PALE (Problem Areas in Legal Ethics)
By: Judge Alona Labtic-Pioquinto
“You delight in laying down laws, yet you
delight more in breaking them. Like
children playing by the ocean who build
sand-towers with constancy and then
destroy them with laughter.” –Kahlil Gibran
What is Legal Ethics?
 It is the embodiment of all principles of
morality and refinement that should
govern the conduct of every member
of the bar. (Chief Justice Manuel V.
Moran)
Sources of Legal Ethics
1. Constitution
2. Code of Professional Responsibility
3. New Code of Judicial Conduct of the
Philippine Judiciary
4. Jurisprudence
5. Rule on Notarial Practice
6. MCLE
7. Rule of Court
8. SC Issuances
Lawyer’s Oath
“I, ___________, do solemnly swear that I will
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, I will support the Constitution
and obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any court; I will not wittingly
or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor
consent to the same; I will delay no man
for money or malice, and I will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of
my knowledge and discretion, with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients; and I impose upon myself these
voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help
me God.”
2019 Bar A.4.
Q: L sought Atty. M to be his lawyer for the
annulment of his marriage. M discussed the
annulment procedure and his fees. L
signed the service contract and gave M his
lawyer’s fee in full. L casually mentioned
that he had the resources because he
received a huge kickback last week from a
favoured supplier in relation to his work as
member for his Municipality’s BAC (Bids
and Awards Committee). After hearing this
revelation, what must M do as a lawyer to
L? (2%)
A: M must terminate relationship with his
client. L committed an offense against RA
3019 S3 (b) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of law x
x x.
Rule 15.07 – A lawyer shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.
Rule 19.02 – A lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in the course
of representation, perpetrated a fraud
upon a person x x x shall promptly call
upon the client to rectify the same, and
failing which he shall terminate the
relationship with such client x x x.
Who are member of the Bar?
The IBP Constitution and By-Laws considers
the following, "automatically and without
exception," as members of the IBP:
 All lawyers whose names were in
the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme
Court on January 16, 1973.
 All lawyers whose names were included
or are entered therein after the said
date.
There are currently about forty-thousand
(40,000) living attorneys who comprise the
IBP.
These are the attorneys whose names
appear in the Rolls of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court. They have qualified for
and have passed the Philippine Bar
Examination conducted annually, and
have taken the attorney’s oath, unless
otherwise disbarred.
Membership in the IBP is compulsory for all
lawyers in the country. The Philippine
Supreme Court has required all lawyers to
indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in
all papers and pleadings filed in judicial
and quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the
previously required current Professional Tax
Receipt (PTR) and IBP Official Receipt or the two preceding sections shall, before being admitted
Life Member Number. to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have
regularly studied law for four years, and successfully
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or
university, officially approved and recognized by the
ATTORNEYS & ADMISSION TO BAR
Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate,
Rule 138
accompanied by a certificate from the university or
Section 1. Who may practice law. - Any person
school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts,
heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
and further evidence may be required by the court.
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the
provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations
standing, is entitled to practice law.
unless he has satisfactorily completed the following
Sec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to
courses in a law school or university duly recognized by
the bar. - Every applicant for admission as a member of
the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law,
the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least
criminal law, public and private international law, political
twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a
law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the
taxation and legal ethics. chan robles virtual law library
Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
Sec. 6. Pre-Law. - No applicant for admission to the bar
character, and that no charges against him, involving
examination shall be admitted unless he presents a
moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any
certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education
court in the Philippines. chan robles virtual law library
that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued
Sec. 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the
and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
United States of America. - Citizens of the United States of
recognized university or college, requiring for admission
America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed
thereto the completion of a four-year high school course,
members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the
the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's
courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing
degree in arts or sciences with any of the following
as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before
subjects as major or field of concentration: political
the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such practice
science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics.
after taking the following oath of office:
Sec. 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. - All
"I, _________________________, having been permitted to
applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the
continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do
Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this
solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of
rule at least fifteen (15) days before the beginning of the
the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its
examination. If not embraced within sections 3 and 4 of
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders
this rule they shall also file within the same period the
of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will
embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a
not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
license evidencing the fact of their admission to practice,
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
satisfactory evidence that the same has not been
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
revoked, and certificates as to their professional standing.
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
Applicants shall also file at the same time their own
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship.
the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this
Sec. 8. Notice of applications. - Notice of applications for
voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or
admission shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme
purpose of evasion. So help me God."
Court in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and
Sec. 4. Requirements for applicants from other
Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the beginning of
jurisdictions. - Applicants for admission who, being
the examination.
Filipino citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in
Sec. 9. Examination; subjects. - Applicants, not otherwise
the Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit
provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be
court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest
subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil
court of any State or Territory of the United States, and
Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law;
who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have
Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public
practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that
Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law
such practice began before July 4, 1946, and that they
(Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil
have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the
Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal
discretion of the Court, be admitted without
Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleading and
examination.chanrobles virtualawlibrary
Conveyancing).
Sec. 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. - All
applicants for admission other than those referred to in
Sec. 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and
in writing. - Persons taking the examination shall not bring
papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The
questions shall be the same for all examinees and a copy
thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each
examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions
personally without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee stating
that his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to
read his answers without much loss of time, the Supreme
Court may allow such examinee to use a typewriter in
answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall
be allowed to be used. chan robles virtual law library
The committee of bar examiners shall take such
precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution
of papers or commission of other frauds. Examinees shall
not place their names on the examination papers. No oral
examination shall be given.
Sec. 11. Annual examination. - Examinations
admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place
annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four
days to be designated by the chairman of the committee
on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as
follows: First day: Political and International Law (morning)
and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second
day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third
day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law
(afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and
Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (afternoon).
Sec. 12. Committee of examiners. - Examinations shall be
conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be
appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be
composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall
act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the
court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar
of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one
year. The names of the members of this committee shall
be published in each volume of the official reports.
Sec. 13. Disciplinary measures. - No candidate shall
endeavor to influence any member of the committee,
and during examination the candidates shall not
communicate with each other nor shall they give or
receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this
provision, or any other provision of this rule, shall be
barred from the examination, and the same to count as a
failure against him, and further disciplinary action,
including permanent disqualification, may be taken in
the discretion of the court. chan robles virtual law library
Sec. 14. Passing average. - In order that a candidate
may be deemed to have passed his examinations
successfully, he must have obtained a general average
of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per
cent in any subject. In determining the average, the
subjects in the examination shall be given the following
relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social
Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent;
Criminal Law; 10 per cent; Political and International Law,
15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per
cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
Sec. 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination
papers. - Not later than February 15th after the
examination, or as soon thereafter as may be
practicable, the committee shall file its reports on the
result of such examination. The examination papers and
notes of the committee shall be fixed with the clerk and
may there be examined by the parties in interest, after
the court has approved the report.
Sec. 16. Failing candidates to take review course. -
Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for
three times shall be disqualified from taking another
examination unless they show to the satisfaction of the
court that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth
year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review
course in a recognized law school.
for The professors of the individual review subjects attended
by the candidates under this rule shall certify under oath
that the candidates have regularly attended classes and
passed the subjects under the same conditions as
ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the
particular subject.
Sec. 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. -
An applicant who has passed the required examination,
or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to
the bar, shall take and subscribe before the Supreme
Court the corresponding oath of office.
Sec. 18. Certificate. - The Supreme Court shall thereupon
admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all the
courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be
entered to that effect upon its records, and that a
certificate of such record be given to him by the clerk of
court, which certificate shall be his authority to
practice. chan robles virtual law library
Sec. 19. Attorneys' roll. - The clerk of the Supreme Court
shall keep a roll of all attorneys admitted to practice,
which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when
he receives his certificate.
Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys. - It is the duty of an
attorney:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the
laws of the Philippines;
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings
only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only
as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law;
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes
confided to him, such means only as are consistent with
truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or
any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact
or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every
peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to
accept no compensation in connection with his client's
business except from him or with his knowledge and
approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of
a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the
continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any
man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair
and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion
as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense
that the law permits, to the end that no person may be
deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
Sec. 21. Authority of attorney to appear. - An attorney is
presumed to be properly authorized to represent any
cause in which he appears, and no written power of
attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for
his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of
either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being
shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to
appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under
which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to
any issue, the name of the person who employed him,
and may thereupon make such order as justice requires.
An attorney wilfully appearing in court for a person
without being employed, unless by leave of the court,
may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court
who has misbehaved in his official transactions. chan
robles virtual law library
Sec. 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to
represent client on appeal. - An attorney who appears
de parte in a case before a lower court shall be
presumed to continue representing his client on appeal,
unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his
appearance in the appellate court.
Sec. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. - Attorneys
have authority to bind their clients in any case by any
agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in
taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial
procedure. But they cannot, without special authority,
compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in
discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.
Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to
fees. - An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover
from his client no more than a reasonable compensation
for his services, with a view to the importance of the
subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the
services rendered, and the professional standing of the
attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of
attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper
compensation, but may disregard such testimony and
base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A
written contract for services shall control the amount to
be paid therefor unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable.
Sec. 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt. -
When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of
his client after it has been demanded, he may be
punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has
misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings
under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal
prosecution.
Sec. 26. Change of attorneys. - An attorney may retire at
any time from any action or special proceeding, by the
written consent of his client filed in court. He may also
retire at any time from an action or special proceeding,
without the consent of his client, should the court, on
notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing,
determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of
substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed
shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the
former one, and written notice of the change shall be
given to the adverse party.
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute
another in his place, but if the contract between client
and attorney has been reduced to writing and the
dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause, he
shall be entitled to recover from the client the full
compensation stipulated in the contract. However, the
attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene in
the case to protect his rights. For the payment of his
compensation the attorney shall have a lien upon all
judgments for the payment of money, and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the
case wherein his services had been retained by the
client.
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme
Court on what grounds. - A member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a
wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or
a Court of First Instance. - The Court of Appeals or a Court
of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice
for any of the causes named in the last preceding
section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not
practice his profession until further action of the Supreme
Court in the premises.
Sec. 29. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Court of
First Instance, further proceedings in Supreme Court. -
Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Court
of First Instance shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme
Court a certified copy of the order or suspension and a
full statement of the facts upon which the same was
based. Upon the receipt of such certified copy and
statement, the Supreme Court shall make full investigation
of the facts involved and make such order revoking or
extending the suspension, or removing the attorney from
his office as such, as the facts warrant. chan robles virtual
law library
Sec. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or
suspension. - No attorney shall be removed or
suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has
had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer
the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own
behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon
reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the
accusation, the court may proceed to determine the
matter ex parte.
Sec. 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. - A court may
assign an attorney to render professional aid free of
charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it
appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ
an attorney, and that the services of counsel are
necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the
rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so
assigned to render the required service, unless he is
excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause
shown.
Sec. 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio. - Subject
to availability of funds as may be provided by law the
court may, in its discretion, order an attorney employed
as counsel de oficio to be compensated in such sum as
the court may fix in accordance with section 24 of this
rule. Whenever such compensation is allowed, it shall not
be less than thirty pesos (P30.00) in any case, nor more
than the following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos (P50.00) in light
felonies; (2) One hundred pesos (P100.00) in less grave
felonies; (3) Two hundred pesos (P200.00) in grave
felonies other than capital offenses; (4) Five hundred
pesos (P500.00) in capital offenses. chan robles virtual law
library
Sec. 33. Standing in court of persons authorized to appear
for Government. - Any official or other person appointed
or designated in accordance with law to appear for the
Government of the Philippines shall have all the rights of a
duly authorized member of the bar to appear in any case
in which said government has an interest direct or
indirect.
Sec. 34. By whom litigation conducted. - In the court of a
justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in
person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by
him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any
other court, a party may conduct 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.
Sec. 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. - No judge or
other official or employee of the superior courts or of the
Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private
practice as a member of the bar or give professional
advice to clients.
Sec. 36. Amicus curiae. - The court may, in special cases,
and upon proper application, permit the appearance,
as amici curiae, of those lawyers who in its opinion can
help in the disposition of the matter before it; or it may, on
its own initiative, invite prominent attorneys to appear
as amici curiae in such special cases.
Sec. 37. Attorneys' liens. - An attorney shall have a lien
upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which
have lawfully come into his possession and may retain
the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have
been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction
thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon
all judgments for the payment of money, and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has
secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time
when he shall have caused a statement of his claim of
such lien to be entered upon the records of the court
rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and
shall have caused written notice thereof to be delivered
to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have
the same right and power over such judgments and
executions as his client would have to enforce his lien
and secure the payment of his just fees and
disbursements.
Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Rule 139-A
(Inserted by Republic Act No. 6397 which took effect on
January 16, 1973)
Section 1. Organization. - There is hereby organized an
official national body to be known as the "Integrated Bar
of the Philippines," composed of all persons whose names
now appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
Sec. 2. Purposes. - The fundamental purposes of the
Integrated Bar shall be to elevate the standards of the
legal profession, improve the administration of justice,
and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility
more effectively.
Sec. 3. Regions. - The Philippines is hereby divided into
nine Regions of the Integrated Bar, to
wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) Northern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Abra,
Batanes, Benguet, Cagayan, Ifugao, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos
Sur, Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, La Union, Mountain
Province, Nueva Vizcaya, and Quirino.
(b) Central Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Bataan,
Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Tarlac,
and Zambales;
(c) Greater Manila, consisting of the City of Manila and
Quezon
(d) Southern Luzon, consisting of the provinces
Batangas, Cavity Laguna, Marinduque, Occidental
Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro, Quezon, and Rizal;
(e) Bicolandia, consisting of the provinces of Al bay,
Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate,
and Sorsogon;
(f) Eastern Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Bohol,
Cebu, Eastern Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar, and
Southern Leyte;
(g) Western Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Aklan,
Antique, Capiz, Iloilo, Negros Occidental,
Oriental, Palawan, Romblon, and Siquijor;
(h) Eastern Mindanao, consisting of the provinces of
Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Bukidnon, CaMiguin,
Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Nlisamis
Oriental, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur; and
(i) Western M;ndanao, consisting of the cities of Basilan
and Zamboanga, and the provinces of Cotabato, Lanao
del Norte, Lanao del Sur Misamis Occidental, South
Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga
del Sur.
In the event of the creation of any new province, the
Board of Governors shall, with the approval of the
Supreme Court, determine the Region to which the said
province shall belong.
Sec. 4. Chapters. - A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall
be organized in every province. Except as hereinbelow
provided, every city shall be considered part of the
province within which it is geographically situated.
A separate Chapter shall be organized in each of the
following political subdivisions
areas:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) The sub-province of Aurora;
(b) Each congressional district of the City of Manila;
(c) Quezon City;
(d) Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;
(e) Pasay Citys Makati, Mandaluyong and San Juan del
Monte;
(f) Cebu City; and
(g) Zamboanga City and Basilan City.
Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a
particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered a
member of the Chapter of the province, city, political
subdivision or area where his office, or, in the absence
thereof, his residence is located. In no case shall any
lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter.
Each Chapter shall have its own local government as
provided for by uniform rules to be prescribed by the
Board of Governors and approved by the Supreme Court,
the provisions of Section 19 of this Rule notwithstanding.
Chapters belonging to the same Region may hold
regional conventions on matters and problems of
common concern.
