G.R. No.120420 April 21, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RUFINO MIRANDILLA BERMAS VITUG, J.: FACTS: Complainant Manuela Bermas, 15 years old, was raped by her own father, appellant Rufino Bermas, while she was lying down on a wooden bed inside their house armed with a knife and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously has carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against her. Hence, complainant as assisted by her mother accuses Rufino Mirandilla Bermas, filed a complaint against the accused of the crime of Rape before the RTC of Parañaque. Accused Rufino Mirandilla Bermas pleaded not guilty. The accused denied the allegation hence he even performed the dual role of a father and a mother to his children since the time of hisseparation from his wife and he thinks that the complainant might have been motivated by ill-will or revenge in view of the numerous scolding’s that she has received from him on account of her frequent coming home late at night. The trial court convicted the accused guilty of the offense charged andsentencing him to suffer the extreme penalty of death.I SSUE: WON the accused was denied his constitutional right to effective and vigilant counsel. RULING:YES, SC remanded the case to the trial court. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in this regard renders himadministratively liable.In the instant case, the aforenamed defense lawyers did not protect, much less uphold, thefundamental rights of the accused. Instead, they haphazardly performed their function as counsel de oficio to the detriment and prejudice of the accused Sevilleno, however guilty he might have been found to beafter trial. Inevitably, this Court must advise Attys. Agravante, Pabalinas and Saldavia to adhere closelyand faithfully to the tenets espoused in the Code of Professional Responsibility, otherwise, commission of any similar act in the future will be severely sanctioned. The Second Assistant Prosecutor issued acertification to the effect that the accused had waived his right to a preliminary investigation. On the dayof his arraignment, the accused was brought before the trial court without counsel. The court thereuponassigned Atty. Rosa Elmira C Villamin of the Public Attorney's Office to be the counsel de officio .Accused forthwith pleaded not guilty. The pre-trial was waived.The prosecution placed complainantManuela Bermas at the witness stand. The counsel de oficio testified on direct examination with hardlyany participation by defense counsel who, inexplicably, later waived the cross-examination and thenasked the court to be relieved of her duty as counsel de officio . Furthermore, Atty. Roberto Gomez wasappointed the new counsel de officio and asked for a ten minute recess before he began his crossexamination which is far too inadequate On the day the defense will present their evidence another lawyer Atty.Lonzame was appointed as counsel de oficio. Therefore, the accused has not properly andeffectively been accorded the right to counsel. So important is the right to counsel that it has beenenshrined in our fundamental law and its precursor laws. A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006 MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN vs. ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL TINGA, J.: FACTS:SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin were involved ina shooting incident which resulted in the death of two individuals and the serious injury of another. As aresult, Informations were filed against them before the Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder eventually they were convicted. Complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for the accused.Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan but it was denied still therespondent filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, with theattached Second Motion for Reconsideration and filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari.Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again despite the frequent telephone callsthey made to his office. When respondent did not return their phone inquiries, complainants went torespondent¶s last known address only to find out that he had moved out without any forwarding address.More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were constrained to personally verify the statusof the petition and they were shocked that their petition was denied due to late filing and non-payment of docket fees and said resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest had already been issued againstthem.Complainants filed before the SC an affidavit-complaint against Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal(respondent) for violation of the Lawyer¶s Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence for allegedmishandling of the petition which eventually led to its denial with finality. Respondent contends that hewas not the original counsel of the accused. He only met the accused during the promulgation of theSandiganbayan decision convicting the accused of two counts of homicide and one count of attemptedhomicide. He was merely requested by the original counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be present at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision and the petition was filed within thereglementary period. Respondent sent a letter the PO3 Joaquin for his formal withdrawal as counsel butthe latter did not reply. Upon the investigation of the IBP, it ruled respondent guilty of violation of theCode of Professional Responsibility and recommended the imposition of penalty ranging from reprimandto suspension of six (6) months.ISSUE: Whether respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling G.R. No. 152621-23,which eventually led to the ad cautelam petition¶s dismissal with finality. RULING:YES, SC ordered for the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law for three (3)months. The SC agreed to the IBP that the dismissal of the ad cautelam petition was primarily due to thegross negligence of respondent Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelityto such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve theclient with competence and diligence, and champion the latter¶s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care,and devotion. In a there are rules. Dajoyag. Lawyering is not a business. in the creation of lawyer-client relationship. requiring a veryhigh degree of fidelity and good faith that is required by reason of necessity and public interest. Dajoyag . it can be gleaned that Atty. Atty.From the records. Thus. after agreeing to take up the cause of a client. is the primary consideration. respondent ought to know that he was the one who should have filed the Notice toWithdraw and not the accused. thefiduciary duty to his client which is of very delicate. when the Supreme Court dismissed it with finality. to file on timethe petition for certiorari. Ramos against Atty.In this case. Ramos vs. respondent has ahigher duty to be circumspect in defending the accused for it is not only the property of the accused whichstands to be lost but more importantly. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficientcause is. ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it. Dajoyag moved for an extension to file which was granted but the Resolution granting the 1st extension contained a warning . which affirmed the dismissal by the Labor Arbiter of a complaint for legal dismissal.criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of the accused. it is a profession in which duty of public service. Mariano A. His tale that he sent a registered letter to the accused and gave theminstructions on how to go about respondent¶s withdrawal from the case defies credulity. considerably restricted. even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship.It appears that Ramos was terminated from work for failure of his lawyer. A lawyer¶s right to withdraw from a case before its finaladjudication arises only from the client¶s written consent or from a good causeFurthermore. not money. The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime withor without cause. for negligence in failing to appeal a ruling of the NLRC. Dajoyag Jr.C. among those.He should not have relied on his client to do it for him if such was truly the case. a lawyer owes fidelity to both causeand client. It should have been respondent who undertook the appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation. their right to their life and liberty. He is not atliberty to abandon it without reasonable cause.A. No. however. 5174 FACTS: This is a complaint filed by Ernesto M. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that anattorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. exacting and confidential character. as one of the principal defendants. after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings. Certiorari y RP instituted a Complaint before the Sandiganbayan (SB). let the period lapse withoutsubmitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so ". the members of the law firm delivered to its clientdocuments which substantiate the client's equity holdings. which includes shares of stocks in the named corps. SANDIGANBAYAN [1996] y Special Civil Action in the SC. et al. through the Presidential Commissionon Good Gov¶t (PCGG) against Eduardo M. Due diligence requires that they should conduct a timely inquiry with the divisionclerks of court of the action on their motions and. Roco. Eduardo Cojuangco. and also that he requested for a second and lastextension of 20 days for which he complied with the filing of the Petition for Certiorari on the last day of the supposed extended period. the lack of notice thereof will not make them any lessaccountable for their omission. 33 (CC No. Abello. on the other hand. Concepcion. Cojuangco.that no further extension would begiven. and lawyers should never presumethat their motions for extension or postponement will be granted or that they will be granted the length of time they pray for. Jr. He further explained that he relied on good faith that his Motion for 1st Extension of 30 days would be grantedwithout the warning ± as this was only a first extension. Atty. explained that he was not aware of this because when he filed hismotion for last extension for only 20 days. y .ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. 0033) entitled "RP vs. Rule 12. Motions for extension are notgranted as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: ³A lawyer shall not.. Ramos is guilty of negligence. Dajoyag." y Among the defendants named in the case are herein petitioners and herein private respondentRaul S.in PCGG Case No. he had not yet received the copy of said resolution.RULING: Yes.for the recovery of alleged illgotten wealth. who all were then partners of the law firm Angara. Regalaand Cruz (ACCRA) Law Offices. memoranda or briefs. ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for its clients andin the performance of these services. REGALA vs. 0033. shares & its institutionalization through presidential directives of the coconut monopoly. 33 as identity of the inthe companies Petitioners were included in 3rd Amended Complaint for having plotted. schemed. devised. petitioners and private respondent Raul Roco admit that they assistedin the organization and acquisition of the companies included in CC No.In the course of their dealings with their clients. and in keepingwith the office practice. y Petitioner Paraja Hayudini. ACCRA Investments Corp. including theacquisition of San Miguel Corp. UNICOM. through the use of coconut levy funds. y Petitioners then filed their "Comment &/or Opposition" w/ Counter-Motion that PCGG excludethem as parties-defendants like Roco. As membersof the ACCRA Law Firm.COCOLIFE. was in furtherance of legitimate lawyering. the members of the law firm acquire informationrelative to the assets of clients as well as their personal and business circumstances. y In their answer to the Expanded Amended Complaint. petitioners alleged that their participationin the acts w/ w/c their co-defendants are charged. Roco having promised he¶ll reveal the principal/s for whom he acted as nominee/stockholder involved in PCGG Case # 33 y & "3rd Amended Case No.conspired & confederated w/each other in setting up.. ACCRA lawyers acted as nomineesstockholders of the said corporationsinvolved in sequestration proceedings. filed a separate answer denying the allegations in the complaint implicating him in the alleged ill-gotten wealth. CIC. & more than 20 other coconut levy funded corps. became the holder of roughly 3. .3% of the total outstanding capital stock of UCPB. thefinancial & corporate framework & structures that led to establishment of UCPB. Through insidious means & machinations. y PCGG filed a "Motion to Admit 3rd Amended Complaint" Complaint" w/cexcluded Roco from the complaint in PCGG party-defendant. who had separated from ACCRA law firm. COCOMARK. likewise. namely: o SB gravely abused its discretion in subjecting petitioners to the strict application of thelaw of agency. o SB gravely abused its discretion in not considering petitioners & Roco similarly situated&. Hence. However. deserving equal treatment o . 33. during said proceedings. Petitioner Hayudini. nor had he undertaken to reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder. y Consequently. filed his own MFR w/c was also denied thus. ACCRA lawyers filed the petition for certiorari. It held. thus. assailing SB¶s resolution on essentially same grounds averred by petitioners. PCGG presented supposed proof to substantiate compliance by Roco of the sameconditions precedent. the existence and identity of the client. precedent for the exclusion of petitioners:(a)the disclosure of the identity of its clients. for their refusal to comply w/ theconditions required by PCGG.´ y ACCRA lawyers filed MFR w/c was denied.(b)submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship.y PCGG set the ff. y In a Resolution. he filed aseparate petition for certiorari. Roco didn¶t refute petitioners'contention that he did actually not reveal the identity of the client involved in PCGG Case No. ³ACCRA lawyers cannot excuse themselves from theconsequences of their acts until they have begun to establish the basis for recognizing the privilege. and(c)the submission of the deeds of assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clientscovering their respective shareholdings. SB denied the exclusion of petitioners. there are rules. w/ due consideration to constitutional rights of petitioners y PCGG. y An attorney is more than a mere agent or servant. and mandato (contract of agency) wherein a friend on whom reliance could be placed makes a contract in his name. among those. the .SB gravely abused its discretion in not holding that. But the lawyerclientrelationship is more than that of the principal-agent and lessorlessee. under the facts of this case. ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it. o SB gravely abused its discretion in not requiring that dropping of partydefendants be based on reasonable & just grounds.WON attorney-client privilege prohibits petitioners from revealing the identity of their client(s) & theother information requested by the PCGG y YES. alleging that the revelation of theidentity of the client is not w/in the ambit of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege. through its counsel. refutes petitioners' contention. Nature of lawyer-client relationship is premised on the Roman Law concepts of locatioconductio operarum (contract of lease of services) where one person lets his services and another hires them without reference to the object of which the services are to be performed. An attorney occupies a "quasi-judicial office" sincehe is in fact an officer of the Court & exercises his judgment in the choice of courses of action to be taken favorable to his client. because he possesses special powers of trustand confidence reposed on him by his client. theattorney-client privilege prohibits petitioners from revealing the identity of their client(s)and the other information requested by the PCGG. in the creation of lawyer-client relationship. because they are evidence of nomineestatus. butgives up all that he gained by the contract to the person who requested him. nor arethe documents it required (deeds of assignment) protected. whereinlawyers' services may be compensated by honorarium or for hire. y Thus. the Court held that this duty may be asserted in refusing to disclose the name of petitioners'client(s) in the case at bar. to preserve the secrets of hisclient. is worded in Rules of Court. y . beexamined as to any communication made by the client to him. requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith. It is the duty of an attorney: (e) tomaintain inviolate the confidence.´) Canon 15. y Attorney-client privilege. y Further. 24.or clerk be examined. stenographer. professional employment. y Thus. can an attorney's secretary. or with a view to. concerning any fact theknowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. without the consent of the client and his employer. or his advice given thereon in thecourse of. Disqualification byreason of privileged communication. and at every peril to himself. The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned inconfidence in the following cases:xxx An attorney cannot. y An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent upon the degree of confidence whichexists between lawyer and client which in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamicand fruitful exchange and flow of information.exacting and confidential character. CPR alsodemands a lawyer's fidelity to client. that isrequired by reason of necessity and public interest based on the hypothesis that abstinence fromseeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice. without the consent of his client. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states: Sec. and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval. 20. y This duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17.fiduciary duty to his client which is of a very delicate. CPR (³A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of hisclient and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Rule 130:Sec. y Exceptions to the gen. as a general rule. o Privilege generally pertains to subject matter of relationship o Due process considerations require that the opposing party should. o Privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been established. his identity is privileged.The general rule is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.S. Ex-Parte Enzor and U. y Reasons advanced for the general rule: o Court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood.know his adversary. v. o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability. rule: o Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client'sname would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer'sadvice. Hodge and Zweig: The subject matter of therelationship was so closely related to the issue of the client's identity that the privilege actually attached to both. . ´ A o Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless.: couldn¶t reveal name of his client as this wouldexpose the latter to civil litigation. Matter of Shawmut Mining Company: ³We feel sure that under such conditionsno case has ever gone to the length of compelling an attorney. but the nature of the transactionsto w/c it related. at the instance of ahostile litigant. the client's name is privileged.Neugass v. Korner: a lawyer could not be forced to reveal the names of clientswho employed him to pay sums of money to gov¶t voluntarily in settlementof undetermined income taxes. & w/ no gov¶t audit or investigation into that client's income tax liability pending y Apart from these principal exceptions. to disclose not only his retainer. unsued on. Terminal Cab Corp. y . the said name would furnish the only link that would form thechain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime. the identity of the client has been held to be privileged. byrevealing the client's name. when such information could be made the basis of a suit againsthis client. there exist other situations which could qualify asexceptions to the general rule: o if the content of any client communication to a lawyer is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance o where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed & it isthe identity w/c is intended to be confidential. since such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure of the entiretransaction. Baird vs. framework and set-up of the corporations in question.e. in their capacity as lawyers. y From these conditions. regarding the financial and corporatestructure. such thatdisclosure would then reveal client confidences. because the privilege. under the third main exception. y Instant case falls under at least 2 exceptions to the general rule. . y The link between the alleged criminal offense and the legal advice or legal service sought wasduly established in the case at bar. among others. by no less than the PCGG itself as can be seen in the 3 specificconditions laid down by the PCGG which constitutes petitioners' ticket to non-prosecution shouldthey accede thereto. we can readily deduce that the clients indeedconsulted the petitioners. revelation of the client's name would obviously providethe necessary link for the prosecution to build its case. y Petitioners have a legitimate fear that identifying their clients would implicate them in the veryactivity for which legal advice had been sought. the aforementioned deeds of assignmentcovering their client's shareholdings. particularly the third. disclosure of the alleged client's name would lead to establish said client's connection withthe very fact in issue of the case. y Secondly. the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealthin the aforementioned corporations.Summarizing these exceptions. information relating to the identity of a client may fall within theambit of the privilege when the client's name itself has an independent significance. which is privileged information. y First. as statedearlier. petitioners gave their professional advice in the form of. In turn. where none otherwise exists. i.. protects the subject matter or the substance (without which there would be no attorney-client relationship). y In fine. Whether or not the act for which the client sought advice turns out to be illegal. it may be invoked in a case where a clientthinks he might have previously committed something illegal and consults his attorney. y The utmost zeal given by Courts to the protection of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilegeand lawyer's loyalty to his client is evident in the duration of the protection. is consonant with the principal policy behindthe privilege.. which exists not onlyduring the relationship. i. not yet in the hands of the prosecution. that for the purpose of promoting freedom of consultation of legal advisors byclients. his name cannot be used or disclosed if the disclosure leads to evidence. which mightlead to possible action against him. the crux of petitioner's objections ultimately hinges on their expectation that if the prosecution has a case against their clients.e.Otherwise. y The Baird exception. What is soughtto be avoided then is the exploitation of the general rule in what may amount to a fishingexpedition by the prosecution. information which unavoidably reveals muchabout the nature of the transaction which may or may not be illegal. for illicit purposes. the latter's case should be built upon evidence painstakingly gathered by them from their own sources and not from compelled testimonyrequiring them to reveal the name of their clients. applicable to the instant case.y While the privilege may not be invoked for illegal purposes such as in a case where a client takeson the services of an attorney. apprehension of compelled disclosure from attorneys must be eliminated. it would expose the lawyers themselves to possible . y We have no choice but to uphold petitioners' right not to reveal the identity of their clients under pain of the breach of fiduciary duty owing to their clients. but extends even after the termination of the relationship. as the facts of the instant case clearlyfall w/in recognized exceptions to the rule that the client's name is not privileged information. Complainant. LIM. VILLAROSA is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. we must look into the cases involved. without due notice prior to a scheduled hearing. Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A. breach of attorney-clientconfidentiality was committed by respondent. respondent. Jalandoni.Held: Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) highlights the need for . NICANOR V.The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent. respondent ATTY. was that heis a retained counsel of Dennis G. NICANOR V.vs. JR.Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests. Lumot A. This is an estafa case filed by the representatives of PRCitself against spouses Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena It is worthy to note that from the outset. et al. and2. Jalandoni who is the Chairman/President of PentaResorts Corporation (PRC) and owns the biggest shares of stocks in the corporation. was sued whichinvolved the possession of land where Alhambra hotel.ATTY. surprisingly filed a Motion towithdraw as counsel. Jalbuena. Whether respondent properly withdrew his services as counsel of record of Jalandoni.Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel. hence delicate and confidential mattersinvolving all the personal circumstances of his client were entrusted to the respondent. respondentalready knew that Dennis G. one day before its scheduled hearing. Jalandoni being married to her eldestdaughter. To effectivelyunravel the alleged conflict of interest. VILLAROSA.Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests. Respondent as a consequence of saidAttorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A. JALANDONI. A careful perusal of said Motion to Withdrawas Counsel will conclusively show that no copy thereof was furnished to Lumot A. the only property owned by PRC. Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled byrespondent. breach of attorney-clientconfidentiality and deliberate withholding of records were committed by respondent. Jalbuena. Respondent. Facts: In this case. Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. 97-9865.. Carmen J. Thisis Civil Case No. HUMBERTO C. is situated.litigation by their clients in viewof the strict fiduciary responsibility imposed on them in exercise of their duties. in behalf of PENTA RESORTS CORPORATION/Attorney-in-Fact of LUMOT A. Jalandoni.Later on. neither does it bear her conformityThe grounds alleged by respondent for his withdrawal as counsel of Lumot A.Issues: 1. neither is it material that the intention . to use against his first client anyknowledge acquired through their connection. and also whether he will becalled upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquire in the previousemployment.Jalandoni was specifically named as party-litigant in some of the cases mentioned.The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former clientin any manner.It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear against his client. The first part of the rule refers to cases in which the opposing parties are present clientseither in the same action or in a totally unrelated case. even if neither PRC nor Lumot A. act both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to. to the present controversy. whether or not they are parties in the same action or in totally unrelated cases.An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. directlyor indirectly. The caseshere directly or indirectly involved the parties¶ connection to PRC.The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidential communications have beenconfided but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. or conflicting with that of his client in the same general matter The prohibition stands even if the adverse interest is very slight. the second part pertains to those in which theadverse party against whom the attorney appears is his former client in a matter which is related. otherwise. Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner:There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require theattorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he representshim and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation. Rule 15. his representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible. he cannot. without the free and intelligent consent of his client.Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent anattorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invitesuspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof. fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers with their clients .03 ± A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concernedgiven after a full disclosure of the facts.candor.03 of the CPR aptly provides:Rule 15. After being retained and receiving the confidences of the client. in the absence of the written consent of all partiesconcerned after a full disclosure of the facts.A client may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance.An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of thecourt after due notice and hearing. 1999. constitutes professional misconduct which subjects thelawyer to disciplinary action.Alminaza as the new counsel in that case and that he withdrew from the case with the knowledge of Lumot A.Even respondent¶s alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among the family members wasimproper because the written consent of all concerned was still required.Jalandoni.The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests. it has been held that a client is free to change hiscounsel in a pending case and thereafter retain another lawyer to . Accordingly. otherwise the court maytreat the application as a "mere scrap of paper . Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty. He must serve a copy of his petition upon hisclient and the adverse party at least three days before the date set for hearing. In his comment. or byreason of circumstances beyond the control of the client or the lawyer. by the lawyer or by the court. Villarosa because of theappearance of Atty. Canon 22 of the CPR reads:Canon 22 ± A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in thecircumstances. He admitted that hewithdrew as counsel on April 26." Respondent made no such move. The conformity of Mrs. supposedly in his place. A lawyer who acts as such insettling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it.andmotive of the attorney may have been honest. A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written consentof his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. Jalandoni and with leave of court. which withdrawal was supposedly approved by the court on April28. respondent stated that it was he who was not notified of the hiring of Atty. it has been held that the right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other thanfor sufficient cause is considerably restricted. The termination of the attorney-client relationship entails certain duties on the part of the client and his lawyer. in which event the attorney should see to it that the name of the newlawyer is recorded in the case.The rule on termination of attorney-client relations may be summarized as follows:The relation of attorney and client may be terminated by the client.The next bone of contention was the propriety of respondent¶s withdrawal as counsel for Lumot A. Alminaza in court. 1999. Thus. ATTY. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case. Respondent¶s speculations on the professional relationshipof Atty. with a STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. to his recollection. Mrs. NICANOR GONZALES and SALUD PANTANOSAS vs.represent him. the respondentadmitted having met Salud Panatanosas but claims that.The Court required commenting on the foregoing complaint. respondent Atty. The Court finds that respondent admittedhaving taken possession of the certificate of titles and that all he did was toinform the Court that his obligation to deliver the certificates to Mr. Samto Uyexcludes the delivery of said certificates to anyone else. MIGUEL SABAJACANISSUE: Whether or not it is justifiable for Atty. Jalandoni¶s conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily mean conformityto respondent¶s desire to withdraw as counsel. Nor does it require approval of thecourt.WHEREFORE. requests and pleas towards respondent. Nicanor V.Nicanor Gonzales has never been to his office. He further denies complainantsallegation that he is arrogant. That manner of changinga lawyer does not need the consent of the lawyer to be dismissed.The appearance of Atty. in view of the foregoing. FACTS: Sometime in October 1994 complainants were informed by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City that the complainants owners duplicate of titlecovering their lands were entrusted to the office secretary of the respondentwho in torn entrusted the same to respondent but when demanded to deliverthe said titles to the complainant in formal demand letter refused and continuesto refuse without any justification to give their titles and that in spite of repeateddemands. respondent still fail andstubbornly refused without justification to surrender the said titles to the rightfulowners. effective upon receipt of this decision. in contrast to the innocence. the complainants. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as additionalcounsel. Villarosa is hereby found GUILTYof violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for one (1) year. simplicity andignorance of said complainants. Respondent attachedsome certificates of title to his answer to support his . Alminaza and Mrs. Sabajacan in holding the certificates of title and its refusal to deliver the said titles to the complainant despite a formalletter demand. The Court desires and directs that respondent should forthwith return thecertificates of title of complainants. Unfortunately. anexamination of the same does not show any connection thereof to respondentsclaim.contention thatcomplainants are notorious characters. especially those involving fraud. he should be placedunder suspension until he presents to the Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and receipt thereof duly acknowledged bycomplainants. He is furtherWARNED that a repetition of the . H ELD: As a lawyer. the certifications indicate thatmost of the cases stated therein. he cannot be unaware of theimposable sanction on a counsel who resorts to unlawful means that wouldcause injustice to the adversaries of his client. Instead. To ensure the same. or threaten to present unfounded charges to obtain animproper advantage in any case or proceeding. respondent has disregarded Canon 15. Respondent likewise submitted Xerox copies of certain certificates of title in an effort to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainantsthat is supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. Rule 15.Canon 19. or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority justifying the possession by him or his client of said certificates. The records do not show that he orhis client has availed of said remedies.he unjustly refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles supposedlyto enforce payment of their alleged financial obligations to his client presumablyto impress the latter of his power to do so.participate in presenting. respondent should know that there are lawful remedies providedby law to protect the interests of his client. have beendismissed. In fact.The Court accordingly finds that the respondent has not exercises the good faithand diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients.Apparently. if he has not in fact transgressed the same. Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honestmeans to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present. Respondent has closely skirtedthis proscription. However. two sets of certificates of title appear to be entirely different fromeach other.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall impress upon hisclient the need for compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Also. onlyto stay out of office the whole day. habitually absent fromwork or made it appear that he reported for work by signing the log book in the morning. private practitioner Atty. Hefurther denied ever requesting for money in exchange for the release of court orders andclaimed that Judge Paas ordered him to undergo a drug test per Memorandum even if he hadno history of drug abuse on a periodic or continuous basis as shown by the test results of hisexamination. Paas. a copy of which he was not able to keep.same or similar or any other administrativemisconduct will be punished more severely. asked from detention prisoners P100-P200 before hereleased to them their Release Orders and divulged confidential information to litigants inadvance of its authorized release date for a monetary consideration. Escolta. 01-12-02-SCISSUE: Whether or not allegations of Judge Paas and Almarvez to each other is meritorious. . was usinghis wifes office as his office address in his law practice wherein they vehemently denied thecharge that the latter was using Room 203 of the Pasay City Hall of Justice as his address.The administrative cases were consolidated and referred for evaluation to the OCA wherein a separate case for inhibition Judge Paas husband. Renerio G. since she failed to elicit anyinformation from him.Almarvez filed an answer denying Judge Paas charges and alleged that the real reasonwhy the latter filed the case against him was because she suspected him of helping herhusband. Paas conceal his marital indiscretions. Manila. Almarvez thathe is discourteous to his co-employees. FACTS: Judge Paas administratively charges Court/Aide Utility Worker Edgar E. Atty. has failed to maintain thecleanliness in and around the court premises despite order to do so. thus giving undueadvantage or favour to the paying party. she resorted to calling him names and other forms of harassment andinsisted him to sign prepared resignation letter. lawyers and party litigants. There were attestations of the members of the courtwith regard to this alleged complaint same attestation with the Jail Escort Officer that hewitnessed Almarvez receive from detention prisoners P100P200 in consideration of the releaseof their Release Orders. theyclaiming that Atty. IN RE: Paas AM No. Paas actually holds office at 410 Natividad Building. or his client. Therefore. tribunal or legislative body.OnJanuary of 2002 Judge Paas admitted that her husband did use her office as his return addressfor notices and orders in a Criminal case but only to ensure and facilitate delivery of thosenotices.OCA laid its findings and recommendations that Almarvez be dismissed of its sharges of exacting money and be duly penalized for inefficiency in the performance of his official duties.Wherefore. misleading and deceptive address that had no purporseother than to try to impress either the court in which his cases are lodged.Rule 10. Rule 3. violating Canons 3. for lack of supporting evidence recommended the dismissal of the charges of maltreatment. On charges against AlmarvezThe Court finds no sufficient evidence to support the charge of violation of confidentiality of official communication against Almarvez while the charges of neglect of duty is too general to support a conviction and are contrary are towhat is reflected in his performance rating that he cooperated willingly.However Judge Paas indeed allowed his husband to ride on her prestige for purpose of advancing his private interest. that hehas close ties to a member of the judiciary.01.Paas was guilty of using fraudulent.06 which states that A lawyer shall not state or implythat he is able to influence any public official. Judge Paas order to undergo drug test is not an unlawful order. Rule 15. Canon 15. On his part. Canon 10. H ELD: A. Almarvez failedto substantiate the same. Canon 13. harassment and verbal abuse but instead be found guilty of simple misconduct in office and be penalized with reprimand and warning.On charges against Judge Paas.B. Atty. all notices were sent to his office address inEscolta. in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The fact that respondent Almarvez neverdisputed the performance ratings given him is tantamount to an impliedacceptance.01. On charges against Judge PaasRegarding the charges of abuse of authority and oppression against Judge Paas. Theirclaims remains hearsay. but after the cases were terminated. Almarvez is pronounced GUILTY of inefficiency and is hereby suspende for . On the charge of inefficiency concurs with the findingsand recommendations of OCA. Reynaldo Novero.The respondent submitted his Answer and averred that the complaint filed against him was baseless. He even tried to shift the blameon complainant by claiming that the latter insisted on presenting his sister from Manila as their last witness. for which reason the trial court considered respondent to have waived further presentation of hisevidence and directed him to formally offer his exhibits. He contended that complainantengaged his legal services after the first counsel had withdrawn and he had no knowledge of what had happened inthe case before he handled it because complainant did not furnish him with the records and stenographic notes of theprevious proceedings despite his repeated requests. REYNALDO NOVERO. The truthwas that complainant¶s sister had already testified. However.prompting the trial court to order the dismissal of the case. JR. respondent failed to formally offer his exhibits. Renerio PaasGUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and hereby SUSPENDED from practice of law for a period of three months with warning. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of theorder of dismissal however he did not file his motion within the reglementary period.The complainant imputed that the respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing nor seek apostponement. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross neglect in the handling of the civil case? . for alleged patentand gross neglect in the handling of their civil case against the Bacolod City Water District.The Office of the Bar Confidant submitted a report finding respondent guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending his suspension. with warning that repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealtwith severely. purelymalicious and speculative considering the fact that it was not made under oath.Mendoza. she is further ordered to pay a FINe and that his husband Atty. He alleged that he failed to formally offer the exhibits becausecomplainant tried to take over the handling of the case by insisting on presenting more witnesses who failed toappear during trial. RIZALINO FERNANDEZ v. Jr. J: Facts: Rizalino Fernandez and others filed a disbarment case against Atty. ATTY.The Integrated Bar of the Philippines also submitted a report and recommendation for the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.1month and Judge Paas GUILTY of conduct of unbecoming of a member of the judiciary andhereby REPRIMANDED. Held: The Supreme Court held that a counsel must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions, evenmalfeasance or nonfeasance would be binding on his client. A lawyer owes to the client the exercise of utmostprudence and capability in that representation.The respondent¶s attempt to evade responsibility by shifting the blame on complainant due to the latter¶sfailure to turn over to him records and stenographic notes of the case only highlights his incompetence andinadequacy in handling the complainant¶s case.The respondent Atty. Novero is found guilty of neglect of his client¶s case and is Suspended from thepractice of law for one (1) month with Warning that repetition of the same negligent act will be dealt with even moreseverely. EDGAR O. PEREA vs. ATTY. RUBEN ALMADROAustria-Martinez, J: Facts: Edgar Perea filed a complaint for disbarment against his lawyer Atty. Ruben Aladro for gross neglect of hisduties as a lawyer. The respondent was his counsel before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where he is beingcharged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. The RTC issued an order granting Atty. Almadro¶s motion for leave tofile demurrer to evidence within ten days from February 26, 1996. Perea thought that his counsel filed the saiddemurrer and the case against him was dismissed. However, he learned sometime in 1999 that his counsel failed tofile any demurrer, thus there was a warrant issued for his arrest and he is not allowed to post bail. The respondenthas not attended any of his hearings and such neglect of his responsibilities would result to the loss of freedom andlivelihood of his client. Atty. Almadro submitted an Answer to the complaint through the law firm Sua and Alambra, whichcontended that: two days after the RTC granted the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which he stored in a magneticcomputer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in court; a few days before the deadline, he tried toretrieve the draft from the diskette but said drafts were nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this ledhim to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions accordingly filed. He becamepreoccupied with the congressional elections in Biliran where he ran and subsequently lost, then he was offered aposition in the Philippine Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance Division which he accepted;his time and attention was spent in the performance of his demanding job which led to the neglect of his duties ascounsel.The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.The IBP, through Commissioner Renato Cunanan submitted its report and recommendation. They are convinced that Atty. Almadro¶s actuations reveal not only serious neglect or indifference to his duties as a lawyer but more gravelyhis open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents. The IBP strongly recommend that respondent besuspended from the practice of law for two years and that he be fined ten thousand pesos (PhP10,000.00). They alsorecommend that Atty. Sua and Alambra be ordered to explain why they should not be held in contempt for deliberately foisting a deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation. Issue: Whether or not the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the suspension of Atty. Alambra for gross neglect of his duties as a lawyer is meritorious? Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, finding the respondent Atty. Alambra guilty of serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents, as embodied in Canon 18,Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is Suspended fromthe practice of law for one (1) year and Fined in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) pesos, with a Warningthat any or similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely. LEGAL ETHICS CASES(Case Digest) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # 1 : C a y e t a n o v s . M o n s o d 2 0 1 S C R A 2 1 0 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 9 1 Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possesrequired qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitutionprovides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and sixCommissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, atleast thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any electiveposition in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall bemembers of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited to theconduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident toactions and special proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them inmatters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplatingan appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim inbankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estateand guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court,which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practiceof law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, alawyer-manager, a lawyerentrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of COMELECchairman, The respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of theforegoing, the petition is DISMISSED.*** The Supreme Court held that the appointment of Monsod is in accordance with the requirement of law as having been engaged in the practice of law for at least in reply. ISSUE: . this is the first time that his right has been questioned formally. The respondent. a lawyer-manager. Agrava. 1957. maintains the prosecution of patent cases “ does not involve entirely or purelythe practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge and training as amatter of actual practice so as to include engineers and other individuals who passed the examinationcan practice before the Patent office. in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #2: PHILIPPINE LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION VS. 1957 an examination forthe purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before thePhilippines Patent Office. itembraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and social proceedings and othersimilar work which involves the determination by a legal mind the legal effects of facts and conditions. in the case of Philippine Lawyer’sAssociation vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA. The petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinationsand is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in goodstanding. Monsod’s past work experiences as alawyer-economist. Again. a lawyer negotiator of contracts and alawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that hehas been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases and litigation in court. Furthermore. respondentDirector issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled for June 27. he stressed that for the long time he is holdingtests. a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry. is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and that the respondentDirector’s holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violationof the law.in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent OfficeFACTS: A petition was filed by the petitioner for prohibition and injunction against CeledonioAgrava.ten years. On May 27. Thus. Moreover. engineers or technical men.the law provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of thedirector. Laguna. Paredes. but rather to a board of scientists. and other persons. No.Magno T. charged Simplicio Villanueva with the Crime of Malicious Mischief before the Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality. etc. :On September 4. their opposition thereto.R. plaintiff-appellee. L-19450 Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. vs. G. oppositors. HELD: The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before thePatent Office. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #3: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. and theprosecution of their applications for patent. defendant-appellant.. if the transactions of business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostlytechnical and scientific knowledge and training. then logically. J. Furthermore. as well as the existence of facts to be established inaccordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any workinvolving the determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Said accused was represented bycounsel de officio but later on replaced by counsel de parte . Buese for defendant-appellant. 1959. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA.Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and theprosecution of patent application. the Chief of Police of Alaminos. the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation andapplication of other laws and legal principles. or the enforcement of theirrights in patent cases. constitutes or is included in the practice of law. the representation of applicants. the appeal should be taken not to acourt or judicial body. which is not the c a s e . 1960 the JP issued an order sustaining the legality of theappearance of City Attorney Fule. vs. Hilarion U.Under date of January 4. 35. Blanco. