In re 1989 Ibp elections

Facts:during the 1989 Ibp elections, Atty. Violeta Drilon and other candidates, used government
resources to win favors from the voters.

Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-political" character
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thus:

"SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. The Integrated Bar is strictly non-political, and every activity
tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized
accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in
the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for
election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A
Delegate, Governor, officer or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee
of any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the
moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts
appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any
political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. "'

Section 14 of the same By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to IBP elections:

SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. The following acts and
practices relative to election are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any
elective office in the Integrated Bar or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any
form or manner, by himself or through another person:

(a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign material;

(b) Distribution, on election day, of election campaign material other than a statement of
the biodata of a candidate on not more than one page of a legal-size sheet of paper; or
causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized
by the officer presiding at the elections;

(c) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-
judicial or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof;

(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as well as the

advertisement thereof;

(e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote
for or against a candidate, (1) payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member;
(2) giving of food, drink, entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any
similar consideration to any person; or (3) making a promise or causing an expenditure to
be made, offered or promised to any person."

Issue: whether or not Atty violeta drilon and other candidates violated the by laws
of
Ibp .

Held: The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the By-
Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a
corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to
"promote respect for law and legal processes" and to abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of
Professional Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who
are supposed to be millions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside
the very rules that the IBP formulated for their observance

Leda v tabang

Facts:

It appears that on 3 October 1976, Respondent and Complainant contracted marriage

at Tigbauan, Iloilo. The parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after
Respondent had finished his law studies (began in l977), and had taken the Bar
examinations (in 1981), allegedly to ensure a stable future for them.

Respondent finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied to take the Bar. In
his application, he declared that he was "single." He then passed the examinations but
Complainant blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting Bar Matter No. 78, claiming
that Respondent had acted fraudulently in filling out his application and, thus, was
unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath for lack of good moral character.

On 14 February 1983, however, Complainant filed this Administrative Case, this time
praying for Respondent's disbarment

Issue: did respondent atty tabang, suppress a material fact in his application in the bar?

Held: yes atty tabang suppressed a material fact in his bar application.his declaration in
his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a
gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should
be made answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional
Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
false statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for
admission to the bar." That false statement, if it had been known, would have
disqualified him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack
of good moral character.
Tan v sabandal

Facts: sabandal is a bar applicant who was denied oath-taking because of a

complaint against him. During his subsequent motion for reconsideration he asked
for bar admission but did not mention that there is Civil Case No. 3747 entitled Republic
of the Philippines, Represented by the Director of Lands, Plaintiff, versus Nicolas Sabandal,
Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte and Rural Bank of Pinan, (Zamboanga del Norte),
Inc., for Cancellation of Title and/or Reversion pending in this Court in which said respondent,
per complaint filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, is alleged to have secured a free
patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to
be a swampland and not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which he later
mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Pinan (ZN) Inc. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land
sold at public auction and respondent has not redeemed the land until the present.

Issue: Is sabandals conduct fit for the legal profession?

Held: bo, sabandals is not fit for the legal profession.

). It must also be stressed that in 1985, at the time said case was instituted, Sabandal's
petition to take the lawyer's oath had already been denied on 29 November 1983 and
he was then submitting to this Court motions for reconsideration alleging his good moral
character without, however, mentioning the pendency of that civil case against him.

In view of the nature of that case and the circumstances attending its termination, the
Court now entertains second thoughts about respondent's fitness to become a member
of the Bar.

It should be recalled that Sabandal worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands.
Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over property which
he could not but have known was public land. This was manipulative on his part and
does not speak well of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty
while in the public service, which can not be erased by the termination of the case filed
by the Republic against him where no determination of his guilt or innocence was made
because the suit had been compromised. Although as the Solicitor General had pointed
out, the amicable settlement was tantamount to a confession on his part. What is more,
he could not but have known of the intrinsic invalidity of his title and yet he took
advantage of it by securing a bank loan, mortgaging it as collateral, and notwithstanding
the foreclosure of the mortgage and the sale of the land at public auction, he did not lift
a finger to redeem the same until the civil case filed against him was eventually
compromised. This is a sad reflection on his sense of honor and fair dealing. His failure
to reveal to this Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him
during the period that he was submitting several Motions for Reconsideration before us
also reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.

Saburdino v madrono

Facts:respondent madrono was a judge

Javier v cornejo

Facts: The respondent Silverio Q. Cornejo, a practicing lawyer of Lipa, Batangas, is charged
with malpractice (a) for trying to collect from a brother attorney a sum of money by means of
threat, and (b) for having instigated Severina Paz Teodoro to file a complaint against the herein
complainant, Attorney Benedicto M. Javier, for malpractice (Administrative Case No. 757)
knowing fully well that the charges therein preferred were malicious, flimsy and unfounded.

it is alleged that the respondent in connivance with one Gregorio Tapia, induced Severina Paz
Teodoro to accuse the herein complainant before this court of malpractice. This charge, however,
was dismissed by resolution of this court on July 10, 1936. Now the complainant comes back
against the herein respondent and charges him with having maliciously instigated the filing of the
complaint in the aforesaid Administrative Case No. 757.

Issue: did the brother attorneys ,Javier and cornejo,give each other due courtesy ?

Held:no the brother attorneys did not give each other due courtesy. It should be observed, in this
connection, that mutual bickerings and unjustifiable recrimination, between brother attorneys
detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this
court.

Macias v malig

Facts: atty macias was the counsel of Rosario LLora in many cases. He was replaced by atty Malig in all
the pending cases and proceedings of LLora.

Atty Macias then asked the court to determine his attorneys fees as far his services were rendered. Not
satisfied with the courts decision on his fees, he sued atty malig and atty malig likewise countercharged
Complainant Macias insisted that respondent Malig "extorted" P10,000.00 from him.
him.
Upon the other hand, respondent Malig was not to be outdone and referred to
complainant Macias as "denizen" of a "jungle" who "prey[s] upon his brother lawyer
[and] his [own] clients" and likened him to "a baneful snake biting the hand of the client
who fed him"

Issue: did both attorneys used strong languages against each other?

Held:yes, they both used stroing languages against each other. The Court is not
prepared to condone by passing over subsilentio the misconduct of which complainant
and respondent are guilty one vis-a-vis the other. Each party here has shown himself to
be too ready to believe the other guilty of serious misconduct in the practice of the
profession to which they both belong while vehemently asserting his own good faith.
Each party here was too anxious and willing to make serious accusations against the
other which the exertion of reasonable diligence along with simple courtesy would have
shown to be unwarranted by the facts and the records. Each attorney here was too
prone to use intemperate and offensive language in describing the professional
behavior of the other.

Court dockets are severely clogged with litigation which demand prompt attention, but
such desirable action can not be fully realized when members of the bar are the ones
who themselves file administrative cases against each other only to have them
withdrawn as soon as their personal egos have been assuaged. If the members of the
bar can not restrain their tempers when their sensibility to criticism is involved, it
becomes difficult for said officers of the court to restrain their own clients against
commencing and pursuing innocuous litigation. Moreover, such conduct diminishes the
opportunity of the Supreme Court to discipline erring members of the Bar. For
contributing to this unwanted consequence in the administration of law, complainant and
counter-complainant in Case No. 2409 should be severely disciplined by the imposition
of heavy fine in addition to being subjected to stern censure by the Supreme Court.