Sec. 5. House of Delegates. - The Integrated Bar shall
have a House of Delegates of not more than one hundred
twenty members who shall be apportioned among all the
Chapters as nearly as may be according to the number
City; of their respective members, but each Chapter shall have
at least one Delegate. On or before December 31, 1974,
of and every four years thereafter, the Board of Governors
shall make an apportionment of Delegates.
The term of the office of Delegate shall begin on the date
of the opening of the annual convention of the House and
shall end on the day immediately preceding the date of
the opening of the next succeeding annual convention.
No person may be a Delegate for more than two terms.
The House shall hold an annual convention at the call of
the Board of Governors at any time during the month of
April of each year for the election of Governors, the
Negros reading and discussion of reports including the annual
report of the Board of Governors, the transaction of such
other business as may be referred to it by the Board, and
the consideration of such additional matters as may be
requested in writing by at least twenty Delegates. Special
conventions of the House may be called by the Board of
Governors to consider only such matters as the Board
shall indicate. A majority of the Delegates who have
registered for a convention, whether annual or special,
shall constitute a quorum to do business.
Sec. 6. Board of Governors. - The Integrated Bar shall be
governed by a Board of Governors. Nine Governors shall
be elected by the House of Delegates from the nine
Regions on the representation basis of one Governor from
each Region. Each Governor shall be chosen from a list
of nominees submitted by the Delegates from the Region,
provided that not more than one nominee shall come
from any Chapter. The President and the Executive Vice
President, if chosen by the Governors from outside of
themselves as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, shall ipso
or facto become members of the Board.
The members of the Board shall hold office for a term of
one year from the date of their election and until their
successors shall have been duly elected and qualified.
No person may be a governor for more than two terms
The Board shall meet regularly once every three months,
on such date and such time and place as it shall
designate. A majority of all the members of the Board
shall constitute a quorum to do business. Special
meetings may be called by the President or by five
members of the Board.
Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, the Board
shall adopt By-Laws and promulgate Canons of
Professional Responsibility for all members of the
Integrated Bar. The By-Laws and the Canons may be
amended by the Supreme Court motu proprio or upon the
recommendation of the Board of Governors.
The Board shall prescribe such other rules and regulations
as may be necessary and proper to carry out the
purposes of the Integrated Bar as well as the provisions of
this Rule.
Sec. 7. Officers. - The Integrated Bar shall have a
President and an Executive Vice President who shall be
chosen by the Governors immediately after the latter's
election, either from among themselves or from other
members of the Integrated Bar, by the vote of at least five
Governors. Each of the regional members of the Board
shall be ex officio Vice President for the Region which he
represents.
The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold
office for a term of one year from the date of their
election and until their successors shall have duly
qualified. The Executive Vice President shall automatically
become the President for the next succeeding full term.
The Presidency shall rotate from year to year among all
the nine Regions in such order of rotation as the Board of
Governors shall prescribe. No person shall be President or
Executive Vice President of the Integrated Bar for more
than one term.
The Integrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a Treasurer,
and such other officers and employees as may be
required by the Board of Governors, to be appointed tray
the President with the consent of the Board, and to hold
office at the pleasure of the Board or for such terms as it
may fix. Said officers and employees need not be
members of the Integrated Bar.
Sec. 8. Vacancies. - In the event the President is absent or
unable to act, his duties shall be performed by the
Executive vice President; and in the event of the death,
resignation or removal of the President, the Executive
Vice President shall serve as Acting President during the
remainder of the term of the office thus vacated. In the
event of the death, resignation, removal, or disability of
both the President and the Executive Vice President, the
Board of Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold
office until the next succeeding election or during the
period of disability.
The filling of vacancies in the House of Delegates, Board
of Governors, and all other positions of Officers of the
Integrated Bar shall be as provided in the By-Laws.
Whenever the term of an office or position is for a fixed
period, the person chosen to fill a vacancy therein shall
serve only for the unexpired term.
Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every member of the
Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of
Governors shall determine with the approval of the
Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent
(10%) of the collection from each Chapter shall be set
aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the
Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members
thereof
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the
provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the
payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant
suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and
default in such payment for one year shall be a ground
for the removal of the name of the delinquent member
from the Roll of Attorneys.
Sec. 11. Voluntary termination of membership;
reinstatement. - A member may terminate his
membership by filing a written notice to that effect with
the Secretary of the Integrated Bar, who shall
immediately bring the matter to the attention of the
Supreme Court. Forthwith he shall cease to be a member
and his name shall be stricken by the Court from the Roll
of Attorneys. Re-instatement may be made by the Court
in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by
the Board of Governors and approved by the Court.
Sec. 12. Grievance procedures. - The Board of Governors
shall provide in the By-Laws for grievance procedures for
the enforcement and maintenance of discipline among
all the members of the Integrated Bar, but no action
involving the suspension or disbarment of a member or
the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys shall be
effective without the final approval of the Supreme Court.
Sec. 13. Non-political Bar. - The Integrated Bar shall be
strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair
this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be
penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective,
judicial, quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the
Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality
thereof shall be eligible for election or appointment to
any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof.
A Delegate, Governor, Officer or employee of the
Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter
thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his
position as of the moment he files his certificate of
candidacy for any elective public office or accepts
appointment to any judicial, quasi judicial, or prosecutory
office in the Government or any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof.
Sec. 14. Positions honorary. - Except as may be
specifically authorized or allowed by the Supreme Court,
no Delegate or Governor and no national or local Officer
or committee member shall receive any compensation,
allowance or emolument from the funds of the Integrated
Bar for any service rendered therein or be entitled to
reimbursement for any expense incurred in the discharge
of his functions.
Sec. 15. Fiscal matters. - The Board of Governors shall
administer the funds of the Integrated Bar and shall have
the power to make appropriations and disbursements
therefrom. It shall cause proper Books of Accounts to be
kept and Financial Statements to be rendered and shall
see to it that the proper audit is made of all accounts of
the Integrated Bar and all the Chapters thereof.

Sec. 16. Journal. - The Board of Governors shall cause to
be published a quarterly Journal of the Integrated Bar,
free copies of which shall be distributed to every member
of the Integrated
Sec. 17. Voluntary Bar Associations. - All voluntary Bar
associations now existing or which may hereafter be
formed may co-exist with the Integrated Bar but shall not
operate at cross-purposes
Sec. 18. Amendments. - This Rule may be amended by
the Supreme Court motu proprio or
recommendation of the Board of Governors or any
Chapter of the Integrated
Sec. 19. Organizational period. - The Commission on Bar
Integration shall organize the local Chapters and toward
this end shall secure the assistance of the Department of
Justice and of all Judges throughout the Philippines. All
Chapter organizational meetings shall be held on
Saturday, February 17, 1973. In every
Commission shall cause proper notice of the date, time
and place of the meeting to be served upon all the
lawyers concerned at their addresses appearing in the
records of the commission. The lawyers present at the
meeting called to organize a Chapter shall constitute a
quorum for the purpose, including the election of a
President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and
five Directors.
The Commission shall initially fix the number of Delegates
and apportion the same among all the Chapters as
nearly as may be in proportion to the number of their
respective members, but each Chapter shall have at
least one Delegate. The President of each Chapter shall
concurrently be its Delegate to the House of Delegates.
The Vice President shall be his alternate, except where
the Chapter is entitled to have more than one Delegate,
in which case, the Vice President shall also be a
Delegate.
The Board of Directors of the Chapter shall in proper cases
elect additional as well as alternate Delegates. The House
of Delegates shall convene in the City of Manila on
Saturday, March 1 7,1973 for the purpose of electing a
Board of Governors. The Governors shall immediately
assume office and forthwith meet to elect the Officers of
the Integrated Bar. The Officers so
immediately assume their respective
Sec. 20. Effectivity. - This Rule shall take effect on January
16, 1973.
