorized by the Constitution or by the law and second* the practice will

not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions. U>$V %he last

pararaph of )ection ( pro"ides an eception to the eception. +n case of

lawyers separated from the o"ernment ser"ice who are co"ered under


39/46

subpararaph JbK J5K of )ection ( of D.A. @o. ;(#>* a one-year prohibition

is imposed to practice law in connection with any matter before the office

he used to be with.

Dule ;.$> of the Code of Professional Desponsibility echoes this

restriction and prohibits lawyers* after lea"in the o"ernment ser"ice* to

accept enaement or employment in connection with any matter in which

he had inter"ened while in the said ser"ice. %he !eyword in Dule ;.$> of

the Code of Professional Desponsibility is the term 9inter"ene which we

pre"iously interpreted to include an act of a person who has the power to

influence the proceedins.U>#V Otherwise stated* to fall within the ambit of

Dule ;.$> of the Code of Professional Desponsibility* the respondent must

ha"e accepted enaement or employment in a matter which* by "irtue of

his public office* he had pre"iously eercised power to influence the

outcome of the proceedins.

As the records show* no e"idence eists showin that the

respondent pre"iously interfered with the sales application co"erin

Manuel2s land when the former was still a member of the Committee on

Awards. %he complainant* too* failed to sufficiently establish that the

respondent was enaed in the practice of law. At face "alue* the leal

ser"ice rendered by the respondent was limited only in the preparation of a

sinle document. +n Bor4a, 1r& +& 1ulyap, 9nc&*U>5Vwe specifically described

pri"ate practice of law as one that contemplates a succession of acts of the

same nature habitually or customarily holdin one2s self to the public as a

lawyer.

+n any e"ent* e"en rantin that respondent2s act fell within the

definition of practice of law* the a"ailable pieces of e"idence are insufficient

to show that the leal representation was made before the Committee on


40/46

Awards* or that the Assurance was intended to be presented before

it. %hese are matters for the complainant to pro"e and we cannot consider

any uncertainty in this reard aainst the respondent2s fa"or.

Violation of Rule 1.01

Dule #.$# prohibits a lawyer from enain in unlawful* immoral or

deceitful conduct. rom the abo"e discussion* we already struc! down the

complainant2s alleation that respondent enaed in an unauthorized

practice of law when he appeared as a lawyer for Damon Lee and oseph

effrey Dodriuez before the Committee on Awards.

3e find that a similar treatment should be i"en to the complainant2s

claim that the respondent "iolated pararaph BJ#KU>>Vof Memorandum @o.

##& when he encouraed the sales application of oseph effrey

Dodriuez despite his !nowlede that his nephew was not a qualified

applicant. %he matter of oseph effrey Dodriuez2s qualifications to apply

for a sales application o"er lots co"ered by the proclaimed areas has been

resol"ed in the affirmati"e by the )ecretary of the GE@D in the decision

dated April >* 5$$B*U>BVwhen the GE@D a"e due course to his sales

application o"er the sub0ect land. 3e are* at this point* bound by this

findin.

As pointed out by the respondent* the GE@D decision was affirmed

by the Office of the President* the Court of Appeals U>B. +n our Desolution* we dismissed the petition for re"iew

on certiorari filed by the complainant after findin* amon others* that no

re"ersible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in its decision.U>;V
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/10-5-7-SC.htm#_ftn37


41/46

All told* considerin the serious consequences of the penalty of

disbarment or suspension of a member of the 1ar* the burden rests on the

complainant to present clear* con"incin and satisfactory proof for the

Court to eercise its disciplinary powers.U>(V

%he respondent enerally isunder no obliation to pro"e hisFher defense*U>'Vuntil the burden shifts to

himFher because of what the complainant has pro"en. 3here no case has

in the first place been pro"en* nothin has to be rebutted in defense.U>&V

3ith this in mind* we resol"e to dismiss the administrati"e case

aainst the respondent for the complainant2s failure to pro"e by clear and

con"incin e"idence that the former committed unethical infractions

warrantin the eercise of the Court2s disciplinary power.

and Dule #.$# of

the Code of Professional Desponsibility* filed aainst retired )upreme

Court Associate ustice Gante O. %ina* for lac! of merit.

