LEGPROF READINGS for Finals.pdf

8/14/2019 LEGPROF READINGS for Finals.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/legprof-readings-for-finalspdf 1/24



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 4

Javellana v. DILG (Aug. 10 1992)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/aug1992/gr_102549_1992.html

Facts: This petition for review on certiorari involves the right of a public official to engage in the

practice of his profession while employed in the Government. Attorney Erwin B. Javellana was an

elected City Councilor of Bago City, Negros Occidental. City Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia filed

Administrative Case No. C-10-90 against Javellana for: (1) violation of Department of Local

Government (DLG) Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 dated June 10, 1980 in relation to DLG

Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 and of Section 7, paragraph b, No. 2 of Republic Act No. 6713

otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,"

and (2) for oppression, misconduct and abuse of authority.

Divinagracia's complaint alleged that Javellana, an incumbent member of the City Council orSanggunian Panglungsod of Bago City, and a lawyer by profession, has continuously engaged in the

practice of law without securing authority for that purpose from the Regional Director, Department of

Local Government, as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG

Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 of the same department.

On the other hand, Javellana filed a Motion to Dismiss the administrative case against him on the

ground mainly that DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 are unconstitutional because

the Supreme Court has the sole and exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law.

Held: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG

Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off

tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority

to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum

Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest

between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in those

instances where the law allows it.

Section 90 of the Local Government Code does not discriminate against lawyers and doctors. It

applies to all provincial and municipal officials in the professions or engaged in any occupation.

Section 90 explicitly provides that sanggunian members "may practice their professions, engage in

any occupation, or teach in schools expect during session hours." If there are some prohibitions that

apply particularly to lawyers, it is because of all the professions, the practice of law is more likely than

others to relate to, or affect, the area of public service.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 5

Garrido v. Garrido (Feb. 4 2010)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/6593.htm

Facts: The petitioner, the respondent's legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental

affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P

Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline, charging them with

gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her daughter that her husband was

having an affair with a woman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same

information was confirmed when one of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons

mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow.

After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded results telling herthat Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong. Moreover, on June 1993,

her husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence

and has since failed to render much needed financial support.

In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when they committed the

supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Garrido's and Valencia's actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly

committed when they were not lawyers.

Held: Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through the

Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show the lawyer's lack

of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or moral. In the present case, the

Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena P.

Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professiona

Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got married

shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was already required as a

condition precedent to admission to the Bar.

As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were shouldered

with the expectation that they would set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 6

and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish

motives, not only did their actions discredit the legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without

even including the fact of Garrido's abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his

children by the petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other

marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values

not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their

disbarment is affirmed.

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A.

EDILION

A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978

Facts:

The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. The IBPBoard of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its

Roll of Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” to the IBP since the latter’s

constitution notwithstanding due notice.

Edilion contends that the provision providing for the IBP dues constitute an invasion of his

constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to maintaining his

status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and

that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he isadmittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property

guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes, the above provisions of the

Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.

Issue:

WON the payment of IBP dues suffers constitutional infirmity? NO

Held:

All legislation directing the integration of the Bar have been uniformly and universally sustained as a

valid exercise of the police power over an important profession.

The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with public

interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the

profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of

the State — the administration of justice — as an officer of the court.

When the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal profession, his practice of law and his exercise of

the said profession, which affect the society at large, were (and are) subject to the power of the body

politic to require him to conform to such regulations as might be established by the proper authorities



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 7

for the common good, even to the extent of interfering with some of his liberties. If he did not wish to

submit himself to such reasonable interference and regulation, he should not have clothed the public

with an interest in his concerns.

To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom

to associate. 6

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend

the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The

only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order

to further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may

require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and

beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the lawyers.

Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. Why? The right to practise

law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And, ifthe power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce its

payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or

arbitrary.

RULE 138

Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Section 1. Who may practice law . — Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar

or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good andregular standing, is entitled to practice law.

Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar . — Every applicant for admission

as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good

moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court

satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral

turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

Section 6. Pre-Law . — No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless

he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the

study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or

college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of

study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as

major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics.

Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants . — An applicant who has passed the

required examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and

subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 8

Section 18. Certificate . — The supreme Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member of

the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon

its records, and that a certificate of such record be given to him by the clerk of court, which certificate

shall be his authority to practice.

