ETHICS (CANONS 7-9)

IN RE ATTY. MARCIAL EDILLON

FACTS:
Marcial Edillon is a duly licensed atty in the Phils. On
Nov. 29, 1975, the IBP Board of Governors
unanimously adopted a Resolution re an
administrative case against Atty. Edillon as regards
his stubborn refusal to pay mem dues to IBP.
In its By-Laws (Sec. 10 thereof), default in pymt of
annual dues for 6 months shall warrant suspension
of membership in the IBP. And default for 1 year =
removal of the name from Roll of Attys.
Contention: Annual pymt of such is an invasion of his
constitutional rights as he is compelled to be a mem
of the IBP as a pre-condition to maintaining his
status as a lawyer and deprived him of the rights to
liberty and ppty.
INTEGRATED BAR State-organized Bar to which
every lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar
associations organized by individual lawyers
themselves, membership in which is VOLUNTARY.
all lawyers are REQURED to be a member.
They are, therefore s.t all the rules prescribed for the
governance of the Bar, including the payment of a
REASONABLE ANNUAL FEE for the effective
discharge of the purposes of the bar.

POWER. When integration of the Bar of the Phils.

was established, it was done so by police power.
Persons and ppty may be subjected to restraints and
burdens in order to secure the general prosperity of
the State. SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX (The
public welfare is the supreme law)- to this
fundamental principle of govt the rights of
individuals are subordinated.
Thus, Edillo as a lawyer us subject to the power of
the body politic to require him to conform to such
regulations for the common good.
HELD:
Accdg to SC, integration does not make a mem of
any group of which he is not already a member. He
only becomes mem of bar if passed Bar. WHY
INTEGRATION? To provide an official national org
for the well-defined but unorganized and
incohesive group of which a lawyer is already a
member.
Bar integration doe NOT compel the lawyer to
associate w/ anyone. The ONLY compulsion he is
subjected to is pymt of annual dues.
PAYING A REASONABLE FEE toward defraying the
expenses of the regulation of the profession to
which they belong. FEE is imposed as a regulatory
measure , carried out for the objectives and purpose
of its integration.
RULING: DISBARRED.

NOTE: ALL LEGISLATION directing the integration of

the Bar have been uniformly and universally
sustained as a valid exercise of the police power over
an important profession.

LETTER OF ATTY, CECILIO AREVALO REQUESTING

EXEMPTION FROM UBP DUES

Practice of law is NOT a vested right but a PRIVILEGE,

clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes
substantial duties NOT ONLY to his clients but also to
his brethren in the profession to the court, and to
the nation.

In his letter, petitioner sought exemption from such

payment of P12, 035.00 as alleged unpaid
unaccountability from 1977-2005.

As being clothed with public interest, the holder of

this privilege must submit to a degree of control for
the common good, to the extent of the interest he
has created.
Accdg Mr. J. Roberts: the expression, affected with
a public interest = s.t the exercise of the POLICE

FACTS:

He maintained that he cannot be assessed of IBP

dues for the years that he was working in Phil Civil
Service for Civil Service Law prohibits the practice of
ones profession while in government service, and
neither can he be assessed for the years when he
was working in the USA.
IBP then submitted its comment that membership
in the IBP is not based on the actual practice of a
law; that a lawyer continues to be included in the

Roll of the Attys as long as he continues to be a mem

of IBP; and one of the OBLIGATIONS of a mem is the
pymt of annual dues as determined by IBP board of
Gov.
It maintained that there is no rule allowing
exemption of pymt of annual dues as requested by
respondent, that what is ALLOWED is voluntary
termination and reinstatement of membership,
What petitioner could have one is to inform the
secretary of IBP of his intention to stay abroad, so
that his mem in IBP could have been terminated.
Ergo, pymt his dues would have stopped

as a condition sine qua non to the practice of law

and retention of name in the Roll of Attys.
NOTE: The only compulsion to which he is subjected
is the payment of annual dues. There is nothing that
prohibits the Court in promulgating rules concerning
admission to the practice.
RATIONALE: No levying of tax. It is an exaction for
regulation while tax purpose is to generate revenue.
The doctrine of IMPLIED POWERS necessarily carries
with it the power to impose such exaction. TThus
payment of dues is necessary consequence of
membership in the IBP, OF WHICH NOONE IS
EXEMPT.

