CAYETANO v MONSOD lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily practice of law profession, as evidenced by their

tice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure

more than satisfy the constitutional requirement in the exams.
FACTS that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the
position of Chairman of the COMELEC on April 25, ISSUES OF THE CASE:
1991. Cayetano opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required IN RE: CUNANAN Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of on the legal profession and the administration of
law for at least ten years. Challenging the validity of the FACTS OF THE CASE: justice, the S.C. would seek to know if it is
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of CONSTITUTIONAL.
Monsods nomination, petitioner filed a petition for In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar
Certiorari and Prohibition praying that saidof unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino - An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital
confirmation and the consequent appointment ofCunanan et. al petitioners. requisites for the practice of the law that should be
Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections developed constantly and maintained firmly.
be declared null and void because Monsod did not meet In recent years few controversial issues have aroused
the requirement of having practiced law for the last ten so much public interest and concern as R.A. 972 - The Judicial system from which ours has been
years. popularly known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. derived, the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring,
Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the
ISSUE: general ave of 75% in all subjects w/o falling below profession is concededly judicial.
Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of 50% in any subject, although for the past few exams the
the position of Chairman of the COMELEC. passing grades were changed depending on the - The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and
strictness of the correcting of the bar examinationsthe S.C. equal responsibilities concerning the
HELD: (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950- admission to the practice of law. The primary power
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of 1953 75%). and responsibility which the constitution recognizes
cases in court. A person is also considered to be in the continue to reside in this court.
practice of law when he: . . . for valuable consideration
engages in the business of advising person, firms, - Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the
associations or corporations as to their rights under the Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law seeks to cure are not the rules set in place by the
law, or appears in a representative capacity as an law as those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the
advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before feeling that they have been discriminated against, court, and this power is not included in the power
any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively
committee, or commission constituted by law or few percentages lower than those admitted to the bar w/in the judiciary.
authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, went to congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill
- Reasons for Unconstitutionality:
one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the no. 12, but was vetoed by the president after he was
business of advising clients as to their rights under the given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the
1. There was a manifest encroachment on the
law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either senate then approved senate bill no. 372 embodying constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill
in the practice of law. then became law on June 21, 1953
2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of
the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution.
Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a
Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its
grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of
author, to admit to the Bar those candidates who 3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception
suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and and supplement the rules on admission to the bar
in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional
inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is (since the rules made by congress must elevate the
license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. Atty.
contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law profession, and those rules promulgated are considered
Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-
graduates who had inadequate preparation for the the bare minimum.)
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a 4. It is a class legislation
5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the Held: The court held that the IBP is a State-organized HELD: YES. Petition granted.
law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and Bar as distinguished from bar associations that are
being inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the organized by individual lawyers
entire law is void. themselves, membership of which is voluntary. The
IBP however is an official national body of which all RATIO:
lawyers must be a member and are subjected to the
rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar which Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited
HELD: includes payment of reasonable annual fee for thecompetent proof that he possessed the required good
purpose of carrying out its objectives and moral character as required before taking the Lawyers
Under the authority of the court: implementation of regulations in the practice of law. Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme
The provisions assailed does not infringe theCourt considered the premises that he is not inherently
constitutional rights of the respondent as it is a valid in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of the doubt,
Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyers
1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate its Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the
examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the existence with regulatory measures to implement. Thepractice of law, and that the community assistance he
said law are unconstitutional and therefore void and name of Edillon was stricken out from the rolls of had started is expected to continue in serving the more
w/o force and effect. attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar.
unfortunate members of the society.
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations
subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is
IN RE: ARGOSINO
valid and shall continue in force. (those petitions by the IN RE: BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELLING
candidates who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 are FACTS:
denied, and all the candidates who in the examination In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee,
of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations Haron S. Meiling in the 2002 bar examinations and for
grade of below 50% in any subject are considered as but was denied of taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign disciplinary action as member of Philippine Shari'a
having passed whether they have filed petitions forthe Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of reckless Bar, Melendrez.
admissions or not.) 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
IN RE: EDILLON
Lawyers Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a FACTS:
Facts: This is an administrative case against Edillon proof of the required good moral character he now
who refuses to pay his IBP membership dues assailing possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15) MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar
the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the certifications among others from: two (2) senators, five Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S.
provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar
By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, order. In addition, he, together with the others who Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate
payment of membership fee and suspension for failure were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine
to pay the same. He contends that the stated provisionshonor of their hazing victim. Sharia Bar.
constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights of Alleges that Meling did not disclose in
being compelled to be a member of the IBP in order to his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he
practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to ISSUE: has three (3) pending criminal cases both for Grave
liberty and property and thereby null and void. Oral Defamation and for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against
the Lawyers Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners
practice law. and other people.
Issue: Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face
a deprivation of liberty and property of the respondent. of Melendrez wife causing the injuries to the latter.
2. Alleges that Meling has been using the He is aware that he is not a member of University in 1949. This claim was still unacceptable, as
title Attorney in his communications, as Secretary to the Bar, there was no valid reason why he signed as records would have shown that Diao graduated from
the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he isattorney whoever may have typed the letters. the University in April 1949, but he started his Law
not a member of the Bar. i. Unauthorized use of the studies in October 1948 (second semester, AY 1948-
2. MELING explains that he did not disclose the appellation attorney may render a person liable for 1949) and he would not have been permitted to take
criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, indirect contempt of court. the Bar, as it is provided in the Rules, applicants under
their former professor, advised him to settle PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONALoath that Previous to the study of law, he had
misunderstanding. PRIVILEGE. successfully and satisfactorily completed the required
2. Believing in good faith that the case Limited to citizens of good moral pre-legal education (AA) as required by the
would be settled because the said Judge has moral character, with special educational qualifications, duly Department of Private Education
ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that ascertained and certified.
arose from a single incident as closed and Requirement of good moral character ISSUE:
terminated. is, in fact, of greater importance so far as the general WON Telesforo A Diao should be Disbarred.