Section 19. Attorney's roll . — The clerk of the Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all attorneys

admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when he receives his certificate.

Section 20. Duties of attorneys . — It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey

the laws of the Philippines.

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such

defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as areconsistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an

artifice or false statement of fact or law;

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his

client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with

his knowledge and approval;

(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or

reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delayany man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his

personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end

that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 9

ANDRES v. CABRERA

Facts:

• Stanley R. Cabrera (Cabrera) was a successful bar examinee in 1977.

• Atty. Emilia Andres was a legal officer in the Ministry of Labor. She dismissed a case filed by

Cabrera’s mother against a certain Atty. Perez.

• Because of the dismissal, Cabrera filed with the city fiscal of Manila criminal charges against

Andres (graft and corruption, falsification of public documents)

• Andres then filed a case of disqualification against Cabrera.

• Cabrera apparently used in his affidavit vile, in civil and uncouth language (e.g. moronic,

unparalleled stupidity, idiotic)

• Cabrera’s oath taking was therefore postponed.

• The SC required him to file an answer to why he should not be disqualified. In Cabrera’s reply

he still used unfit language (e.g. calling Atty. Andres a moron).• In subsequent motions by Cabrera, he used the words “a victim of the court’s inhuman and cruel

punishment through its supreme inaction”.

• 1979: The court thereafter deferred his oath taking until he has shown that he has changed his

ways. Cabrera then filed a motion for contempt of court. And guess what, he still used unfit

language (e.g. supreme stupidity, degradation of the administration of justice)

• Napikon yata yung SC, they required Cabrera to file a reply to why he should not be held in

contempt. Cabrera filed an apology but guess what, the language he used were still unfit and

even insincere.Issue: W/N Cabrera should be held in contempt

Held:

• Yes! Fine of P500 and imprisonment for 50 days.

• The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only upon lawyers but

also upon those who will choose to enter the profession. Their failure to discharge such duty

may prevent them from being inducted into the office of attorney.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 :

Code of Professional Responsibility (Promulgated June 21, 1988)

CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE

LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL

PROCESSES.Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening

confidence in the legal system.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or

delay any man’s cause.

Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of

a fair settlement.

CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF

THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW

REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF

JUSTICE.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to seethat justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing

the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.

Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance

his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment

in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY

AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE

ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a

material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.

Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person known by

him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 ;

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,

nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the

legal profession.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,

FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, ANDSHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or

otherwise improper.

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of

another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and

assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTSCANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT

HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION

OF JUSTICE.

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law

and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its preferences. He should also be

ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies.

Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda orbriefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do

so.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgement or misuse

Court processes.

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial,

while the witness is still under examination.

Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate

another.

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:

a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like, or

b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event

he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

< CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE

NEEDY.

Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter’s race, sex,

creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.

Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as

counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of

its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.

Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client unless:

a) he is in no position to carry out the work effectively or competently;

b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present

client and the prospective client;

Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shallobserve the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

3 Tapucar vs. Tapucar A.M. No. 4148 July 30, 1998

FACTS:

• Complainant Remedios Tapucar and respondent Atty. Lauro Tapucar were married with 11

children. When respondent became a CFI judge, he cohabited with Elena Peña of whom he had 2

children. A certain Atty. Tranquilino Calo filed an administrative complaint against respondent for

immorality. After investigation, the penalty of suspension from office for a period of six months

without pay was meted by this Court upon respondent.

• Despite this penalty, respondent still continued to cohabit with Elena, giving rise to another charge

of immorality and other administrative cases, such as: conduct unbecoming an officer of the court, and

grossly immoral conduct. These cases were consolidated and after investigation, this Court ordered his

dismissal and separation from the service. But his dismissal as a judge did not impel respondent to

mend his ways, and even continued living with Elena. Moreover, he completely abandoned

complainant and his children.• Respondent later contracted marriage with Elena while the respondent's marriage to complainant

subsists. Upon knowing of that her children allegedly misery because of their father's acts, including

deception and intrigues against them. Complainant filed the present petition for disbarment under the

compulsion of the maternal impulse to shield and protect her children from the despotic and cruel acts

of their own father.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent’s actuations merit the penalty of disbarment?

