Get Homework/Assignment Done

Homeworkping.com

Homework Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoring

https://www.homeworkping.com/

click here for freelancing tutoring sites

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 516             June 27, 1967

TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR., petitioner, vs.ESTEBAN DEGAMO, respondent.

Teodoro O. Calo, Jr. for complainant.Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor Pedro A,. Ramirez for investigators.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Disbarment proceedings against the respondent Esteban Degamo1 upon a verified letter-complaint of the petitioner, Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr., filed with this Court on 2 March 1962, and charging the former with "having committed false statement under oath or perjury" in connection with his appointment as Chief of Police of Carmen, Agusan.

1

On 12 March 1962, this Court required the respondent to file "an answer (not a motion to dismiss.) After interposing an unsuccessful motion for a bill of particulars, he filed his answer on 29 May 1962 and this Court accordingly referred the case to the Solicitor-General for investigation, report and recommendation. In turn, the Solicitor General referred the case to the Provincial Fiscal of Agusan. The fiscal conducted an investigation. The petitioner adduced evidence, but not the respondent, because on the date set for hearing, on 25 July 1964, following several postponements, the respondent failed to attend, despite due notice, for which reason the investigating fiscal considered the respondent as having waived his right to present evidence. Thereafter, the fiscal forwarded the record of the investigation to the Solicitor General. On the basis thereof, the Solicitor General filed his report and a complaint with this Court, recommending the disbarment of the respondent, for gross misconduct.

No evidence having been submitted by the respondent, the following facts are either unrebutted or admitted:

On 17 January 1959, respondent Esteban Degamo, as an applicant to the position of Chief of Police of Carmen, Agusan, subscribed and swore to a filled-out "Information Sheet" before Mayor Jose Malimit of the same municipality. The sheet called for answers about name, personal circumstances, educational attainment, civil service eligibility and so forth. One item required to be filled out reads:

Criminal or police record, if any, including those which did not reach the Court. (State the details of case and the final outcome.)" —

to which respondent answered, "None."

Having accomplished the form, the respondent was appointed by the mayor to the position applied for. However, on the day the respondent swore to the information sheet, there was pending against him, and two (2) other co-accused, a criminal case in the Court of First Instance of Bohol (No. 2646) for illegal possession of explosive powder.2

Prior to the commencement of this administrative case, the respondent was also charged in an information, dated 23 September 1960, for perjury, in the Court of First Instance of Agusan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2194, on the same facts upon which he is now proceeded against as a member of the Philippine bar.

In his defense, the respondent claims that his answer "None" to the aforequoted questionnaire was made in good faith, it being his honest interpretation of the particular question (heretofore quoted) that it referred to a final judgment or conviction and that Criminal Case No. 2646 was not a criminal or police record.1äwphï1.ñët

The defense is plainly untenable. The questionnaire was simple, couched in ordinary terms and devoid of legalism hence, it needed no interpretation. It only called for simple information. That it asked for records "which did not reach the Court" entirely disproves respondent's technical twist to the question as referring to final judgments or convictions.

Petitioner's letter-complaint was filed on 2 March 1962 while the act of the respondent complained of was committed on 17 January 1959. Without explaining how and upon what authority, respondent invokes the defense of prescription. This defense does not lie; the rule is that —

The ordinary statutes of limitation have no application to disbarment proceedings, nor does the circumstance that the facts set up as a ground for disbarment constitute a crime, prosecution for which in a criminal proceeding is barred by limitation, affect the disbarment proceeding, . . . (5 Am. Jur. 434).

Nor is the pendency of Criminal Case No. 2194 (for perjury) a prejudicial question, since the ground for disbarment in the present proceeding is not for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude but for gross misconduct. A violation of a criminal law is not a bar to disbarment (6 Moran 242, 1963 Ed., citing the case of In re Montagne and Dominguez, 3 Phil. 577), and an acquittal is no obstacle to cancellation of the lawyer's license. (In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399).