CA/ =S R+SAAC/S& Petitioner initiated a complaint aainst Elizabeth Catu and AntonioPastor who were occupyin one of the units in a buildin in Malate whichwas owned by the former. %he said complaint was filed in the Lupon%aapamayapa of 1aranay (5>* Ione (& of the


42/46

respondent claimed that as punon baranay* he performed his tas!without bias and that he acceded to Elizabeth2s request to handle the casefor free as she was financially distressed. %he complaint was then referredto the +nterated 1ar of the Philippines J+1PK where after e"aluation* theyfound sufficient round to discipline respondent. Accordin to them*

respondent "iolated Dule ;.$> of the Code of Professional Desponsibilityand* as an electi"e official* the prohibition under )ection (JbK J5K of DA;(#>. Consequently* for the "iolation of the latter prohibition* respondentcommitted a breach of Canon #. Consequently* for the "iolation of the latterprohibition* respondent was then recommended suspension from thepractice of law for one month with a stern warnin that the commission ofthe same or similar act will be dealt with more se"erely.

"SS+&3hether or not the foreoin findins reardin the transression

of respondent as well as the recommendation on the imposable penalty ofthe respondent were proper.

$+5&@o. irst* respondent cannot be found liable for "iolation of Dule;.$> the Code of Professional Desponsibility as this applies only to alawyer who has left o"ernment ser"ice and in connection to formero"ernment lawyers who are prohibited from acceptin employment inconnection with any matter in which UtheyV had inter"ened while in theirser"ice. +n the case at bar* respondent was an incumbent punon

baranay. Apparently* he does not fall within the pur"iew of the saidpro"ision.

)econd* it is not )ection &$ of DA (#;$ but )ection (JbK J5K of DA ;(#>which o"erns the practice of profession of electi"e local o"ernmentofficials. 3hile DA ;(#> enerally applies to all public officials andemployees* DA (#;$* bein a special law* constitutes an eception to DA;(#> .Moreo"er* while under DA (#;$*certain local electi"e officials Jli!eo"ernors* mayors* pro"incial board members and councilorsK areepressly sub0ected to a total or partial proscription to practice theirprofession or enae in any occupation* no such interdiction is made onthe punon baranay and the members of the sanunian baranay.Epressio unius est eclusio alterius since they are ecluded from anyprohibition* the presumption is that they are allowed to practice theirprofession. Despondent* therefore* is not forbidden to practice hisprofession.


43/46

%hird* notwithstandin all of these* respondent still should ha"e procured aprior permission or authorization from the head of his Gepartment* asrequired by ci"il ser"ice reulations. %he failure of respondent to complywith )ection #5* Dule ,+++ of the De"ised Ci"il )er"ice Dules constitutes a"iolation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. +n actin as counsel for

a party without first securin the required written permission* respondentnot only enaed in the unauthorized practice of law but also "iolated aci"il ser"ice rules which is a breach of Dule #.$# of the Code ofProfessional Desponsibility:

Dule #.$# - A %a;yer sha%% not en'a'e in #n%a;-#%* dishonest*immoral or deceitful !ond#!t.

or not li"in up to his oath as well as for not complyin with the eactinethical standards of the leal profession* respondent failed to comply with

Canon ( of the Code of Professional Desponsibility:

CA@O@ (.A (A$


44/46

"N R+& SS+NS"N RM /$+ RAC/"C+ A< "N /$+/+RR"/R6 GAM A//6 +N G. MA>+RA

acts:Atty Maquera was counsel for a certain Castro who was indebted to

Edward 1ena"ente who obtained 0udment in a ci"il case. Castro2s properywas sold at public auction to satisfy the obliation* but Castro retained theriht to redemption o"er said property.

+n consideration for Maquera2s leal fees* Castro and Atty Maqueraentered into an oral areement that he would assin his riht ofredemption to Maquera.

