Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
HELD:
1. Passing the Bar exams makes a lawyer an IBP member. Thus, he
was not compelled to be a member as he was already a member. He
is free to attend or not to attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar
Chapter, to vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. He
is only compelled to pay the annual dues. The Court, in furthering the
State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of prefessional legal
services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this
fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory
program—the lawyers.
2. Re: Letter of the U.P. Law Faculty to the SC on the ISSUE: Whether or not the law professors committed a violation of
Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentations in the SC, CPR, despite their exercise of freedom of expression and academic
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, Mar. 8, 2011 freedom.
Thereafter, an ethics committee tasked to investigate the veracity of Fallo: With respect to Prof. Vasquez, after favorably noting his
the alleged plagiarism, the authors who were purportedly plagiarized submission, the Court finds his Compliance to be
sent their respective letters to the Supreme Court. Due to this, the satisfactory; Comon compliance of 35 respondents -
faculty of UP College of Law came up with a statement (Restoring UNSATISFACTORY - These 35 respondent law professors are
Integrity Statement), which alleged plagiarism against Justice del reminded of their lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the
Castillo, treating the same not only as an established fact, but as a Code of Professional Responsibility, to give due respect to the Court
truth. Said statement was posted online and at the College’s bulletin and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to
board and was submitted to the Supreme Court. Thus, the Supreme influence the Court on pending matters or to denigrate the Court and
Court issued a Show Cause Resolution directing respondents to the administration of justice and warned that the same or similar act
show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the in the future shall be dealt with more severely; Dean Leonen -
Bar for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Admonished
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
3. Dizon v. De Taza, A.C. No. 7676, Jun. 10, 2014 Thereafter, Dizon instituted a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
De Taza. He also attached several affidavits and documents from
PONENTE: REYES, J. other individuals who attested that Atty. De Taza issued bouncing
checks and/or failed to pay off her debts to them. A certain Ana
DOCTRINE: Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui Lynda Pineda executed an affidavit which was attached to the
generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not complaint, alleging that Atty. De Taza issued 11 checks in her favor
involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations amounting to ₱481,400.00, which were all dishonored by the bank.
by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being Demand letters sent to her went unheeded.
intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a Likewise, Darwin Tiamzon, a creditor of Atty. De Taza, whose
prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu Affidavit was attached to the complaint, averred that Atty. De Taza
proprio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the real issued a check for ₱50,000.00 as payment for her loan. Said check
question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still was dishonored by the bank for being drawn against a closed
a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. account. Furthermore, a certain Eleanor Sarmiento submitted an
affidavit, stating that Atty. De Taza owes her ₱29,560.39 and failed
FACTS: Amado Dizon alleged that he, along with his siblings to pay the said amount despite repeated demands.
engaged the services of Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates to
represent them in the case of Eliza T. Castaneda, et al. v. Heirs of Dizon through a letter informed the Court that Atty. De Taza is
Spouses Martin and Lucia Dizon. Dizon claimed that Atty. De Taza planning to leave the country as she was joining her husband in the
demanded the sum of ₱75,000.00 from him to expedite the United States of America (U.S.A.). Atty. De Taza was then required
proceedings before the Court. This amount was over and above the by the Court to file a Comment. However, the copy of the Resolution
parties’ stipulated retainer fee as evidenced by a contract. was returned unserved with the postal carrier’s notation "RTS
(Return to Sender)- Moved". It was then required in the Resolution
According to Dizon, unknown to him at that time was that, a month that the complainant inform the Court of Atty. De Taza’s new
earlier, Atty. De Taza had already demanded and received a total of address, which the complainant faithfully complied with by giving
₱800,000.00 from his sibling Aurora Dizon, for the same reason that Atty. De Taza’s new address in the U.S.A. The Court, in its
Atty. De Taza proffered to him, which was to expedite the Resolution directed the Clerk of Court to resend a copy of the
proceedings of their case before the Court. Handwritten receipts Resolution with a copy of the complaint to Atty. De Taza using the
signed by one Atty. Norlita De Taza were submitted by the latter’s U.S.A. address.
complainant which state that ₱300,000 shall be used to expedite the
case which, in turn shall result in a decision favorable to plaintiff w/in Like the previous occasions, the copy of the Resolution with the
2 mos. from receipt of said amount, and another amount of ₱500,000 complaint was returned; this time, with the postal carrier’s notation
has been advanced as part of expense to expedite the process "RTS-Unclaimed". The Court in its Resolutionheld that the said copy
before the courts. of the Resolution was deemed served and resolved to consider Atty.
De Taza as having waived the filing of her comment. The case was
Dizon then went to the Supreme Court, and learned that the Court referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
had already denied the petition on November 20, 2006, contrary to investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP Board of
Atty. De Taza’s representations that the case was still pending. He Governors recommended that Atty. Norlita De Taza be suspended
tried to communicate with Atty. De Taza, but she could no longer be from the practice of law for one (1) year.
found.
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Taza should be held administratively indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed
liable on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral
character as to render her unworthy of public confidence.
HELD: YES. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular
trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by the Court purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client
into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict showing that the money was spent for that particular purpose. And if
punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. he does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. must immediately return the money to his client. In this case, the
[They] may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is purpose for which Atty. De Taza demanded money is baseless and
[their] primary objective, and the real question for determination is non-existent. Thus, her demand should not have even been made in
whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the the first place.
privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers,
the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his Atty. Norlita De Taza is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of law for TWO YEARS with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of
preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.
honest administration of justice by purging the profession of
members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no
longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
pertaining to the office of an attorney.
4. Pichon v. Agleron, A.C. No. 5359, Mar. 10, 2014 suspended from the practice of law for a period of only one (1)
month.
PONENTE: Mendoza, J.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Agleron should be suspended for
FACTS: Complainant Ermelinda Lad Vda. De Dominguez was the neglecting a legal duty entrusted to him.
widow of the late Felipe Domiguez who died in a vehicular accident
in Caraga, Davao Oriental, on October 18, 1995, involving a dump HELD: YES.
truck owned by the Municipality of Caraga. Aggrieved, complainant The Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of
decided to file charges against the Municipality of Caraga and Governors except as to the penalty imposed.
engaged the services of respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr.
(Atty. Agleron). On three (3) occasions, Atty. Agleron requested and Atty. Agleron violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
received from complainant the following amounts for the payment of Responsibility, which provides that:
filing fees and sheriffs fees, to wit: (1) June 3, 1996 -₱3,000.00; (2)
June 7, 1996 -Pl,800.00; and September 2, 1996 - ₱5,250.00 or a Rule 18.03-A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
total of ₱10,050.00. After the lapse of four (4) years, however, no and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
complaint was filed by Atty. Agleron against the Municipality of
Caraga. Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty bound to
serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause
Atty. Agleron admitted that complainant engaged his professional with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it
service and received the amount of ₱10,050.00. He, however, for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always
explained that their agreement was that complainant would pay the be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.
filing fees and other incidental expenses and as soon as the
complaint was prepared and ready for filing, complainant would pay In the present case, Atty. Agleron admitted his failure to file the
30% of the agreed attorney’s fees of ₱100,000.00. On June 7, 1996, complaint against the Municipality of Caraga, Davao Oriental,
after the signing of the complaint, he advised complainant to pay in despite the fact that it was already prepared and signed. He
full the amount of the filing fee and sheriff’s fees and the 30% of the attributed his non-filing of the appropriate charges on the failure of
attorney’s fee, but complainant failed to do so. Atty. Agleron averred complainant to remit the full payment of the filing fee and pay the
that since the complaint could not be filed in court, the amount of 30% of the attorney's fee. Such justification, however, is not a valid
₱10,050.00 was deposited in a bank while awaiting the payment of excuse that would exonerate him from liability. As stated, every case
the balance of the filing fee and attorney’s fee. that is entrusted to a lawyer deserves his full attention whether he
accepts this for a fee or free. Even assuming that complainant had
· Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner: not remitted the full payment of the filing fee, he should have found a
found Atty. Agleron to have violated the Code of Professional way to speak to his client and inform him about the insufficiency of
Responsibility when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, the filing fee so he could file the complaint. Atty. Agleron obviously
and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for lacked professionalism in dealing with complainant and showed
a period of four (4) months. incompetence when he failed to file the appropriate charges.1âwphi1
· The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors In a number of cases, the Court held that a lawyer should never
adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence
Investigating Commissioner with modification that Atty. Agleron be renders him liable for disciplinary action such as suspension ranging
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
from three months to two years. In this case, the Court finds the
suspension of Atty. Agleron from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) months sufficient.