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace Court as an agent or friend of theoffended party. Jarencio. The JP Court ruled on the motion by upholding the right of Fule to appear and further stating that he(Fule) was not actually engaged in private law practice.therefore. Rule 27. presidedby the Hon. aftersecuring the permission of the Secretary of Justice. Revised Rules of Court. or with the aid of an attorney. he would be considered on official leave of absence. because the prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled by the Office .28. now Sec. The offended party had. he ceased to engage in private law practice. which rendered judgment on December 20. the civil action was deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action." this time invoking Section 32. was that everytime he would appear at the trial of the case. with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose. 31. On December 17. counsel for the accused presented a "Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting asPrivate Prosecutor in this Case. et al. 1947. The condition of his appearance as such. the pertinent portions of which read: The present case is one for malicious mischief. This Order was appealed to the CFI of Laguna. Rule 138. . 1961. and that hewould not receive any payment for his services. Nov. Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court of a justice of the peace a party may conducthis litigation in person. the right to intervene in the case and be represented by a legal counsel because of her interest inthe civil liability of the accused. The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor wasquestioned by the counsel for the accused.Sec. Counsel claims that City Attorney Fule falls under thislimitation. Laguna. L-1532. The complainant in the same case was representedby City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City.. It does not appear that he was being paid for his services or that his appearance was in aprofessional capacity. invoking the case of Aquino. There being no reservation by the offended party of the civilliability. wherein it was ruled that "when an attorney had been appointed to the position of Assistant ProvincialFiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified. which bars certain attorneys from practicing. As Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo he had no control or intervention whatsoever inthe prosecution of crimes committed in the municipality of Alaminos. having entered his appearance as private prosecutor. 1961."Counsel then argued that the JP Court in entertaining the appearance of City Attorney Fule in the case is aviolation of the above ruling. et al. by operation of law. the appeal from the order of the Justice of the Peace Court of Alaminos. allowing theapprearance of Ariston D. Rule 138. the offended party in this criminal case had a right to be represented by an agent or afriend to protect her rights in the civil action which was impliedly instituted together with the criminal action. Fule may appear before the Justiceof the Peace Court of Alaminos. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habituallyholding one's self out to the public. without costs. which provides that "no judge or other official or employeeof the superior courts or of the office of the Solicitor General. M. as a source of his livelihood or in consideration . The above decision is the subject of the instant proceeding. City Attorney Ariston D. There could be no possible conflict in the duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule asAssistant City Attorney of San Pablo and as private prosecutor in this criminal case. The appeal should be dismissed. 42 LRA. 864.C. Revised Rules). asalready pointed out. Cotner. and which weconsider plausible. Laguna as private prosecutor in this criminal case as an agent or a friend of theoffended party. 1. the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the activeand continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for acompensation. 35.E. the fallacy of the theory of defense counsel lies in his confused interpretation of Section 32of Rule 127 (now Sec. 127. shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients. 647). in appearing as privateprosecutor in the case was engaging in private practice. We believe that the isolated appearance of CityAttorney Fule did not constitute private practice within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. 522.In view of the foregoing. On the other hand. heretofore reproduced. Fule as private prosecutor is dismissed. 98 N.S. for patently being without merits. it is frequent habitual exercise (State vs. as customarily and demanding payment for such services (State vs.of the Provincial Fiscal and not by the CityAttornev of San Pablo. 644. The following observation of the Solicitor General is noteworthy:Essentially. The appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. for it consists in frequent or customary actions. this Court holds that Asst. 87 Kan. a succession of acts of thesame kind.768)." He claims that City Attorney Fule.WHEREFORE. In other words. p.Aside from the considerations advanced by the learned trial judge.4 S. Laguna. Practice ismore than an isolated appearance. Bryan. a succession of facts of the same kind or frequent habitualexercise. inthe order prescribed to them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #4: JESUS MA.CONFORMABLY WITH ALL THE FOREGOING. 3239 gave t h e initial management to the founders jointly and. who is a relative. ANTONIO MA. nowdeceased. only son of M a u r i c i o Cui."-Don Pedro Cui died in 1926. to represent the complainant in the case at bar. with costs against appellant hqXv. who is a relative. to " s u c h persons as they may nominate or designate. free of charge.For one thing. Practice is more than an isolated appearance. T h e r e u p o n t h e administration passed to Mauricio Cui and Dionisio Jakosalem who both died. "for the care and support. L-18727AUGUST 31. as customarily and demanding payment for such services. It is alsoworth noted that. and incapacitated and helplesspersons. for it consists of frequents or customary actions. one of the nephews of the spouses Don Pedro Cui and Doña Benigna Cui. ROMULO CUIG. CUI.of his said services. a n d his widow continued to administer the Hospicio u n t i l h e r d e a t h i n 1 9 2 9 .-Plaintiff Jesus Ma. Teodoro Cui. 1964FACTS: Hospicio is a charitable institution established by the spouses Don Pedro Cui and DoñaBenigna Cui.On 27 February 1960 the then . NO. C u i a r e brothers. it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediatesuperior to represent the complainant in the case at bar. being the sons of Mariano Cui. Cui and d e f e n d a n t A n t o n i o M a . the Secretary of Justice. *** The Supreme Court held that the isolate appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. in allrespects. incase of their incapacity or death. CUI vs. principally the deed of donation. became theadministrator. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public. as it is hereby affirmed. Dr.-Section 2 of Act No. the decision appealed from should be. of indigentinvalids." It acquired corporate existence bylegislation and endowed with extensive properties by the saidspouses through a series of donations.R. it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediatesuperior. Themere appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. " and therefore means a law degreeor diploma of Bachelor of Laws. but that has used in the deed of donationand considering the function or purpose of theadministrator. not having passed the examinations to qualify himas one.another one of thenephews mentioned by the founders of the Hospicio in their deed of donation. o farmaceutico.Cui holds the degree of Bachelor of Laws from the University of Santo Tomas (Class1926)but is not a member of the Bar."taken alone. however. This ruling is assailed as erroneous both by the defendant and by theintervenor. Cui took hisoath of office. Cui pursuant to a "convenio" entered into between them andembodied in a notarial document. ISSUE: . 1960 the plaintiff wrote a letter tothe defendant d e m a n d i n g t h a t t h e o f f i c e b e t u r n e d over to him. claiming a right to the same office. o a falta de estos titulos el que pague alestadomayor impuesto o contribucion. 28 February. omedico. among thelegitimate descendants of the nephews therein named. Teodoro Cui. said that the phrase "titulo de abogado. on the other hand. Antonio Ma. "queposea titulo de abogado. Dr. 1 9 6 0 .-Dr.C o u r t a quo . being a grandson of Vicente Cui. applied thedeed gives preference to the one. Thenext day.incumbent administrator. means that of afull-fledged lawyer.decided in favor of the plaintiff. However. is a member of the Bar and althoughdisbarred by this Court. Antonio Ma. RomuloCui lateron intervened.. it should not be given astrict interpretation but a liberal one. he was reinstated by resolutionpromulgated on 10 February1960. had no prior notice of either the "convenio" or of his brother's assumption of the position. Jesus Ma." Jesus Ma. Cui. resigned infavor of Antonio Ma. Cui. and the demand nothaving been complied with the plaintiff filed the complaint in this case. on Sept 5. Jesus is the older of the two and therefore under equalcircumstances would bepreferred pursuant to section 2 of the deed of donation.A s between Jesus and Antonio the main issue turns upon their respective qualifications t o t h e position of administrator. o ingeniero civil."-The specific point in dispute is the meaning of the term "titulo deabogado.before the test of age may be. about two weeks before he assumed the position of administrator of theHospiciode Barili. Teodoro Cui died on August 27. does not entitle itsholderto exercise the legal profession. According to Rule138 such admission requires passing the Bar examinations. 3239 the managers or trustees of the Hospicio shall "makeregulations for thegovernment of said institution. The academic degree of Bachelor of Laws in itself has little to do with admission to the Bar. (Section 14 of that code required possession of "the necessary qualifications of learning ability." For this purpose. or failing all these.conferredby a law school upon completion of certain academicrequirements. Indeed there are instances.A lawyer. In this jurisdiction admission to the Bar and to the practice of law is under the authority of the Supreme Court.") Yet certainly it would be incorrect to say that such persons do not possess the "titulo de abogado" because they lack the academic degree of Bachelorof Laws from some law school or university. in thatorder. and has reference to that classof personswho are by license officers of the courts. responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. anduponwhom peculiar duties. shall see to it thattherules andconditions promulgated for admission are not in conflict with the provisions of theAct.WON the plaintiff is not entitled. The founders of the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili must have established the foregoing testadvisely. should be theonewho pays the highest taxes among those otherwise qualified. empowered to appear. where persons who had not gone through any formal legal education in college were allowed to take the Bar examination and to qualify as lawyers. except as evidence of compliance with the requirements that an applicant to the examinations has "successfully completed all the prescribed courses. officially approved by the Secretary of Education. shall "prescribe the conditions subject to which invalidsandincapacitated and destitute persons may be admitted to the institute". and provided in the deed of donation that if not a lawyer. this certificate being his license to practice the profession. and shall . prosecute and defend. first of all. This term has a fixed and general signification. qualifying one forthe practice of law. because under Act No. particularly under the former Code of Civil Procedure. as against the defendant. A Bachelor's degree alone. to the office of administrator. (YES)RATIO: Whether taken alone or in context the term "titulo de abogado" means not merepossession of theacademic degree of Bachelor of Laws but membership in the Bar after dueadmission thereto. The English equivalent of "abogado" islawyer or attorney-at-law. however. in a law school or university. taking the lawyer's oath and receiving a certificate from the Clerk of Court. possession of the degree itself is not indispensable: completion of the prescribed courses may be shown in some other way. the administrator shouldbea doctor or a civil engineer or a pharmacist. When the defendant wasrestored to the roll of lawyers the restrictions and disabilities resulting from hispreviousdisbarment were wiped out. in the line of succession.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #5: IN THE MATTER OF PREOCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. one of the nephews of the founders of the Hospicio mentioned by them inthedeed of donation. in protest against what he therein asserts is "a great injustice committed against his clientby this Supreme Court. This interpretation.Cui is older than he andtherefore is preferred when the circumstances are otherwise equal. who belonged to the Mauricio Cuiline. grandsonof Vicente Cui. since the lastadministrator was Dr.R. 1970FACTS: Before us is Atty." He indicts this Court.who is a son of Mariano Cui. in the order they are named. He is further. to the office of administrator. however.For the claim of intervener and appellant Romulo Cui. Thus. than defendant Antonio Ma. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title. the next administrator must comefrom the line of Vicente Cui. it is to bepresumed. to whom the intervenorbelongs. the standard required of one seeking reinstatementtothe office of attorney cannot be less exactingthan that implied in paragraph 3 of the deed of donation as a requisite for the office which is disputed in thiscase. 1967.administerproperties of considerable value — for all of which work.No. This party is also alawyer. VINCENTE RAUL ALMACEN G.Under this particular criterion we hold that theplaintiff is not entitled. heargues.Besides being a nearer descendant than Romulo Cui.As far as moral character isconcerned. is not justified by theterms of the deed of donation. Teodoro Cui. a working knowledge of the lawand a license to practice the profession would beadistinct asset. another one of the said nephews. who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commitculpable violations of the Constitution with impunity." filed onSeptember 25. L-27654 February 18. as a tribunal "peopled by men who arecalloused to our pleas for justice." . Antonio Ma. The intervenorcontends that the intention of the founders was to confer the administration by line and successivelytothedescendants of the nephews named in the deed. in his own phrase. as against thedefendant." has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy." His client's he continues. Cui. who was deeply aggrieved bythis Court's "unjust judgment. as he ishereby." and that "whatever mistakes. for which reason the City Court denied themotion for reconsideration.. Felizardo deGuzman. that the alleged payments of Lagrimas Lapatha were made after the rendition of the decision toforestall immediate execution of the judgment. the true circumstances attending the hearing of November 2." He ends his petition with a prayer that. petitioner did not comply with her promise and instead filed thePetition for Relief. but also deaf and dumb. Vicente Raul Almacen must surrender his Lawyer’s Certificate of Title. wrongs and injustices that werecommitted must never be repeated. saying "that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind. were brought out to the satisfaction of petitioner's counsel. ISSUE: . DE GUZMAN January 21. RULING: ACCORDINGLY." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the people's forum. suspended from the practice of law until further orders. 1968. that when petitioner filed with the City Court a motion forreconsideration of the decision alleging fraud. he ridicules the members of this Court. Vicente Raul Almacen be. ISSUE: Whether Atty. however. 1974FACTS: Vicente Floro filed his Answer to the above-mentioned Petition for relief and he alleged that the decisionof the City Court was based on an admission made in open court by petitioner Lagrimas Lapatha on the basis of which the words "Confession of judgment" were written on the "expediente" of the case and underneath wereaffixed the signature of said petitioner and that of Atty.In thesame breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice.1967. we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession. de Guzmanagreed not to press for the execution of the judgment on the assurance of petitioner that she would vacate thepremises by January 15. IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty.." so that "the people may know of the silent injustice's committed by this Court.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #6: IN RE: ATTY. that during the hearing on petitioner's motion for reconsideration Atty. FELIZARDO M. the suspension to take effect immediately. a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney andcounsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any time in the future and in the event we regain our faithand confidence. 165187 of the City Court of Manila. isexonerated of the charge. Diao vs. as it is provided in the Rules. The dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated. de Guzman. Severino Martinez charged Diao of falsifying the information in his application for such BarExamination. as records would have shown that Diao graduated from the University in April1949. applicants under oath that “ Previous . according to Diao. RULING: We agree with the Solicitor General that in the instant case "the evidence is wanting" to sustaina finding that respondent committed any deceit or misconduct in Civil Case No.