LEGAL PROFESSION

Prepared & Submitted by:

CAVALIDA, ERVIN
CENTINO, KRISTINE
DASIG, CHARLENE

LLB -1
EH 309
CARONAN VS CARONAN || A.C. 11316, July 12, 2016

Complainant: Patrick A. Caronan

Respondent: Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. Atty. Patrick A. Caronan

FACTS:

Complainant and respondent are full siblings and both completed their secondary education at
Makati High School where they graduated in 1993 and in 1991, respectively. Complainant
graduated at the University of Makati in 1997 with a degree in Business Administration. He
married Myrna G. Tapis in 2001 with whom he has two daughters. Concurrently, respondent
enrolled at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) for one year and then transferred to
Philippine Military Academy in 1992 where he was discharged after a year. Respondent was not
able to obtain any college degree since then. In 1999, respondent enrolled in St Marys Law
School in Nueva Vizcaya and passed the Bar examinations in 2004 using the school records of
the petitioner. Complainant had knowledge of such events but did not mind as he did not
anticipate any adverse consequences to him. In 2009, complainant realized that respondent had
been using his name to perpetrate crimes. Complainant filed the present Complaint-Affidavit to
stop respondent's alleged use of the former's name and identity, and illegal practice of law.

Respondent denied all the allegations against him and invoked res judicata as a defense. He
maintained that his identity can no longer be raised as an issue as it had already been resolved in
CBD Case No. 09-2362 where the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the administrative case
filed against him, and which case had already been declared closed and terminated by the
Supreme Court in A.C. No. 10074.32 Moreover, according to him, complainant is being used by
Reyes and her spouse, Brigadier General Joselito M. Reyes, to humiliate, disgrace, malign,
discredit, and harass him because he filed several administrative and criminal complaints against
them before the Ombudsman.

On June 15, 2015, IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera issued his Report
and Recommendation, finding respondent GUILTY of illegally and falsely assuming
complainant's name, identity, and academic records. Since respondent falsely assumed the name,
identity, and academic records of complainant and the real "Patrick A. Caronan" neither obtained
the bachelor of laws degree nor took the Bar Exams, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 be dropped
and stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. He also recommended that respondent and the name
"Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted as a member of the Bar; and finally, for
making a mockery of the judicial institution, the IBP was directed to institute appropriate actions
against respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) erred in their ordering that (a)
the name Patrick A. Caronan be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name Richard
A. Caronan be barred from being admitted to the Bar.

RULING:

No. Respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" (respondent) is found
GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity, and academic records of complainant Patrick A.
Caronan (complainant) to obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations. The Court hereby
resolves that: (1) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 is ordered
DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys; (2) respondent is PROHIBITED from
engaging in the practice of law or making any representations as a lawyer; (3) respondent is
BARRED from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar in the future; ( 4) the
Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to respondent under the name
"Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" and the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Certificates issued in
such name are CANCELLED and/or REVOKED; and (5) the Office of the Court Administrator
is ordered to CIRCULATE notices and POST in the bulletin boards of all courts of the country a
photograph of respondent with his real name, " Richard A. Caronan," with a warning that he is
not a member of the Philippine Bar and a statement of his false assumption of the name and
identity of "Patrick A. Caronan."
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE ALEJANDRO B. PALLUGNA,
JR., AS NOTARY PUBLIC. || G.R. No. L-29321. February 29, 1972

Petitioner-Appellant: Judge Alejandro B. Pallugna, Jr.

FACTS:

On 15 April 1968, the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental required Alejandro B.
Pallugna, Jr., municipal judge of Magsaysay, to appear in court and show cause why the latter's
commission as notary public for the province of Misamis Oriental and the cities of Gingoog and
Cagayan de Oro should not be revoked, based on an opinion of the Secretary of Justice dated 22
October 1946, postulating that a municipal judge may not, under any circumstances, engage in
notarial work except in ex officio capacity.

In his written answer, Judge Pallugna alleged that he has been a notary public for the province of
Misamis Oriental since 1957. Even after his appointment as municipal judge in 1964, he
continued discharging the function of notary public outside the territorial limits of Magsaysay.

He further contended that no law prohibits a municipal judge from being commissioned notary
public for places outside of the territorial jurisdiction of his court; that under the Judiciary Act,
municipal judges were allowed to pursue any vocation or to hold any other office or position
provided they render not less than four hours service as municipal judges daily.