5. Brunet v. Guaren, A.C. No. 10164, Mar. 14, 2014 the titling of the lot. Atty. Guaren should also be disciplined for
appearing in a case against complainants without a written consent
DOCTRINE: Canons 17 and 18 from the latter.
The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which
duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty
Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining
consideration. The duty to public service and to the of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of public service and to the administration of justice should be the
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
they owe to themselves personal interests or what they owe to themselves.3
FACTS: Atty. Ronald Guaren, herein respondent, was hired in 1997 Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for the titling of a residential lot acquired by herein complainants, provides that:
Stephen Brunet and Virginoa Brunet. Atty. Guaren asked for
P10,000.00 including expenses relative to its proceeding.The full CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
payment of the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title. Atty. shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Guaren asked for an advance fee of One Thousand Pesos
(Pl,000.00) which the Brunets gave. Thus, Atty. Guaren took all the CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
pertinent documents relative to the titling of the Brunets’ lot. An diligence.
additional payment of ₱6,000.00 was asked by the lawyer which was
delivered by his clients. Until 2001, the Brunets reminded Atty. In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the
Guaren about the case and each time he would say that the titling amount of ₱7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee. He,
was in progress. However, they became bothered by the slow however, failed to perform his obligation to file the case for the titling
progress of the case so they demanded the return of the money they of complainants' lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren
paid. Atty. Guaren agreed to return the same provided that the breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence
amount of ₱5,000.00 be deducted to answer for his professional when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.
fees. Despite the existence of an attorney-client relationship between
them, Atty. Guaren made a special appearance against the Brunets
in a case pending before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob,
Cebu (MCTC).
6. Sanchez v. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543, Mar. 16, 2016 marriage; that based on his evaluation of her situation, the more
appropriate case would be one for legal separation anchored on the
DOCTRINE: Check Canon 18 as provided below. psychological incapacity of her husband. The complainant and her
fiancée agreed on the amount for respondent’s legal services. The
FACTS: fiancée paid P70,000 as evidenced by the handwritten receipt
Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent Atty. prepared by respondent.
Romeo G. Aguilos with misconduct for the latter's refusal to return
the amount of P70,000.00 she had paid for his professional services For purposes of the petition for legal separation he required the
despite his not having performed the contemplated professional complainant to submit copies of her marriage contract and the birth
services. certificates of her children with her husband, as well as for her to
submit to further interviews by him to establish the grounds for legal
Complainant’s side: separation; that he later on communicated with her and her fiancee
She sought the legal services of the respondent to represent her in upon finalizing the petition, but they did not promptly respond to his
the annulment of her marriage with her estranged husband, Jovencio communications.
C. Sanchez. Atty. Aguilos had accepted the engagement, fixing his Sanchez admitted to him that she had spent the money that her
fee at P150,000.00, plus the appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing; fiancee had given to pay the balance of his professional fees; and
that she then gave to him the initial amount of P90,000.00; that she that she returned to him with a note at the back of the prepared
had gone to his residence in May 2005 to inquire on the petition for legal separation essentially requesting him not to file the
developments in her case, but he told her that he would only start petition because she had meanwhile opted to bring the action for the
working on the case upon her full payment of the acceptance fee. annulment of her marriage instead.
She had only learned then that what he had contemplated to file for The respondent admits that he received the demand letter from Atty.
her was a petition for legal separation, not one for the annulment of Martinez, but states that he dismissed the letter as a mere scrap of
her marriage; that he further told her that she would have to pay a paper because the demand lacked basis in law.
higher acceptance fee for the annulment of her marriage; that she
subsequently withdrew the case from him, and requested the refund IBP’s Recommendation:
of the amounts already paid, but he refused to do the same as he IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. recommended that
had already started working on the case. Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos be ordered to return to complainant Nenita
D. Sanchez the amount of P30,000.00 which the former received as
She had sent him a letter, through Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez, to payment for his services because it is excessive. It is also
demand the return of her payment less whatever amount recommended that the Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos be suspended from
corresponded to the legal services he had already performed; that the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for failure to show
the respondent did not heed her demand letter despite his not having his respect to his fellow lawyer and for using offensive and improper
rendered any appreciable legal services to her; and that his constant language in his pleadings.
refusal to return the amounts prompted her to bring an administrative
complaint against him in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Through Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 dated September 20,
2008,14 the IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings of
Respondent’s side: Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr., but modified the
Atty. Aguilos alleges that the complainant and her British fiancee recommendation of the penalty.
sought his legal services to bring the petition for the annulment of her
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
As penalty for this particular misconduct, he is reprimanded, WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution No.
with the stern warning that a repetition of the offense will be XVIII-2008-476 dated September 20, 2008 of the Integrated
severely punished. Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, with the
MODIFICATION that Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos is hereby
FINED P10,000.00 for misrepresenting his professional
b. YES competence to the client, and REPRIMANDS him for his use
The respondent should not have accepted the engagement of offensive and improper language towards his fellow
because as it was later revealed, it was way above his ability attorney, with the stern warning that a repetition of the
and competence to handle the case for annulment of offense shall be severely punished.
marriage. As a consequence, he had no basis to accept any
amount as attorney's fees from the complainant. He did not The Court ORDERS Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos to RETURN to
even begin to perform the contemplated task he undertook the complainant within thirty (30) days from notice the sum of
for the complainant because it was improbable that the P70,000.00, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned
agreement with her was to bring the action for legal from the date of this decision until full payment.
separation. His having supposedly prepared the petition for
legal separation instead of the petition for annulment of
marriage was either his way of covering up for his
incompetence, or his means of charging her more. Either
way did not entitle him to retain the amount he had already
received.
7. Pacao v. Limos, A.C. No. 11246, Jun. 14, 2016 dereliction of duty. Likewise, in Wilkie, Atty. Limos was held
administratively liable for her deceitful and dishonest conduct when
DOCTRINE: The present case comes clearly under the grounds she obtained a loan of P250,000.00 from her client and issued two
given in Section 27,18 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. postdated checks in the latter's favor to pay the said loan despite
The Court, however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of knowledge of insufficiency of funds to cover the same. In both cases,
disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender. the Court, gave Atty. Limos a warning that repetition of the same or
similar acts by her will merit a more severe penalty.
FACTS: In 2008, Petitioner Arnold Pacao’s wife was charged with
qualified theft by BHF Pawnshop. His wife was the former vault Her case is further highlighted by her lack of regard for the charges
custodian of BHF. Respondent Atty Limos appeared as counsel for brought against her. Similar with Wilkie, despite due notice, Atty.