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #7: In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo A. but he started his Law studies in October 1948 (second semester. The record must disclose as free from doubt a case whichcompels the exercise by this Court of its disciplinary powers. as Diao did not obtain his AAdegree from Quisumbing College. MartinezFacts: Telesforo A.Diao practically admits first charge. The claim was doubtlful. is equivalent to a High School Diploma. it was found that Diao did not finish his high school training. Diao claims that he was erroneously certified. 19 this Court said: "It is quite elementary that in disbarment proceedings.Whether the petition for relief against the respondent who committed any deceit or misconduct in CivilCase No. Two years later. but claims that he served the US army. Candoy."WHEREFORE. andneither did he obtain his Associate in Arts (AA) degree from Quisumbing College in 1941. 165187 of the City Court of Manila be approved. To be made the basis for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer. Diao took the law examinations in 1953 and was admitted to the Bar. Severino G. this administrative complaint is dismissed and respondent. although he failed to submit certificationfor such claim from any proper school officials. the chargeagainst him must be established by convincing proof. the burdenof proof rests upon the complainant. however. and asserts that he obtainedhis AA from Arellano University in 1949. This claim was still unacceptable. AY 1948-1949) and he would not havebeen permitted to take the Bar. Atty. the second charge was clearly meritorious. Felizardo M. In Go vs. Upon further investigation. and took the General Classification Test which. and there is no reason todeviate from the norm in this case. Sulyap. but did by falsifying information. Assuming that were true. Rule 22. election to public office.“There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the midstof litigation without even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #10:Borja. and a copy thereof served uponthe adverse party. Ruling: Telesforo A. Atty.Assuming that Atty. 399 SCRA 601 (2003) DOCTRINE: "Private practice" of a profession. does not mitigatethe dereliction of professional duty. specifically the law profession does not pertain to anisolated court appearance. Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty.02 requires that a lawyer who withdraws or is dischargedshall. manifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal. as lessee. That the lawyer forsook his legalpractice on account of what might be perceived as a higher calling. and Sulyap. vs. cannot just do so and leavecomplainant in the cold unprotected. Admissionunder false pretenses thus give grounds for revoking his admission in the Bar. Inc. Sr. Indeed. Diao was not qualified to take the Bar Exams. Inc. . Ortiz and this newcounsel. as lessor. Ortiz claims that the reason why hetook no further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the services of anothercounsel. he. entered into a contract of lease involving a one-storey office building owned by Borja located at New Manila. the lawyer continues to be counsel in the case.Quezon City. as passing the Bar Exam is notthe only requirement to become an attorney at law. there was no apparent coordination between Atty. and until then.. it contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer. and shallcooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter. FACTS: Basilio Borja. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services. rather. subject to a lien. Sr. he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education (AA) as required bythe Department of Private Education” Issue: Whether Telesforo A Diao should be Disbarred.to the studyof law. immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled. however. ISSUE: . He claimed that 3 setsof compromise agreement were submitted for his approval. The trial court ruled in favour of Sulyap because it gave credence to the testimony of Atty. Cruz and even notedthat it was more than one year from receipt of the judgment on compromise on October 25.000 and in case any amount due is not paidwithin the period stated in this agreement shall earn 2% interest per month until fully paid plus 25% attorney’sfees of the amount collectible and that writ of execution shall be issued as a matter of right. Cruz stressed that the penalty clause of 2%interest per month until full payment of the amount due. Cruz as witness. Sulyap. The Trial Court granted the writ. Inc. Leonardo Cruz. whoassisted him in entering into the said agreement. Sulyap demanded the return of the said advance rentals. in case of defaultin payment. Among them. the penalty clause should not beimposed.Borja filed another motion praying for the quashal of the writ of execution and modification of the decision. dues anddeposit but Borja refused to do so. advance rentals.Petitioner. Atty. Sulyap filed with the RTC of QC a complaint for sum of money againstBorja. when hequestioned the inclusion of the penalty clause in the approved compromise agreement despite severalopportunities to raise said objection. he allegedly chose and signed thecompromise agreement which contained no stipulation as to the payment of 2% monthly interest and 25%attorney’s fees in case of default in payment. therefore.Sulyap presented Atty. removed the page of the genuine compromise agreementwhere he affixed his signature and fraudulently attached the same to the compromise agreement submitted tothe court in order to make it appear that he agreed to the penalty clause embodied therein. Borja motioned to quash the writ by stating that his failure topay the amounts within the agreed period was due to Sulyap’s fault. He addedthat the compromise agreement approved by the court was in fact signed by the petitioner insidethe courtroom before the same was submitted for approval. who declared that the petitioner gave his consent to the inclusion of the penalty clause of 2% monthly interest and 25% attorney’s fees in the compromise agreement. he contended that there was fraud in the execution of the compromise agreement. however. Uponthe expiration of their lease contract.Pursuant to the lease. the parties entered into and submitted to the trial court a “Compromise Agreement”stating that Borja is bound to pay the amounts P30.paid.association dues and deposit for electrical and telephone expenses. Thistime. was actually chosen by the petitioner. failed to pay the amounts stated in the judicial compromise. plus 25% thereof as attorney’s fees. 1995. Subsequently. He alleged that his former counsel. among others. Sulyapfiled a writ of executionagainst Borja. Thus.575 and P50. Atty. resorted to for hismaterial gain. HELD: YES. He must have read and understood the contents of individuals who are not only learned in the law. for which he has sworn to be afearless crusader.Whether Borja is bound by the penalty clause in the compromise agreement. When he received the judgment reproducing the full text of the compromise agreement.Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful anddishonorable. an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law. we find the penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from thepractice of law to be too mild. “A lawyer isan oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics. in order to promote the public’sfaith in the legal profession. we find that the testimony of the petitioner failed to establish the attendance of fraud in the instantcase.and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. Lawyers should act andcomport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document.to February 19. It is also glaringly clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriouslytransgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not beenagreed upon at all and despite respondent’s full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the checkshad already been paid. he never raised the issue of the fraudulent inclusion of the penalty clause in theiragreement. His propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible.Petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the existence of the penalty clause in the compromise agreementapproved by the court. but also known to possess good moral character. No evidence was presented by petitioner other than his bare allegation that his former counselfraudulently attached the page of the genuine compromise agreement where he affixed his signature tothe compromise agreement submitted to the court. they reveal a basic moral flaw. We note that petitioner is a doctor of medicine. Considering the depravity of the offensecommitted by respondent.” By taking the lawyer’s oath.and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conductthat merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. 1997. While a judicial compromise may be annulled or modified on the ground ofvitiated consent orforgery. Hismisuse of the . Santos L. he is given 10days from notice thereof.Claro C. from the foregoing resolution. Thus. The clerk of Court is directed to furnish copy of this resolution to the Court of Appeals and to all courts of first instance. Ayuda.Generoso H. As to Capitulo. that this Court did not intend to exercise itsconcurrent jurisdiction over the acts of alleged contempt . City of Manila for investigation and appropriateaction in connection with Section 3 (e).------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #15: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #16: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #17:People vs de luna et al GR 10236-48 Oreste Arellano y Rodriguez.Angelo T. within which to explain why he should not be dealt withfor contempt of the Court. G. Hubilla.Roque J.E.Eustacio de Luna. No.C. thePublic Service Commission. Alcoba.have not passed the examinations. Rule 64.Abraham C. Calaguas. it was resolved:A. Jaime P. Jr.. As Pedro Ayuda has assumed to be an attorney without authority. proper action will be taken later in theirrespective cases. Fajardo. who has illegallyadministered the oath to the said persons in disregard of this Court's resolutiondenying them admission to the Bar (except Capitulo.R.D. 36-37. Gofredo. Bandon. the Court of Industrial Relations. ishereby given ten days to show cause why he should not be disbarred or suspendedfrom the pratice of law. Parina. Sugarol. Gofredo and Sugarol. (pp.Florencio P.)It is clear. Gordo.filled-up checks that led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome. Gofredo and Sugarol). rec.Balbino P.Pedro B. Gefredo. Lopez. Briones. The notary public Anatolio A.B.Alawadin I. he is sentencedsuspended indefinitely from the practice of law effective immediately.Estela R. To refer the matter to the Fiscal. Marco. and Sugarol. Jardinico. and the Department of Justice.Emilio P. andMaria Velez y Estrellas-took an oath as a lawyer even though they did not pass the bar exams. L-10245. (sa notary public pa jud) RULING: It appearing that the persons mentioned. except Capitulo. member of the Bar. On March 1989 complainantpleaded torespondent to stop their illicit relationship. Respondent fell in love withhim and they got married and as a result of suchmarriage. she lefthim ISSUE :Whether or not Atty Iris Bonifacio is guilty of gross immoral conduct as aground for disbarment RULING: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE. Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui. the complaint forGross Immorality against Respondent isDISMISSED for lack of merit.In the case at bar. OnDecember 1988 Carlos and Iris had a second child. In fine. she gave birth to two (2)children. 2 0 0 0 Facts: Leslie Ui and Carlos Ui were married on January 1971. Carlos Ui was the one who represented himself as single during theircourtship. finding the recommendation fully supportedby the evidenceon record and the applicable laws and rules. Atty. herein made part of thisResolution/Decision as Annex "A". .On Atty Iris’ side. Respondentadmitted the relationship and said that she will cut off thesaid relationship. Shesubmitted her Certificate of marriage dated Oct.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ #19: Elmer Canoy. I r i s B o n i f a c i o A C # 3 3 1 9 J u n e 8 . Bonifacio that when shemet Carlos Ui.committed by appelleesherein and that we preferred that the corresponding action be taken by the CityFiscal of Manila in the Court of First Instance of Manila.the Reportand Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # 1 8 : L e s l i e U i v s . Uponthe court’s investigation it was found outthat the marriage was in fact on Oct 1987. it is the claim of respondent Atty. she asserts that she had no knowledge of Carlos’previousmarriage. as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED. she knew andbelieved him to be single. the latter had no jurisdiction over the cases at the bar. IrisBonifacio is REPRIMANDED for knowingly and willfullyattaching to herAnswer a falsified Certificate of Marriage with a stern warning thata repetition of the same will merit a moresevere penalty. and. Iris Bonifacio for the illicit affair . Leslieconfronted the respondentAtty. A t t y . 1985 to court. On June 1988. Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former employer. his office did not insiston refiling the case. Hence. the labor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their respective petition papers. respondent A. in that it was the latter’s practice since commencing his practice of law to cater toindigent and law-income clients. Canoy submittedall the necessary documents and records to Atty.C. Ortizfailed to exercise the degree of competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting his client” andrecommended that Atty. His duties as a public servant and alawyer are “beyond physical limitation”. that his complaint was already dismissed way back in 1998 for failureto prosecute because the parties did not submit their position papers. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. with arbiter already dismissing the case. explained Ortiz. Ortiz.2005Facts: This is a case wherein complainant Elmer Canoy accused his former counsel.In his Comment . so he had to withdraw from his other cases.but recalled of Canoy conveying that he already has a lawyer to handle the case. 5485 March 16. Atty.Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines. finds the recommended penaltyof the IBP too lenent and instead suspended Atty. Atty. Atty. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ortize . No. In 1998. said Atty. Canoy further claimed that Atty. upon inquiring with the NLRC itself.complainant v. was oneof his indigent clients. however. Jose Max Ortiz. the Integrated Bar of the Philippinesconcluded that clearly “Atty. The Supreme Court. Canoy. Ortiz is guilty of misconduct and malpractice Ruling: Upon investigation of the case. He alsoclaimed of not being able to remember whether he immediately informed Canoy of the dismissal of the case. Atty Ortiz also pointed out that the dismissal of Canoy’s complaint was without prejudice. Ortiz. Ortiz admitted to not being able to submit the position paper because the period withinwhich to file it lapsed already. Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. In the labor case against CCBP filed with the National Labor RelationsCommission. Canoy madeseveral follow-ups with the office of his attorney. Atty. said visits were unfruitful until it came to his knowledge on2000. but reasoned out that his election as aCouncilor of Bacolod City made him very preoccupied with his functions. Ortiz be reprimanded.Ortiz never informed him about the status of his case nor of the fact that he failed to submit the position paper. and was represented in said case by Atty. FORTUNATO P. Ortiz was justified in terminating his servicesdue to his elective position. he should have coordinated with the new council of Canoy and turned over to thelatter all papers and property which the Client is entitled and should have cooperated with his successor in theorderly transfer of the matter. (En Banc)FACTS: Petitioner ATTY. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # 2 0 : L a p u t v s . Petitioner found out later t h a t respondentAtty.REMOTIGUE andATTY.” on account of his failure to file the position paper on time. Patalinghug had filed on 11 Jan. 1 9 5 5 . Ortizalso violated Rule 22. LAPUT charge respondents ATTY.02. as per Rule 22. L a p u t t o h a n d l e h e r "Testate Estate of MacarioBarrera" case in CFI-Cebu. Atty Ortiz several canons and rules in the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility. Specifically. NievesR i l l a s V d a . FRANCISCO E. “A lawyershall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render himliable.” Therefore. PATALINGHUG with unprofessional and unethicalconduct in soliciting cases andintriguing against a brother lawyer. R e m o t i g u e . 6 S C R A 4 5 ( A . P e t i t i o n e r a l l e g e d t h a t : (1) . d e B a r r e r a r e t a i n e d p e t i t i o n e r A t t y .F. petitioner voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as Mrs.“A laywer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and uponnotice appropriate in the circumstances. which states. which states. That the case was dismissed without prejudice does not mitigate his liability. M r s .B a r r e r a ’ s c o u n s e l .03 of the Code. 1955 a written appearance as the new counsel forMrs. M . By Jan. p e t i t i o n e r h a d p r e p a r e d t w o pleadings: (1) closing of administration proceedings. even if Atty. Ortiz was guilty of violating Rule 18. Barrera did not countersign both pleadings. CASIANO U. On 5 Feb. 1955. Further. 2 1 9 .02.from the practice of law for one month.Barrera. In May 1952. N o . J. tantamount to neglecting a legal materentrusted to him. Atty. According to the Court. 