2

Respondent Degamo stresses that there is no cause of action against him because the information sheet is not required by law but only by the Civil Service Commission. This argument is beside the point. The issue is whether or not he acted honestly when he denied under oath the existence against him of any criminal or police record, including those that did not reach the court. In this, he did not tell the truth. He deliberately concealed it in order to secure an appointment in his own favor. He, therefore, failed to maintain that high degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar (Toledo vs. Toledo, Adm. Case No. 266, 27 April 1963; Mortel vs. Aspiras, Adm. Case No. 145, 28 Dec. 1956; Bolivar vs. Simbol, Adm. Case No. 377, 29 April 1966 **), and he has violated his oath as a lawyer to "do no falsehood". It needs no reiteration that the ethical standards applicable to a member of the bar, who thereby automatically becomes a court officer, must necessarily be one higher than that of the market place.

The facts being clear and undisputed, respondent's insistence upon patent technical excuses disentitle him to leniency from his Court.

For the foregoing reasons, respondent Esteban Degamo is hereby disbarred, and his name ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

*The "Resolution of the Court on the " Motion for Reconsideration" was promulgated on August 30, 1967 and is printed in this volume.

1Admitted to the Bar on 7 February 1965.

2The information bears data of 3 July 1958 (Exh. "B-1").

**16 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 623.

Rules of Procedure of theCommission on Bar Discipline Integrated Bar of the

Philippines

RULE ITITLE AND CONSTRUCTION

SECTION 1. Title of the Rules. These Rules shall be known as the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

SEC. 2. Construction. Subject to the requirements of due process, these Rules shall be construed with the objective of assisting any party in obtaining just resolution of his case through an expeditious and inexpensive proceeding before the Commission.

SEC. 3. Suppletory Application of Rules of Court. In the absence of any applicable provision in these Rules or in Rule 139-B, the pertinent provisions in the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines may, in the interest of expeditious justice and whenever practicable and convenient, be applied in a suppletory character and effect.

SEC. 4. Nature of Proceeding. Proceedings before the Commission shall be confidential in character and summary in nature.

RULE IIHOW INSTITUTED

SECTION 1. How Instituted. Complaint for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be instituted before the Commission on Bar Discipline by filing six (6) copies of a verified complaint. Complaint may be likewise filed before the Supreme Court.

3

RULE IIIPLEADINGS, NOTICES AND APPEARANCES

SECTION 1. Pleadings. The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer and verified position papers and motion for reconsideration of a resolution.

SEC. 2. Prohibited Pleadings. The following pleadings shall not be allowed, to wit:

a. Motion to dismiss the complaint or petitionb. Motion for a bill of particularsc. Motion for new trial d. Petition for relief from judgmente. Supplemental pleadings

SEC. 3. Issuance of Summons. Within two (2) days from receipt of the verified complaint, the ommission shall issue the required summons, attaching thereto a copy of the complaint and supporting documents, if any. The summons shall indicate that the respondent has fifteen (15) days from receipt within which to file six (6) verified copies of his answer.

RULE IVVENUE AND ASSIGNMENT OF CASES

SECTION 1. Venue a) All cases filed before or referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be heard by the Commission on Bar Discipline in its principal office at the IBP Bldg., Julia Vargas St., Ortigas Center, Pasig City.

SEC. 2. Raffle of Cases. All cases shall be assigned to an Investigating Commissioner by raffle.

SEC. 3. Consolidation of Cases. Where there are two or more cases pending before the Commission involving the same parties, the same shall motu propio be consolidated with the first case filed to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

SEC. 4. Referral to Chapter President. Upon agreement of parties or upon motion based on meritorious ground, the Investigating Commissioner, upon endorsement of the Board of Governors, may refer to the Chapter President concerned reception of evidence from the complainant or respondent or their respective witnesses. Such evidence shall then be forwarded by the Chapter President to the Investigating Commissioner for evaluation and consideration in the preparation of his report and recommendation.