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not public and the proper administration of justice are
involve moral turpitude. concerned, than the possession of legal learning. RULING:
2. Use of the title Attorney, Meling Application form of 2002 Bar ExaminationsThe Supreme Court ruled that Telesforo A. Diao was
admits that some of his communications really requires the applicant that applicant to aver that he or not qualified to take the Bar Exams, but did by
contained the word Attorney as they were typed by she has not been charged with any act or omission falsifying information. Admission under false pretenses
the office clerk. punishable by law, rule or regulation before a fiscal, thus give grounds for revoking his admission in the
3. Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or Bar, as passing the Bar Exam is not the only
of non-disclosure against Meling: accused or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any requirement to become an attorney at law. Thus, the
2. Meling should have known that onlyoffense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there name Telesforo A. Diao is deleted from the roll of
the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases,any pending case or charge against him/her. attorneys and he is required to return his law diploma
not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the Meling did not reveal that he has three within thirty days.
cases filed against Meling are still pending. pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence
3. Even if these cases were already constitutes concealment, done under oath at that.
dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same for
the Court to ascertain his good moral character. IN RE: JUAN PUBLICO
IN RE: TELESFORO DIAO
FACTS:
ISSUE: FACTS:
WON Melings act of concealing cases constitutesTelesforo A. Diao took the law examinations in 1953 THREE PETITIONS (from Publico, faculty of
dishonesty. YES. and was admitted to the Bar. Two years later, Severino Polytechnic University, Civic Association in Manila):
Martinez charged Diao of falsifying the information in Petition to take the Bar Exam in 1960
HELD: his application for such Bar Examination. Upon further after failing in the 1959 Bar Examination.
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS investigation, it was found that Diao did not finish his His uncle, TAPEL, opposed the
SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the high school training, and neither did he obtain his petition alleging that his nephew is not a person of
suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as Associate in Arts (AA) degree from Quisumbing College good moral character for having misrepresented,
the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from in 1941. Diao practically admits first charge, but claims sometime in 1950, when he was 16 years old, that he
taking the Lawyers Oath and signing the Roll of that he served the US army, and took the General was eligible for 3 rd
year high school by utilizing the
Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same Classification Test which, according to Diao, is school records of his cousin and name-sake, Juan M.
is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic equivalent to a High School Diploma, although he Publico.
(Meling did not pass the bar). failed to submit certification for such claim from any i. PUBLICO has not completed Grade 4
proper school officials. The claim was doubtlful, ii. Tapel instituted an administrative case against his
1. Rule 7.01: A lawyer shall be answerable for however, the second charge was clearly meritorious, as nephew for falsification of school records or
knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a Diao did not obtain his AA degree from Quisumbing credentials.
material fact in connection with his application for College. Diao claims that he was erroneously certified, PUBLICO PASSED THE BAR, took the
admission to the bar. and asserts that he obtained his AA from Arellano lawyer's oath, and signed the Roll of Attorneys.
3. Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo Paras, Jr., WON PUBLICO can be reinstated, for being in Shari'a lawyer, notarial work is indispensable and
investigated and reported: exemplary moral character despite not completing pre- imperative in the exercise of his profession; therefore,
1. September 1961, Dulcisimo Tapellaw requirements? YES. he is qualified to be appointed as notary public by
dropped the complaint on the ground that his Shari'a District Judge. Petitioner likewise claims that
witnesses had turned hostile. HELD: Shari'a lawyers cannot be appointed as notaries public
i. Motion denied, his witnesses had already testified. Petitioner is hereby ordered REINSTATED in the Roll in their places of residence and in cities and other pilot
2. Recommended PUBLICOs name to beof Attorneys. centers where Shari'a courts are established because
stricken off the roll of attorneys. REINSTATEMENT CRITERIA: the RTC Executive Judges in Cotabato and
i. Respondent falsified his school records WON the applicant shall be reinstated Maguindanao require them to secure certifications
ii. Thereby violating the provisions of Sections 5 and rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the from the IBP Secretary that there are no practicing
6, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, which require court, lawyers in the place where they are applying. Thus,
completion by a bar examinee or candidate of the Court action will depend WON it Shari'a lawyers lose their chance to be appointed as
prescribed courses in elementary, high, pre-law and decides that the public interest in the orderly and notaries public because of the policy of the IBP
law school, prior to his admission to the practice of law. impartial administration of justice will be conserved by chapters in Region 12 to appoint regular IBP members
4. 11 years later, PUBLICO filed a Petition for the applicant's participation therein in the capacity of practically in all municipalities and provinces.
Reinstatement alleging that he had never received, foran attorney and counselor at law.
had he been informed, nor did he have any knowledge Applicant must, like a candidate for The petition is denied.
of the Resolution of the Court ordering the Bar Division admission to the bar, satisfy the court that he is a
to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys. person of good moral character a fit and proper The appointment, qualification, jurisdiction and
1. He was advised to inquire into the person to practice law. powers of notaries public are governed by the
outcome of the disbarment case against him. Court will take into consideration theprovisions of the Notarial Law embodied in Sections
2. He resigned from all his positions in applicant's character and standing prior to the 231 to Section 241, Chapter 11 of the Revised
public and private offices, and transferred to Manila. disbarment, the nature and character of the charge for Administrative Code, Section 232 of the Revised
3. Prayed that Court allow reinstatement which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to theAdministrative Code as amended by Executive Order
taking into consideration his exemplary conduct from disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between theNo. 41, May 11, 1945 provides:
the time he became a lawyer, his services to the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.
community the numerous awards, resolutions and/'or Section 232. Appointment of
commendations he received, notaries public. Judges of
i. Court denied the Petition. IN RE: PETITION TO ALLOW SHARIA Court of First Instance (now
ii. Petitioner moved for reconsideration was denied LAWYERS TO EXERCISE THEIR PROFESSION Regional Trial Court) in the
by the Court for lack of merit. IN COURTS respective may appoint as
4. 5 plea avers that his enrollment in
th many notaries public as the
Third Year High School in Manila was through the Petitioner Royo M. Gampong, a Bachelor of Laws (LIB) public good requires, and
initiative of his uncle, Dulcisimo B. Tapel who graduate of Notre Dame University who was admitted there shall be at least one for
accompanied him to school and enrolled him in a grade to the Philippine Shari'a Bar on October 7, 1991, filed every municipality in each
level above his qualifications in spite of his the instant petition praying that this Court, after due province. Notaries public in
demonstrations notice and hearing, issue an order authorizing all the City of Manila shall be
i. Misrepresentation committed was precipitated byShari'a District Court Judges to appoint Shari'a appointed by one of the judges
his uncle; that being merely 16 year old, he could not be Lawyers who possess the qualifications and none of the of the Court of First Instance
expected to act with discernment as he was still under disqualifications as notaries public within their (now Regional Trial Court) of
the influence of his uncle, who later on caused his respective jurisdictions. Manila to be chosen by the
disbarment judges of the branches of said
ii. No opposition has been filed to any of the On the theory that Shari'a District Courts are co-equal court" (Words in parenthesis
petitions. with the regular Regional Trial Courts in the hierarchy supplied)
of the Philippine Judicial System, petitioner claims that
ISSUE: by analogy, Shari'a District Court Judges may be Strictly speaking, Shari'a District Courts do not form
authorized to appoint the members of the Philippine part of the integrated judicial system of the Philippines.