The petitioner asseverates that:

RULING: PETITION DENIED.

the Policy of Non-Exemption in the pymt
suffers constitutional infirmities, such as
equal protection clause and due process
clause.
Compulsory pymt is indubitably oppressive
to him considering he is in inactive status
and receives no income from law practice.
He adds that his removal from non-pymt fo
fees tantamount to deprivation of ppty w/o
due process of law.
Non-practice of law by a lawyer-member in
inactive status is neither injurious to the
practitioners, fellow lawyers, nor to the
community.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is entitled to exemption from

pymt of his dues during the time that he was
inactive.
HELD: No.
Integration of the bar is essentially a process by
which every member of the Bar is afforded an
opportunity to do his shares in carrying out his
objectives of the Bar.
Integrated bar is an official national body of which all
lawyers are required to be members. -0 they are s.t
to all rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar,
including the payment of reasonable fee BREACH
of which constitutes sufficient reaspnm for
investigation by the BAR and upon propoer cause
appearing , a recomm for discipline or disbarment of
the offending member.
Integration = unification of entire lawyer population.
It requires mem and financial support of every atty

GARCIA v. BALA
FACTS:
Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia filed before the
Court a Letter-Complaint against Rolando Bala. Cddg
to complainants he failed to render legal service
contracted .
Moreover, he supposedly refused to return the
P9,200 legal fees they had paid him for the purpose.
He allegedly hurled invectives at them when they
asked a copy of the petition (to CA) that he claimed
to have filed.
The case was referred to the IBP. Despite due notice,
he never submitted a position paper nor appeared at
any of the hearing. Apparently, the counsel instead
of filing an appeal to CA re adverse decision of
DARAB, he erroneously files a notice of appeal.
(Should have been verified petition for review).
Because of that error, the prescribed period for
filing LAPSED, to the clients prejudice. Accdg to IBP,
his failure to use proper remedy constituted lack of
professional
competency
that
warranted
appropriate sanction.
RECOMM: Reprimand and suspension for 6 mos.
And return amt of P9,200
HELD:
Agreed with the findings of IBP. Practice of law is
considered as a privilege bestowed by the State on

those who show that they possessed and continue

to possess the legal qualifications for it.
They are expected to maintain at all times a high
standard of legal proficiency and morality, including
honesty integrity, and fair dealing. Perform 4-FOLD
duty to society and norms embodied in CPR.
NEGLIGENCE FOR WRONG REMEDY
CPR mandates lawyers to serve their clients with
competence and diligence. Rule 18.02 states that,
a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter w/o
adequate preparation. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall
not NEGLECT a legal matter entrusted in him and his
NEGLIGENCE in connection therewith shall render
him liable.
Once lawyers agree to take up cause of their client,
they owe fidelity to the cause .Respondent evidently
failed to champion the cause of his clients w/
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.He did not
familiarize himself, given adequate time, as regards
correct procedural remedy.
CONDUCT UNBECOMIN
Aware of the wrong remedy he had erroneously
taken, respondent purposely evaded complainants
refused to update them on appeal, and misled them
re his whereabouts.
Rule 18.04: A lawyer shall keep the client informed
of the status of his case and shall respond within
reasonable to the clients request for info.

QUANTUM MERUIT - As much as he deserves. This

used as a basis for determining prof fees pf lawyers
in the absence of a contract.
RULING: 6 m suspension and pymt of P9,200 w legal
interest.

IN
Facts:

RE:

VICTORIO

D.

LANUEVO

This is a disbarment matter with regards to Attorney

Victorio Lanuevo, the Bar Confidant for the 1971 Bar
Examinations. Supreme Court received a confidential
letter that speaks of the exam notebooks of a
examinee named Ramon Galang who has been reevaluated and re-corrected such that he hurdled the
Bar Exams and was admitted to the Bar.
Lanuevo admitted having brought the five
examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to
the respective examiners for re-evalution or rechecking. The five examiners admitted having reevaluated or re-checked the notebook to him by the
Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do
the same and that the examinee concerned failed
only in his particular subject and was on the
borderline of passing. Ramon Galang was able to
pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevos move
but the exam results bears that he failed in 5
subjects namely in (Political, Civil, Mercantile,
Criminal & Remedial).