HELD:

Respondent Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike

out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

RATIO:

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,

nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the

legal profession.

Members of the Bar, must live up to the standards and norms expected of the legal profession, by

upholding the ideals and tenets embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility always. Lawyers

must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, as well as morality including honesty, integrity

and fair dealing. For they are at all times subject to the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and

community approbation. Needless to state, those whose conduct — both public and private — fails this



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

4 scrutiny would have to be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings, penalized accordingly.

In the case at bar, keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as

well as abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family

obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyer's oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long

period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent's character, his moral indifference to scandal

in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal

profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need

for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.

Moreover, it should be recalled that respondent here was once a member of the judiciary, a fact that

aggravates his professional infractions. For having occupied that place of honor in the Bench, he knew

a judge's actuations ought to be free from any appearance of impropriety. For a judge is the visiblerepresentation of the law and, more importantly, of justice. Ordinary citizens consider him as a source

of strength that fortifies their will to obey the law. Indeed, a judge should avoid the slightest infraction

of the law in all of his actuations, lest it be a demoralizing example to others. Surely, respondent could

not have forgotten the Code of Judicial Conduct entirely as to lose its moral imperatives.

Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent's

character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established

norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of theadministration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

5 Cruz v Atty. Cabrera AC No. 5737 October 25, 2004

Facts: The complainant files an administrative charge against the respondent for misconduct in

violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant, a fourth year law student,

appears in court in his own behalf as he instituted a case against his neighbor who is represented by the

respondent as counsel. During a hearing, the respondent uttered remarks that the complainant finds

arrogant and misconduct in the performance of his duties as a lawyer. The complaint was referred to

the IBP commissioner who recommended suspension of respondent in the practice of law for 3 months

which was annulled by a resolution of the IBP Board recommending dismissal of the case for lack of

merit.

ISSUE: WON the manner of respondent may constitute misconduct.

RULING: The court ruled that although the outburst of the respondent is uncalled for, it is not tosuch a magnitude as to warrant his suspension in the practice of his profession. The court thereby

dismissed the case due to lack of merit.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

6 Catu vs. Rellosa [A.C. No. 5738. February 19, 2008]

F A C T S :

Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon located inManila. His mother and brother contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio

Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises.

Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay. Respondent,

as punong barangay , summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive

at an amicable settlement, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in

court.Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in the (subsequent ejectment)

case. Complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent committed an

act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants

despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong

barangay .

I S S U E :

Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

H E L D :

YES. Respondent suspended for six (6) months.

R A T I O :

[R]espondent was found guilty of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and

Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at the

disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of law only with the written permission

of the head of the department concerned in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised

Civil Service Rules.

Respondent was strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

7 [A.C. No. 4349. December 22, 1997]

LOURDES R. BUSIÑOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT,

respondent.

Complainant charged respondent with having committed the crime of estafa by misappropriating the

sum of P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00 was entrusted to respondent for deposit in the bank

account of complainant’s husband, while P2,000.00 represented the amount respondent demanded

from complainant supposedly for a bond in a Civil Case when no such bond was required. Respondent

did not appear in the administrative proceedings to clear his name. Respondent was able to pay the

amount, complainant withdrew the estafa case but proceeded with the administrative case.

Held: DISBARRED. There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his

clients without their consent. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of hisclients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them

Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their consent , and

by deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used as a

bond which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. By so

doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as

an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession.

“When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may

be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but

proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.”



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

8 Brion, Jr. vs. Brillantes, Jr. [A.C. No. 5305] March 17, 2003

Facts:

Petitioner Marciano P. Brion, Jr., in this petition for disbarment, avers that respondent

violated the court’s decree of perpetual disqualification imposed upon respondent

Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. (in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, entitled Lupo Almodiel Atienza v. Judge

Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr.) from assuming any post in government service , including any

posts in government-owned and controlled corporations, when he accepted a legal consultancy

post at the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), from 1998 to 2000. Said

consultancy included an appointment by LWUA as 6th member of the Board of Directors of the

Urdaneta (Pangasinan) Water District. Upon expiration of the legal consultancy agreement, this was

subsequently renewed as a Special Consultancy Agreement. Respondent admits the existence of the

Legal Consultancy Contract as well as the Special Consultancy Contract. However, he raises the

affirmative defense that under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No.27 , Series of 1993, services rendered pursuant to a consultancy contract shall not be

considered government services, and therefore, are not covered by Civil Service Law,

rules and regulations. Issue: Whether or not respondent has transgressed the letter and spirit of the court’s

decree in the A t i e n z a case.