Shari'a Bar. Petitioner further argues that, being a Section 2 of the Judiciary Reorganization Acts of 1980
special member of the Philippine Bar and a practicing (B.P. Blg. 129) enumerates the courts covered by the
Act, comprising the integrated judicial system. Shari'a under Section 15 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 whichand the corresponding supervising authority over them
Courts are not included in the enumerationprovides: authorized under Section 248 thereof require the
notwithstanding that, when said B.P. Blg. 129 took qualifications and experience of an RTC Judge.
effect on August 14, 1981, P.D. No. 1083 (otherwise Section 15. Qualifications
known as "Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the No person shall be appointedIt must be made clear in this regard that since a person
Philippines") was already in force. The Shari'a Courts Regional trial Court Judgewho has passed the Shari'a Bar Examination does not
are mentioned in Section 45 of the Act only for the unless he is a natural bornautomatically become a regular member of the
purpose of including them "in the funding citizen of the Philippines, atPhilippine Bar, he lacks the necessary qualification to
appropriations." least thirty-five years of age,be appointed a notary public. Section 233 of the
and, for at least ten years, hasNotarial Law provides for the qualifications for
The fact that judges thereof are required by law to been engaged in the practice ofappointment as notary public, thus:
possess the same qualifications as those of Regional law in the Philippines
Trial Courts does not signify that the Shari'a Court is a requiring admission to the Section 233. Qualifications
regular court like the Regional Trial Court. The latter is practice of law as an for Appointment. To be
a court of general jurisdiction, i.e., competent to decide indispensable requirement. eligible for appointment as
all cases, civil and criminal, within its jurisdiction. A notary public, a person must
Shari'a District Court, created pursuant to Article 137 In case of Shari'a Court judges, on the other hand, a be a citizen of the Philippines
of Presidential Decree No. 1083, is a court of limited Special Bar Examination for Shari'a Courts was (or of the United States) and
jurisdiction, exercising original only over casesauthorized by the Supreme Court in its En over twenty-one years of age.
specifically enumerated in Article 143 thereof. In other Banc resolution dated September 20, 1983. Those who He must, furthermore, be a
words, a Shari'a District Court is not a regular court pass said examination are qualified for appointment person who has been admitted
exercising general jurisdiction within the meaning of for Shari'a court judges and for admission to special to the practice of law or who
Section 232 of the Notarial Law. membership in the Philippine Bar to practice law in the has completed and passed in
Shari'a courts pursuant to Article 152, in relation to the studies of law in a
The fact, too, that Shari'a Courts are called "courts" Articles 148 and 158 of P.D. No. 1083. Said Article 152, reputable university or school
does not imply that they are on equal footing or are P.D. No. 1083 provides, thus: of law, or has passed the
identical with regular courts, for the word "court" may examination for the office of
be applied to tribunals which are not actually judicial in Art. 152. Qualifications. the peace or clerk or deputy
character, but are quasi-judicial agencies, like the No person shall be appointed clerk of court, or be a person
Securities and Exchange Commission, Land judge of the Shari'a Circuit who had qualified for the
Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Court unless he is a natural office of notary public under
Civil Aeronautics Boards, Bureau of Patents, born citizen of the Philippines, the Spanish sovereignty.
Trademark and Technology, Energy Regulatory Board, at least twenty-five years of
etc.1 age, and has passed an In the chartered cities and in
examination in the Sharia' and the capitals of the provinces,
Moreover, decisions of the Shari'a District Courts are Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) to where there are two or more
not elevated to this Court by appeal under Rule 41, or be given by the Supreme Court lawyers appointed as notaries
by petition for review under Rule 45, of the Rules of for admission to special public, no person other than a
Court. Their decisions are final "whether on appeal membership in the Philippine lawyer or a person who had
from the Shari'a Circuit Court or not" 2 and hence, may Bar to practice law in the qualified to hold the office of
reach this Court only by way of a special civil action Shari'a courts. notary public under the
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, similar to those of Spanish sovereignty shall hold
the National Labor Relations Commission, or theThe authority thus conferred by the Notarial Law upon said office.
Central Board of Assessment Appeals. 3 judges of the Court of First Instance, now the Regional
Trial Court, in their respective provinces to appoint In municipalities or municipal
Furthermore, the qualifications for appointment as a notaries public cannot be expanded to cloth the judges districts where no person
judge of a Shari'a District Court are different from of the Shari'a District Court with the same statutory resides having the
those required of a judge of a Regional Trial Court authority. The authority to appoint notaries public qualifications herein before
contemplated under Section 232 of the Notarial Law specified or having them,
 refuses to hold such office,
judges of first instance may
appoint other persons
temporarily to exercise the
office of notary public who
have the requisite
qualifications or fitness and
morality.
In an En Banc resolution of the Court dated August 5,
1993, in Bar Matter No. 681 "Re: Petition to Allow
Shari'a Lawyers to exercise their profession at the
regular courts," this Court categorically stated that a
person who has passed the Shari'a Bar Examination is
only a special member of the Philippine Bar and not a
full-fledged member thereof even if he is a Bachelor of
Laws degree holder. As such, he is authorized to
practice only in the Shari'a courts.
Only a person duly admitted as members of the
Philippine Bar in accordance with the Rules of Court
are entitled to practice law before the regular courts.
Section 1, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides:
Section 1. Who may practice
law. Any person heretofore
duly admitted as a member of
the bar, or hereafter admitted
as such in accordance with the
provisions of this rule, and
who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice
law.