For his unsavoury words, he should also be

sanctioned. Lawyers must be disciplined. CCANON 7
of the CPR mandates a lawyer to uphold the integrit
of legal profession at all times.

Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged

of Slight Physical Injuries on Eufrosino de Vera, a law
student of MLQU.

NONPARTICIPATION IN PROCEEDINGS

The five examiners were led by Lanuevo to believe

that it is the Bar Committees regular activity that
when an examinee has failed in one subject alone,
the rest he passed, the examiner in that subject
which he flunked will review his exam notebook.

Respondent ignored/isregarded the IBO hearing

commissioners orders. This conduct manifests his
disrespect of judicial authorities. Apparently, he has
nm wish to preserve the dignity and honor always
expected of lawyers and the legal profession.His
demeanor is demeaning.
REIMBURSEMNT OF MONEY PAID
Under factual circumstances, the respondent should
return the money paid,. Quantum meruit applies.

Afterwards, Lanuevo gained possession of few

properties, including that of a house in BF Homes,
which was never declared in his declaration of assets
and liabilities.
Issue:

WON Lanuevo was guilty of defrauding the

examiners such that Galang passed the Bar? YES

DECISION: Lanuevo disbarred, Galang stricken from

the Roll of Attorneys.

Held:

DIAO v. MARTINEZ

It was plain, simple and unmitigated deception that

characterized respondent Lanuevos well-studied
and well-calculated moves in successively
representing separately to each of the five
examiners concerned to the effect that the
examinee failed only in his particular subject and/or
was on the borderline of passing. To repeat, the
before the unauthorized re-evaluations were made,
Galang failed in the five (5) major subjects and in
two (2) minor subjects which under no
circumstances or standard could it be honestly
claimed that the examinee failed only in one, or he
was on the borderline of passing.
The Bar Confidant has absolutely nothing to do in
the re-evaluation or reconsideration of the grades of
examinees who fail to make the passing mark before
or after their notebooks are submitted to it by the
Examiners. The Bar Confidant has no business
evaluating the answers of the examinees and cannot
assume the functions of passing upon the appraisal
made by the Examiners concerned. He is not the
over-all Examiner. He cannot presume to know
better than the examiner.
AS TO GALANGS CRIM CASE: 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. The practice of the law is not an absolute
right to be granted every one who demands it, but is
a privilege to be extended or withheld in the
exercise of sound discretion. The standards of the
legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which
merely enables one to escape the penalties of the
criminal law.
Under the circumstances in which respondent
Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, was
allowed to take the Bar examinations and the highly
irregular manner in which he passed the Bar, WE
have no other alternative but to order the surrender
of his attorneys certificate and the striking out of his
name from the Roll of Attorneys.

FACRS:
Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the bar in 1953. 2
years later, Severino Martinez charged him w/
having falsely represented in his application for such
Bar Examination, that he had a requisite academic
qualifications,
CONTENTION: Diao had not completed before taking
up law subjects, the required pre-legal edu
prescribed by Dept. of Private Educ:
-

Did not complete highschool training

Never attended Quisimbing College, and
never attained his A.A diploma therefrom
which contradicts credentials he had
submitted in support of his application for
examination

Diao practically admits first charge but claimed that

although he had left H.S in his third year, he joined
the U.S Army, passed the test which accdg to him is
rd
to a H.S diploma (that his army service is = to 3
th
and 4 tear H,S.)
Second charge clearly meritorious: Diao never
obtained his College diplomaand yet his application
for examination represented him as an A,A graduate
of Arellano University and says he was erroneously
certified, due to confusion, as a grad of Quisimbing
College, in his school records.
SC: UNACCEPTABLE. His error or confusion was
obviously of his own making.
Had his application disclosed his having obtained
A,A, he would also have disclosed that he began his
law studies 6 months before obtaining his Associate
Arts degree.. Which could not have permitted him to
take bar, because rules provide, That previous to
the study of law, he had successfully and
satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal
education.
The fact that he hurdled the bar exam is
IMMATERIAL. Passing for such examinations is not
the ONLY qualification to become an atty-at-law;
taking the prescribed courses of legal duty in the
regular manner is equally essential.