RULE VPROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE

SECTION 1. Mandatory Conference. Immediately upon receipt of the verified answer, the Investigating Commissioner shall set a mandatory conference where, the following matters shall be taken:

1. Admissions2. Stipulation of facts3. Definition of issues

SEC. 2. Submission of Position Papers. After the mandatory conference, the Investigating Commissioner shall direct both parties to submit simultaneously their verified position papers with supporting documents and affidavits within an inextendible period of ten (10) days from notice of termination of the mandatory conference.

SEC. 3. Determination of Necessity of Clarificatory Questioning. Immediately after the submission by the parties of their position papers, the Investigating Commissioner shall determine whether there is a need to conduct clarificatory questioning. If necessary, a hearing date shall be set wherein the Investigating Commissioner shall ask clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses to further elicit facts or informations.

SEC. 4. Minutes of Proceedings. The proceedings before the Commission shall be recorded.

4

SEC. 5. Non-appearance of Parties, and Non-verification of Pleadings. a) Non-appearance at the mandatory conference or at the clarificatory questioning date shall be deemed a waiver of right to participate in the proceeding. Ex parte conference or hearings shall then be conducted. Pleadings submitted or filed which are not verified shall not be given weight by the Investigating Commissioner.

SEC. 6. Issuance of an Order Submitting the Case for Decision. After the parties have submitted their position papers or after the clarificatory questioning date, the Investigating Commissioner shall issue an order expressly declaring the submission of the case for resolution.

SEC. 7. Period to Resolve Case. The Investigating Commissioner shall submit his report and recommendation to the Board of Governors within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the order declaring the submission of the case for resolution was issued.

RULE VIOATH, SUBPOENA AND SERVICE OF PAPERS

SECTION 1. Oaths. A Commissioner has the authority to administer oaths on the conduct of the proceedings before him/her.

SEC. 2. Subpoena. The Investigating Commissioner may compel attendance of witnesses and production of pertinent documents or papers by subpoena.

SEC. 3. Service of Papers. Service of papers or notices required by these rules shall be made upon the parties or Commission, personally, by registered mail with return card or through e-mail if applicable.

RULE VII CONTEMPT

SECTION 1. Contempt. The Investigating Commissioner has the authority to adjudge any party or witness in direct or indirect contempt for

misbehavior or obstruction of proceedings including disrespect towards the Investigating Commisioner or disobedience to his lawful order or writ. Any person adjudged guilty of contempt may be fined not exceeding One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINESCOMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE

GUIDELINES FOR IMPOSINGLAWYER SANCTIONS

A.PURPOSE AND NATURE OF SANCTIONS

1.1 Purpose of Lawyer Discipline ProceedingsThe purpose of lawyer discipline proceedings is to protect the public and the administration of justice from lawyers who have not discharged, will not discharge, or are unlikely to discharge properly their professional duties to clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession.

1.2 Public Nature of Lawyer Discipline ProceedingsUpon the filing and service of formal charges, lawyer discipline proceedings should be public, and disposition of lawyer discipline should be public in cases of disbarment, suspension, and reprimand. Only in cases of minor misconduct, when there is little or no injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession, and when there is little likelihood of repetition by the lawyer, should private discipline be imposed.

1.3 Purpose of These StandardsThese standards are designed for use in imposing a sanction or sanctions following a determination by clear and convincing evidence that a member of the legal profession has violated a provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Descriptions in these standards of substantive disciplinary offenses are not intended to create grounds for determining culpability independent of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Standards constitute a model, setting forth a comprehensive system for determining sanctions, permitting flexibility and creativity in assigning sanctions in particular cases of lawyer misconduct. They are designed to promote: (1)

5

consideration of all factors relevant to imposing the appropriate level of sanction in an individual case; (2) consideration of the appropriate weight of such factors in light of the stated goals of lawyer discipline; (3) consistency in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions for the same or similar offenses within and among jurisdictions.

B. SANCTIONS

2.1 Scope

A disciplinary sanction is imposed on a lawyer upon a finding or acknowledgment that the lawyer has engaged in professional misconduct.