This Court further emphasized in its resolution in Bar
Matter 681, that:
In order to be admitted as
member of the Philippine Bar,
the candidate must pass an
examination for admission
covering the following
subjects: Political and
International Law; Labor and
Social Legislation; Civil Law
and Taxation; Mercantile Law;
Criminal Law; Remedial Law;
and Legal Ethics and Practical
Exercises (Sec. 11, Rule 138) Regional Trial Courts as only
Further, in order that a duly authorized members of
candidate may be deemed to the Bar may conduct
have passed the bar litigations in the latter court
examination, he must have (Sec. 34, Rule 138).
obtained a general average of
75% in all the aforementionedConsidering, therefore that a person who has passed
subjects without failing belowthe Shari'a Bar Examination is only a special member
50% in any subject (Sec. 14,of the Philippine Bar and not a full-fledged member
Rule 138). On the other hand, thereof even if he holds a Bachelor of Laws Degree, he
the subjects covered by theis not qualified to practice to qualified to practice law
special bar examination forbefore the regular courts. As a general rule, a Shari'a
Shari'a courts are: (1)Lawyer is not possessed of the basic requisite of
Jurisprudence (Fiqh) and"practice of law" in order to be appointed as a notary
Customary laws (Adat); (2)public under Section 233 of the Notarial Law in
Persons, Family Relations andrelation to Section 1, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Property; (3) Successions,Court.
Wills/Adjudication and
Settlement of Property; (4)WHEREFORE, the petition to authorize Shari'a
Procedure in Shari'a CourtsDistrict Court Judges to appoint Shari'a Lawyers as
(See Resolution datednotaries public in their respective jurisdiction is
September 20, 1983). DENIED.
It is quite obvious that the
subject matter of the two
examinations are different.PAFLU V. BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR CO.
The Philippine Bar
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU),
Examination covers the entire
Enrique Entila and Victoriano Tenazas vs. Binalbagan
range of the Philippine Laws
Isabela Sugar Company, Court of Industrial Relations
and jurisprudence, while the
and Quintin Muning
Shari'a Bar Examination
covers Muslim personal laws
and jurisprudence only.
Hence, a person who hasFACTS:
passed the Shari'a Bar
Examination, who is not a COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
lawyer, is not qualified toORDERED REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES
practice law before the regularFOR ENTILA AND TENAZAS.
courts because he has not Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of
passed the requisiteEntila and Tenazas filed a notice of attorney's lien
examinations for admission asequivalent to 30% of the total backwages.
a member of the Philippine i. Entila and Tenazas filed manifestation indicating
Bar. However, the Shari'a bartheir non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for
lawyer may appear before the25% of their backwages
Municipal Trial Courts asii. Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of
agent or friend of a litigant, if Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the
appointed by the latter for the backwages.
purpose but not before the
1. Opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that September 1961, Dulcisimo TapelThe award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a
he is not a lawyer. dropped the complaint on the ground that hislawyer according to the order, is sought to be voided in
a. Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of thewitnesses had turned hostile. the present petition.
backwages as compensation for professional services i. Motion denied, his witnesses had already testified.
rendered in the case, apportioned as follows: Recommended PUBLICOs name to beWON a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees
i. Cipriano 10% stricken off the roll of attorneys. which are deductible from the backpay of some of its
ii. Quintin Muning 10% i. Respondent falsified his school records members. YES.
iii. Atanacio Pacis 5% ii. Thereby violating the provisions of Sections 5 and It was PAFLU that moved for an extension of
6, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, which require time to file the present petition for review; union
iii. CANON 34: condemns an agreement providing for completion by a bar examinee or candidate of themembers Entila and Tenazas did not ask for extension
the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer prescribed courses in elementary, high, pre-law and but they were included as petitioners in the present
union president is allowed to share in said fees with law school, prior to his admission to the practice of law. petition. Their inclusion in the petition as co-
lawyers 11 years later, PUBLICO filed a Petition for petitioners was belated.
1. Sec 5(b) of RA 875 that No justification for a ruling, Reinstatement alleging that he had never received, for
that the person representing the party-litigant in the had he been informed, nor did he have any knowledge HELD:
Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, of the Resolution of the Court ordering the Bar Division ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE SET ASIDE AS THEY
is entitled to attorney's fees to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys. ARE AWARDED 10% OF BACKWAGES AS
a. Duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer to He was advised to inquire into the ATTORNEYS FEES FOR MUNING. COSTS AGAINST
examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of the outcome of the disbarment case against him. MUNING.
parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of He resigned from all his positions in Lawyer-client relationship is only possible if
evidence. public and private offices, and transferred to Manila. one is a lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he
b. Representation should be exclusively entrusted to duly Prayed that Court allow reinstatement cannot establish an attorney-client relationship with
qualified members of the bar. taking into consideration his exemplary conduct from Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU,
2. The permission for a non-member does not the time he became a lawyer, his services to the and he cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees.
entitle the representative to compensation for such community the numerous awards, resolutions and/'or Public policy demands that legal work in
representation. commendations he received, representation of parties litigant should be entrusted
1. Sec 24, Rule 138 Compensation of i. Court denied the Petition. only to those possessing tested qualifications, for the
attorney's agreement as to fees: ii. Petitioner moved for reconsideration was denied ethics of the profession and for the protection of courts,
i. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover by the Court for lack of merit. clients and the public.
from his client no more than a reasonable 5th plea avers that his enrollment in The reasons are that the ethics of the legal
compensation for his services. Third Year High School in Manila was through theprofession should not be violated:
initiative of his uncle, Dulcisimo B. Tapel who Acting as an attorney with authority
a. Petition to take the Bar Exam in 1960 after failing in accompanied him to school and enrolled him in a grade constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by
the 1959 Bar Examination. level above his qualifications in spite of his fine or imprisonment or both,
b. His uncle, TAPEL, opposed the petition alleging that his demonstrations Law will not assist a person to reap the
nephew is not a person of good moral character for i. Misrepresentation committed was precipitated byfruits or benefit of an act or an act done in violation of
having misrepresented, sometime in 1950, when hehis uncle; that being merely 16 year old, he could not be law
was 16 years old, that he was eligible for 3 rd year highexpected to act with discernment as he was still under If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it
school by utilizing the school records of his cousin and the influence of his uncle, who later on caused his would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to
name-sake, Juan M. Publico. disbarment whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the
ii. PUBLICO has not completed Grade 4 ii. No opposition has been filed to any of the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non-
iii. Tapel instituted an administrative case against his petitions. lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures.