BHF. Limos did not bother to answer the complaint against her. She also
failed to file her mandatory conference brief and her verified position
Arnold initiated negotiation with BHF through respondent. After a paper. Worse, Atty. Limos did not even enter appearance either
series of negotiations, Atty Limos relayed to Arnold that BHF, her personally or by counsel, and she failed to appear at the scheduled
client, was demanding PHP 530,000 to be paid in full or installments, date of the mandatory conferences which she was duly notified.
whereby an initial amount of Php 200,000 was to be entrusted to
Atty. Limos, who will then deliver to BHF a signed Affidavit of By her failure to present convincing evidence, or any evidence for
Desistance, a Compromise Agreement and a Joint Motion to that matter, to justify her actions, Atty. Limos failed to demonstrate
approve compromise agreement. that she still possessed the integrity and morality demanded of a
member of the Bar.
Php 200,000 was given by Arnold to Atty Limos, who signed an
Acknowledgment Receipt. However, Atty limos failed to meet the The present case comes clearly under the grounds given in Section
terms of their agreement and despite such failure, still sought from 27,18 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court, however,
Arnold the next installments, but Arnold refused. does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the
guilty party has become a repeat offender. Considering the serious
In 2010, Arnold met BHF’s representative, Camille Bonifacio, who nature of the instant offense and in light of Atty. Limos' prior
informed him that Atty. Limos is no longer the Pawnshop’s counsel misconduct which grossly degrades the legal profession, the
and had not authorized respondent to negotiate nor receive any imposition of the ultimate penalty of disbarment is warranted.
money. A demand letter was sent to Atty Limos by Arnold for the
sum of Php 200,000 but the former refused. Given this, a In imposing the penalty of disbarment upon Atty. Limos, the Court is
disbarment case was filed by Arnold against Atty Limos. aware that the power to disbar is one to be exercised with great
caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect
ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient basis to disbar Respondent the standing and character of the lawyer as a legal professional and
as an officer of the Court. However, Atty. Limos' recalcitrant attitude
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court noted that this is not the first time and unwillingness to heed with the Court's warning, which is deemed
that Respondent is facing an Administrative case, for she had to be an affront to the Court's authority over members of the Bar,
already been twice suspended from practice. In Villaflores, Atty. warrant an utmost disciplinary sanction from this Court. Her repeated
Limos received attorney's fees of P20,000.00 plus miscellaneous desecration of her ethical commitments proved herself to be unfit to
expenses of P2,000.00, but she failed to perform her undertaking remain in the legal profession. Worse, she remains apathetic to the
with her client; thus she was found guilty of gross negligence and need to reform herself.
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
8. Plumptre v. Rivera, A.C. No. 11350, Aug. 9, 2016 work permit. Respondent’s behavior demonstrates his lack of
integrity and moral soundness.
DOCTRINE: This gross disrespect of the judicial system shows
that he is wanting in moral fiber and betrays the lack of integrity Although nothing in the records showed whether the court case was
in his character. The practice of law is a privilege, and indeed decided in complainant’s favor, respondent’s act of soliciting
respondent has repeatedly shown that he is unfit to exercise it. money to bribe a judge served to malign the judge and the judiciary
by giving the impression that court cases are won by the party with
FACTS: Complainant alleges that he asked respondent for help in the deepest pockets and not on the merits.
his application for a work permit from the Bureau of Immigration. The
met and the latter was paid P10,000 as professional fee. They met By implying that he can negotiate a favorable ruling for the sum of
again and gave another P10,000 together with his passport, P8,000.00, respondent trampled upon the integrity of the judicial
allegedly for the processing of the permit. They met for the third time system and eroded confidence on the judiciary. This gross
since respondent asked complainant to submit ID photos. He disrespect of the judicial system shows that he is wanting in moral
requested another P10,000 but complainant refused as they only fiber and betrays the lack of integrity in his character. The practice of
agreed to 20k. Respondent asked for P8,000 allegedly for law is a privilege, and respondent has repeatedly shown that he is
complainant's other case which respondent was working on, unfit to exercise it.
explaining that P5,000 will be given to a Las Pinas judge to reverse
the MR against complainant, while P3,000 for the processing.
Complainant gave the P8,000. He no longer receive updates of the
permit and the case thereafter. Further, whenever he called
respondent to follow up on his work permit, respondent hurled
invectives at him and threatened him and his wife.
He was able to track down respondent and retrieve his passport but
respondent refused to return the P28,000. Complainant filed a case
to IBP.
B. Qualifications probation period did not last for more than 10 months.
1. In the Matter of the Admission to the Bar and Oath-Taking of ISSUE: Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath of
Successful Bar Applicant Al C. Argosino, B.M. No. 712 July 13, attorney and be admitted to the practice of law
1995
HELD: Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may
PONENTE: Feliciano, J. now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral
character imposed upon those who are seeking admission to the bar.
DOCTRINE: The requirement of good moral character to be He should show to the Court how he has tried to make up for the
satisfied by those who would seek admission to the bar must of senseless killing of a helpless student to the family of the deceased
necessity be more stringent than the norm of conduct expected student and to the community at large. In short, he must show
from members of the general public. There is a very real need to evidence that he is a different person now, that he has become
prevent a general perception that entry into the legal profession morally fit for admission to the profession of law.
is open to individuals with inadequate moral qualifications. The
growth of such a perception would signal the progressive He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written
destruction of our people's confidence in their courts of law and manifestation, of the names of the parents or brothers and sisters of
in our legal system as we know it. Camaligan from notice.
Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed an
application for probation with the lower court. The application was
granted on June 18 1993. The period of probation was set at two (2)
years, counted from the probationer's initial report to the probation
officer assigned to supervise him.
Less than a month later, Argosino filed a petition to take the bar
exam. He was allowed and he passed the exam, but was not allowed
to take the lawyer's oath of office.
On April 15, 1994, Argosino filed a petition to allow him to take the
attorney's oath and be admitted to the practice of law. He averred
that his probation period had been terminated. It is noted that his
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
2. Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P, Feb. 24, 1997 injury, mental anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and
untold financial suffering," considering that in six months, a total of
PONENTE: Narvasa, CJ.: P26,028.60 had been deducted from his salary.
likewise signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in the petition filed counsel for a client while serving as secretary of the Sangguniang
before the MBEC praying for the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as Bayan. On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation,
the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. Clearly, evidence shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to
respondent engaged in the practice of law without being a member represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies.
of the Philippine Bar. While there was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had
no authority to practice law. WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L.
In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, the SC elucidated Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.
that: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or
litigation in court; xxx In general, all advice to clients, and all action
taken for them in matters connected with the law xxx have been held
to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal
instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the
trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. In
Cayetano v. Monsod, the Court held that practice of law means any
activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the
practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by
members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to
render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge
or skill. Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when
he appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various
pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the
charge of unauthorized practice of law. Having held himself out as
counsel knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent
has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
Three years later, the complainant learned that no case involving the
subject property was ever filed by the respondent with the RTC in
5. Llunar v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 6484, Jun. 16, 2015 Legaspi City. As such, the complainant demanded the return of the
P95,000 she gave to the respondent. The latter refused to return the
DOCTRINE: whole amount of P95,000 arguing that another lawyer named Atty.
XXX the respondent was effectively in the practice of law Abitria filed for annulment of title against Ard Cervantes in favor of
despite the indefinite suspension imposed on him. This the complainant. Thus, he is only willing to return the amount of
infraction infinitely aggravates the offenses he committed. P45,000, since the P50,000 represents the amount he paid to Atty.
Based on the above facts alone, the penalty of suspension for Abitria for handling the case.
five (5) years from the practice of law would have been justified,
but the respondent is not an ordinary violator of the The complainant refused to acknowledge the complaint for
profession's ethical rules; he is a repeat violator of these rules. annulment of title, arguing that she had no knowledge of Atty.