2.2 DisbarmentDisbarment terminates the individual’s status as a lawyer. Where disbarment is not permanent, procedures should be established for a lawyer who has been disbarred to apply for readmission, provided that:

(1) no application should be considered for five years from the effective date of disbarment; and(2) the petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence:(a) successful completion of the bar examination;(b) compliance with all applicable discipline or disability orders or rules; and(c) rehabilitation and fitness to practice law.

2.3 SuspensionSuspension is the removal of a lawyer from the practice of law for a specified minimum period of time. Generally, suspension should be for a period of time equal to or greater than six months, but in no event should the time period prior to application for reinstatement be more than three years. Procedures should be established to allow a suspended lawyer to apply for reinstatement, but a lawyer who has been suspended should not be permitted to return to practice until he has completed a reinstatement process demonstrating rehabilitation, compliance with all applicable discipline or disability orders and rules, and fitness to practice law.

2.4 Interim SuspensionInterim suspension is the temporary suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law pending imposition of final discipline. Interim suspension includes:(a) suspension upon conviction of a “serious crime” or,(b) suspension when the lawyer’s continuing conduct is or is likely to cause immediate and serious injury to a client or the public.

2.5 ReprimandReprimand, also known as censure or public censure, is a form of public discipline which declares the conduct of the lawyer improper, but does not limit the lawyer’s right to practice.

2.6 AdmonitionAdmonition, also known as private reprimand, is a form of non-public discipline which declares the conduct of the lawyer improper, but does not limit the lawyer’s right to practice.

2.7 ProbationProbation is a sanction that allows a lawyer to practice law under specified conditions. Probation can be imposed alone or in conjunction with a reprimand or an admonition; probation can also be imposed as a condition of readmission or reinstatement.

2.8 Other Sanctions and RemediesOther sanctions and remedies which may be imposed include:(a) restitution,(b) assessment of costs, (c) limitation upon practice,(d) appointment of a receiver,(e) requirement that the lawyer take the bar examination or professional responsibility examination,(f) requirement that the lawyer attend continuing education courses, and(g) other requirements that the state’s highest court or disciplinary board deems consistent with the purposes of lawyer sanctions.

6

2.9 Reciprocal DisciplineReciprocal discipline is the imposition of a disciplinary sanction for conduct for which a lawyer has been disciplined in another jurisdiction.

2.10 Readmission and ReinstatementIn jurisdictions where disbarment is not permanent, procedures should be established to allow a disbarred lawyer to apply for readmission. Procedures should be established to allow a suspended lawyer to apply for reinstatement.

C. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED INIMPOSING SANCTIONS

3.0 GenerallyIn imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, a court should consider the following factors:

(a) the duty violated;(b) the lawyer’s mental state; and(c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and(d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

4.0 Violations of Duties Owed to Clients

4.1 Failure to Preserve the Client’s PropertyAbsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving the failure to preserve client property:

4.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should know that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in dealing with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.14 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in dealing with client property and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client.

4.2 Failure to Preserve the Client’s ConfidencesAbsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving the failure to preserve client property:

4.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, knowingly reveals information relating to representation of a client not otherwise lawfully permitted to be disclosed, and this disclosure causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.22 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly reveals information relating to the representation of a client not otherwise lawfully permitted to be disclosed, and this disclosure causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.23 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently reveals information relating to representation of a client not otherwise lawfully permitted to be disclosed and this disclosure causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.24 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently reveals information relating to representation of a client not otherwise lawfully permitted to be disclosed and this disclosure causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client.

4.3 Failure to Avoid Conflicts of InterestAbsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving conflicts of interest:

7

4.31 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, without the informed consent of client(s):

(a) engages in representation of a client knowing that the lawyer’s interests are adverse to the client’s with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to the client; or(b) simultaneously represents clients that the lawyer knows have adverse interests with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or(c) represents a client in a matter substantially related to a matter in which the interests of a present or former client are materially adverse, and knowingly uses information relating to the representation of a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.

4.32 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.33 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in determining whether the representation of a client may be materially affected by the lawyer’s own interests, or whether the representation will adversely affect another client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.34 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in determining whether the representation of a client may be materially affected by the lawyer’s own interests, or whether the representation will adversely affect another client, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client.