nephew for falsification of school records or In response to UNION may appeal an award of
credentials. ISSUE: attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay
3. PUBLICO PASSED THE BAR, took theMay a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal of some of its members:
lawyer's oath, and signed the Roll of Attorneys. services rendered? YES because such union or labor
4. Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo Paras, Jr., organization is permitted to institute an action in the
investigated and reported: industrial court on behalf of its members
2. If an award is disadvantageous to its Appelles But In Good Faith, I signed for and in Behalf
members, the union may prosecute an appeal as an of the appellee Without Designating That I am
aggrieved party, under Sec 6, RA 875: RATIO: Practicing as attorney-at-law.
i. Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by any order of the Court may Claim of the petitioners as to the validity of the
appeal to the Supreme Court of the Philippines. decision cannot be sustained for the reason that it is in
3. Usually, individual unionist is not in aa nature of collateral attack to judgment which on its ISSUE: Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is
position to bear the financial burden of litigations. face is valid and regular for a long time. It is a well tantamount to practice of law.
known rule that a judgment, which on its face is valid
and regular, can only be attacked in separate action
RAMOS V. MANALAC brought principally for the purpose (Gomez vs.
Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717). HELD: Yes. Neither can he allow his name to appear in
FACTS: such pleading by itself or as part of firm name under
The second issue was also not taken for the simple the signature of another qualified lawyer because the
Petition for certiorari was filed seeking annulment of reason that the issuance of writ of possession in signature of an agent amounts to signing of a non-
the decision of the Court of First Instance of foreclosure proceedings is not an execution of qualified senator or congressman, the office of an
Pangasinan regarding a foreclosed parcel of land. judgment within the purview of Section 6 Rule 39 of attorney being originally an agency, and because he
Petitioners question the validity of the CFI ruling that the Rules of Court, but is merely ministerial and will, by such act, be appearing in court or quasi-judicial
they will be held in contempt for refusing to vacate the complementary duty of the court. or administrative body in violation of the constitutional
land. The said property, being collateral for a loan to a restriction. He cannot do indirectly what the
Mr. Rivera, was foreclosed due to non-payment of loan In the third issue, the word or term appearance Constitution prohibits directly.
amount and its interest within the prescribed periods. includes not only arguing a case before any such body
Mr. Rivera later sold the property to Ms. Lopez, who but also filing a pleading in behalf of a client as by
later filed petition that she be placed in possession of simply filing a formal motion, plea or answer.
the land. The petitioners question the ruling of the MARCOS V. CHIEF OF STAFF
court.
These are two special civil actions
IN RE: DAVID of mandamus instituted by the same petitioners
against the respondents General Court-Martials
ISSUES: Respondent was suspended for bad practices in the composed each of different members or officers of the
exercise of his profession as a lawyer for a period of five Philippine Army, in which it is alleged that the
years from the November 9, 1949. The defendant respondents Military Tribunals excluded unlawfully the
admits this suspension in `his written report filed on petitioners from the enjoyment of their right to appear
Whether or not: March 17, 1951, yet he continued to exercise the as counsel for the accused prosecuted before said
profession within the period of suspension, November tribunals, to which the petitioners are entitled because
(1) The decision of the lower court (CFI) is valid; 9, 1949 to November 8, 1954. they are attorneys duly admitted to practice law in the
Philippine Courts, on the ground that they are
(2) Directing the issuance of a writ of possession in On Feb 28 1950 the respondent file a claim in the case disqualified or inhibited by section 17, Article 17 of the
favor of Felipa Lopez is valid; and, of Tan Tek vs Sy not as a lawyer but as an agent. (For Constitution to appear as counsel for said defendants.
and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy) CFI decided in favor of Said Section 17 reads as follows:
(3) (Possible Legal Ethics Issue) the term appearance Tan Tek, subsequently Atty Felix David filed a motion
would include only presence in courts. for execution. In another civil case of the CFI called SEC. 17. No Senator or Member of the House
Malayan Saw Mill, Inc vs Tolentino, defendant filed a of Representatives shall directly or indirectly
brief for an order to demolish homes. be financially interested in any contract with
the Government or any subdivision or
HELD: In order - says the appeal - to show That I did not instrumentality thereof, or in any franchise or
Have the intention to disregard the suspension of the special privilege granted by the Congress
YES on first two issues. NO on the third issue. Petition
Supreme Court, I did not With The Knowledge of Tan during his term of office. He shall not appear
was dismissed. Cost against the petitioners.
Tek Identified Sy Even myself as the attorney for the as counsel before the Electoral Tribunals or
 before any court in any civil case wherein the Ruffy et al vs. Chief of Staff of the Philippine Army, limited sphere are entitled to as untrammeled
Government or any subdivision orsupra, has to say in this connection the following: an exercise of their powers.
instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or
in any criminal case wherein an offer or Notwithstanding that the court-martial is only And lastly, American Jurisprudence says:
employee of the Government is accused of an an instrumentality of the executive power
offense committed in relation to his office. . . .. having no relation or connection, in law, with SEC. 99. Representation by Counsel. It is
the judicial establishments of the country, it is the general rule that one accused of the crime
The only question for this Court to determine in these yet, so far as it is a court at all, and within its has the right to be represented before the court
two cases is whether the prohibition contained in the field of action, as fully a court of law and justice by counsel, and this is expressly so declared by
above quoted section 17 of our Constitution is as is any civil tribunal. As a court of law, it is the statues controlling the procedure in court-
applicable to the petitioners. bound, like any court, by the fundamental martial. It has been held that a constitutional
principles of law, and, in the absence of special provision extending that right to one accused
We are of the opinion and therefore hold that it is provision of the subject in the military code, it in any trial in any court whatever applies to a
applicable, because the words "any court" includes the observes in general the rules of evidence as court-martial and gives the accused the
General Court-Martial, and a court-martial case is a adopted in the common-law courts. As a court undeniable right to defend by counsel, and that
criminal case within the meaning of the above quoted of justice, it is required by the terms of its a court-martial has no power to refuse an
provisions of our Constitution. statutory oath, (art. 84.) to adjudicate between attorney the right to appear before it if he is
the U.S. an the accused "without partiality, properly licensed to practice in the courts of
It is obvious that the words "any court," used in favor, or affection," and according, not only to the state. (Citing the case of State ex rel
prohibiting members of Congress to appear as counsel the laws and customs of the service, but to its Huffaker vs. Crosby, 24 Nev. 115, 50 Pac. 127;
"in any criminal case in which an officer or employee of "conscience," i.e. its sense of substantial right 36 American Jurisprudence 253)
the Government is accused of an offense committed in and justice unaffected by technicalities. In the
relation to his office," refers, not only to a civil, but also words of the Attorney General, court-martial The fact that a judgment of conviction, not of acquittal,
to a military court or a Court-Martial. Because, in are thus, "in the strictest sense courts of rendered by a court-martial must be approved by the
construing a Constitution, "it must be taken as justice. (Winthrop's Military Law andreviewing authority before it can be executed (Article of
established that where words are used which have both Precedents, Vol. 1 and 2, 2nd Ed., p. 54.) War 46), does not change or affect the character of a
a restricted and a general meaning, the general must court-martial as a court. A judgment of the Court of
prevail over the restricted unless the nature of the In re Bogart, 3 Fed. Cas., 796, 801, citing 6 Op. Attys. First Instance imposing death penalty must also be
subject matter of the context clearly indicates that the Gen. 425, with approval, the court said: approved by the Supreme Court before it can be
limited sense is intended." (11 American executed.