Article XII, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution
“SECTION 14. The sustained development
of a reservoir of national talents consisting
of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs,
professionals, managers, high-level
technical manpower and skilled workers
and craftsmen in all fields shall be
promoted by the State. The State shall
Bar. encourage appropriate technology and
regulate its transfer for the national benefit.
The practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
therewith. citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.”
CASE DIGESTS:
upon the
 Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of
Law, Benjamin Dacanay BM No. 1678,
Bar.
December 17, 2007.
Facts:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in
March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated to
Canada in December 1998 to seek medical
attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied
case, the for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free
medical aid program. His application was
approved and he became a Canadian citizen in
May 2004.On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic
Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-
Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his
Philippine citizenship. On that day, he took his oath
of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the
Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada.
Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now
intends to resume his law practice.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner may still resume
practice? YES.
Held:
Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides an
applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen of
the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of
good moral character and a resident of the
Philippines.5 He must also produce before this Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character and
that no charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any
court in the Philippines. Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the Philippine bar and,
consequently, the privilege to engage in the
chosen shall
practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino
positions. citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is
a privilege denied to foreigners. The exception is
when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of
naturalization as a citizen of another country but
subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is
because “all Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be deemed not to
have lost their Philippine citizenship under the
conditions of [RA 9225].” Therefore, a Filipino lawyer
who becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship
if he reacquires it in accordance with RA
9225.Before he can resume his law practice, he
must first secure from this Court the authority to do
so, conditioned on: the updating and payment of
IBP membership dues; the payment of professional
tax; the completion of at least 36 credit hours of
mandatory continuing legal education; this is
especially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws
and update him of legal developments and the
retaking of the lawyer’s oath. DECISION: GRANTED.
 In Re: Removal from Office of Rosalie
Paraguas, July 6, 1976.
The records of the Court (judiciary and bar) show
that Rosalie Llorente Paraguas, 43 years of age,
who was appointed on June 16, 1973 Municipal
Judge of Sablan, Benguet was not among those
who were admitted for the Bar Examination, took
the Bar Examination, failed in the Bar Examination or
passed the Bar Examination, during the years 1946
through 1975.
The Acting Judicial Consultant upon instructions of
the Chief Justice required her in writing this month
to prove her qualifications as a member of the
Philippine Bar and in a conference on June 10, 1976
she submitted an affidavit of June 9, 1976 (which
she later tried to retrieve) asserting that she took the
Bar Examination in 1956 under the name of ROSA C.
BACULO (under which name she had been
allegedly registered in school) which was also the
name she used "when I took my oath as a lawyer
when I was admitted as a member of the Philippine
Bar in 1957."
It is a fact, however, that there exists a person by
the name of ROSA C. BACULO of Borongan, Samar
who passed the Bar Examination in 1956 and was
admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1957 (after having
failed when she first took the Bar Examination in
1955) and is presently employed in the Social
Security System, and confronted with these facts,
according to the Acting Judicial Consultant's
Report, "Judge Paraguas broke into tears and told
me that it was Rosa Baculo who advised her to use
that name and to lay claim to her Bar record."
Whatever may be the truth or falsity of this last
allegation of Rosalie L. Paraguas, the fact remains
that despite the opportunity given her, she has
failed to submit any positive proof or
documentation of her ever been duly admitted as
a member of the Philippine Bar, and without such
qualification, which is an essential requirement for
appointment as a judge under the Constitution and
the law she cannot be permitted to stay one day
longer in the Office of Municipal Judge of Sablan,
Benguet, particularly in the light of the certification
dated June 28, 1976 of the Bar Division of this Court
that she is not a member of the Philippine Bar.
ACCORDINGLY, Rosalie L. Paraguas is ordered
removed from the Office of Municipal Judge of
Sablan, Benguet, effective immediately, with
forfeiture of all benefits, and with prejudice to
reinstatement in any branch of the government
service, whether pertaining to the national or local
government, including - government owned and or
controlled instrumentalities, agencies and
corporations. Let certified copies of the pertinent
records and papers be furnished the Secretary of
Justice for the filing of such action or actions as may
be warranted by the evidence and the facts.
 In Re: Victorio Lanuevo AM No. 1162,
August 29, 1975.
Facts:
This is an administrative proceeding against Victorio
Lanueva who was the bar confidant during the
1971 bar examination emanating from the
revelation of one Oscar Landicho, a bar examinee
of the same bar exam, in his confidential letter that
the result of the bar exam of one of the bar
examinee later identified as Ramon Galang was
raised before the result was released to make him
pass the bar. Acting upon said letter, the court
called the 5 bar examiners and the bar confident
Lanuevo to submit their sworn statements on the
matter. It appears that each of the 5 bar examiners
were approached by Lanuevo with the
examination booklet asking them to re-evaluate the
grades of the bar examiner explaining that it is a
practice policy in bar exams that he will review the
grades obtained in all subjects by an examinee
and when he finds a candidate to have
extraordinary high grades in other subjects and low
grade in one subject he can bring it to the
examiner for reconsideration to help the candidate
pass. In good faith of trust and confidence to the
authority of Lanuevo, the examiners re-evaluated
the exam of the candidate and reconsider the
grade they give for each subject matter. Further
investigation also revealed that Ramon Galang was
charged with crime of slight physical injuries in the
mla. MTC but did not revealed the information in his
application to take the bar examination.
Issue:
Whether or not Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar
examiners to re-evaluate and re-correct the
examination result of a bar candidate.
Ruling:
The court ruled that it is evident that Lanuevo has
deceptively staged a plot to convince each
examiner individually to re-evaluate the grades of
Galang in order to help him pass the bar without
prior authorization of the court. His duty as a bar
confident is limited only as a custodian of the
examination notebooks after they are corrected by
the examiners where he is tasked to tally the
general average of the bar candidate. All requests
for re-evaluation of grades from the bar exam shall
be made by the candidate themselves. With the
facts fully established that Lanuevo initiated the re-
evaluation of the exam answers of Galang without
the authority of the court, he has breached the trust
and confidence given to him by the court and was
disbarred with his name stricken out from the rolls of
attorneys. Galang was likewise disbarred for
fraudulently concealing the criminal charges
against him in his application for the bar exam while
under oath constituting perjury. The court believed
that the 5 bar examiners acted in good faith and
thereby absolved from the case but reminded to
perform their duties with due care.
 In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of
Attorneys, Michael Medado, Petitioner
BM No. 2540, September 24, 2013.
Facts:
Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar
exams in 1979. On 7 May 1980, he took the
Attorney’s Oath at the PICC. He was scheduled to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but
failed to do so allegedly because he had
misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys.
Several years later, while rummaging through his
things, he found said Notice. He then realized that
he had not signed in the roll, and that what he had
signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably
just an attendance record.
He thought that since he already took the oath, the
signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as important.
The matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys was
subsequently forgotten.
In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars,
he was required to provide his roll number for his
MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having
signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to
provide his roll number.
About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the
instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign
in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse
by characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor
intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an
honest error of judgment.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that
the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of
merit, saying that petitioner could offer no valid
justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of
Attorneys.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign
the Roll of Attorneys?
Ruling:
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject
to the payment of a fine and the imposition of a
penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice
of law.
Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate
penalty of disbarment, a penalty reserved for the
most serious ethical transgressions. In this case, said
action is not warranted.
The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of
good faith in filing the petition himself, albeit after
the passage of more than 30 years; that he has
shown that he possesses the character required to
be a member of the Philippine Bar; and that he
appears to have been a competent and able legal
practitioner, having held various positions at
different firms and companies.
However, Medado is not free from all liability for his
years of inaction.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful
justification, because everyone is presumed to
know the law and its consequences.
Medado may have at first operated under an
honest mistake of fact when he thought that what
he had signed at the PICC entrance before the
oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys.