4.4 Lack of DiligenceAbsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving a failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client:

4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

(a) a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or(b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or(c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.

4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:(a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or(b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.43 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.44 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client.

4.5 Lack of CompetenceAbsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factor set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving failure to provide competent representation to a client:

4.51 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer’s course of conduct demonstrates that the lawyer does not understand the most fundamental legal doctrines or procedures, and the lawyer’s conduct causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.52 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an area of practice in which the lawyer knows he or she is not competent, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

8

4.53 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer:

(a) demonstrates failure to understand relevant legal doctrines or procedures and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or(b) is negligent in determining whether he or she is competent to handle a legal matter and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.54 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in determining whether he or she is competent to handle a legal matter, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client.

4.6 Lack of Candor Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases where the lawyer engages in fraud, deceit, misrepresentation directed toward a client:

4.61 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to a client.

4.62 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client, and causes injury or potential injury to the client.

4.63 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to provide a client with accurate or complete information, and causes injury or potential injury to the client.

4.64 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in failing to provide a client with accurate or complete information, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to the client.

5.0 Violations of Duties Owed to the Public

5.1 Failure to Maintain Personal IntegrityAbsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the facts set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, or in cases with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation:

5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

(a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; or the sale, distribution or importation of controlled substances; or the intentional killing of another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of these offenses; or

(b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.

5.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.

5.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

5.14 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any other conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

5.2 Failure to Maintain the Public Trust Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the

9

following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving public officials who engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or who state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official:

5.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position knowingly misuses the position with the intent to obtain a significant benefit or advantage for himself or another, or with the intent to cause serious or potentially serious injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.

5.22 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position knowingly fails to follow proper procedures or rules, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.

5.23 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position negligently fails to follow proper procedures or rules, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.

5.24 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position engages in an isolated instance of negligence in not following proper procedures or rules, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.

6.0 Violations of Duties Owed to the Legal System

6.1 False Statements, Fraud, and MisrepresentationAbsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation to a court:

6.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or

improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

6.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the court or that material information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are false or in taking remedial action when material information is being withheld, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

6.14 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of neglect in determining whether submitted statements or documents are false or in failing to disclose material information upon learning of its falsity, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

6.2 Abuse of the Legal ProcessAbsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving failure to expedite litigation or bring a meritorious claim, or failure to obey any obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists:

6.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes serious or potentially serious interference with a legal proceeding.

10

6.22 Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that he is violating a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.

6.23 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to comply with a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.

6.24 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in complying with a court order or rule, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no actual or potential interference with a legal proceeding.

6.3 Improper Communications With Individuals in the Legal SystemAbsent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving attempts to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law:

6.31 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer:

(a) intentionally tampers with a witness and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes significant or potentially significant interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding; or(b) makes an ex parte communication with a judge or juror with intent to affect the outcome of the proceeding, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes significant or potentially significant interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding; or(c) improperly communicates with someone in the legal system other than a witness, judge, or juror with the intent to influence or affect the outcome of the proceeding, and causes significant or potentially significant interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding.

6.32 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in communication with an individual in the legal system when the lawyer

knows that such communication is improper, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or causes interference or potential interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding.

6.33 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in determining whether it is proper to engage in communication with an individual in the legal system, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or interference or potential interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding.

6.34 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in improperly communicating with an individual in the legal system, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no actual or potential inference with the outcome of the legal proceeding.

7.0 Violations of Duties Owed to the Profession

7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.

7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.

7.3 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.

7.4 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in determining whether the lawyer’s conduct violates a duty owed to the profession, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.

11

8.0 Prior Discipline Orders

8.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer:(a) intentionally or knowingly violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession; or(b) has been suspended for the same or similar misconduct, and intentionally or knowingly engages in further acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession.

8.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer has been reprimanded for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession.

8.3 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer:(a) negligently violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession; or(b) has received an admonition for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession.