Jurisprudence, pp. 680-682). In the language of Attorney General Cushing, a
court-martial is a lawful tribunal existing by That court-martial cases are criminal cases within the
In the case of Ramon Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff of the the same authority that any other exists by, meaning of Section 17, Article VI, of the Constitution is
Philippine Army,* 43 Off. Gaz., 855, we did not hold and the law military is a branch of law as valid also evident, because the crimes and misdemeanors
that the word "court" in general used in our as any other, and it differs from the general law forbidden or punished by the Articles of War are
Constitution does not include a Court-Martial; what we of the land in authority only in this: that it offenses against the Republic of the Philippines.
held is that the words "inferior courts" used in applies to officers and soldiers of the army but According to section 1, Rule 106, of the Rules of Court,
connection with the appellate jurisdiction of the not to other members of the body politic, and a criminal action or case is one which involves a wrong
Supreme Court to "review on appeal certiorari or writ that it is limited to breaches of military duty. or injury done to the Republic, for the punishment of
of error, as the law or rules of court may provide, final which the offender is prosecuted in the name of the
judgments of inferior courts in all criminal cases inAnd in re Davison, 21 F. 618, 620, it was held: People of the Philippines; and pursuant to Article of
which the penalty imposed is death or life War 17, "the trial advocate of a general or special court-
imprisonment," as provided for in section 2, Article That court-martial are lawful tribunals existing martial shall prosecute (the accused) in the name of the
VIII, of the Constitution, do not refer to Courts-Martial by the same authority as civil courts of the People of the Philippines."
or Military Courts. United States, have the same plenary
jurisdiction in offenses by the law military as Winthtrop, in his well known work "Military Law and
Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents, quoted by the the latter courts have in controversies withinPrecedents' says the following:
petitioners and by this Court in the case of Ramon their cognizance, and in their special and more
 In regard to the class of courts to which it subsequently tried for the same offense in a This is the first time that respondent ever handled a
belongs, it is lastly to be noted that the court- civil court exercising authority in that territory. case for a member of his family who is like a big sister
martial is strictly a criminal court. It has no to him. He appeared for free and for the purpose of
civil jurisdiction whatever; cannot enforce aFurthermore, taking into consideration the apparent settling the case amicably. Furthermore, his Presiding
contract, collect a debt, or award damages in intention or purpose of the framers of our Constitution Judge was aware of his appearance as counsel for his
favor of an individual. . . . Its judgment is a in enacting section 17, Article VI of the Philippine cousin. On top of this, during all the years that he has
criminal sentence not a civil verdict; its proper Constitution, it is obvious that there exist the same if been in government service, he has maintained his
function is to award punishment upon the not more reason for prohibiting the appearance of integrity and independence.
ascertainment of guilt. (Winthrop's Military members of the Senate and the House of
Law and Precedents, Vols. 1 & 2, 2nd Ed., p. Representatives as counsel for the accused in court- He failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of
55.) martial, as for inhibiting them to appear as such in civil the Department. The presiding judge of the court to
courts, because the independence of civil court's judges which respondent is assigned is not the head of the
In N. Y. it was held that the term "criminal is guaranteed by our Constitution. Ubi eadem ibi Department contemplated by law.
case," used in the clause, must be allowed someeadem lex.
meaning, and none can be conceived, other Issue:
than a prosecution for a criminal offense. Ex Wherefore, as the petitioners are disqualified to appear
parte Carter. 66 S. W. 540, 544, 166 No. 604, as counsel for the accused in court-martial, theWON Atty. Ladaga, upon such several appearances,
57 L.R.A. 654, quoting People vs. Kelly, 24 N.Y. respondents did not unlawfully exclude them from the was engages into private practice? NO
74; Counselman vs. Hitchcock, 12 S. Ct. 195;enjoyment of any right, and hence the petitions
142 U.S. 547, L. Ed. 111o. (Words and Phrases, formandamus in these two cases are denied with costs Held:
Vol. 10, p. 485.) against the petitioners.
Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code
Besides, that a court-martial is a court, and the of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
prosecution of an accused before it is a criminal and and Employees which prohibits civil servants from
not an administrative case, and therefore it would be, OFFICE OF COURT ADMINITRATION V engaging in the private practice of their profession. A
under certain conditions, a bar to another prosecution LADAGA similar prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of
of the defendant for the same offense, because the the Revised Rules of Court which disallows certain
latter would place the accused in jeopardy, is shown by Facts: attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States profession.