On 24 April 1968, the district judge nevertheless directed the cancellation of his notarial
commission

Judge Pallugna then filed the present appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the withdrawal of Judge Pallugnas commission as notary public is
correct under the law

RULING:

Yes, the withdrawal of Judge Pallugnas commission as notary public is correct.

With the approval and implementation of Republic Act 6031 amending Section 82 of the
Judiciary Act, which increased the salaries of municipal judges, the previous authorization to
said officials to pursue any other vocation, including the practice of law, had been withdrawn

The Department of Justice issued its Circular No. 37 on 22 June 1971, expressly prohibiting
municipal judges from engaging in the private practice of law or from giving professional advice
to clients.

Contrary to his claim of lack of prohibition against notarial services by municipal judges, Section
235 of the Revised Administrative Code restricts the same

o SECTION 235. Restriction on right of certain officials to act as notaries public.

Justices of the peace (municipal judges) and clerks of court shall not act as
notaries public except in the character of notaries public ex officio.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the order appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with
treble costs against the appellant.
TORIO et al vs SIAPNO et al || A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC. January 21, 2015

Complainants: Atty. Butch Cardinal Torio, Atty. Nepthalie Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique
Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C. Tugade
Respondent: Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr., Atty. Pedro L. Santos

FACTS:

Complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a notarial office along Alvear Street
East, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen,
Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission.

Atty. Siapno was never commissioned as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of
Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, he applied and was commissioned to perform
notarial functions by Executive Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan
which was never renewed upon expiring on December 2008.

Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to his
secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal
instruments and signed the documents on his behalf.

Another complaint was filed by a certain Audy Espelita wherein Espelita lost his driver's license
and he executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized by Atty. Santos. The said affidavit,
however, was denied for authentication when presented before the Notarial Section in Manila
because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of
Manila.

The third letter-complaint came from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn
who was holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmarias Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila,
had been notarizing and signing documents for and on behalf of several lawyers.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are guilty of unauthorized practice of law

RULING:

Yes. Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial
acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly, Atty.
Siapno could not perform notarial functions since he was not commissioned in the said places to
perform such act.

By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Siapno
violated not only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also
Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.

Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have performed notarial work in Ligayen,
Natividad and Dagupan City in the province of Pangasinan without the requisite commission, the
Court recommended that Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as notary public
permanently and suspendedfrom the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being
commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision.

With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of
Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET the same as separate administrative cases.
SUMMARY:

A bar candidate must meet the following academic qualifications:

Holder of a professional degree in law from a recognized law school in the Philippines;
Holder of a bachelor's degree with academic credits in certain required subjects from a
recognized college or university in the Philippines or abroad.

He or she should also meet certain non-academic requisites:

A Filipino citizen;
At least twenty-one (21) years of age;
A resident of the Philippines;
Satisfactory evidence of good moral character (usually a certificate from the dean of law
school or an immediate superior at work);
No charges involving moral turpitude have been filed against the candidate or are
pending in any court in the Philippines.

Continuing requirements:
He must adhere to Mandatory Continuing Education
He must maintain a good moral character

Other information:
Only natural persons are allowed to practice law. A corporation cannot be organized to
such practice because the practice of law lies on the nature and privilege and the
confidential trust relation between attorney and client, as well as the condition for
admission to the bar which requires good moral character.
Practice of law are only reserved for Filipinos however, citizens of the United States, who
before July 4, 1946, have been licensed member of the of the Philippine Bar, can practice
law in the Philippines
Filipinos who are members of the bar in good standing of the Supreme Court of the
United States or any circuit courts, who has been in practice for 5 years before July 4,
1946, shall be admitted to the bar without examination.

Public officials prohibited from engaging in private practice of law

Judges and other officials or employees of the court;
Officials and employees of the Office of the Solicitor General;
Government prosecutors;
President, Vice-President, members of the cabinet, their deputies and assistants;
Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
Ombudsman and his deputies;
All governors, city and municipal mayors;
Those who by special law are prohibited from engaging in the practice of their profession

Importance of knowing who may be allowed to practice law

To assure the public that only those who have the ability, learning, and sound character
will handle the very delicate task of law advocacy;
To forbid incompetent and dishonest practitioners to embark in the practice of law;
To make sure that public welfare will be served and promoted well

Who has the power to regulate the practice

The judicial department, specifically the Supreme Court, as provided by the 1987
Constitution
The IBP is the investigating arm of the Supreme Court with regards to disbarment cases