RULING: STRUCK FROM ROLL OF ATTYS AND RETURN

DIPLOMA
TOLOSA v. CARGO

Mems are not only reqd to refrain from adulterous

relationshps or the keeping of mistresses but must
also behave as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating belief that he is flouting moral standards.

FACTS:

RULING: REPRIMANDED

Complainant Jose Tolosa sought disbarment of

respondent District Citizens Atty Alfredo Cargo for
IMMORALITY. Complainant claimed that respondent
had been seeing his wife Prisciilla Tolosa in his house
and elsewhere.

LIM SE v. ARGEL

His wife left the conjugal house and lived w. the

respondent in Malabon, M.M and that since then he
has been living w/ said respondent.
REPLY: His wife had been seeing him but had done
so in the course of seeking advice from respondentin
view of the continuous cruelty and unwarranted
marital accusations of affiant against wife.
In 1982, the Court referred the case to OSG Accdg to
its findings:
-

Respondent had been courting his wife;

that he actually saw them holding hands in
Q.C; his wife left conjugal house;
respondent paid for her hospital bills; and
that
incidents
happened
between
complainant and respondent in the
hospital.

Based on SolGen findings, charges of immorality had

not been sustained by sufficient evidence. At the
same time, however, the SolGen found the
respondent had not been able to explain
satisfactorily his questions (e.g., why not avoid
seeing Priscilla, in spite of complainants suspicion.
RECOMM: Due to his behavior w/c was unbecoming
of a lawyer and an officer of court, a 3mo.suspension was imposed.
HELD:
Agreed w/ the OSG. NO sufficient findings that could
prove allegation of immorality. For this reason, the
penalty of suspension may not properly imposed
upon respondent.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact
be of good moral character but must also be seen to
be of GMC and leading lives in accordance w. highet
moral standards of the community.

FACTS:
Lim Se ad Benito Lim alleged that from 1965-1970,
Lim Se leased from Venancia Chiombon, thru her
atty-in-fact, Francisco San Pedro, the G/F,
mezzanine, and basement of the Venancia bldg.
It was also alleged that an interpleader action
instituted by Lm Se and other tenants of Venancia
Bldg against Francisco San Pedro and the estate of
Florencio Reys, Sr (owner of lot) and based on
courts order lessees would pay for the rentals to the
said estate and not to San Pedro.
In Dec. 1974, Lim Se and son Benito Lim leased from
the estate of Florencio Reyes, Jr., the same premises
for a period ending March 31, 1977, Bento LKim
operated in the premises the New Life Caf &
Restaurant.
Meanwhile, Genaro Bulotano claimed to have
purchased the said Bldg from Juana SAN PedroOcampo filed an action against Lim Se, ESTATE OF
Reys, Sr., Juana San Pedro-Ocampo ro the recovery
and damages from said defendants in connection w/
their occupancy of the said Bldg.
Defendants San Pedro filed an unverified third party
complaint or EJECTMENT ACTION against Lim Se and
Benito Lim praying that they be ordered to vacate
the G/D, etc and pay rentals amounting to P71,200.
Lim Se and Benito Lim filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground of improper venue (contract says in case
of suit arising out of the contract, venue theorof
shall be Baguio.
ALLEGATION: Venancia Chiombon and her son,
Francisco San Pedro executed a simulated and
fraudulent sale of said bldg to Juan San PedroOcampo in order to prevent the bldg from becoming
the lessors ppty.
As no appeal was perfeted by petitioner, writ of
possession should be issued. Deputy sheriff then
issued writ of possession and addressed an

ultimatum ejecting them from door 72 of said bldg.