2 9 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 6 2 ) L A B R A D O R . and (2) rendering of final accounting and partition of saide s t a t e . in lieu of theadmonition or reprimand. Barrera. and (3) Atty. only on 7 February 1955.Case dismissed and closedfor no sufficient evidence submitted to sustain the .As to Atty.respondents’ appearances were unethical and improper.1955Mrs. Patalinghug entered his appearance withoutnotice to petitioner. Remotigue and Atty Patalinghug are guilty of unprofessional andunethicalconduct in soliciting cases. the petitioner'svoluntarywithdrawal on 5 Feb. the petitioner had already withdrawn as counsel. but purely to safeguard the interest of the administratrix. The SC found no irregularity in the appearance of Atty. Barrera sign documents revoking the petitioner’s “Power of Attorney" purportedly todisauthorize him from further collectingand receiving dividends of the estate from Mr. and had already filed a pleading discharging hiss e r v i c e s .after Mrs. and there was no actual grabbing of a case from petitioner becauseAtty.Patalinghug's professional services were contracted by the widow.the SolGen found that the same does not appear to be prompted by malice or intended tohurtpetitioner's feelings. Patalinghug as counselfor Mrs. Barrera had already lost confidence in her lawyer. Patalinghug answered that when he entered his appearance on 11 Jan. (2) theymade Mrs. The other respondent Atty. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. amounted to consent to the appearance of Atty. 1955. report and recommendation. Patalinghug ascounsel for the widow. Besides. R e m o t i g u e w a s a l s o n o t g u i l t y o f u n p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n d uct in as much as he entered his appearance. 1955. Remotigue answered that when he filedhis appearance on 7 Feb. The SC referred the case to the SolGen forinvestigation. dated 5 Feb. RULING: No. Respondent Atty. MacarioBarrera’s corporations. T h e S C a l s o h e l d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t A t t y . 1955. Barrera h a d d i s p e n s e d w i t h petitioner's professional services. and after petitionerhad voluntarily w i t h d r a w n his appearance. and his filing almost simultaneously of a motion for thepayment of his attorney'sfees. and make him appear as adishonest lawyer and no longer trusted byhis client. Thelatter recommended t h e c o m p l e t e e x o n e r a t i o n o f respondents. Patalinghug’s preparation of documents revoking the petitioner’s power of attorney. Marquez on or before 14February 1984. Sometime in February 1984.00. She went to the Supreme Court asking for the liftingof the Order of suspension arguing that the issuance of bouncing checks does not relate to the exercise of her legal profession. respondentmade no arrangements with the bank concerning the honoring of checks which had bounced and made no effort to settle her obligations to Ms. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not ( as in the instant case. Decena. Tuanda(A. violation of B.400. 1990)Facts: On 17 December 1983. for saleon a commission basis. instead of returning the unsold pieces of jewelry which then amounted to approximately P26.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Legal EthicsCode of Professional ResponsibilityCanon 1People of the Philippines vs Atty. In Melendrez v. Upon presentment for payment within ninety (90) days after their issuance.000.00. The RTC convicted her in violation of B. Marquez several pieces of jewelry.M.issued three checks: (a) a check dated 16 February 1984 for the amount of P5. this Court stressed that: “the nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that she shall be a person of goodmoral character. for insufficiency of funds. Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of dishonor.P. however it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense. No. 22. its continued possession is also essential forremaining in the practice of law. in which the Court considered it as a crime involving moral turpitude as this mischief creates not only a wrong tothe payee or holder. 3360 January 30. Linsangan vs Atty.00. but also an injury to the public Respondent was suspended by the Court of Appeals. Nicomedes . respondent received from one Herminia A. Issue: WON the suspension of Atty. Traders Royal Bank. respondent. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the practice of law.250. Held: The Court Resolved to DENY the Motion to Lift Order of Suspension. Fe Tuanda be lifted.450.P. Fe T.00. (b) a check dated 23 February 1984 also for the amount of P5. with a total stated value of P36. all three(3) checks were dishonored by the drawee bank. Blg. 22does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer. Respondent shall remain suspended from the practice of law. with the condition that the respondent would turn over the sales proceeds and return the unsold items to Ms.charges. Marquez.400. We should add thatthe crime of which respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to ‘obey the laws of the land’.” SUSPENSION AFFIRMEDCanon 2Pedro L.00.and (c) a check dated 25 February 1984 for the amount of P15. Hence. A LAWYER SHALL NOT. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same orsimilar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer. either personally or through paid agents or brokers. To support his allegations.C.03.03 of the CPR which provides: RULE 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1. lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain.000. September 4. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labiano’sword that respondent could produce a more favorable result. 6672. Such actuation constitutesmalpractice. Rafael C. convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST. 2.03 of the CPR which provides:RULE 1. found that respondent had encroached on the professionalpractice of complainant. violating XXX Rule 2. Rule 2.03. To induce them to hire his services. respondent Atty. Complainant also attached “respondent’s”calling card:Based on testimonial and documentary evidence. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1. he persistently called them and sent themtext messages. personally or through an agent in order to gainemployment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry and champerty. L-23815. 1974) Facts: . A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS. the CBD. Ledesma vs Hon. This rule proscribes “ambulance chasing” (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney. in exchange for a loan of P50. respondent’s law practice was benefited. XXX of the Code of Professional Responsibility XXX is hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for a period of one year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. he later admitted it during the mandatory hearing. Adelino H. Respondentpromised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead. Complainant presented substantial evidence (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondent’soffice) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals’ suits. Climaco(GR No. June 28. No. WHEREFORE. with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano. Complainant alleged that respondent. Nicomedes Tolentino forsolicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.03.Tolentino(A. 2009) Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty.03. in its report and recommendation. ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MAN’S CAUSE. a ground for disbarment. Through Labiano’s actions. As he was counsel de parte for one of the accused in a case pending in the sala of respondent Judge.Respondent Judge. and this is one of them. 1964. which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5. even before the petitioner accepted the appointment to theComelec.000. he filed a motion towithdraw as such. he instituted thiscertiorari proceeding. Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public InformationOffice revealed that . 1964. and that hiswork as an election registrar will not be in conflict with his serving as counsel de oficio for the said accused. As stated in the assailed order of the respondent judge.” 1 Canon 3Khan. 1964. was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz. Province of Negros Occidental. Not only did respondent Judge deny such motion. Subsequently. A motion for reconsideration having proved futile. Jr. he knew that the case was going to resume on that day. if not with zeal. petitioner filed an urgent motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio. onNovember 3. 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paid advertisement which read:“Annulment of Marriage Specialist 5324333/521-2667. if only toerase doubts as to his fitness to remain a member of the profession in good standing” and added that “the admonition is ever timely for those enrolled in theranks of legal practitioners that there are times. hecommenced to discharge its duties. Simbillo.. on October 13. that the case has been delayed eight times at the instance of the petitioner. The SC found the petition without merit. the Court challenged the petitioner to “exert himself sufficiently to perform his task as defense counsel with competence.” A staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court took notice and called thenumber posing as an interested party. in the challenged order of November 6. Then and there. She spoke to Mrs. premised on the policy of the Commission on Elections torequire full time service as well as on the volume or pressure of work of petitioner. when duty to court and to client takes precedence over the promptings of self-interest. denied said motion. 2003 Facts: Atty. and that the fee was P48. but he also appointed him counsel de oficio for the two defendants. The high court described the petitioner as unmindful of his work as counsel de oficio and reminded him that membership in the bar is a privilege burdenedwith conditions including that of being appointed counsel de oficio which makes even more manifest that law is indeed a profession dedicated to the ideal of service and not a mere trade.Petitioner. In the end. vs SimbilloAugust 19. who said that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee acourt decree within four to six months. 01 . or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before theadmission to practice. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138. or dealing directly with their clients. Section 27 of the Rules of Court.similar ads were published in the August 2 and 6. and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising andencroachment on their practice. Ratio: The practice of law is not a business. report and recommendation.03 and Rule 3. Atty.. grounds therefore.Ismael Khan. It is a profession in which duty to public service. 2000 issue of the Philippine Star. A duty of public service2. or other gross misconduct in such office.” and by this he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage — encouraging people whomight have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained form dissolving their marriage bonds. this petition for certiorari Issue: WON Atty.Rule 2. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity. fraudulent.. deceptive. IBP found respondent guilty.03 .A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false. which was denied. .03 and Rule 3. petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealtwith more severely. fairness. 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5. not money is the primary consideration.. self-laudatory or unfair statement orclaim regarding his qualifications or legal services. to do so.Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule 2. in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint against Atty.Rule 138. Sec 27 of the Rules of Court states: Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138.Solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. integrity and reliability3. Respondent filed an UrgentMotion for Reconsideration. undignified. or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so. Jr. misleading.Respondent advertised himself as an “Annulment Specialist. Hence.Rule 3. grosslyimmoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary4. malpractice.A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. Section 27 of theRules of Court Held: Yes..The following elements distinguish legal profession from business:1. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor.. Reasoning.— A member of the bar may bedisbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit. to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legalknowledge/skill. he is ashamed and offended by the ads Respondent’s Comment:-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg support services thru paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronicmachines.however. knowledge. State bar of Arizona Issues:1. 5217232. for solicitation to be proper. includes legal advice and counsel and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights aresecured regardless of WON they’re pending in court3 types of legal profession activity:1.Pls call: 5210767. ANNULMENT.Not limited to the conduct of cases in court. the act of advertising them should be allowed under Bates v.Annex ASECRET MARRIAGE?P560 for a valid marriageInfo on DIVORCE. Ulep vs Legal Clinic June 17.Declaration of Absence. legal procedures. 52220418:30am-6pm7F Victoria Bldg. Immigration Probs. Call Marivic THE LEGAL CLINIC. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman3.-As a member of the legal profession. training andexpertise.Annex BGUAM DIVORCEDON PARKINSONAn Atty in Guam. Annulment of Marriage. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life. VISA.Even if they are leg services.Adoption. INC. in or out of the court. ABSENCE. US/Foreign Visa for FilipinaSp/Shil. Visaext. Investment in the Phil. etc Petitioner’s Claim:-Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations2. Mla.To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession. The Practice of law involves any activity. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law?2. in orderto assist in proper inter and enforcement of law 2 . 1993 Facts: Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads pertaining to theexercise of the law professions other than those allowed by law. UN Ave. WON their services can be advertised? Held:1. is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce thru theLeg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours Guam divorce. Yes. which requires the application of law. THE LEGAL CLINIC. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retiree’s Visa. it must be compatible with the dignity of the legalprofession. liberty and property according to law. crim law. court.public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character to protect the public. litigation. undignified. dignified andobjective info/statement of facts. this doesn’t make itan exception to the general rule. shall use only true.gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot non-advisory and non-diagnosticex.No. self-laudatory or unfair statement re his qualifications/legal servicesnot supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return for publicity to attract legal businessCanons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers shouldn’t resort to indirect ads for professional employment like furnishing newspapercomments. importance of his position and other self-laudationStands of .what its ads represent and what it will be paid for.client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of court 2. assistance to laymen inneed of services from agencies like birth. fair. what’s important is that it’s engaged in thepractice of law ‘cause of the nature of the services it renders. who like drs. fact finding investigations. fraudulent. honest. divorce and adoption – have to explain to client the intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper course of action.computerized legal research.Respondent’s description of its services shows it falls within the practice of law:Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps and modern info tech.*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and technical know how like installing computer system for law offices. fam law). locating parties/witnesses to a case.backed up by paralegals. in making known his legal services.not supposed to use any false. misleading.It doesn’t matter that they don’t represent clients in court since practice of law isn’t limited to ct appearances but also leg research. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer. which brings it within the statutory prohibitions against ads only a person duly admitted as amember of the bar and who’s in good and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law. medico-leg probs. deceptive. document search. labor. marriage. are specialists in various fields and can take care of it (taxation. etc. bus registrations. leg advice and draftingcontracts Phil Star Art – Rx for Leg Probs.Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic sitlawyers. counselors and attys. int by proprietor Atty Nogales:. publishing his pictures with causes the lawyer’s been engaged in. evidence gathering.can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive treatment-The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesn’t matter. prop. foreign laws on marriage.caters to clients who can’t afford big firms. public offices. degrees .People of the Philippines vs Remigio Estebia(February 27. expressly allowed – publication in reputable law lists of informative data that’s not misleading and may include only: name. no and special branch of law practiced. uponrequest. professional assoc. posts of honor.branches of law practiced. legal teaching positions. listings in other reputablelaw lists. On January 19.have name listed in phone directory but not under designation of special branch of law2. G. adds. magazine. Adriano sought a 30-day extention to file appellant’s brief in mimeograph form. Member of the Philippine Bar. membership and offices in bar association. this shouldn’t be done thru propaganda EXCEPTIONS:1. nos. 1969.R. No. add. names and adds of references with written consent and clients regularly represented. All of these motions for extensionwere granted by the Court and the brief was due on April . schools attended w/ dates of grad. on April 21 he sought a special extension of five days.legal profession condemn lawyer’s advertisement of his talents like a merchant does of his goods because of the fact that law is a profession.Adriano again moved for a 20-day extension. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a statement of leg fees for an initial consultation or give. a written schedule of fees or estimate for spec services as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyersCanon 4In the Matter of Attorney Lope E. law firm. legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities.publication of simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or change in partnership.can’t be mere supplemental feature of paper. On February 18. Adriano.1967.ordinary simple professional card allowed – name. On December. trade journal or periodical that’s published for other purposes. On March 27 Adriano filed for another 15-day extension andon April 11 he moved for a “last” extension of ten days. assoc. legalauthorships. firm name or office add. necessarily implied from the restrictionsBates v. The canons of profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust whichmust be earned as the outcome of character and conductGood and efficient service to a client and the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. However. for the convenience of theprofession. L-26868)Facts: Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Samar and was sentenced to suffer the capital punishment. Adriano was required to prepare andfile his brief within 30 days from notice.never in a law list that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the public/the bar or lower the dignity/standing of the profession. date and place of birth and admission to the bar. A third extension was filed on March 8 for 15 days.Lope Adriano was appointed as Estebia’s counsel de oficio when his case came up before the Supreme Court on review. In the light of his own representation. For failing to comply. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty Lope E.R. and December 5. at best.Adriano’s pattern of conduct reveals a propensity to benumb appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of the courtesy and respect that should beaccorded this Court. Demaisip(G. he had by then finished. People of the Philippines vs Roscoe Daban y Ganzon. Attorney Sixto P. And yet. On October 24." A lawyer so appointed "as counsel foran indigent prisoner". January 31. 1970. in a resolution of June 2. no brief was filed. On May 25. more than sufficient time was afforded counsel to prepareand file his brief de oficio. our Canons of Professional Ethics demand. there was reason to expect that such a brief would be duly forthcoming. he filed a motion for extension of time of 30days within which to file appellant's brief. Adriano was suspended from the practice of law throughout the Philippines for a period of one (1) year. when he received notice of hisappointment. For the reasons given Attorney Lope E. 1966. In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed. On December 5. he filed a motion asking that in view of the father of appellant being unable to raise money for printing expenses. However. . It was granted. when the last show cause order was issued by this Court. between December 20. So were subsequent motions for extension.No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's brief. granted his prayer to be appointed counsel de oficio. Held: Yes. 1968. a draft of which.26. 1972)Facts: Respondent. 1971. 1967. Adriano was ordered to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office asattorney. 1971. ThisCourt. counsel's statements in his motions for extension have gone down to the level of empty andmeaningless words. Demaisip. A resolution was personally served upon him on December 18. Adriano as member of the bar deserve disciplinary action. started as counsel de parte of appellant. he be allowed to retire as counsel departe and be appointed as counsel de oficio instead to enable him to file a typewritten brief. Sixto P. Correspondingly. No. by specific authority. have dubious claim to veracity. L-31429.1968. but required him to file a mimeographed rather than a typewrittenbrief. after having obtained 13 extensions inall. this Court may assign an attorney to render professional aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable toemploy an attorney. a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned "to render the required service. the Supreme Court resolved to imposeupon Adriano a fine of P500 with a warning that a more drastic disciplinary action will be taken against him upon further non-compliance. according to him. 1968 however Adriano ignored the said resolution. "should always exert his best efforts" in the indigent's behalf. His explanation disregards the facts and betrays ignorance of the law. Those enrolled in its ranks are called upon to aid in theperformance of one of the basic purposes of the State. It is true there was a notice on June23. he had seventeen extensions. 1971 from the then Acting Director Vicente R. to ignore that other pressing matters do compete for his attention. than that respondent Demaisip. according to his motion of that date filed . 1971. Asfar back as May 13. likewise granted by this Tribunal in a spiritof generosity. he has hispractice to attend to.It was only then that on October 11. 1971.for respondent Demaisip. of course.Held: Doctrine: “There is need anew in this disciplinary proceeding to lay stress on the fundamental postulate that membership in the bar carries with it aresponsibility to live up to its exacting standard. grounded on settled jurisprudence. wasrecreant to the trust reposed in him as counsel de oficio. What passed for an explanation for appellant's persistent failure to file appellant's brief was submitted on November25. This is not. unto this Honorable Supreme Court mostrespectfully manifests and explains that. Nonetheless. worded thus: "[Comes now] the accused-appellant. within ten (10) days why disciplinary 3 action should not be taken against him. Raval of the Bureau of Prisons that on June 15 of that year appellant Roscoe Daban y Ganzon did escape.Respondent Demaisip ought to have known better. what is incumbent upon him as counsel de oficio must be fulfilled”Nothing can be clearer. especially in the case of an indigentdefendant. All in all.It did not turn out to be the case at all. Still there was no appellant's brief. Sixto P." It is his prayer. To avoid any frustration thereof. The fact that his services are rendered without remuneration should not occasion adiminution in his zeal. The law is a profession. the escape of the prisonerautomatically makes the appeal useless and unnecessary because it is considered abandoned. Demaisip to explain. that the above be considered asatisfactory explanation. notwithstanding the many extensions granted him. Rather the contrary. kept on filing motions for postponement. therefore. the administration of justice. After all. not a trade or a craft. That circumstance possesses a high degree of relevance since a lawyer has to live. certainly he cannot afford either to neglect hispaying cases. in the opinion of the undersigned lawyer. 1971 this Court issued a resolution requiring Atty. four in number. a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio. this time as counsel de oficio. respondent Demaisip. therefore. by and thru the undersigned counsel de oficio. by such gross neglect of duty. however. If he were not careless of thetruth. respondent opposed the application for building permit because of a personal grudge against his wife Susan who objected torespondent’s marrying her first cousin Imelda Soriano on September 17. she attributing the same to the opposition of respondents who wrote a September 13. Despite compliance with all therequirements for the purpose.22 He invokes good faith. until further orders of this Court. USA. He had failed to fulfill his responsibility as defense counsel. The liability incurred by respondent Demaisip is thus unavoidable. 2004 letterto Carlos J. as a member of the Bar. By complainant’s claim. His transgression is indisputable.C. ordinarily many more than any counsel is entitled to but nonetheless granted him. It is by such notoriousconduct of neglect and indifference on the part of counsel that a court's docket becomes unnecessarily clogged. Cruz(A. Demaisip is hereby suspended from the practice of the law in all courts of the Philippines. had assured this Court that he had already prepared a draft. It is not to be ignored either that as of that datehe had already secured thirteen extensions. Complainant’s wife Susan Soriano Dulalia filed an application for building permit for the construction of a warehouse. Abacan. Nevada. 6854. April 25. Jr. wherein he prayed that he be appointedcounsel de oficio and permitted to submit a mimeographed brief. 1971 he was unable to submit such a brief to this Court. No. because the sentenceimposed was one of death. 1971. vs Atty. is charged by Juan Dulalia.on May 25. Jr. health and safety of the neighbours adjoining the site. Cruz. Whether as counsel de parte ora counsel de oficio. he cannot evade. Municipal Engineer and concurrent Building Official of Meycauayan saying that unbearable nuisances that the construction creates and itsadverse effects particularly the imminent danger and damage to their properties. respondent Sixto P. Pablo C. 1989 while respondent’s marriage with Carolina Agaton which was solemnized onDecember 17. he was indeed truly remiss in the discharge of a responsibility which. Bulacan (respondent). Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan. Pablo C. Let a copy of this resolution be spread upon his record. she failed to secure a permit. is still subsisting.Canon 5 Juan Dulalia. he claiming to have had the impression that the . Respondent married Imelda Soriano on September 17. 04-1380])Facts: Atty.21 when the Family Code of the Philippines had already takeneffect.except for the sole purpose of filing the brief for appellant Roscoe Daban y Ganzon with this Court within a period of twenty days from receipt of thisresolution. however. whatremains is the imposition of an appropriate penalty. 1967. 1989 at the Clark County. (complainant) of violation of the Codeof Professional Responsibility.. 2007 [Formerly CBD Case No.WHEREFORE. then there was no excuse why prior to June 15. In respondent’s case. they may become susceptible to committing mistakes. Edison V. Worse. it is undisputed that hisfirst wife has remained an absentee even during the pendency of this case. Pablo C. Jonar Santiago vs Atty. And. as "ignorance of the law excuses no one fromcompliance therewith. there is no showing that he was romantically involved with any woman." It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.Respondent’s claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3. From 1985 when allegedly his first wife abandoned him. recent enactments and jurisprudence. He is WARNED that a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. respondent Atty. he being out of the country since 1986. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of theexisting laws and to keep abreast with legal developments. filed a complaint for the . respondent may not go scotfree. No. an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP). Respondent’s misimpression that it was the Civil Code provisions which applied at the time he contracted his second marriage and the seemingly unmindfulattitude of his residential community towards his second marriage notwithstanding. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty.applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code. there is a qualification thereunder that it should notprejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Held: Respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments. Rafanan(A. 1990 does not lie. October 5.C.23For while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive application. he can be given the benefit of the doubt on his claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was theapplicable provision when he contracted the second marriage abroad. until his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano. 1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayedthere until he came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on October 9. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legalprinciples. 2004)Facts: Jonar Santiago. 6252. Cruz is guilty of violating Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year. They areexpected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. support efforts to achieve high standards inlaw schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence. participate in continuing legal education programs. WHEREFORE. they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of thebar. an allegation which was notrefuted. b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register. Rafananwith the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on January 16. that Respondent in notarizing several documents on different dates failed and/or refused to: a)make the proper notationregarding the cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants. 1. 2001. andCanons 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). all in violation of the notarial provisions of the RevisedAdministrative Code. or have entries in their notarial register for these documents. Rafanan filed his verified Answer. he had the option to comply or not with the certification. did not have to indicate the residence certificates of the affiants. the affidavits. To nullify the Affidavits.disbarment of Atty. and c) make andexecute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized. 2001.02 and 1. it was complainant who was duty-bound to bring thesaid noncompliance to the attention of the prosecutor conducting the preliminary investigation. among others. which were sworn to before governmentprosecutors. He believed.He opined that the notation of residence certificates applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary public and was not mandatory for affidavits relatedto cases pending before courts and other government offices.malpractice or other gross misconduct in office under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. that the non-notation of their Residence Certificates in theAffidavits and the Counteraffidavits was allowed. pursuant to the January 19.Complainant alleged.01.indicate the affiants residence certificates on the documents they notarized.Complainant likewise alleged that Respondent executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he wasactively representing his client. Atty. Complainant alleges that on a certain date. He pointed out that in the latter. He admitted having administered the oath tothe affiants whose Affidavits were attached to the verified Complaint.On March 23. however. 2001 Order of the CBD.07 and 12.As to his alleged failure to comply with the certification required by Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Canon 5.On . Respondent accompanied by several persons waited for Complainant afterthe hearing and after confronting the latter disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words and veiled threats.03. respondent explained that ascounsel of the affiants. Edison V. Rafanan with deceit. Neither did other notaries public in Nueva Ecija -. Finally.some of whom were older 4 practitioners -. It charged Atty. and violation of Canons 1. September 27. The Affidavit executed by Atty.Held: Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly requires respondent as notary -in the absence of any fiscal. respondent. He had the duty to present -.he was not required to comply with the certification requirement.WHEREFORE. all American citizens. to the end thathis clients would not be deprived of life. Edison V. complainantdoes not dispute the statements of respondent or suggest the falsity of its contents. March 24.every defense and mitigating circumstance that the law permitted.and the indication of the affiants residence certificate. 2003. the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. the entry of such certification in the notarial register. Rafanan was clearly necessary for the defense of his clients.C. liberty or property.ascounsel for the affiants -. The IBP Board of Governors found his excuse for the violations unacceptable. since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged date and time of the incident. Atty.by all fair and honorable means -. Respondent failed to do so with respect to the subject Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits in the belief that -. in his Affidavit. They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. they may become susceptible to committing mistakes. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty.It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. recent enactments and jurisprudence. was thus expected to spare no effort to save his clients from a wrongconviction. The respondent . Notably. applied for Philippine Visas.000 with a warning that similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely. 2006) Facts: In 1995. state prosecutor orgovernment official authorized to administer the oath -. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby FINEDP3. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legalprinciples. they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of thebar. except by due process of law.Canon 6Huyssen vs. Guttierez(A. 6707. XVI-2003-172 approving and adopting the Investigating Commissioners Report thatrespondent had violated specific requirements of the Notarial Law on the execution of a certification. his clients were at his residence and could not have possibly committed the crime charged against them. as defense counsel. No. the complainant and her three sons.Having undertaken the defense of the accused.to certify that he has personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarilyexecuted and understood their affidavits. Worse. 2003) Facts: The complainants. Issue: Whether or not Atty.01 and 1.or deceitful acts. complainant demanded from respondentthe return of US $20. Complainant then deposited with respondent on six different occasions from April 1995 to April 1996 the total amount of US $20.C. Respondent’s acts of asking money from complainant in consideration of the latter’s pending application for visas isviolative of Rule 1. filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. However.03 of Canon 1 and Rule 6. After one year.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their privateinterests. all high ranking officials of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).who was then connected with theBureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) informed them that they needed to deposit a certain amount of money in order that their visa applications willbe approved. Moreover. Issue: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for the acts she committed during her tenure Held: The respondent was DISBARRED for violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as of Rule 1. Dasig(A. a complaint for disbarment was filed in theCommission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. respondent miserably failed to cope with strict demands and highstandards of the legal profession. which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful.000. she attempted to extort from four different people sums of money as consideration for her favorable action on their pendingapplications or requests before her office. Instead of returning the money. The complainants allege that during her tenure as OIC of the LegalAffairs Service of the CHED. Dasig. Vitriolo vs. 4984.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.Felina S. As a lawyer.000 who assured her that said amount would be returned. the respondent issued postdated checkswhich were dishonored. The charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorney’s Oath for having used her publicoffice to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED. dishonest. said acts also constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for acts of dishonesty . also an official of the CHED. April 1.the respondent refused to issue copies of official receipts despite the demand of the complainant. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or whichmay be affected by the functions of his office. who was also a public officer. Guttierez should be disbarred for the act complained of in the case Held: The respondent was DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount he received from the complainant with legal interest fromhis receipt of the money until payment. After respondent made several unfulfilled promises to return the said amount. No. Ferrer was confirmed by disinterested persons who witnessed the incident. Respondent’s attempts to extort money from persons withapplications or requests pending before her office are violative of Rule 1. One of the grounds for the prayer for disbarment orother disciplinary actions against Ferrer was his conduct and the words he uttered at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court – Daet before the start of hearing. incriminate. Ferrer violated Canon 7. Jr vs Atty. and discredit the former. or deceitful acts. Bonifacio Barandon.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ferrer violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: Yes. Ferrer. A lawyer’s language should always be dignified and respectful. The Supreme Court affirmed thesuspension of Atty. Atty. 2010) Facts: Atty.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.” Issue: Whether or not Atty. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Respondent. particularly rule 7.C. as punong barangay. Edwin Ferrer. February 19. Atty. presided over the conciliation proceedings between 5 petitioner and Antonio Pastor as regards a contested property. befitting the dignity of thelegal profession. 5768. In the said incident. Ferrer uttered the invectives against Barandon withintent to annoy. which prohibits members of the Barfrom engaging or participating in any unlawful. patayan kung patayan. kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Barandon filed a complaint-affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment. 5738. dishonest. Wilfredo Catu vs Atty.C. Ferrer for one year as ordered by the IBPCBD. ang abogadona rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur.02 of the Code which bars lawyers ingovernment service from promoting their private interests. 2008) Facts: Respondent was the Punong Barangay of Barangay 723. Said acts also constitute a breach of Rule 6.suspension from the practice of law. umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur. No.and gross misconduct as OIC of Legal Services. Manila. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte. humiliate. Vicente Rellosa(A. Atty. Sr(A. Ferrer ought to have realized thatsuch kind of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. Canon 7 Atty. No. or imposition of appropriate disciplinary actions against Atty. The parties to the conciliation proceedings failed to arrive at . hindi kayo taga-rito. Ferrer was drunk when he utteredthe words: “Laban kung laban.Such conduct of Atty. March 26. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in anytransaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office. 03. in effect. vocation or profession unless such public officer or employee is granted permission to engage in such activities by the headof the Department in which they belong. were expelled by the school as recommended by the Student Disciplinary tribunal forpublishing some objectionable features or articles. respondent should haveobtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. the hired counsel of some expelled students from the AMA Computer College. As punong barangay. However. respondent was not forbidden to practice his profession.Respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules which prohibits public officer or employee from engagingdirectly in any private business. filed a complaint against the lawyers of Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices (Atty. March 22. members of the Editorial Board of the school paper. Manuel N.Canon 8Camacho vs. Pangulayan. the principal defendant. Pangulayan(328 SCRA 631. compromiseagreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his clients which. et al. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendant in thatcase. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixmonths. Camacho.A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. and to terminate all civil.Atty. Public confidence in thelaw and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Issue: Whether or not respondent acted in contravention of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: Yes.an amicable settlement. The students. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in amanner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. Complainant averred that such an act of respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. the mother and brother of the complainant. respondent acted in contravention of the rules established by Canon 7.) for having procured and effected on separate occasions. They were found guilty of using indecent language and unauthorized use of student publication funds. without his knowledge. Pangulayan admits that he only participated in the formulation and execution of the various Re-Admission agreements complained . In so doing. 2000)Facts: Atty. particularly rule 7.filed a complaint for ejectment against Pastor before the Metropolitan Trial Court. required them to waive all kinds of claims they might have had againstAMACC. criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it.Respondent violated the provision stated in Section 12. of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Regina Catu and Antonio Catu. His failure is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional responsibility and an utter disregard of theduty he owes to his colleague. criminal and administrative proceedings against AMA.Laput because she no longer trusted him after finding out that some checks were sent to the complainant instead of her and that several withdrawals weremade by complainant in her account without her permission. Barrera sign documents sent to corporations which have stocks owned by Macario Barrera revoking his power of attorney. theother respondent Atty. Barrera dismissed Atty. Held: No. the administrator of the estate of Macario Barrera. he still proceeded to negotiate with the students and their parents withoutcommunicating the matter to their lawyer. He charged respondents Atty. There is no irregularity in the appearance of respondents as counsel. He further allegesthat the motive of the respondents was to embarrass him to the officials. regarding the testateof the latter. De Barrera. the solicitor-general found that before respondents filed their appearance. lawyers and employees of those companies picturing him as a dishonest lawyer andno longer trusted by his client. a pleading discharging thecomplainant. Mrs. it was found that Mrs. Barrera. His defense that the agreements were purely administrative does not hold because the manifestation stated that the studentsshall drop all civil. However. Issue: WON Atty. 1962) Facts: Atty. Barrera had already filed with the court. Remotigue(6 SCRA 45 September 29. he found out thatrespondent Atty. Complainant says that the respondents nursed the desire of his former client to replace him andalso made Mrs. Laput vs. Pangulayan was aware that when the letters of apology and Re-Admission agreements were formalized. Remotigue entered his appearance. The fact that complainant was not able to get a copy was not the fault of the respondents. After that. the complainantwas already the counsel for the students in the civil case. Also. Pagulayan act in accordance with ethical standards for procuring said agreements. Laput was the former counsel of one Nieves vda. Complainant alleges that weeks after his client refused to countersign several pleadings that he prepared. Casiano U. The revocation of powerof attorney prepared by respondent was done without malice and was made only . Patalinghug was the new counsel of Mrs. Remotigue and Atty. The IBP recommended a 6month suspension but the SC found it too harsh andruled only a 3month suspension. the IBP found that Atty. Patalinghug with unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases and intriguingagainst another lawyer. Barrera so he voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as counsel for Mrs.of and alleges thatthe agreements had nothing to do with the civil case but were purely administrative. Issue: WON respondents were guilty of unethical and unprofessional conduct Held: No. a succession of acts of the same kind. Misael Ladaga. On top of this. 6 . He failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department. 42 LRA. During the occasions that the respondent appeared as such counsel before the METC of Quezon City. Canon 9Office of the Court Administrator vs Atty. 87 Kan. He appeared for free and for the purposeof settling the case amicably. 84-885 for “Falsification of Public Documents” before the METC of Quezon City. Issue: WON Atty. No. A similar prohibition is found under Sec. appeared as counsel for and in behalf of his cousin.to safeguard his client. during all the years thathe has been in government service. an accused in Criminal Case No. Helpless as she was and respondent being the only lawyer in the family. he agreed torepresent her out of his compassion and high regard for her.In other words. Ladaga. he was on official leave of absence. P-99-1287 January 26. for it consists in frequent or customary action. as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services (State vs. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servantsfrom engaging in the private practice of their profession. Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which disallowscertain attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their profession. upon such several appearances. Respondent did not receive a single centavo from her. Ladaga(A. 127. Misael M. 2001)Facts: Atty. he has maintained his integrity and independence. 35. It is also denied that the appearanceof said respondent in said case was without the previous permission of the Court. p. hisPresiding Judge. Cotner. it is frequent habitual exercise (State vs. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public. Narcisa NaldozaLadaga. 864. This is the first time that respondent ever handled a case for a member of his family who is like a big sister to him. was engages into private practice? NO Held: Respondent is charged under Sec.M. Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case he was handling. 768). Respondent appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousinclient NarcisaLadaga. his Presiding Judge was aware of his appearance as counsel for his cousin. THERE WAS NO PRIVATE PRACTICE: In People vs. Villanueva: Practice is more than an isolated appearance. 1. The presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department contemplated by law. Furthermore.S. Moreover. Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Charges DISMISSED. N. 4 S. In this pleading. C. Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct. the records show that respondent appeared as counsel forBunan prior to 22 May 2001.M. Thus. and gravemisrepresentation. Donna Marie S. No. Aguirre vs. Rana(B." and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan ("Bunan"). June 10. On 21 May 2001. the Court ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him. DECISION: Reprimanded. Issue: Whether respondent is engaged in unauthorized practice of law. We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserveadmission to the Philippine Bar. violation of law. The appearance as counsel on one occasion. complainant Donna Marie Aguirre ("complainant") filed against respondent aPetition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. He explains. while not yet a lawyer. not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law.Complainant further alleges that respondent filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. before respondent took the .appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers ("MBEC") of Mandaon. 98 N. it is evident that the isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono counsel of his cousin in Criminal Case No. The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at the Philippine InternationalConvention Center. 522. Respondent claims that "he decided toassist and advice Bunan. George Bunan. 1036. 644. However. 647). Complainant alleges that respondent. However. 2003) Facts: Respondent Edwin L. Masbate. Based on the foregoing. Complainant charged respondent with unauthorized practice of law. that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or represented himself as an "attorney" in thepleading. grave misconduct. 84885 doesnot constitute the “private practice” of the law profession contemplated by law.Bryan. Rana ("respondent") was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. Edwin L. Held: Yes. E. however. Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001." Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 pleading that objected to theinclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. In his Comment. is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practiceof law.respondent took the lawyer's oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. respondent admits that Bunan sought his "specific assistance" to represent him before the MBEC. one day before the scheduledmass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar. respondent represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice MayoraltyCandidate. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed. namely: his lawyer's oath to be administeredby this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys . Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice law. Verily. legal knowledge. However. True. educational attainment. and even publictrust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar. if the person seeking admission had practiced law without alicense. respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer's oath. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings.lawyer's oath. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a memberof the Bar. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. The practiceof law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualificationsduly ascertained and certified. it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes onea full-fledged lawyer. without license todo so. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law.