However, the moment he realized that what he
had signed was just an attendance record, he
could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as
a valid justification. At that point, he should have
known that he was not a full-fledged member of
the Philippine Bar, as it was the act of signing
therein that would have made him so. When, in
spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue
practicing law, he willfully engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of
law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. At the heart of Canon 9 is
the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized
practice of law. This duty likewise applies to law
students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members
of the Bar, they are bound to conduct themselves
in accordance with the ethical standards of the
legal profession.
Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a
full-fledged lawyer. However, the Court imposed
upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing
him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after
receipt of the Resolution. He was also made to pay
a fine of P32,000. Also, during the one-year period,
petitioner was not allowed to engage in the
practice of law.
 Caronan vs. Caronan, AC No. 11316,
July 12, 2016.
Facts:
Patrick A. Caronan, complainant and Richard A.
Caronan, respondent are siblings. Richard is older
than Patrick Caronan. Patrick Caronan graduated
from University of Makati with a degree in Business
Administration. He worked as a Sales Associate for
Philippine Seven Corporation (PSC) until he was
promoted as a Store Manager of the 7-11 Store in
Muntinlupa. On the other hand, Richard Caronan
studied at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
(PLM), where he stayed for one 1 year before
transferring to the Philippine Military Academy
(PMA) in 1992. In 1993, he was discharged from the
PMA and focused on helping their father in the
family's car rental business.
In 1997, he moved to Nueva Vizcaya with his wife
and three children and never went back to school
to earn a college degree. In 1999, he told Patrick
that he enrolled in a law school in Nueva Vizcaya.
In 2004, their mother informed Patrick that Richard
passed the Bar Examinations and that he used his
name and college records from the University of
Makati to enrolled at St. Mary's University's College
of Law. Patrick ignored what his brother did.
In May 2009, Patrick was informed that the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was requesting his
presence for an investigation against "Atty. Patrick
A. Caronan for qualified theft and estafa. He
learned also that his brother was arrested for gun-
running activities, illegal possession of explosives,
and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22. He
developed a fear for his own safety and security
because he became the subject of talk in his office,
which he was forced to resign from his job. Hence,
he filed a complaint against his brother to stop use
of his name and identity, and illegal practice of
law. In his Answer, Richard 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
an earlier administrative case declared closed and
terminated in A.C. No. 10074.
The Investigating Commissioner issued his report
and recommendation finding respondent guilty of
illegally and falsely assuming complainant's name,
identity, and academic records. He recommended
that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys and the name "Richard A.
Caronan" be barred from being admitted as a
member of the Bar for making a mockery of the
judicial institution. On June 30, 2015, the IBP Board
of Governors issued Resolution No. adopting the
Investigating Commissioner's recommendation.
Issues:
Whether or not the IBP erred in 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. The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the
findings and recommendations of the IBP. Since
complainant -the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never
took the Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly
recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan"
be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. Under Section 6,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for
admission to the Bar Examination shall be admitted
unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed
a pre-law course. Clearly, respondent has not
completed the requisite pre-law degree.
Respondent also exhibited his dishonesty and utter
lack of moral fitness to be a member of the Bar
when he assumed the name, identity, and school
records of his own brother and dragged the latter
into controversies which eventually caused him to
fear for his safety and to resign from PSC where he
had been working for years. “Good moral
character is essential in those who would be
lawyers. This is imperative in the nature of the office
of a lawyer, the trust relation which exists between
him and his client, as well as between him and the
court,” the court said.
Finally, Respondent made also a mockery of the
legal profession by pretending to have the
necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. He also
tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged
unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing of
several criminal cases against him. Certainly,
respondent and his acts do not have a place in the
legal profession where one of the primary duties of
its members is to uphold its integrity and dignity.
WHEREFORE, respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a.
"Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" is found GUILTY of falsely
assuming the name, identity, and academic
records of complainant Patrick A. Caronan to
obtain a law degree and take the Bar
Examinations. The Court hereby resolves: the name
"Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069
is ordered DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of
Attorneys; PROHIBITED from engaging in the
practice of law or making any representations as a
lawyer; BARRED from being admitted as a member
of the Philippine Bar in the future; 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 the Office of the
Court Administrator is ordered to CIRCULATE notices
and POST 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 Disqualification of
Bar Examine Haron Meling, BM No. 1154,
June 8, 2004.
Facts:
On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez
(Melendrez) filed with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S.
Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar
Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate
disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine
Shari’a Bar.
In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did
not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar
Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal
cases before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Cotabato City, namely: Criminal Cases
Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral
Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less
Serious Physical Injuries.
The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident
which occurred on May 21, 2001, when Meling
allegedly uttered defamatory words against
Melendrez and his wife in front of media
practitioners and other people. Meling also
purportedly attacked and hit the face of
Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.
Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has
been using the title “Attorney” in his
communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of
Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a
member of the Bar. Attached to the Petition is an
indorsement letter which shows that Meling used
the appellation and appears on its face to have
been received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod
of Cotabato City on November 27, 2001.
Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated December
3, 2002, Meling filed his Answer with the OBC.
In his Answer, Meling explains that he did not
disclose the criminal cases filed against him by
Melendrez because retired Judge Corocoy Moson,
their former professor, advised him to settle his
misunderstanding with Melendrez. Believing in
good faith that the case would be settled because
the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them,
he being their former professor in the College of
Law, Meling considered the three cases that
actually arose from a single incident and involving
the same parties as “closed and
terminated.” Moreover, Meling denies the charges
and adds that the acts complained of do not
involve moral turpitude.
As regards the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling
admits that some of his communications really
contained the word “Attorney” as they were,
according to him, typed by the office clerk.
In its Report and Recommendation dated
December 8, 2003, the OBC disposed of the charge
of non-disclosure against Meling in this wise:
The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal
cases filed against him in his petition to take the Bar
Examinations are ludicrous. He should have known
that only the court of competent jurisdiction can
dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law
professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are
still pending. Furthermore, granting arguendo that
these cases were already dismissed, he is still
required to disclose the same for the Court to
ascertain his good moral character. Petitions to
take the Bar Examinations are made under oath,
and should not be taken lightly by an applicant.
Issue:
Whether or not the imposition of appropriate
sanctions upon Haron S. Meling is proper and shall
subsequently barred him from taking his lawyer’s
oath and signing on the Roll of Attorneys?
Held:
The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the
imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S.
Meling as a member of the Philippine Shari’a
Bar. Accordingly, the membership of Haron S.
Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar is hereby
SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the
suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as
the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from
taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of
Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the
same is DISMISSED for having become moot and
academic.
Rationale:
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the
Shari’a Court, is not a matter of right but merely a
privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not
only learned in the law but who are also known to
possess good moral character. The requirement of
good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the practice of law, its
continued possession is also essential for remaining
in the practice of law.
The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court
to determine whether there is satisfactory evidence
of good moral character of the applicant. The
nature of whatever cases are pending against the
applicant would aid the Court in determining
whether he is endowed with the moral fitness
demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the
existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks
the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately
proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to impugn
or affect the good moral character of the
applicant.
 In the Matter of the Admission to the Bar
and Oath-Taking of Al Argosino, BM No.
712, July 13, 1995 & RE: Petition of Al
Argosino to Take the Lawyers Oath, BM
No. 712, March 19, 1997.
Facts:
Al Argosino along with thirteen (13) other individuals
were charged with the crime of homicide in
connection with the death of Raul Camaligan,
which stemmed from the infliction of severe
physical injuries upon him in the course of “hazing”
conducted as part of university fraternity initiation
rites.
Argosino and his co-accused then entered into
plea bargaining with the prosecution and as a
result of such bargaining, pleaded guilty to the
lesser offense of homicide through reckless
imprudence. This plea was accepted by the trial
court, and hence were sentenced to suffer
imprisonment.
Argosino and his co-accused filed an application
for probation with the lower court. The application
for probation was granted.