Atty. Misael Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the
in the case of Grafton vs. United States, 206 U. S. 333;
Regional Trial Court of Makati, appeared as counsel for THERE WAS NO PRIVATE PRACTICE:
51 Law. Ed., 1088, 1092, in which the following was
and in behalf of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an
held:
accused in Criminal Case No. 84-885 for FalsificationIn People vs. Villanueva:
of Public Documents before the METC of Quezon City. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it
If a court-martial has jurisdiction to try an
consists in frequent or customary action, a succession
officer or soldier for a crime, its judgment will It is also denied that the appearance of said respondent
of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent
be accorded the finality and conclusiveness as in said case was without the previous permission of the
Court. habitual exercise (State vs. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan.
to the issues involved which attend the
864, 42 LRA, N.S. 768). Practice of law to fall within
judgment of a civil court in a case of which it
During the occasions that the respondent appeared asthe prohibition of statute has been interpreted as
may legally take cognizance; and restricting
such counsel before the METC of Quezon City, he was customarily or habitually holding ones self out to the
our decision to the above question of double
on official leave of absence. Moreover, his Presiding public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such
jeopardy, we judge that, consistently with the
Judge, Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case services (State vs. Bryan, 4 S. E. 522, 98 N. C. 644,
above act of 1902, and for the reasons stated,
he was handling. Respondent appeared as pro bono647). The appearance as counsel on one occasion, is
the plaintiff in error, a soldier in the Army,
counsel for his cousin-client Narcisa Ladaga. not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the
having been acquitted of the crime of
Respondent did not receive a single centavo from her. private practice of law.
homicide, alleged to have been committed by
Helpless as she was and respondent being the only
him in the Philippines, by a military court of
lawyer in the family, he agreed to represent her out of Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the isolated
competent jurisdiction, proceeding under the instances when respondent appeared as pro bono
his compassion and high regard for her.
authority of the United States, could not be counsel of his cousin in Criminal Case No. 84885 does
not constitute the private practice of the law course by the Department of Environment and Natural pieces of evidence fail to persuade us to conclude that
profession contemplated by law. Resources (DENR). there was a violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
DECISION: Reprimanded. ISSUE: Whether the respondents actions constitute a
breach of the standard ethical conduct first, while the Under the circumstances, the foregoing definition
respondent was still an elective public official and a should be correlated with R.A. No. 6713 and Rule 6.03
member of the Committee on Awards; and second, of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
OLAZO V JUSTICE DANTE TINGA when he was no longer a public official, but a private impose certain restrictions on government lawyers to
lawyer who represented a client before the office he engage in private practice after their separation from
FACTS: This is a disbarment case against retired was previously connected with. the service.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga
(respondent) filed by Mr. Jovito S. OlazoRULING: The charge involves a violation of Rule 6.02 As a rule, government lawyers are not allowed to
(complainant). In March 1990, the complainant filed a of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It imposes engage in the private practice of their profession during
sales application covering a parcel of land situated in the following restrictions in the conduct of a their incumbency. By way of exception, a government
Barangay Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of Taguig. government lawyer. The provision prohibits a lawyer lawyer can engage in the practice of his or her
To implement Proclamation No. 172, Memorandumfrom using his or her public position to: (1) promote profession under the following conditions: first, the
No. 119 was issued by then Executive Secretary private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by
Catalino Macaraig, creating a Committee on Awards allow private interest to interfere with his or her public the law; and second, the practice will not conflict or
whose duty was to study, evaluate, and make a duties. We previously held that the restriction extends tend to conflict with his or her official functions. The
recommendation on the applications to purchase the to all government lawyers who use their public offices last paragraph of Section 7 provides an exception to the
lands declared open for disposition. The Committee on to promote their private interests. exception. In case of lawyers separated from the
Awards was headed by the Director of Lands and the government service who are covered under
respondent was one of the Committee members, in hisWe find the absence of any concrete proof that the subparagraph (b) (2) of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a
official capacity as the Congressman of Taguig and respondent abused his position as a Congressman and one-year prohibition is imposed to practice law in
Pateros (from 1987 to 1998); the respondents district as a member of the Committee on Awards in theconnection with any matter before the office he used to
includes the areas covered by the proclamations. manner defined under Rule 6.02 of the Code of be with.
Professional Responsibility. First, the records do not
The complainant claimed that the respondent abused clearly show if the complainants sales application was Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
his position as Congressman and as a member of the ever brought before the Committee on Awards. Second, echoes this restriction and prohibits lawyers, after
Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with the complainants allegation that the respondent leaving the government service, to accept engagement
the complainants sales application because of his orchestrated the efforts to get the subject land does or employment in connection with any matter in which
personal interest over the subject land. The not specify how the orchestration was undertaken.he had intervened while in the said service. The
complainant alleged that the respondent exerted undue Third, the other documents executed by Miguel Olazo, keyword in Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
pressure and influence over the complainants father, that the complainant presented to support his claim Responsibility is the term intervene which we
Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter to contest the that the respondent exerted undue pressure and previously interpreted to include an act of a person
complainants sales application and claim the subject influence over his father (namely: the letter, dated June who has the power to influence the proceedings.
land for himself. The complainant also alleged that the 22, 1996, to the DENR Regional Director-NCR; the Otherwise stated, to fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03
respondent prevailed upon Miguel Olazo to accept, onSinumpaang Salaysay dated July 12, 1996; and theof the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
various dates, sums of money as payment of the latters Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 17, 1996, do not respondent must have accepted engagement or
alleged rights over the subject land. The complainant contain any reference to the alleged pressure or force employment in a matter which, by virtue of his public
further claimed that the respondent brokered theexerted by the respondent over Miguel Olazo. office, he had previously exercised power to influence
transfer of rights of the subject land between Miguel the outcome of the proceedings.
Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, who is the As proof that the respondent was engaged in an
nephew of the respondents deceased wife. As a result unauthorized practice of law after his separation from As the records show, no evidence exists showing that
of the respondents abuse of his official functions, the the government service, the complainant presented the the respondent previously interfered with the sales
complainants sales application was denied. TheSinumpaang Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, of application covering Manuels land when the former
conveyance of rights to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez and Manuel and the document entitled Assurance where was still a member of the Committee on Awards. The
his sales application were subsequently given due the respondent legally represented Ramon Lee andcomplainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish that
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. Nevertheless, the foregoing the respondent was engaged in the practice of law. At
face value, the legal service rendered by the respondent (b) the payment of professional tax; violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
was limited only in the preparation of a single Responsibility and, as an elective official, the
document. (c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713.
mandatory continuing legal education; this is especially Consequently, for the violation of the latter prohibition,
After a careful evaluation of the pleadings filed by both significant to refresh the applicant/petitioners respondent committed a breach of Canon 1.
parties and their respective pieces of evidence, we knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal Consequently, for the violation of the latter prohibition,
resolve to dismiss the administrative complaint. developments and respondent was then recommended suspension from
the practice of law for one month with a stern warning
(d) the retaking of the lawyers oath which will notthat the commission of the same or similar act will be
only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a dealt with more severely.