Held: By performing duties and functions, which clearly pertain to a contractual employee, albeit in

the guise of an advisor or consultant, respondent has transgressed both letter and spirit of the Court’s

decree in Atienza. The Court finds that for all intents and purposes, respondent performed

duties and functions of a non-advisory nature, which pertain to a contractual

employee of LWUA . As stated by petitioner in his reply, there is a difference between a consultant

hired on a contractual basis (which is governed by CSC M.C. No. 27, s. 1993) and a contractual

employee (whose appointment is governed, among others, by the CSC Omnibus Rules on

Appointment and other Personnel Actions). The lawyer’s primary duty as enunciated in the

Attorney’s Oath is to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law

and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible minimum entails obedience to the legal orders of thecourts. Respondent’s disobedience to this Court’s order prohibiting his reappointment

to any branch, instrumentality, or agency of government, including government

owned and controlled corporations, cannot be camouflaged by a legal consultancy or a

special consultancy contract.

Hence, Atty. Brillantes was suspended and ordered to pay a fine of Ten Thousand

Pesos (Php10,000.00).



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

9

LAWYER'S OATH I, do solemnly swear that I wil l maintain al legiance to the Republic of the Phil ippines, I wil l

support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted

authorities therein; I wil l do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I wil l notwittingly or wil l ingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit , or give aid nor

consent to the same; I wil l delay no man for money or malice, and wil l conduct myself as a lawyer

according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with al l good fidel ity as well to the courts

as to my cl ients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental

reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

M a c a r u b b o v M a c a r ub b o (Jan. 23, 2013, RESOLUTION)

FACTS:This is a petition for extraordinary mercy filed by respondent Edmundo Macarubbo who seeks to be

reinstated as an Attorney for the Decision in 2004 wherein the court disbarred respondent from the

practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage, which constituted gross immoral conduct

in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE: W/N: respondent be granted judicial clemency and reinstatement?

HELD:

The SC ruled that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law as he has sufficiently shown his

remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession; and, he has already settled hisprevious marital squabbles. The Court finds that he has sufficiently atoned for his transgressions.

While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove his errant officers,

concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their ways.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

: R a y m u n d o T M a g d a l u y o v s A t t y E n r i q u e L N a c e

Adm. Case No. 3808 (February 2, 2000)

Facts:

• Complainant accused respondent of acts amounting to deceit and gross misconduct

Respondent was one of the squatters living in one of the complainant's parcels of land situated

in Antipolo, Rizal. Allegedly, when complainant offered to relocate the squatters, the latter

refused and instead filed a complaint before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication

Board (PARAB) claiming to be tenants therein.

• Three months later, the squatters again including respondent also filed a case before the

Regional Trial Court of Antipolo for the annulment or cancellation of complainant's land titles.

This time, claiming to be owners and not mere tenants of the land. They traced their alleged

ownership to an old Spanish title.

• Because of the conflicting causes of action, both cases were dismissed. Complainant filed a caseagainst respondent accusing him of having deliberately committed a falsehood and of forum-

shopping praying that proper disciplinary sanctions be imposed against the latter.

Held :

• After referral of the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the findings of the

former are as follows:

". . . while it may be true that different causes of action are indeed involved, it is their total

inconsistency, nay, total opposition with each other which raises doubts about the respondent's

sincerity. It escapes this Commission [on Bar Discipline] how Respondent can, in good faith, allege tobe a lawful tenant one moment, and be an owner the next.

Respondent herein, as a lawyer, was remiss in his duty to correctly inform the court of the law and the

facts of this case. He failed to allege in his complaint the fact that a prior dispute had been existing

between the parties before the PARAB, thus deceiving the court and giving it an inaccurate

appreciation of facts.

Lastly, respondent was delinquent in his duty as a lawyer to maintain only such suits as appears to him

to be just and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable. It has long been settled that

Spanish titles cannot be used as evidence of land ownership. Yet respondent dares raise the same in his

complaint to defeat Complainant's duly registered certificate of title. Any lawyer should know that a

Spanish title would have no legal leg to stand on in the face of Transfer Certificate of Title over the

same parcel of land."

