Transcript
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-born
citizens 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
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. 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. Monsod’s 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. Monsod’s 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 Lawyer’s Association vs.
Agrava, the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases and litigation in court; item braces the preparation of
pleadings 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 People’s 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 court’s order specifically provided for
private respondent’s 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 detention
prisoner 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 Rosario’s 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 final
sentence 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 of
settling 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.
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 the
private 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... a
resolution 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
Lawyer’s 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 no
reason 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 examinee’s answers merit re-evaluation or whether the
examiner’s 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 candidate’s
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 no
charges 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 intentionally
withhold 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
under oath that he had no pending criminal case in court. By
falsely representing to the Court that he had no criminal case
pending in court, respondent Galang was allowed
unconditionally to take the Bar examinations seven (7) times
and in 1972 was allowed to take his oath.The concealment of
an attorney in his application to take the Bar examinations of
the fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for, an
alleged crime, is a ground for revocation of his license to
practice law is well — settled.
Re: application for admission to the bar Vs. Vicente d.
Ching,applicant.
Facts:
vicente d. Ching, a legitimate son of the spouses tat ching, a
chinese citizen, and priscila dulay, a filipina, was born in
tubao,la union on april 11, 1964.since birth,ching has resided
in the philippines.
on july 17, 1998,ching , after graduated of bachelor of laws
course at st. Louis university in baguio city,filed an application
to take the 1998 bar exam.the supreme court allowed him to
take provided that he can produce proof of his philippine
citizenship.in compliance with said requirements,ching
submitted the following documents:
A.) Certification from board of accountancy of the prc
showing that he is a certified public accountant.
B.) Voter certification from comelec tubao la union.
C.) Certification that he served as sangguniang panlungsod
member..
on april 5, 1999 ching was included as one of the lucky
passers of the bar exam and the schedule of their oath taking
was on may 5, 1999 but he was not allowed to take his oath
due the questionable citizenship issue.
Issue:
is his election to philippine citizenship within the reasonable
time prescribed by the law?
Ruling:
no.since the applicant was born on 1964,the governing
charter with regards to citizenship issue is the 1935
constitution.therefore as what is provided by the said
constitution,which said that the citizenship of a legitimate
child born of a filipino mother with an alien father followed
the citizenship of the father unless upon reaching the age of
majority which is 21 years of age elected philippine
citizenship.in the case at bar,ching did not elect his citizenship
when he reach 21 years old but instead in 1999 which is 14
years after reaching the age of majority which the court
considered as not within the reasonable period of time
considering the length of 14 years after he reaches 21 years
old.in addition to that,the court said that philippine
citizenship can never be treated like commodity tha can be
claimed when needed and supressed when convenient.in
view of the foregoing,the court deny vicente d. Ching’s
application for admission to the philippine bar.
In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee, Haron
S. Meiling in the 2002 bar examinations and for disciplinary
action as member of Philippine Shari'a Bar, Melendrez.
FACTS:
1. MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from
taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the
appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the
Philippine Shari’a Bar.
1. Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take
the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending
criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation and for Less
Serious Physical Injuries.
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against
Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and
other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of
Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.
2. Alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in
his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato
City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar.
2. MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal
cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former
professor, advised him to settle misunderstanding.
1. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled
because the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them,
considered the three cases that arose from a single incident
as “closed and terminated.”
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not
involve moral turpitude.
2. Use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his
communications really contained the word “Attorney” as
they were typed by the office clerk.
3. Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-
disclosure against Meling:
1. Meling should have known that only the court of
competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired judge
nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are
still pending.
2. Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still
required to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his
good moral character.
ISSUE:
WON Meling’s act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty.
YES.
HELD:
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until
further orders from the Court, the suspension to take effect
immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S.
Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of
Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same is
DISMISSED for having become moot and academic (Meling
did not pass the bar).
1. Rule 7.01: “A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly
making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in
connection with his application for admission to the bar.”
1. He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was
no valid reason why he signed as “attorney” whoever may
have typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized use of the appellation “attorney”
may render a person liable for indirect contempt of court.
2. PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
1. Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special
educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
2. Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater
importance so far as the general public and the proper
administration of justice are concerned, than the possession
of legal learning.
3. Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the
applicant that applicant to aver that he or she “has not been
charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or
regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative
body, or indicted for, or accused or convicted by any court or
tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude;
nor is there any pending case or charge against him/her.”
1. Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal
cases. His deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done
under oath at that.
ALAWI V. ALAUYA
Facts:
Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa &
Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing
company. Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk
of court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a District in Marawi City,
They were classmates, and used to be friends.
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 of
confidence. 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 Alauya’s
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 Shari’a bar, can use
the title of Attorney
Held:
He can’t. 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 who
has 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 practice
of 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.
OBC’s Report and Recommendation
The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before the
MBEC 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 lawyer’s oath on 22 May 2001.
Respondent’s 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 lawyer’s oath, it is the signing in the Roll of
Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer.
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 Office
of 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 ORDERED
REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES FOR ENTILA AND
TENAZAS.
1. Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of Entila and Tenazas
filed 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 the
representative to compensation for such representation.
1. Sec 24, Rule 138 Compensation of attorney's agreement as
to fees:
i. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from
his 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, and
signed the Roll of Attorneys.
4. Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo Paras, Jr., investigated
and reported:
1. September 1961, Dulcisimo Tapel dropped the complaint
on the ground that his witnesses had turned hostile.
i. Motion denied, his witnesses had already testified.
2. Recommended PUBLICO’s name to be stricken off the roll
of 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 a
bar 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 Reinstatement
alleging 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 the
disbarment case against him.
2. He resigned from all his positions in public and private
offices, and transferred to Manila.
3. Prayed that Court allow reinstatement taking into
consideration his exemplary conduct from the time he
became a lawyer, his services to the community the
numerous awards, 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 High
School 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 demonstrations
i. 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?
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 the
petition as co-petitioners was belated.
HELD:
ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE SET ASIDE AS THEY ARE
AWARDED 10% OF BACKWAGES AS ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR
MUNING. COSTS AGAINST MUNING.
1. Lawyer-client relationship is only possible if one is a
lawyer. 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 of
parties 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 profession
should not be violated:
1. Acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt
of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both,
2. Law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of
an act or an act done in violation of law
3. If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the
public 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's
fees which are deductible from the backpay of some of its
members:
1. YES because such union or labor organization is permitted
to institute an action in the industrial court on behalf of its
members
2. If an award is disadvantageous to its members, the union
may 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 the
financial 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 the
purpose 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.
ISSUE
W/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 'matter’ under 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
years after 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 of
respondents Tan, et al., 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
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 Rellosa’s suspension from practice
for 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 lawyer’s 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 to
practice 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:
1
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he intervened while in service
2
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers
and Employees
3
Local 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
lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and
the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair
and impartial administration of justice. Lawyers should act
and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public’s
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 respondent’s 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 Lawyer’s 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 Lawyer’s 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
Lawyer’s 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 Lawyer’s 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 Lawyer’s 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.
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, but
respondent 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 Lawyer’s Oath.
IBP found respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and
violation of the Lawyer’s 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 funds
when 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 the
exercise of the privilege. Gross misconduct which puts the
lawyer’s 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 lawyer’s 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 also
brings 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, respondent’s 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.