In Nuñez v. Atty. Ricafort,19 we had adjudged the respondent Abitria’s engagement as counsel. Furthermore, the complaint was
liable for grave misconduct in failing to turn over the proceeds filed three years late and the property could no longer be properly
of the sale of a property owned by his client and in issuing redeemed from the bank. The complainant also learned that the
bounced checks to satisfy the alias writ of execution issued by respondent had been suspended indefinitely from the practice of law
the court in the case for violation of BP. 22 filed against him by since May 29, 2002. The Court referred the case to the IBP for
his client. We then suspended him indefinitely from the practice investigation, report and recommendation. The Investigating
of law - a penalty short of disbarment. Under his current liability Commissioner found that the respondent to have been grossly
- which is no different in character from his previous offense - negligent in handling the complainant’s case and to have gravely
we have no other way but to proceed to decree his disbarment. abused the trust and confidence reposed in him. The investigating
He has become completely unworthy of membership in our commissioner also found out that the respondent erred in not
honorable profession. informing his client that he was under indefinite suspension from the
practice of law. Due to these infractions, the Investigating
FACTS: commissioner recommended that the respondent remain indefinitely
The present administrative case stemmed from the complaint- suspended. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of the
affidavit that Adelita B. Llunar filed against Atty. Romulo Ricafort for Investigating Commissioner but modified the penalty of indefinite
gross and inexcusable negligence and serious misconduct. In suspension to disbarment.
September 2000, the complainant, as attorney-in-fact of Severina
Banez, hired the respondent to file a case against father and son ISSUE:
Ricardo and and Ard Cervantes for the recovery of a parcel of land Whether or not the infractions of the respondent warrant the
allegedly owned by the Banez family but was fraudulently registered penalty of disbarment- YES
under the name of Ricardo and later was transferred to his son, Ard.
At that time, the property in question was mortgaged with the Rural HELD:
Bank of Malilipot, Albay, and was the subject of a foreclosure The Court ruled that the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct in
proceeding. As such, the respondent received from the complainant his dealings with his client and in engaging in the practice of law
the following amounts, to wit: 1.) P70,000 as partial payment of the while under indefinite suspension. First, the respondent did not even
redemption price of the property; 2.) P19,000 to cover the filing fees; exert due diligence in handling the complainant’s case. He failed to
and 3.) P6,500 as attorney’s fees. act promptly in redeeming the complainant’s property within the
period of redemption. As such the respondent is guilty for violating
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
6. PATRICK A. CARONAN v. RICHARD A. CARONAN (A.C. No. NBI where he was interviewed and asked to identify documents.
11316, July 12, 2016) Complainant later learned that he was invited because of
respondent's involvement in a case for qualified theft and estafa
DOCTRINE: filed by Mr. Joseph G. Agtarap (Agtarap), who was one of the
principal sponsors at respondent's wedding.
The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or constitutional aw
right to be granted to everyone who demands it. It is a privilege Realizing that respondent had been using his name to perpetrate
limited to citizens of good moral character. crimes and commit unlawful activities, complainant took it upon
himself to inform other people that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan"
Good moral character is what a person really is, as and that respondent's real name is Richard A. Caronan. However,
distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion problems relating to respondent's use of the name "Atty. Patrick A.
generally entertained of him, the esteem in which he is held by Caronan" continued to hound him.
the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is alawredchanrobleslaw
not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective Complainant developed a fear for his own safety and security. He
reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is also became the subject of conversations among his colleagues,
not satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to which eventually forced him to resign from his job. Hence,
escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral character complainant filed the present Complaint-Affidavit to stop
includes at least common honesty. respondent's alleged use of the former's name and identity, and
illegal practice of law.
FACTS: anrobleslaw
Respondent denied all the allegations against him and invoked res
Complainant and respondent are siblings. Complainant enrolled at judicata as a defense. He maintained that his identity can no longer
the University of Makati where he obtained a degree in Business be raised as an issue as it had already been resolved in CBD Case
Administration in 1997. Respondent enrolled at the Pamantasan ng No. 09-2362 where the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the
Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), where he stayed for one (1) year before administrative case filed by Agtarap against him. Moreover,
transferring to the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) where he was according to him, complainant is being used by Reyes and her
discharged a year later. In 1997, he moved to Nueva Vizcaya with spouse, Brigadier General Joselito M. Reyes, to humiliate, disgrace,
his wife, Rosana, and their three (3) children. Respondent never malign, discredit, and harass him because he filed several
went back to school to earn a college degree. administrative and criminal complaints against them before the
Ombudsman.
In 1999, respondent told complainant that the former had enrolled in
a law school in Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent passed the Bar The IBP's Report and Recommendation
Examinations and that he using complainant's name and college
records from the University of Makati to enroll at St. Mary's IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera found
University's College of Law and take the Bar Examinations. respondent guilty of illegally and falsely assuming complainant's
slaw name, identity, and academic records.
Sometime in May 2009, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
was requesting complainant’s presence at its office, in relation to an He noted that respondent admitted that he and complainant are
investigation involving respondent. Accordingly, complainant siblings when he disclosed upon his arrest that: (a) his parents are
appeared before the Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division of the Porferio Ramos Caronan and Norma Atillo; and (b) he is married to
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
Rosana Halili-Caronan. However, based on the Marriage Certificate and school records to gain admission to the Bar. Since complainant -
issued by the National Statistics Office (NSO), "Patrick A. Caronan" the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the Bar Examinations, the
is married to a certain "Myrna G. Tagpis," not to Rosana Halili- IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be
Caronan. stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
Also, the photograph taken of respondent when he was arrested as (b) No. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no
"Richard A. Caronan" shows the same person as the one in the applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be
photograph in the IBP records of "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan." Since admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a
respondent falsely assumed the name, identity, and academic pre-law course
records of complainant and the real "Patrick A. Caronan"
neither obtained the bachelor of laws degree nor took the Bar Respondent never completed his college degree.
Exams, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that the
name "Patrick A. Caronan" be dropped and stricken off the Roll The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent may later
of Attorneys, that respondent and the name "Richard A. on complete his college education and earn a law degree under his
Caronan" be barred from being admitted as a member of the real name. However, his false assumption of his brother's name,
Bar; and finally, for making a mockery of the judicial institution, identity, and educational records renders him unfit for
the IBP was directed to institute appropriate actions against admission to the Bar. The practice of law is not a natural,
respondent. absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who
demands it. It is a privilege limited to citizens of good moral
The IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting the character.
recommendation.
Good moral character is what a person really is, as
ISSUES: distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion
The issues in this case are whether or not the IBP erred in ordering generally entertained of him, the esteem in which he is held by
that: the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not
(a) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. The
Attorneys; and standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by
(b) the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted to such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of
the Bar. criminal law. Good moral character includes at least common
honesty. Respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of
HELD: moral fitness to be a member of the Bar when he assumed the
(a) No. Complainant has established by clear and overwhelming name, identity, and school records of his own brother and dragged
evidence that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan" and that the latter into controversies.
respondent, whose real name is Richard A. Caronan, merely
assumed the latter's name, identity, and academic records to enroll Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by
at the St. Mary's University's College of Law, obtain a law degree, pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. He
and take the Bar Examinations. also tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged unscrupulous
activities. Respondent and his acts do not have a place in the
Respondent’s admissions and the evidence at hand indubitably legal profession where one of the primary duties of its members
confirm that respondent falsely used complainant's name, identity, is to uphold its integrity and dignity.
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
C. Appearance of Non-lawyers notwithstanding, Borromeo would file another complaint on the same
facts and issues, which result in the dismissal on the ground of res
1. In Re JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO, Ex Rel. Cebu City Chapter of judicata or litis pendentia. This has been the practice of respondent
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Borromeo further resulting in the numerous cases initiated by him
A.M. No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995 clogging the courts’ dockets.