• The Court concurs with the IBP's findings and recommendations being fully supported by

evidence on record.

• Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition in the Code of Professional Responsibility against

engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. He was indeed, less than sincere



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 3

; in asserting two conflicting rights over a portion of land that, in all probability, he knew not to

be his.

• As a lawyer, respondent is bound by his oath not to do falsehood or consent to its commission

and to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion. The

lawyers oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension

disbarment or other disciplinary action. Said acts are clearly in violation of his lawyer's oath

that the court will not tolerate.

Cayetano v. Monsod

FACTS

Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC on

April 25, 1991. Cayetano opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess

the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s nomination,

petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent

appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void because Monsod

did not meet the requirement of having practiced law for the last ten years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the COMELEC .

HELD:

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also considered to be

in the practice of law when he: “. . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms,associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an

advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body,

committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in

a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the

law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that

purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.”

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a

grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception

in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. Atty.Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-

entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the

rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has

been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 4

< Mauricio C. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc. B.M. No. 553. June 17, 1993

Facts:

Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and

desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said

petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise

of the law profession other than those allowed by law.” The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner

are as follows:

It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champertous,

unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the

community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal

profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in

his petition as herein before quoted.

In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its

instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of legal

support services through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic

machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of

advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van

O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.

Issue:

Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc. , as

advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can properly

be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by the respondent constitute practice of law.

The definition of “practice of law” is laid down in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, as defined:

Black defines "practice of law" as:

"The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve

the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the

conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special

proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to

clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law."



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 4

3 The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously

considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been

offering. While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and

technical know-how, such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of

law offices, or the computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception tothe general rule. What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen

and lawyers. Its contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In

providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the

credulity of this Court that all that respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy

thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals,

it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper

course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and

for which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential

definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent corporation doesnot represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely to court

appearances but extends to legal research, giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth.

That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. What is important

is that it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings

it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published

and are now assailed in this proceeding. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's

advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession,

advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The

proscription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the

fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. The canons of the profession tell us

that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional

capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct.

Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing

itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service

which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to

generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-

product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 4

4

Passion For Justice

By: Justice Pompeyo Diaz

We are not here to celebrate the successful ending of your course in the law. We are here to send you on your

way because from here, you will commence your profession in the law. We hold these commencement exercises,

therefore, to say good-bye to you and to wish you well on your journey.

The closer a man approaches the sunset of his years, the more often his mind returns to the remembrance of

things past. For to every man, if he lives long enough, there comes a point in life when he realizes, not without

sadness, that there may no longer be time to climb new mountains. And that is when dreams begin to yield to

memories as if reliving the past can somehow fill the void left by the flight of dreams.

It is more than fifty years since I sat where you sit now, an acolyte at the altar of the law. But the lengthening

shadows of life only make the recollection of it as fresh and clear as if it were only yesterday.

I was given the privilege of addressing you one last time. I will do so, no longer as your teacher, but as a friend.

But let me take a vantage point from which I can speak with some candor. As your own sun is rising in the east,

mine has long since passed the point of high noon, and in the gathering dusk, I see you within the perspective of

time. There are landmarks which I have beheld but which are still hidden from your view.

Some forty years ago, I took my oath of office as judge of the Court of First Instance for the Province of Rizal

in the chambers of a Justice of the Supreme Court. This was my first appointment to the bench. You know I had

several. It was an occasion for deep pride in my family especially when the appointee was hardly thirty-five

years of age and the Justice administering the oath to him happened to be his own father.

After the oath-taking, my father took me in his own car and drove me to the courthouse in Pasig. He led me

into the building, up the stairs, to the second floor, and walked with me to the door of the sala which would now

be mine. He stood by the door and let me enter alone. I did, and I went straight to my desk. There I saw a piece

of paper upon which were written in Latin, in my father’s own handwriting, those awesome words which must

have shaken the walls of the Senate of ancient Rome: Let Justice be done, though the heavens fall!