8.4 An admonition is generally not an appropriate sanction when a lawyer violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order or when a lawyer has engaged in the same or similar misconduct in the past.

9.0 Aggravation and Mitigation

9.1 Generally After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating circumstances may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose

9.2 Aggravation

9.21 Definition. Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any considerations, or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed.

9.22 Factors which may be considered in aggravation. Aggravating factors include:(a) prior disciplinary offenses;(b) dishonest or selfish motive;(c) a pattern of misconduct;(d) multiple offenses;(e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;(f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process;(g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;(h) vulnerability of victim;(i) substantial experience in the practice of law;(j) indifference to making restitution.

9.3 Mitigation

9.31 Definition. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed.

9.32 Factors which may be considered in mitigation. Mitigating factors include:(a) absence of a prior disciplinary record;(b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;(c) personal or emotional problems;(d) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct;(e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings;(f) inexperience in the practice of law; (g) character or reputation;(h) physical or mental disability or impairment;

12

(i) delay in disciplinary proceedings;(j) interim rehabilitation;(k) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;(l) remorse;(m) remoteness of prior offenses.

9.4 Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating Nor Mitigating. The following factors should not be considered as either aggravating or mitigating:(a) forced or compelled restitution;(b) agreeing to the client’s demand for certain improper behavior or result;(c) withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer;(d) resignation prior to completion of disciplinary proceedings;(e) complainant’s recommendation as to sanction;(f) failure of injured client to complain.

People vs. Tuanda [A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990]

16AUG

[Per Curiam]

FACTS:

Atty. Fe Tuanda was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila in violation of B.P. 22 with a fine and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to indemnify the complainant Herminia Marquez. Respondent appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court and imposed upon Atty. Fe Tuanda, in addition, the suspension from the practice of law until further orders from the Supreme Court. The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals noted respondent’s Notice of Appeal and advised

her “to address her Notice of Appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court, the proper forum.” In the said motion, responded stated:

that suspension from the practice of law is indeed a harsh if not a not painful penalty aggravating the lower court’s penalty of fine considering that accused-appellant’s action on the case during the trial on the merits at the lower court has always been motivated purely by sincere belief that she is innocent of the offense charged nor of the intention to cause damage to the herein plaintiff-appellee.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the imposed suspension for Atty. Tuanda may be lifted.

HELD:

NO. Motion to Lift Order of Suspension denied.

RATIO:

[T]he crimes 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.” Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense

Case Digest on Martinez v. Martinez (Case on Prodigality)

13

November 11, 2010

Facts: Pedro Martinez Ilustre brought an action against his father Francisco for a declaration of prodigality against him. Pedro alleges that his father has been dissipating and squandering his estate by making donations to his 2nd wife, as well as the administration of his estate. The father denied such allegations, instead he posted that his son was actually mismanaging and misappropriating the property of the estate.

Issue: What constitutes prodigality?

Held: Since prodigality is not defined in our law, it may be inferred that the acts of prodigality must show a morbid state of bind and a disposition to spend, waste, and lessen the estate to such an extent as is likely to expose the family to want of support, or to deprive the forced heirs of their undisposable part of the estate. The testimony of the plaintiff was insufficient to support his allegations against his father. There was no evidence to show his father has been transferring by sale or mortgage any property, which will reflect in the city record of public deeds. The court found the defendant is far from being prodigal, and is still in the full exercise of his faculties and still possess the industry, thrift and ability in managing the estate.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 244             March 29, 1963

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO, vs.SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner.

BENGZON, C.J.:

After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar.

About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. The matter was in due course referred to the Solicitor General who caused the charge to be investigated; and later he submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petition for examination in this Court, he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars:

(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and

(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom — which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education".

Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: but he claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.

14

We have serious doubts, about the validity of this claim, what with respondent's failure to exhibit any certification to that effect (the equivalence) by the proper school officials. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly meritorious. Diao never obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such college. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët

This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been permitted to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education," (emphasis on "previous").

Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential..

The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty days. So ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

15