PER CURIAM Aside from these transactions, Borromeo has clogged the courts with
other cases not related to the abovementioned. In the aggregate, he
DOCTRINE: There is no doubt on Borromeo's guilt of contempt, has initiated or spawned in different fora the astounding number of
for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes, no less-than fifty (50) original or review proceedings, civil, criminal,
gross disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct administrative. For some sixteen (16) years now, he has been
directly impeding, obstructing and degrading the administration continuously cluttering the Courts with his repetitive, and quite
of justice. baseless if not outlandish complaints and contentions.
Borromeo entered into transactions with three banks, namely: Copies of these circulars evidently found their way into the hands,
Traders Royal Bank (TRB), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), among others, of some members of the Cebu City Chapter of the
and Security Bank & Trust Company (SBTC). Integrated Bar of the Philippines. They strongly urged the Court "to
impose sanctions against Mr. Borromeo for his condemnable act.”
Borromeo obtained loans from each of the said banks wherein he
mortgaged certain properties ( in the transaction with TRB and ISSUE: Is Borromeo guilty of contempt?
UCPB) or a promissory note (in the transaction with SBTC) as a form
of collateral. In each contract, he failed to fulfill his obligations which HELD:
resulted in actions to foreclose the mortgage and collection of sum of YES. There is no doubt on Borromeo's guilt of contempt, for abuse of
money instituted by the banks against Borromeo. and interference with judicial rules and processes, gross disrespect
to courts and judges and improper conduct directly impeding,
Borromeo instituted civil and criminal actions against the public obstructing and degrading the administration of justice.
prosecutors, the Judges of the Trial Courts, and the Justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court who at one time or another, He has stubbornly litigated issues already declared to be without
rendered a judgment, resolution or order adverse to him, as well as merit, obstinately closing his eyes to the many rulings rendered
the Clerks of Court and other Court employees signing the notices adversely to him in many suits and proceedings, rulings which had
thereof. become final and executory, obdurately and unreasonably insisting
on the application of his own individual version of the rules, founded
By way of example, in one of the cases, the trial courts have on nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading of
sustained the right of the banks to foreclose the mortgages. This the Constitution and the law.
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
He has insulted the judges and court officers, including the attorneys
appearing for his adversaries, needlessly overloaded the court
dockets and sorely tried the patience of the judges and court
employees who have had to act on his repetitious and largely
unfounded complaints, pleadings and motions. He has wasted the
time of the courts, of his adversaries, of the judges and court
employees who have had the bad luck of having to act in one way or
another on his unmeritorious cases.
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
2. Catimbuhan v. Cruz Courts, he can be aided only by an attorney. On the other hand, it is
the submission of the respondents that pursuant to Sections 4 and
G.R. No. 51813-14, Nov. 29, 1983 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, it is the fiscal who is empowered
to determine who shall be the private prosecutor as was done by
DOCTRINE: Non-lawyers, including senior law students, can respondent fiscal when he objected to the appearances of petitioners
appear in the municipal trial court as private prosecutors for Malana and Lucila. They also contend that the exercise by the
accused persons under the supervision and control of the offended party to intervene is subject to the direction and control of
fiscal; Permission of the fiscal not necessary for one to enter the fiscal and that his appearance, no less than his active conduct of
his appearance as private prosecutor. the case later on, requires the prior approval of the fiscal.
FACTS: On April 6, 1979, petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan filed ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners may appear for Catimbuhan
separate criminal complaints against Patrolmen Danilo San Antonio
and Rodolfo Diaz for less serious physical injuries. Petitioners HELD: We find merit in the petition.
Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila, in 1979, were senior law
students of the U.P. College of Law where, as part of the curriculum Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that in
of the university they were required to render legal assistance to the the municipal court a party may conduct his litigation in person with
needy clients in the Office of the Legal Aid. Malana and Lucila filed the aid of an agent appointed by him for the purpose, Thus, in the
their separate appearances, as friends of complainant-petitioner case of Laput vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, a law student was allowed
Cantimbuhan. Fiscal Leodegario C, Quilatan opposed the to represent the accused in a case pending before the then
appearances of said petitioners. In an order, the respondent judge Municipal Court, the City Court of Manila, who was charged for
sustained the fiscal and disallowed the appearances of petitioners damages to property through reckless imprudence. The permission
Malana and Lucila, as private prosecutors in said criminal cases. The of the fiscal is not necessary for one to enter his appearance as
respondent Judge issued an order denying petitioners' motion for private prosecutor. In the first place, the law does not impose this
reconsideration. condition. What the fiscal can do, if he wants to handle the case
personally is to disallow the private prosecutor's participation,
Hence, a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition were filed, whether he be a lawyer or not, in the trial of the case.
with prayers that the orders be set aside as they are in plain violation On the other hand, if the fiscal desires the active participation of the
of Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and/or were issued private prosecutor, he can just manifest to the court that the private
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The prosecutor, with its approval, will conduct the prosecution of the case
basis of this petition is Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court under his supervision and control. Further, We may add that if a non-
which states: "SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted.—In the court lawyer can appear as defense counsel or as friend of the accused in
of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, a case before the municipal trial court, with more reason should he
with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, be allowed to appear as private prosecutor under the supervision
or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct and control of the trial fiscal.
his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance
must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.”
Thus, a non-member of the Philippine Bar—a party to an action is
authorized to appear in court and conduct his own case; and, in the
inferior courts, the litigant may be aided by a friend or agent or by an
attorney. However, in the Courts of First Instance, now Regional Trial
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
3. Cruz v. Mina, G.R. 154207, April 27, 2007 Petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for Reconsideration but
was denied. The petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for
Ponente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order against the private respondent and the
Doctrine: There is really no problem as to the application of public respondent MeTC.
Section 34 of Rule 138 and Rule 138-A. In the former, the
appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party
litigant, is expressly allowed, while the latter rule provides for ISSUE: Whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an
conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a friend of a inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant.
party litigant, may appear before the courts.
HELD:
Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior YES. Rule 138-A or the Law Student Practice Rule, provides:
courts by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not
he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, RULE 138-A: LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as
an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision Section 1. Conditions for Student Practice. A law student who has
of a lawyer before inferior courts. successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year
prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law
FACTS: school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme
Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the MeTC a formal Entry Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or
of Appearance, as private prosecutor, in a criminal case for Grave administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to
Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness. represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law
school.
The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies
his appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Sec. 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student authorized
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control of a
Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr. that a non-lawyer may appear member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by
before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. The the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or
petitioner furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney
conformity of the public prosecutor and a written authority of Mariano for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
Cruz appointing him to be his agent in the prosecution of the said
criminal case.
However, in Resolution dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730,
However, the MeTC denied permission for petitioner to appear as the Court En Banc clarified:
private prosecutor on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing
limited law student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A of the “The rule, however, is different if the law student appears
Rules of Court (Law Student Practice Rule) should take precedence before an inferior court, where the issues and procedure are
over the ruling of the Court laid down in Cantimbuhan; and set the relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in his
case for continuation of trial. personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer.
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
Section 34, Rule 138 provides: quo in denying permission to act as private prosecutor against
petitioner for the simple reason that Rule 138-A is not the basis for
Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. - In the court of a justice of the petitioners appearance. Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that
the peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed,
an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly
of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a
personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be law student may appear, as an agent or a friend of a party litigant,
either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts.
Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent Petitioner further argues that the RTC erroneously held that, by its
or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.” very nature, no civil liability may flow from the crime of Grave
Threats, and, for this reason, the intervention of a private prosecutor
The phrase “In the court of a justice of the peace” in Bar Matter No. is not possible.