In a lifetime devoted to the study of the law, these words still do not fail to stir up in me emotions which should

have long since been spent, memories which should have long since been put to sleep, questions which should

have long since been laid aside. What is the law? What is the truth? What is justice?

What is justice? It is to render to each man what is his due. What is the truth? It is that which you seek, and

keep on seeking, so that you may render to each man what is his due. What is the law? It is the instrument by

which you discover that which you have been seeking so that you may render to each man what is his due.



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 4

5 The answers seem such simple directives for everyone to follow. The reality, however, is different. For the law

may be twisted to hide the truth in the same way that the truth may be distorted to ridicule justice. There are

men in any society who are so self-serving that they try to make the law serve their selfish ends. In this group of

men, the most dangerous is the man of the law who has no conscience. He has, in the arsenal of his knowledge,

the very tools with which he can poison and disrupt society and bring it to an ignoble end. Against such a man,you must be fearless and indomitable, since to grant him victory is to deny yourselves the sanctity your oath and

the grandeur of your vision.

Such men I have met in my lifetime, both in the courtroom and outside it. Society’s declared protection against

such predators is the court of law before which all men are presumed to stand equal, whether mighty or weak.

The integrity of the court is the foundation upon which a just society to established. Without this integrity, the

vicissitudes of history will blow society towards the treacherous reefs of destruction and suck it into the

whirlpool of oblivion.

A man of the law with a conscience on the other hand, is the means by which a nation fashions for itself a just,

orderly and civilized society, where the least of its citizens can stand in his human dignity and where justice is

the yardstick by which the citizen measures himself in his relationship with others and with his God.

Yet, a man of the law should have more than just a conscience. Conscience, too, can be dulled by exigencies in

one’s life. He may just seek a livelihood from the law. Then no matter how financially successful he becomes,

and no matter how much expertise he acquires in the law and its practice, he remains no more than a craftsman.

He rises no higher than the humble or mechanic from whom we expect nothing beyond an honest day’s work

and an honest charge for work performed, and to whom we would not dream of looking for leadership,

guidance, and inspiration. He reduces law to a trade and himself to a mere huckster of legal skills.

What a man of the law should possess is a passion for for the truth, a passion for justice. This passion should be

of such a magnitude as to give him the power to stand firm when those around him seem to be going mad. It

should be of such solidity as to grant him the strength to stand alone when all else is turning into dust. It should

be of such perseverance as to infuse him with a loneliness that only those who have a vision can endure. It is a

passion to keep alive that eternal challenge that justice must be done whatever be the cost.

You are not only men of the law. You are men of vision. Underlying all that you have learned here at the

Ateneo the never ending theme of passion for the truth, of passion for justice. Your vision is forged here, andthat vision is what makes you unique among your peers. You do not know yet what life has in store for you, but

never sacrifice your vision on the altar of expediency. For without this vision, you shall become hollow inside,

you shall become men without souls preying on the innocence and helplessness of your fellowmen. You shall

become the unscrupulous auctioneers of history whose honor is on the block, ready to go the highest bidder.

On the other hand, if truly you remain faithful to your vision, then you are a boon to society. You will give

without favor upon your fellowmen, sifting through facts to arrive at the truth, seeking truth to render justice.

The mighty and the weak shall stand naked before you, for they shall draw strength from your knowledge of



!"#$%&' )"*+,-#. ),/0*%+ 12 4

6 the law and from your commitment to the truth. Then and only then, shall justice truly prevail and upon this

earth will shine a place of heaven. For what is justice but an attribute of God Himself?

Walk firm, therefore, and walk with courage, upon this path you have chosen. Let your vision guide you. The

law is a noble profession, and it is professed by noble men. See to it that you earn that nobility by acting as your

fellowmen’s shield and protector against injustice and oppression.

As future lawyers, you have your tasks cut out of you. You need have no fear that they will prove too much for

you if, in taking them up, you bear always in mind that doubt is the beginning of wisdom, that humility is the

grace of the wise, that compassion is the virtue of the strong and above all that reason is the life of the law, and

that the service of justice, which is nothing more than the search for the truth, is one of man’s noblest

achievements.

Farewell! May you always in your quest for a better world, walk in the shadow of Him who gave you life and

honor.

LEGPROF READINGS for Finals.pdf

Documents

Transcript of LEGPROF READINGS for Finals.pdf