Argosino then filed a Petition for Admission to Take
the 1993 Bar Examinations. In this Petition, he
disclosed the fact of his criminal conviction and his
then probation status. He was allowed to take the
1993 Bar Examinations and passed the said Bar
Examination. He was not, however, allowed to take
the lawyer’s oath of office.
Argosino filed a Petition to allow him to take the
attorney’s oath of office and to admit him to the
practice of law.
Issue:
Whether or not Argosino should be admitted to the
practice of law.
Ruling:
No, Argosino should not be admitted to the
practice of law.
The essentiality of good moral character in those
who would be lawyers is stressed in cases decided
by the Court. It is settled that the practice of law is
not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be
granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a
high personal privilege limited to citizens of good
moral character, with special educational
qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
Argosino’s participation in the deplorable “hazing”
activities certainly fell far short of the required
standard of good moral character. The deliberate
(rather than merely accidental or inadvertent)
infliction of severe physical injuries which
proximately led to the death of Camaligan,
certainly indicated serious character flaws on the
part of those who inflicted such injuries. Argosino
and his co-accused had failed to discharge their
moral duty to protect the life and well-being of a
“neophyte” who had, by seeking admission to the
fraternity involved, reposed trust and confidence in
all of them that, at the very least, he would not be
beaten to death. Thus, participation in the
prolonged and mindless physical beatings inflicted
upon Camaligan constituted evident rejection of
that moral duty and was totally irresponsible
behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the
participant was then possessed of good moral
character.
Hence, Argosino should not be admitted to the
practice of law lacking the requirement of good
moral character. Petition to take Attorney’s Oath
denied.
 Petition of Socorro Ladrera to Take the
Lawyer’s Oath, BM No. 135, January 29,
1987.
Socorro Ke. Ladrera passed the 1954 bar
examinations. Before he could participate in the
scheduled oath taking of successful bar examinees,
an administrative complaint for immorality was filed
against him by Lucila C. Casas.
Lucila stated that she and Ladrera were married on
May 23, 1944 and that when she married him he
represented himself to be single. Sometime in 1948,
Lucila learned that her husband had been previously
married on March 23, 1936 to Florencia Orticio by
whom he had a child called Monserrat. Lucila filed a
case for annulment of her marriage to Ladrera on
October 5, 1949. A decision was rendered on
February 13, 1950 annulling the marriage and
ordering Ladrera to give P40.00 a month for the
support of his three minor children with Lucila.
In 1951, Socorro Ladrera filed a civil case to declare
his first wife, Florencia Orticio as presumptively dead,
In a November 24, 1951 decision, the Court of First
Instance of Davao stated that Ladrera and Orticio
were married on March 23, 1936 in the Roman
Catholic church of Capul, Samar. The couple had a
daughter, Monserrat Ladrera, who lived with the
petitioner from birth up to the date of the decision. It
appears that, while the couple were living in Cebu,
Florencia Orticio eloped with a certain Ramon E
steban and left the conjugal home without the
petitioner's knowledge. Inspite of allegedly determined
searches by the petitioner in Samar, Cebu, Bohol, and
Manila, Florencia could not be located or her
whereabouts ascertained. The court therefore ruled
"that the petition to declare Florencia Orticio
presumptively dead for all intents and purposes of law
has satisfactorily been established."
Petitioner Ladrera had three children with his second
wife, Lucila C. Casas.
Sometime after the judicial declaration that his first
wife was presumptively dead, Ladrera married his
third wife, Socorro Santos by whom he has five
children. After Ladrera married a third time, his first
wife showed up and filed a bigamy case against him
with the Court of First Instance of Davao. According to
the immorality complaint filed by Lucila, the second
wife, this bigamy case was later dismissed as a result
of alleged monetary concessions which Ladrera made
in favor of Orticio. Incidentally, the latest information
about Florencia Orticio is that she is quite well off,
having inherited properties from her parents and that
she teaches Spanish at the University of Eastern
Philippines in Catarman, Samar.
On the basis of the administrative complaint filed
against Ladrera, this Court suspended his oath taking
and directed him to file an answer to the complaint. In
his Answer, Ladrera alleged that:
... [W]hen he married complainant, he
honestly believed that his first wife,
Florencia Orticio, was already dead;
that complainant in fact knew that
respondent was previously married
because respondent's child with
Florencia Orticio lived with respondent
and complainant after the latter's
marriage and until its annulment; that
respondent has paid all the monthly
pensions to complainant's three minor
children; that respondent later
discovered that complainant's motive
in suing for annulment of her marriage
to respondent was to get a share of
the properties acquired by respondent,
and as a matter of fact, complainant
has squandered and sold the
properties adjudicated to her in Civil
Case No. 470, and the money realized
from the sales was not used for the
benefit of their children; that the value
of the properties adjudicated to the
complainant in the case for liquidation
of conjugal properties was
approximately P37,000.00; that
respondent married Socorro Santos
and still lives with her in view of the
decision in Civil Case No. 501, dated
November 24, 1951, declaring
respondent's first wife, Florencia
Orticio presumptively dead; that
respondent's admission in Civil Case
No. 399 for annulment of
 complainant's marriage, that Florencia
Orticio was alive and residing in
Manila was made in good faith, he
having then received information from
his brother, Fr. Emerardo Ladrera, that
Florencia Orticio was in Manila; that
subsequent search and inquiries,
however, led the respondent to
believe that Florencia Orticio was not
alive and this resulted in the filing by
respondent of the petition in Civil Case
No. 501, praying that Florencia Orticio
be declared presumptively dead; that
Criminal Case No. 1863, against the
respondent for bigamy, was dismissed
by the Court of First Instance of Davao
upon motion of the City Attorney of
Davao; that the mere filing of civil
cases against respondent does not
necessarily reflect immorality on his
part, not to mention the circumstances
that said cases were settled or
otherwise dismissed; that
complainant's charges were motivated
by hatred and revenge, intended as a
ruse to compel respondent to give to
complainant another ten hectares of
first class agricultural land located in
Monteverde, Calinan, Davao City, plus
complainant's desire to put respondent
down politically.
The then Supreme Court Clerk of Court, Jose S. de la
Cruz, was ordered to investigate the administrative
charge and to submit his report.
On August 31, 1955, de la Cruz submitted his Report,
the salient portion of which reads:
It is noteworthy that the complainant
had chosen not to testify in the
investigation, and that by merely
presenting documentary evidence
consisting of copies of the complaint
for annulment of marriage in Civil
Case No. 399; the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Davao in
said case annulling the marriage
between complainant and respondent;
the decision in Special Case No. 501
wherein the Court of First Instance of
Davao declared respondent's first
wife, Florencia Orticio, presumptively
dead; the order of the Court of First
Instance of Davao in Criminal Case
No. 1863 against respondent for
bigamy, dismissing said case, the
complainant is basing her charges of
immorality against respondent upon
the latter's bad faith arising from the
fact that, while in the annulment
proceedings respondent and his
attorney admitted that Florencia
Orticio was alive, in Special Case No.
501 filed in 1951 by respondent, the
latter claimed that said Florencia
Orticio could not be located and was
unheard from for several years, and
from the fact that he married for the
third time Socorro Santos while
respondent's first wife was alive, and
who, as a matter of fact, filed a case
for bigamy against respondent.
Upon the other hand, the respondent
testified during the investigation and
declared that he acted in good faith,
first, in marrying complainant;
secondly, in instituting Special Case
No. 501; and, thirdly, in marrying
Socorro Santos. He explained that
when he married complainant in 1944,
he honestly believed that his first wife,
Florencia Orticio, was already dead;
that he had to admit in the annulment
proceedings, Civil Case No. 399, that
Florencia was alive because of a letter
he received from his brother, Fr.