Enforcement of the same was alleged to have been
made in a cruel and oppressive manner. Said deputy
officer only gave them 2 hours to vacate instead of 5
years (w/ the aid of men, threw out personal ppties
out of the
premises into the streets. BUT
preliminary injunction was GRANTED.
Atty, Aquiza and Atty. Adaza never appeared in the
lower court after filing an injunction and apparently
acted INDEPENDENTLY of Bulatanos counsel and
San Pedros lawyer who filed an answer of all the
respondents.
Atty., Adza made it appear that al the respondents
had moved for the lifting of the injunction, and gave
the impression that respondent judge had
participated in that motion.
Atty, Adaza set a motion for hearing a circumstance
which shows his unfamiliarity w;/ appellate court
practice. A motion filed in Court or in CA is usually
not set for hearing. ORAL ARGUMENTS not
necessary.
It is now obvious that Atty. Adazas characterization
of mandatory injunction as unjust and a miscarriage
of justice and as devoid of factual and legal basis is
UNFOUNDED. He treated a resolution of this Court
as if it were a pleading of an adversary w/c he could
assail. This has led to derogatory impllicaitons
warranting direct contempt.

against complainant. Complainant and Atty. Yap

(counsel for Lim entered into a compromise
agreement w/o participation of the formers
counset.
Likong then filed a disbarment case Atty Lim further
stated that other counsel did not actively participate
in the case and it was upon the request of
complainant and another debtor that he made a
compromise agreement, Respondent Atty. Lim
states that he first instructed complainant to notify
her lawyer but was informed that her lawyers had
abandoned her since couldnt pay fees. Complainant
denied.
In the compromise agreement prepared by
responendt , complainant debt was increased to
P150,000 (from 92,100) after the lapse of 10 mos.In
addition, it provides that the 150,000 debt would be
payable in 54 mo.installments at 40% p.a GROSSLY
PREJUDICIAL TO COMPLAINANT
W/ respect to failure of the respondent to notify
complainants counsel re agreement, complainant
states that respondent prevented her from
informing her lawyers by giving reasons enumerated
in the complaint and earlier quoted in the decision.
CANON 9 of Code of ethics apply as well as Rule
1.01, Rule 8.02, and 15.03
RULING: 1 YEAR SUSPENSION

RULING: REPRIMAND
LIKONG v. LIM

DALLONG v. CASTRO

FACTS:

FACTS:

Cerina B. Likong filed na admin case against Atty. Lim

seeking the latters disbarment for alleged
malpractice and grave misconduct,

Admin case concerning a lawyer who hurled

invectives at Clerk of Court; members of the bar
decorum must at all times comfort themselves in a
manner benefitting their noble profession.

In Sept 1984, complainant obtained a loan of P92,

100 from a certain Yap. Complainant executed a
promissory note in favour of Yap and deed of
assignment assigning to Yap pension checks she
regularly from U.S govt as a widower of a US
pensioner.

Atty. Rosalike Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court

, she filed IBP against Atty, Virgil Castro for
unprofessional conduct specifically violation of
Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of CPR.

3 months after execution of SPA (for acquisition of

pension checks). Complainnat informed respondent
re revocation of SPA. As a consequneence, Gesnell
Yap filed a complaint for injunction w/ damages

Res pendent Castro went to complainants office to

inquire whether the complete records of a civil case
had already been remanded to the court of origin. It
must not be noted that respondent is NOT the
counsel of record of either party in that Civil case.

Complainant informed respondent that the record

had not yet been transmitted since a CTC of the
decision of the CA should first be presented to serve
as basis for transmittal of the records to the court of
origin.
There was an incident regarding said reqt which the
respondent insisted that the complainant must have
notified him of said reqt but complainant answered
its not their duty (to submit a copy of the CA
deicison). After which, he left and banged the door
so loud that it was heard by the people at the
adjacent RTC.
After a few minutes, respondent returned and
uttered Vulva of your mother, if you have ill feelings
against my client, dont turn your ire o me. She
suffered acute embarrassment at the incident in
fornt of her staff, she being the head,
HELD:
Not being the counsel of record and there being no
authorization from either the parties to represent
them, respondent had no rght to impose his will on
the clerk of court.
RULE 8.02 respondent deliberately encroached
upon the legal fnctions of the counsel of record of
that case. It does not matter whether he did so in
good faith.
Respondent acted rudely towards a officer of court
and uttered most vulgar of invectives in front of a
woman and of the latters subordinates. These acts
violated Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01
RULING: FINED in the amount of P10,000