730 is subsequently changed to In the “court of a municipality” as it
now appears in Section 34 of Rule 138, thus: It is clear from the RTC Decision that no such conclusion had been
intended by the RTC. Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. In the Court of a every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable except
municipality a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid in instances when no actual damage results from an offense. The
of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the basic rule applies in the instant case, such that when a criminal
aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
litigation personally or by aid of an attorney and his appearance must arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with
be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. criminal action, unless exceptions occur. The petitioner is correct in
(Emphasis supplied) stating that there being no reservation, waiver, nor prior institution of
the civil aspect in Criminal Case, it follows that the civil aspect arising
which is the prevailing rule at the time the petitioner filed his Entry of from Grave Threats is deemed instituted with the criminal action,
Appearance with the MeTC on September 25, 2000. No real and, hence, the private prosecutor may rightfully intervene to
distinction exists for under Section 6, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, prosecute the civil aspect.
the term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used in these Rules shall include
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
4. PAFLU vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., 42 SCRA 302 The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer according
to the order, is sought to be voided in the present petition.
PONENTE: REYES, J.B.L., J. ISSUE: Whether or not Muning is entitled to attorney’s fees?
DOCTRINE: an agreement providing for the division of
HELD: No.
attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union president is
allowed to share in said fees with lawyers, is condemned by Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle enunciated in
Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot be Amalgamated Laborers' Association, et al. vs. Court of Industrial
justified. Relations, et al., L-23467, 27 March 1968,4 that an agreement
providing for the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer
FACTS: The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case union president is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers, is
No. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot
Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations be justified.
rendered a decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the reinstatement The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 that —
with backwages of complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino
Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18 October 1963, Cipriano In the proceeding before the Court or Hearing Examiner thereof, the
Cid & Associates, counsel of record for the winning complainants, parties shall not be required to be represented by legal counsel ...
filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total is no justification for a ruling, that the person representing the party-
backwages. On 22 November 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a litigant in the Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer,
similar notice for a reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and is entitled to attorney's fees: for the same section adds that —
Tenazas on 3 December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their
non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their it shall be the duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer to
backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin Muning filed a "Petition examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of the parties and
for the Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the to assist in the orderly presentation of evidence.
backwages. Munings petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid & thus making it clear that the representation should be exclusively
Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer. entrusted to duly qualified members of the bar.
records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge was filed by The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear
Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the or defend in the said court on behalf of a party-litigant does not by
hearings were held in Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf itself entitle the representative to compensation for such
of the complainants were at first by Attorney Pacis and subsequently representation. For Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court,
by respondent Quintin Muning. providing —
the Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the backwages as Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees. — An
compensation for professional services rendered in the case, attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more
apportioned as follows: than a reasonable compensation for his services, ...
Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates ................. 10% imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition
Quintin Muning ............................................. 10% to the recovery of attorney's fees. Such a relationship cannot exist
unless the client's representative in court be a lawyer. Since
Atty. Atanacio Pacis ...................................... 5% respondent Muning is not one, he cannot establish an attorney-client
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
D. Sanctions for Practice or Appearance Without Authority authority. If a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority, he may be disciplined or punished
1. Villahermosa v. Caracol, A.C. No. 7325, Jan. 21, 2015 for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his
official transaction.
FACTS: Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already passed away at the time
he filed the Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution
OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela who and Demolition. Ams an honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer,
had two sons, Fernando and Efren. When the agrarian reform law he should have informed the Court of his client’s passing and
was enacted, emancipation patents and titles were issued to presented authority that he was retained by the client’s successors-
Hermogena and Danilo Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the program, who in-interest and thus the parties may have been substituted.
in turn sold the parcels of land to complainant’s spouse, Raymunda Atty. Caracol was found guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and
Villahermosa. violation of oath under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Consequently, he was suspended from the practice of law for one
The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) year.
issued a decision ordering the cancellation of the emancipation
patents and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433 stating that it was not
covered by the agrarian reform law. This decision was appealed to
and affirmed by the DARAB Central Board and the Court of Appeals.
Atty. Caracol, as additional counsel filed a motion for execution with
the DARAB, praying for the full implementation of the decision. Atty.
Caracol filed a Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution
and Demolition which he signed as Counsel for Efren Babela.
Thus, Villahermosa filed a complaint alleging that Atty. Caracol had
no authority to file the motions since Efren had already been dead for
more than a year. He claimed that Atty. Caracol’s real client was a
certain Ernesto Aguirre, who had allegedly bought the same parcel
of land.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Caracol guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and
violation of oath under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
HELD:
YES. Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to act
as counsel for a person without being retained nor may he appear in
court without being employed unless by leave of court. If an attorney
appears on a client’s behalf without a retainer or the requisite
authority neither the litigant whom he purports to represent nor the
adverse party may be bound or affected by his appearance unless
the purported client ratifies or is estopped to deny his assumed
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
E. Public Officials and Practice of Law sheriff was illegal because petitioners were not properly served with
summons as defendants in the foreclosure suit.
1. Ramos v. Manalac, 89 Phil. 270
ISSUE: Whether or not summons was properly served / Does the the
DOCTRINE: The word or term “appearance” includes not only term “appearance” only include presence in courts.
arguing a case before any such body but also filing a pleading
in behalf of a client as “by simply filing a formal motion, plea or HELD:
answer”. 1. Yes. Granting for the sake of argument that petitioners were not
properly served with summons in civil case No. 7668, as they claim,
FACTS: RAMOS family executed power of attorney in favor of their the defect in the service was cured when the petitioners voluntarily
brother Eladio Ramos. They gave Eladio authority to encumber, appeared and answered the complaint thru their attorney of record,
mortgage and transfer in favor of any person a parcel of land Lauro C. Maiquez who appeared in their behalf in all stages of the
situated in Bayambang, Pangasinan. He Executed a mortgage under case. Since an Attorney Maiquez who appeared for the petitioners
Rivera. Together with another parcel of land, to guarantee the must be presumed to have been authorized by them when he
payment of loan of 300, with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per appeared in their behalf in all the stages of the case. The security
annum. and finality of judicial proceedings require that the evasions and
Eladio Ramos failed to pay the obligation on its date of maturity. tergiversations of unsuccessful litigants should be received with
RIVERA filed an action to foreclosure the mortgage, making RAMOS undue favor to overcome such presumption.
defendants. Summons served only upon Eladio Ramos, who
acknowledge the service in his own behalf and in that services of 2. No. The word or term “appearance” includes not only arguing a
Attorney Lauro C. Maiquez, who put in his appearance for all the case before any such body but also filing a pleading in behalf of a
defendants, and submitted an answer in their behalf. Court ordered client as “by simply filing a formal motion, plea or answer”.
Eladio Ramos to pay to the plaintiff his obligation of 300, with interest
thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, from August 9, 1934,
until its full payment, plus the sum of 100 as attorney's fees, and
ordering the foreclosure of the mortgage upon failure of Eladio
Ramos to pay the judgment within ninety (90) days from the date the
decision becomes final.