Ladrera; that he filed the subsequent
Special Case No. 501 after suspecting
that complainant's purpose in
annulling her marriage to respondent
was merely to obtain her snare in the
conjugal properties, and in order also
to establish definitely his civil status;
and that he married his third wife,
Socorro Santos, after the decision in
Special Case No. 501, declaring his
first wife Florencia presumptively
dead, had become final.
While the complainant's charges are
based upon inferences or
assumptions, the testimony of
respondent is unrefuted that he acted
in good faith In the first place, the fact
that no annulment proceeding was
instituted by complainant until after
three children were born to her
marriage with respondent, at least
shows that Florencia Orticio was not
generally known to be alive. In the
second place, the admission by
respondent and his counsel in the
annulment proceeding that Florencia
was alive, is explained by
respondent's receipt of a letter from
his brother, Fr. Ladrera, to the effect
that she might still be living, which at
any rate was the very fact alleged in
the complaint for annulment. In the
third place, respondent was
constrained to file Special Case No.
501 because he subsequently realized
that complainant annulled her
marriage to respondent mainly to get
her share of their conjugal properties,
and because he also wanted to
respondent settle his own civil status
after failing to locate the whereabouts
of his first wife, Florencia Orticio; and
the respondent undoubtedly had the
right to look for Florencia after his
marriage to complainant was judicially
set aside on the ground that Florencia
was alive. It is very significant that no
opposition whatsoever was interposed
in Special Case No. 501 either by
complainant or by Florencia inspite of
due publication of the proceedings;
and the final decision therein can be
 said to have legally paved the way for
respondent's third marriage to Socorro
Santos. As a matter of fact, in the
order of the Court of First Instance of
Davao dismissing the bigamy case
against respondent, it was in effect
held that respondent married Socorro
Santos without fraudulent intent, and
said order had become final.
Complainant's allegation that
respondent has failed to comply with
his obligation to pay the monthly
support of his three children with
complainant as ordered in the decision
of the Court of First Instance of Davao
in Civil Case No. 399, is neither
touched nor pressed in complainant's
memorandum. At any rate,
complainant may avail herself of any
appropriate civil remedy for the
collection or enforcement (or even
increase) of said support; and
respondent has presented evidence to
show that he had complied with his
obligation at least to the date of this
investigation in March, 1955. The
claim that respondent is immoral
because of the filing against him of
several civil cases, deserves no
serious consideration since, according
to respondent's evidence, said cases,
aside from having been dismissed or
otherwise settled, do not necessarily
imply moral perversity.
WHEREFORE, it is recommended that
respondent Socorro Ke. Ladrera be
allowed to take the lawyer's oath.
The favorable recommendation, notwithstanding, this
Court, on September 7, 1955 issued a resolution
disqualifying Ladrera from taking the lawyer's oath, to
wit:
Acting upon the complaint for
immorality filed by Lucila Casas
against Socorro Ke. Ladrera, 1954
successful bar candidate; the answer
filed by the latter; the evidence taken
during the investigation; the report of
the investigator; as well as all the
circumstances surrounding the case,
the Court RESOLVED to disqualify
respondent Socorro Ke. Ladrera from
taking the lawyer's oath
A motion for reconsideration of the above-quoted
resolution was denied in another resolution issued on
October 11, 1955.
Up to now or more than thirty-one years after he
passed the bar examinations, Ladrera has not been
allowed to take the lawyer's oath. All his motions to
allow him to take the oath filed every year without fail
beginning on May 23, 1956 up to September 7, 1982
have been denied. Before us, now is Ladrera's April
15, 1985 urgent motion, to wit:
NOW COMES your petitioner, by and
for himself and unto tills Honorable
Supreme Tribunal most respectfully
stated:
That your petitioner has been deprived
from taking his Lawyer's Oath as
member of the Philippine Bar since
January 20, 1955, because of a
petition of Lucila C. Casas who has
long ago withdrawn her complaint and
has in fact attested to the good
reputation and character of the herein
respondent;
That considering the time that has
elapsed which is already more than
thirty (30) years is more than sufficient
punishment, your respondent now
prays this Honorable Tribunal to grant
him the privilege to take the Lawyer's
Oath together with the new successful
candidates scheduled to take their
oath on April 25, 1985 at the
Philippine Convention Center, Manila.
On October 4, 1986, he wrote another letter, this time
to the Court Administrator asking for the approval of
his petition of nearly 32 years.
An applicant for admission to the bar must be of good
moral character. (Rule 138, Sec. 2). What constitutes
good moral character within the meaning of the rule
has been elucidated in precedent cases.
In Carmen E. Bacarro v. Ruben M. Pinataca (127
SCRA 218), this Court cited various precedent cases
and ruled:
One of the indispensable requisites for
admission to the Philippine Bar is that
the applicant must be of good moral
character. This requirement aims to
maintain and uphold the high moral
standards and the dignity of the legal
profession, and one of the ways of
achieving this end is to admit to the
practice of this noble profession only
those persons who are known to be
honest and to possess good moral
character. (Martin, Ruperto G., "Legal
& Judicial Ethics," 5th ed., p. 15, citing
In Re Parazo, 82 Phil 230) As a man
of law, (a lawyer) is necessarily a
leader of the community, looked up to
as a model citizen. (Planza v.
Archangel 21 SCRA 1, 4). He sets an
example to his fellow citizens not only
for his respect for the law, but also for
his clean living. (Martin, supra, p. 36)
Thus, becoming a lawyer is more than
just going through a law course and
passing the Bar examinations. One
who has the lofty aspiration of
becoming a member of the Philippine
Bar must satisfy this Court, which has
the power, jurisdiction and duty to
pass upon the qualifications, ability
and moral character of candidates for
admission to the Bar, that he has
 measured up to that rigid and Ideal
standard of moral fitness required by
his chosen vocation.
The Court, in the past, consistently denied the annual
petitions of Ladrera that he be allowed to take the
lawyer's oath. He claimed that when he married his
second wife, he sincerely believed that his first wife
was already dead. He married his third wife only after
the first wife had been declared presumptively dead
and after his second marriage-e had been annulled.
There may have been compliance with a strict or
narrow interpretation of the letter of the law but the
Court was of the view that Ladrera had failed to live
up to the high moral standards required for
membership in the Bar.
All of that, however, is in the past. Ladrera now states
that if he has committed an act which justified the
suspension from taking the lawyer's oath, the time
that has elapsed is more than sufficient punishment.
He submits that "he humbly believes with all candor
and sincerity that he has more than atoned for it by
living a very moral and exemplary life since then."
Apart from his marital misadventures, there is nothing
in the records to warrant a permanent denial of
Ladreras petition, He worked as a janitor-messenger
in Cebu City while pursuing his college education at
night. He has also served in fairly important positions
in the government such as Technical Assistant to
President Ramon Magsaysay, Special Assistant to
President Carlos P. Garcia, and member and later
Chairman of the Board of People's Homesite and
Housing Corporation. He has served as Treasurer of
the Escolta Walking Corporation and Director of the
Foreign Affairs Association of the Philippines.
As early as 1960, then Senator Quintin Paredes
endorsed Ladrera's petition stating that the latter was
"honest, dependable, and trustworthy" and followed
this up with another endorsement in 1966.
In July 13, 1966, Lucila Casas filed a motion for the
withdrawal or dismissal of her complaint. Casas
stated as her "considered opinion" that Ladrera has
been sufficiently punished by the then 12-year
suspension of his oathtaking as a lawyer. Casas
stated that her children by Ladrera — Teresita,
graduating with AB and BSC degrees; Belen,
preparatory medicine student; and Socorro, Jr. an
engineering student — were suffering from the stigma
of the punishment which arose from her complaint.
Casas observed that Ladrera was "behaving well and
leading an exemplary life."