IN RE: DACANAY lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his
pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada toPhilippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foregoing findings
seek medical help. In order for him to take advantage
regarding the transgression of respondent as well as
of Canadas free medical aid program he became a Compliance with these conditions will restore his good
the recommendation on the imposable penalty of the
Canadian citizen in 2004. In 2006 however, he re- standing as a member of the Philippine bar.
respondent were proper.
acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to
Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship Retention and Re-
Acquisition Act of 2003. In the same year, he returned
HELD: No. First, respondent cannot be found liable
to the Philippines and he now intends to resume his CATU V ATTY. VICENTE RELLOSA
for violation of Rule 6.03 the Code of Professional
practice of law.
FACTS: Petitioner initiated a complaint againstResponsibility as this applies only to a lawyerwho has
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor who were occupying left government service and in connection to
resume his practice of law. one of the units in a building in Malate which was former government lawyers who are prohibited from
owned by the former. The said complaint was filed inaccepting employment in connection with any matter
HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79in which [they] had intervened while in their service. In
professions in the Philippines are reserved and limited of the 5th District of Manila where respondent was the the case at bar, respondent was an incumbent punong
only to Filipino citizens. Philippine citizenship is a punong barangay. The parties, having been barangay. Apparently, he does not fall within the
requirement for admission to the bar. So when summoned for conciliation proceedings and failing topurview of the said provision.
Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in 2004, he ceased arrive at an amicable settlement, were issued by the
to have the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. respondent a certification for the filing of theSecond, it is not Section 90 of RA 7160 but Section 7(b)
However, under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer whoappropriate action in court. Petitioner, thus, filed a (2) of RA 6713 which governs the practice of profession
becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor inof elective local government officials. While RA 6713
to have lost his Philippine citizenship if hethe Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila where generally applies to all public officials and employees,
reacquires his Filipino citizenship inrespondent entered his appearance as counsel forRA 7160, being a special law, constitutes an exception
accordance with RA 9225. Hence, when Dacanaythe defendants. Because of this, petitioner filed the to RA 6713 .Moreover, while under RA 7160,certain
reacquires his Filipino citizenship in 2006, his instant administrative complaint against thelocal elective officials (like governors, mayors,
membership to the Philippine bar was deemed to have respondent on the ground that he committed an act of provincial board members and councilors) are
never been terminated. impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when heexpressly subjected to a total or partial proscription
stood as counsel for the defendantsdespite the fact thatto practice their profession or engage in any
But does this also mean that he can automatically he presided over the conciliation proceedings between occupation, no such interdiction is made on the
resume his practice of law right after reacquisition? the litigants as punong barangay. In his defense, punong barangay and the members of the
respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio
No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions performed his task without bias and that he acceded to alterius since they are excluded from any prohibition,
before he can resume his practice of law, to wit: Elizabeths request to handle the case for free as she the presumption is that they are allowed to practice
was financially distressed. The complaint was thentheir profession. Respondent, therefore, is not
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) forbidden to practice his profession.
membership dues in the IBP; where after evaluation, they found sufficient ground to
discipline respondent. According to them, respondent
Third, notwithstanding all of these, respondent still violating his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and
should have procured a prior permission or Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He Issue:
authorization from the head of his Department, asis therefore SUSPENDED from the practice of May a member of the Philippine Bar who was
required by civil service regulations. The failure of law for a period of six months effective from his disbarred or suspended from the practice of law in a
respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of receipt of this resolution. He is sternly WARNED thatforeign jurisdiction where he has also be admitted as
the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a violation any repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more an attorney be meted the same sanction as a member of
of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. In acting severely. the Philippine Bar for the same infraction committed in
as counsel for a party without first securing the the foreign jurisdiction?
required written permission, respondent not only
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also IN RE: MAQUERA Ruling:
violated a civil service rules which is a breach of Rule It is not automatic suspension or disbarment,
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF but is prima facie evidence only.
LAW IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY The power of the Court to disbar/suspend a
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage inLEON G. MAQUERA lawyer for acts an omission committed in a foreign
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or jurisdiction is found in Sec 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
deceitful conduct. Facts: Rules of Court:
Atty Maquera was counsel for a certain Castro []The disbarment or suspension of a
For not living up to his oath as well as for not who was indebted to Edward Benavente who obtained member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or
complying with the exactingethical standards of thejudgment in a civil case. Castros propery was sold at other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction
legal profession, respondent failed to comply public auction to satisfy the obligation, but Castro where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a
withCanon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: retained the right to redemption over said property. ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of
In consideration for Maqueras legal fees, such action includes any of the acts hereinabove
Castro and Atty Maquera entered into an oral enumerated.
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
agreement that he would assign his right of redemption The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY
to Maquera. or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT
Maquera purchased the property from the ground for disbarment or suspension.
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Benavente for $525.00 then sold it for $320,000. Also, he violated Article 1492 in relation to
He was suspended in the practice of law in 1491 of the civil code which prohibits a lawyer from
Guam for two years for acquiring by assignment the clients property which is
A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so
Obtaining an unreasonably high fee forthe subject of litigation. It extends to legal redemption.
doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the
dignity of the legal profession. Every lawyer should act his services Most particularly, Canon 17 which states that a
and comport himself in a manner that promotes Did not comply with Guams Model lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and be
public confidencein the integrity of the legal profession. Rules by entering into a business mindful of the trust and confidence In him; and rule
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended transaction with a client or 1.01, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in
from his office as an attorney for violation of the knowingly acquire a pecuniary unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal interest adverse to a client unless the HOWEVER, there is a need to ascertain
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional transaction and the terms governing Maquera has the right to explain why he should and
Responsibility. the lawyer's acquisition of such should not be suspended/disbarred on those grounds.
interest are fair and reasonable to the Suspension/disbarment is NOT automatic
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is client, and are fully disclosed to, and NEVERTHELESS, the Court rules that Maquera should
hereby found GUILTYof professional misconduct for understood by the client and reduced be suspended from the practice of law for the non-
in writing payment of his IBP dues from 1977.