ELADIO RAMOS failed to pay the judgment within the period. The
Court ordered the sale at public auction of the mortgaged properties,
which were sold RIVERA (highest bidder). RIVERA sold properties to
Felipa Lopez, who later filed a motion praying that she be placed in
possession. RAMOS did not heed the order. Ramos was summoned
by the court to explain why they should not be punished for contempt
for their refusal to comply with the writ of possession. RAMOS
answered contending that said writ partakes of the nature of an
action and as it was issued after more than five years, the court
acted in excess of its jurisdiction, and that the sale conducted by the
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
2. In re David, 93 Phil. 461 three days and could not submit sucliente, he himself wrote and
presented at the request of his client; the allegation that arrangement
DOCTRINE: Practice as a lawyer is to practice the acts of his with the intention of his client to sign it, but as this was in Dagupan
profession. and could not sign and there was more than one day, then I sign it as
follows: "Felix P. David, for and in Behalf of the appeellee. " on
FACTS: In the administrative case No. 35 the appellant was September 25, 1950 he presented to the Court of Appeals a
suspended by bad practices in the exercise of his profession for a memorandum in reply to the appellant, signed as this allegation.
period of five years starting from November 9, 1949. The appeal
supports this suspension in its report; however, he continued to In order - says the appeal - to show That I did not have any the
exercise the profession within the period of the suspension, intention to disregard the suspension of the Supreme Court, I did not
November 9 from 1949 to November 8, 1954. With the knowledge of even Identified Sy Tan Tek myself as the
attorney for the appellees but in good faith, I signed for and in Behalf
On February 28, 1950 the Respondent submitted a claim in the case of the appellee without designating That I am practicing as attorney-
CA GR No. 4792-R, Tan Tek vs. Sy Maliwanag, not as a lawyer Sy at-law.
Tan Tek, but with the following words: "for and in Behalf of Sy Tan
Tek"; on January 26, 1951 he was sent by certified mail notification ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of Atty. David are tantamount to
of the decision in that case (Exhibit G), confirming the decision of the practice of law
Court of First Instance; on March 13, 1951 I tabled a motion in this
court - ye returned the file - requesting the issuance of a warrant of HELD: YES. Practice as a lawyer is to practice the acts of his
execution, which motion is signed as follows: profession. The prepare and submit motions asking for the execution
of the judgment, the demolition of the homes of the defendants,
Tan Tek If By (Sgd.) Felix P. David, Atty. Felix P. David, Dagupan asking the court to order the Sheriff to betray him the amounts
and Azcarrag St. Corner Saw Mill & Construction Philippines, Manila collected are acts that are part of the exercise of the profession of
abogacioa; the present allegation and memorandum to the Court of
The present appeal therefore written not as they do practicing Appeal is to exercise the profession of lawyer, because an agent
lawyers, but as an agent Sy Tan Tek. cannot do; alquilers the charge of issuing 35 109 defendants receipts
and signed as lawyer for the plaintiff, is to exercise the profession.
In the civil case No. 3658 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
called Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. against Tolentino, the Respondent Neither can he allow his name to appear in such pleading by itself or
submitted a brief for an order demolition of the homes of the as part of firm name under the signature of another qualified lawyer
defendants; on October 10, 1950 he filed a motion asking the Sheriff because the signature of an agent amounts to signing of a non-
of Manila was authorized to pay "the amount or other amount Such qualified senator or congressman, the office of an attorney being
as May be Collected by the Sheriff from time to time" (Exhibit B); on originally an agency, and because he will, by such act, be appearing
November 13, 1950 he presented another motion (Exhibit C) asking in court or quasi-judicial or administrative body in violation of the
another demolition order as counsel for the applicant. constitutional restriction. “He cannot do indirectly what the
Constitution prohibits directly.” (cited in Memaid but did not appear in
In defense, he says that he appeared as counsel for Sy Tan Tek the translated case) The evidence of record shows that the
from the Municipal Court Manila en 1948; which, being suspended, Respondent Felix P. David practiced law attorney intentionally
he had advised sucliente to seek another lawyer to prepare the claim disobeying the decision of the Court. Therefore, he is ineligible to
to be submitted to the Court of Appeal; when there were only two or practice as a lawyer in the Philippines.
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
The condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in
would appear at the trial of the case, he would be considered on frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same
official leave of absence, and that he would not receive any kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise (State vs.
payment for his services. The appearance of City Attorney Fule as Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA, M.S. 768). Practice of law
private prosecutor was questioned by the counsel for the accused, to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as
invoking the case of Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, et al., customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as
L-1532, Nov. 28, 1947, wherein it was ruled that "when an attorney customarily and demanding payment for such services (State
had been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or vs. Bryan, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644, 647). The appearance as
City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of
engage in private law practice." Counsel then argued that the JP engagement in the private practice of law. The following observation
Court in entertaining the appearance of City Attorney Fule in the of the Solicitor General is noteworthy:
case is a violation of the above ruling. On December 17, 1960 the JP
issued an order sustaining the legality of the appearance of City Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that
Attorney Fule. one must have presented himself to be in the active and
continued practice of the legal profession and that his
Under date of January 4, 1961, counsel for the accused presented a professional services are available to the public for a
"Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in
Case," this time invoking Section 32, Rule 27, now Sec. 35, Rule consideration of his said services.
138, Revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from
practicing. Counsel claims that City Attorney Fule falls under this For one thing, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had
limitation. The JP Court ruled on the motion by upholding the right of been given permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of
Fule to appear and further stating that he (Fule) was not actually Justice, to represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a
enagaged in private law practice. relative.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sision violated the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations for appearing as counsel for the defendant in JDRC
Case No. E01978
5. Victor Lingan v. Atty. Romeo Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy action Atty. Baliga's ex parte clarificatory pleading as this court does
Baliga, A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014 not render advisory opinions.]
DOCTRINE: When the court orders a lawyer suspended from the (2009) In the letter written by Lingan to the court, he alleged that
practice of law, the lawyer must desist from performing all Atty. Baliga continued practicing law and discharging his functions as
functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within Commission on Human Rights Regional Director, in violation of this
the period of suspension. This includes desisting from holding court's order of suspension. He has allegedly received a copy of the
a position in government requiring the authority to practice law. Commission on Human Rights En Banc 's resolution suspending
Atty. Baliga as Regional Director. On Atty. Baliga's motion, the
FACTS: Attys. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga are found omission reconsidered Atty. Baliga's suspension and instead
guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional admonished him for "[violating] the conditions of his commission as a
Responsibility and of the Lawyer's Oath. Respondents allowed their notary public." He has not, however, received a copy of Atty. Baliga’s
secretaries to notarize documents in their stead, in violation of MOR. He further claimed that the discharge of the functions of a
Sections 2455 and 2466 of the Notarial Law. This court suspended Commission on Human Rights Regional Director necessarily
respondents from the practice of law for one year, revoked their required the practice of law. On the other, Atty. Baliga alleged that as
notarial commissions, and disqualified them from reappointment as Regional Director, he "perform[ed], generally, managerial functions,"
notaries public for two years. which did not require the practice of law. The Commission allegedly
has its own "legal services unit which takes care of the legal services
Complainant Victor Lingan filed a motion for reconsideration praying matters of the [Commission]."
that respondents be disbarred rather than be merely suspended from
the practice of law, but the court denied the motion for lack of merit.
Office of the Bar Confidant:
(2007) Subsequently, Atty. Baliga, also the Regional Director of the found that the period of suspension of Attys. Calubaquib and
Commission on Human Rights Regional Office for Region II, Baliga had already lapsed.
filed the undated ex parte clarificatory pleading with leave of court. It recommended that respondents be required to file their
He alleged that complainant Lingan wrote the Commission on respective motions to lift order of suspension with
Human Rights. Lingan requested the Commission to investigate Atty. certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
Baliga following the latter's suspension from the practice of law. the Executive Judge of the court where they might appear as
counsel and state that they desisted from practicing law
After this court had suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law, during the period of suspension.
the Commission on Human Rights En Banc issued the resolution the Commission on Human Rights had no power to "[alter,
suspending him from his position as Director/Attorney VI of the modify, or set aside any of this court's resolutions] which
Commission on Human Rights Regional Office for Region II for want [have] become final and executory
of eligibility. Atty. Baliga "should not [have been] allowed to perform his
functions, duties, and responsibilities [as Regional Director]
However, Atty. Baliga argued that he cannot be suspended for acts which [required acts constituting] practice of law."
not connected with his functions as Commission on Human Rights Considering that Atty. Baliga claimed that he did not perform
Regional Director. His suspension from the practice of law did not his functions as Regional Director which required the
include his suspension from public office. [This court noted without practice of law, the Office of the Bar Confidant
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
recommended that the Commission on Human Rights be protection remedies and/or possible submission of the
required to comment on this claim. matter to an alternative dispute resolution";68
The Commission on Human Rights reiterated that e. To issue Commission on Human Rights processes,
the penalty imposed on Atty. Baliga as a member of including notices, letter-invitations, orders, or subpoenas
the bar is separate from the penalty that might be within the territorial jurisdiction of the regional office;69 and
imposed on him as Regional Director. The f. To review and approve draft resolutions of human rights
Commission added that it is "of honest belief that the cases prepared by the legal officer.
position of [Regional Director] is managerial and
does not [require the practice of law]."