The records show various indorsements of good
character from lawyers, a law professor in Davao City,
a congressman, and others. A priest, Fr. Emiliano
Sabandal attested that Ladrera "is a man of high
moral character, humble and possessed with an
innate religious quality; as a consequence thereof he
is a daily communicant of the blessed sacrament."
In the 32 years since Ladrera passed the bar
examinations, he has supported and sent through
college all his children by the three women he married
— a daughter by Florencia Orticio, three children by
Lucila Casas, and five children by Socorro Santos.
Some of the children have joined their father in his
many petitions asking for the privilege of taking his
lawyer's oath.
Ladrera was a guerrilla officer during World War II in
Bohol and Mindanao. After the war, he was elected
head of the Davao War Veterans Association and led
the veterans' movement to acquire some of the lands
left by Japanese-owners. He became a successful
businessman in Davao, acquiring a gasoline station,
three corn and rice mills, and a transportation line
called "Ladrera Overland Transit".
There was moral deliquency in Mr. Ladrera's younger
days but he has made up for it by observing a
respectable, useful, and religious life since then.
Thirty-two years of rejecting his petitions are enough
for chastisement and retribution. Considering that the
respondent has realized the wrongfulness of his past
conduct and demonstrated a sincere willingness to
make up for that moral lapse, the Court has decided
to admit him to membership in the Philippine bar.
WHEREFORE, the PETITION of Mr. Socorro Ke.
Ladrera to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath is
hereby GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
 De Jesus-Paras vs. Vailoces, AC No. 439,
April 12, 1961.
 Cayetano vs. Monsod, et al. GR No.
100113, September 3, 1991.
Facts:
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the
Chairman of the Commission on Elections. His
appointment was affirmed by the Commission on
Appointments. Monsod’s appointment was
opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that
he does not qualify for he failed to meet the
Constitutional requirement which provides that the
chairman of the COMELEC should have been
engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.
Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:
1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.
2. Immediately after passing, worked in his
father’s law firm for one year.
3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where
he had a degree in economics and held various
positions in various foreign corporations.
4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held
executive jobs for various local corporations until
1986.
5. In 1986, he became a member of the
Constitutional Commission.
Issue:
Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the
COMELEC? What constitutes practice of law?
Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the
lawyerentrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator
of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poor — verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement — that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years. As noted by various authorities, the practice
of law is not limited to court appearances. The
members of the bench and bar and the informed
laymen such as businessmen, know that in most
developed societies today, substantially more legal
work is transacted in law offices than in the
courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do
both litigation and non-litigation work also know
that in most cases they find themselves spending
more time doing what is loosely described as
business counseling than in trying cases.
In the course of a working day the average general
practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks,
each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills,
legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other
interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of
lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform
at least some legal services outside their specialty.
By no means will most of this work involve litigation,
unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types
— a litigator who specializes in this work to the
exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require
the lawyer to have mastered the full range of
traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-
giving, document drafting, and negotiation.
 Lingan vs. Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga,
AC No. 5377, June 30, 2014.
 Vargas vs. Kilcline, et al. GR No. L-45319,
June 6, 2986.
 In the Matter of the IBP Membership
Dues of Atty. Marcial Edilion, AM No.
1928, August 3, 1978.
Facts:
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed
practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board
of Governors recommended to the Court the
removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll
of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his
membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule
of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section
24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the
organization of IBP, payment of membership fee
and suspension for failure to pay the same.
Edillon contends that the stated provisions
constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in
the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-
condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good
standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the
corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of
this compelled financial support of the said
organization to which he is admitted personally
antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to
Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes the
above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP
By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
Issue:
Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion
to pay his membership fee to the IBP?
Ruling:
The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which
every lawyer must be a member of as distinguished
from bar associations in which membership is
merely optional and voluntary. All lawyers are
subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the
governance of the Bar including payment a
reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements.
The Rules of Court only compels him to pay his
annual dues and it is not in violation of his
constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration
does not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. He is free to attend or not the meeting of
his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote
in its election as he chooses. The only compulsion to
which he is subjected is the payment of annual
dues. Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of
the police power of the State.
The right to practice law before the courts of this
country should be and is a matter subject to
regulation and inquiry. And if the power to impose
the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a
penalty designed to enforce its payment is not void
as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, the
Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission,
suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of
lawyers and their regulation as part of its inherent
judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court
may compel all members of the Integrated Bar to
pay their annual dues. For PRINCIPLE: The Supreme
Court in order to further the State‘s legitimate
interest in elevating the quality of professional legal
services, may require thet the cost of the regulatory
program – the lawyers.
 Garrido vs. Attys. Garrido & Valencia,
AC No. 6593, February 4, 2010.
 In Re: Suspension from the Practice of
Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty.
Leon Maquera, BM No. 793, July 30,
2004.
Facts: In a Letter dated August 20, 1996, the District
Court of Guam informed this Court of the
suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera)
from the practice of law in Guam. He was
suspended from the practice of law in Guam for
misconduct, as he acquired his client's property as
payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a
consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee
for handling his client's case. Under Section 27, Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar in a
foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been required to take before admission to practice, or for
admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a
disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided the party toa case without authority to do so. The
foreign court's action is by reason of an act or practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
omission constituting deceit, malpractice or other gain, either personally or through paid agents or
gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a brokers, constitutes malpractice.
violation of the lawyer's oath. The case was referred
by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines  Arnado vs. Atty. Adaza, AC No. 9834,
(IBP) for investigation report and recommendation.
In its decision, the Superior Court of Guam stated
August 26, 2015.
that Maquera was the counsel of a certain Castro.
Benavente the creditor Castro, obtained a
judgement against Castro, thus Castro;s property  BM No. 3360, February 13, 2018, Re:
was to be sold at a public auction in satisfaction of Appearance of Lawyers who are
his obligation to Benavente. However, Castro
retains the right of redemption. In consideration of
Seventy-Five Years Old and above
Maquera¶s legal services, Castro entered into an before the Office of the Bar Confidant
oral agreement with Maquera and assigned his Prior.
right of redemption in favor of the latter. On
January 8, 1988, Maquera exercised Castro's right of
redemption by paying Benavente US$525.00 in
satisfaction of the judgment debt. Thereafter,

Maquera had the title to the property transferred in 
his name.And after, sold the property to C.S. Chang 
and C.C. Chang for Three Hundred Twenty 
Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$320,000.00). The Guam 
Bar Ethics Committee filed a Petition in the Superior
Court of Guam praying that Maquera be

sanctioned for violations of Rules 1.5 and 1.8(a) of 
the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model 
Rules) in force in Guam. In its Petition, 
theCommittee claimed that Maquera obtained an 
unreasonably high fee for his services. The
Committee further alleged that Maquera himself

admitted his failure to comply with the requirement 
in Rule 1.8 (a) of the Model Rules that a lawyer shall 
not enter into a business transaction with a client or 
knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest adverse to a 
client unless the transaction and the terms
governing the lawyer's acquisition of such interest

are fair and reasonable to the client, and are fully 
disclosed to, and understood by the client and 
reduced in writing. On the basis of the Decision of 
the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP concluded that 
although the said court found Maquera liable for
misconduct, "there is no evidence to establish that

Maquera committed a breach of ethics in the 
Philippines."However, the IBP still resolved to 
suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay his 
annual dues as a member of the IBP since 1977, 
which failure is, in turn, a ground for removal of the
name of the delinquent member from the Roll of

Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the 
Revised Rules of Court. Issue:Whether or not 
Maquera, who was suspended from the practice of 
law in Guam, be suspended as member of the 
Philippine Bar on the same ground of his suspension
in Guam. Ruling: The power of the Court to disbar or

suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions committed in 
a foreign jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Rule 138 
of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended by 
Supreme Court Resolution dated February 13, 1992,
which states: Section 27. Disbarment or suspension
of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.²A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is