Maquera purchased the property from 1ena"ente for X' of

the De"ised Dules of Court:9U8V%he disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine1ar by a competent court or other disciplinatory aency in a forein

0urisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground forhis disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of theacts hereinabo+e enumerated&


45/46

%he 0udment* resolution or order of the forein court or disciplinaryaency shall be prima facie e+idence of the round for disbarment orsuspension.

Also* he "iolated Article #B&5 in relation to #B of the ci"il codewhich prohibits a lawyer from acquirin by assinment the client2s property

which is the sub0ect of litiation. +t etends to leal redemption.Most particularly* Canon #( which states that a lawyer owes fidelity

to the cause of his client and be mindful of the trust and confidence +n himand rule #.$#* which prohibits a lawyer from enain in unlawful*dishonest* immoral or deceitful conduct.

/O3EED* there is a need to ascertain Maquera has the riht toeplain why he should and should not be suspendedFdisbarred on thoserounds. )uspensionFdisbarment is @O% automatic

@EED%/ELE))* the Court rules that Maquera should besuspended from the practice of law for the non-payment of his +1P dues

from #&((.

"N R+& AMAC+NAtty. Almacen was the counsel of one irinia 7aptinchay in a ci"il case.%hey lost in said ci"il case but Almacen filed a Motion for Deconsideration./e notified the opposin party of said motion but he failed to indicate thetime and place of hearin of said motion. /ence* his motion was denied./e then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it areedwith the trial court with reard to the motion for reconsideration. E"entually*

Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the )upreme Court which

outrihtly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.%his earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions asunconstitutional. /e then filed before the )upreme Court a petition tosurrender his lawyer2s certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless tocontinue practicin his profession when members of the hih court aremen who are calloused to pleas for 0ustice* who inore without reasonstheir own applicable decisions and commit culpable "iolations of theConstitution with impunity. /e further alleed that due to the minuteresolution* his client was made to pay P#5$! without !nowin the reasonswhy and that he became 9one of the sacrificial "ictims before the altar ofhypocrisy. /e also stated 9that 0ustice as administered by the presentmembers of the )upreme Court is not only blind* but also deaf and dumb.%he )upreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen2s petition as theCourt wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate.

Almacen did not surrender his lawyer2s certificate thouh as he nowarues that he chose not to. Almacen then as!ed that he may be permitted9to i"e reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be ta!enaainst him . . . in an open and public hearin. /e said he preferred this


46/46

considerin that the )upreme Court is 9the complainant* prosecutor andude. Almacen was howe"er unapoloetic."SS+& 3hether or not Almacen should be disciplined.$+5& 7es. %he )upreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions areneeded because the )upreme Court cannot accept e"ery case or write full

opinion for e"ery petition they re0ect otherwise the /ih Court would beunable to effecti"ely carry out its constitutional duties. %he proper role ofthe )upreme Court is to decide 9only those cases which present questionswhose resolutions will ha"e immediate importance beyond the particularfacts and parties in"ol"ed. +t should be remembered that a petition tore"iew the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of riht* but ofsound 0udicial discretion and so there is no need to fully eplain the court2sdenial. or one thin* the facts and the law are already mentioned in theCourt of Appeals2 opinion.On Almacen2s attac! aainst the )upreme Court* the /ih Court rearded

said criticisms as uncalled for that such is insolent* contemptuous* rosslydisrespectful and deroatory. +t is true that a lawyer* both as an officer ofthe court and as a citizen* has the riht to criticize in properly respectfulterms and throuh leitimate channels the acts of courts and 0udes. /isriht as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair andrespectful manner* and the independence of the bar* as well as of the

0udiciary* has always been encouraed by the courts. 1ut it is the cardinalcondition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide* and shall not spillo"er the walls of decency and propriety. +ntemperate and unfair criticism isa ross "iolation of the duty of respect to courts.

+n the case at bar* Almacen2s criticism is misplaced. As a "eteran lawyer*he should ha"e !nown that a motion for reconsideration which failed tonotify the opposin party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap ofpaper and will not be entertained by the court. /e has only himself toblame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspendedindefinitely.

nov10 cases

Documents