The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Baliga’s motion to lift order of Human Rights Regional Director constitutes practice of law. Thus,
suspension should be granted? the Regional Director must be an attorney - a member of the bar in
good standing and authorized to practice law. When the Regional
HELD: NO Director loses this authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a
We find that Atty. Baliga violated this court's order of suspension. necessary qualification to the position he or she is holding. The
We, therefore, suspend him further from the practice of law for six disbarred or suspended lawyer must desist from holding the position
months. of Regional Director.
Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is Atty. Baliga's performance of generally managerial functions was not
considered practice of law. The Commission on Human Rights is an supported by the record. It was also immaterial. He held the position
independent office created under the Constitution with power to of Commission on Human Rights Regional Director because of his
investigate "all forms of human rights violations involving civil and authority to practice law. Without this authority, Atty. Baliga was
political rights. Each regional office is headed by the Regional disqualified to hold that position.
Director who is given the position of Attorney VI.
The Commission on Human Rights erred in issuing the resolution
Under the Guidelines and Procedures in the Investigation and dated April 13, 2007. This resolution caused Atty. Baliga to
Monitoring of Human Rights Violations and Abuses, and the reassume his position as Regional Director/ Attorney VI despite lack
Provision of CHR Assistance,64 the Regional Director has the of authority to practice law. We remind the Commission on Human
following powers and functions: Rights that we have the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice
of law.81 The Commission cannot, by mere resolutions and .other
a. To administer oaths or affirmations with respect to issuances, modify or defy this court's orders of suspension from the
"[Commission on Human Rights] matters;"65 practice of law. Although the Commission on Human Rights has the
b. To issue mission orders in their respective regional power to appoint its officers and employees,82 it can only retain those
offices;66 with the necessary qualifications in the positions they are holding.
c. To conduct preliminary evaluation or initial investigation of
human rights complaints in the absence of the legal officer or As for Atty. Baliga, we remind him that the practice of law is a
investigator;67 "privilege burdened with conditions."83 To enjoy the privileges of
d. To conduct dialogues or preliminary conferences among practicing law, lawyers must "[adhere] to the rigid standards of
parties and discuss "immediate courses of action and
PALE Case Digests 3B, 2017-2018
6. Eustaquio v. Navales, A.C. No. 10465, June 8, 2016 ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively
liable
DOCTRINE: The practice of law embraces any activity, in or out
of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, HELD: YES. It is settled that the Court has the exclusive jurisdiction
knowledge, training, and experience. It includes performing acts to regulate the practice of law. As such, when the Court orders a
which are characteristic of the legal profession, or rendering lawyer suspended from the practice of law, he must desist from
any kind of service which requires the use in any degree of performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge
legal knowledge or skill. within the period of suspension. This includes desisting from holding
a position in government requiring the authority to practice law. The
FACTS: Spouses Eustaquio alleged that they are the owners of an practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court, which
apartment located at 4-D Cavite St., Barangay Paltok, SFDM, requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training,
Quezon City, which they leased to respondent. The respondent and experience. It includes performing acts which are characteristic
failed to pay monthly rentals in the aggregate amount of of the legal profession, or rendering any kind of service which
P139,000.00 and was requested to vacate the leased premises, but requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
did not do so.
In the instant case, the OBC correctly pointed out that the Court's
This prompted complainants to refer the matter to barangay Resolution dated September 15, 2014 suspending respondent from
conciliation, where the parties agreed on an amicable settlement, the practice of law for a period of six (6) months became final and
whereby respondent promised to pay complainants the amount of executory fifteen (15) days after respondent received a copy of the
P131,000.00 on July 16, 2009 and to vacate the leased premises on same on October 16, 2014. Thus, respondent should have already
July 31, 2009. Respondent eventually reneged on his obligations commenced serving his six (6)-month suspension. However,
under the settlement agreement, constraining complainants to file an respondent never heeded the suspension order against him as he
ejectment case against him, and the present disbarment case. continued discharging his functions as an Assistant City Prosecutor
for Quezon City, as evidenced by the Certification[27] issued by
the IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent MeTC-Br. 38 stating that respondent has been appearing before it as
administratively liable and, accordingly, recommended that he be an Assistant City Prosecutor since September 2014.
meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period
of six (6) months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
shall be dealt with more severely. It was found that respondent
displayed unwarranted obstinacy in evading payment of his debts, as
highlighted by his numerous promises to pay which he eventually
reneged on. In this light, the IBP Investigating Commissioner
concluded that respondent violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. This order of suspension
became final and executor.
7. Fajardo v. Alvarez, A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016 No. Respondent practiced law even if he did not sign any pleading.
And in the context of this case, his surreptitious actuations reveal
Doctrine: Government officials or employees, including lawyers illicit intent. Not only did he do unauthorized practice, his acts show
are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their badges of offering to peddle influence in the Office of the
profession unless authorized by their department heads. More Ombudsman.
importantly, if authorized, the practice of profession must not
conflict with the official functions of the government official or The practice is law means "any activity, in or out of court, which
employee, or run in conflict with the interest of the government. requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. It includes performing acts which are characteristics
FACTS: of the legal profession." By preparing the pleadings of and giving
Complainant Teresita Fajardo, was the Municipal Treasurer of San legal advice to the complainant, respondent practiced law.
Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor Alvarez
to defend her in several cases before the Office of the Ombudsman Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
while he was still working in the Legal Section of the National Center Public Officials and Employees) prohibits government officials or
for Mental Health. Atty. Alvarez asked for P1,400,000 as acceptance employees from engaging in private practice of their profession
fee, assuring Teresita that his connections with the Office of the unless authorized by their department heads. More importantly, if
Ombudsman could help with dismissing her case. But two weeks authorized, the practice of profession must not conflict with the
after they talked, the Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending official functions of the government official or employee. Respondent
the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita and her dismissal is a public officer, an employee of the government. By appearing
from service. against the Office of the Ombudsman (which is a part of
government), he put himself in a situation of conflict of interest and is
Respondent claims that he was authorized to practice his profession going against the same employer he swore to serve. When he made
by the Chief of the National Center for Mental Health, Bernardino it appear to the complainant that he knew people from the Office of
Vicente. He was given authority under the condition that the Ombudsman who could help them get a favorable decision, the
respondent's practice of profession will not run "in conflict with the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility,
interest of the Center and the Philippine government as a whole." specifically Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 which prohibit lawyers
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Teresita filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Alvarez. The Canon 7 also requires lawyers to always uphold the integrity and
Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Alvarez guilty of violating the dignity of the legal profession. We rule that there is enough proof to
Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended one year hold respondent guilty of influence peddling.
suspension from the practice of law and ordered him to return the
amount of P700,000 to Teresita with legal interest. The Integrated Respondent is to be suspended for one year with warning that a
Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted the said repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely
recommendations. Atty. Alvarez's motion for reconsideration was and is ordered to return the amount of P500,000 with legal interest to
denied. Teresita Fajardo.
HELD: