Ligaya Maniago vs Atty

7/25/2019 Ligaya Maniago vs Atty

1/37

LIGAYA MANIAGO vs ATTY. LOURDES I. DE

DIOS,

The instant case arose from an Affidavit-Complaintdated April 2, 2007 filed by Ligaya Maniago, seekingthe disbarment of Atty Lo!rdes " de #ios forengaging in the practice of la$ despite having beens!spended by the Co!rtComplainant alleged that she filed a criminal caseagainst %iroshi Miyata, a &apanese national, beforethe 'egional Trial Co!rt ('TC), *longapo City,+ranch 7, for violation of residential #ecree .o/0, docketed as Criminal Case .o /-2002 Theacc!sed $as represented by Atty #e #ios, $ithoffice address at 22 Magsaysay #rive, *longapoCity Complainant then learned from the 'TC staffthat Atty #e #ios had an o!tstanding s!spensionorder from the 1!preme Co!rt since 200, and $as,therefore, prohibited from appearing in co!rtComplainant f!rther alleges that there is a civil case

(Civil Case .o 33-0-2003) and another case(1pecial roceeding .o M-/3) filed againstMiyata before the 'TC, Makati City, +ranch 4,$here Atty #e #ios appeared as his co!nselComplainant averred that Atty #e #ios o!ght to bedisbarred from the practice of la$ for her flagrantviolation and deliberate disobedience of a la$f!lorder of the 1!preme Co!rt"n her Comment, Atty #e #ios admitted that there$ere cases filed against her client, Miyata 1he,ho$ever, denied that she $as !nder s!spension $henshe appeared as his co!nsel in the cases

'espondent e5plained that an administrative case $asindeed filed against her by #iana de 6!man,docketed as AC .o 44, $here she $as meted thepenalty of /-month s!spension 1he served thes!spension immediately !pon receipt of the Co!rts'esol!tion on May /, 200 !p to .ovember /,200 "n a Manifestation filed on *ctober , 200,respondent formally informed the Co!rt that she $asres!ming her practice of la$ on .ovember 7, 200,$hich she act!ally didA problem arose $hen &!dge &osefina 8arrales, in her

capacity as Acting 95ec!tive &!dge of the 'TC,*longapo City, erroneo!sly iss!ed a directive onMarch 3, 2007, ordering respondent to desist frompracticing la$ and revoking her notarial commissionfor the years 2007 and 200: ;no$ing that thedirective $as rather

and that her notarial commission for the years 2007and 200: is revoked Acting on the said motion, theCo!rt iss!ed a resol!tion on April 2, 2007 in this$ise>AC .o 44 (#iana de 6!man v Atty Lo!rdes "#e #ios) 'espondents ?rgent Motion forClarification dated 4 March 2007 praying that theCo!rt declare her to have served her si5 (/) months(sic) s!spension and her res!mption of la$ practiceon 7 .ovember 200 on$ards as proper is .*T9#Considering the motion for clarification, the Co!rt

resolves to #99M Atty Lo!rdes " #e #ios to have19'@9# her si5 (/) month s!spension and her

recommencement of la$ practice on 7 .ovember200 as '*9' p!rs!ant to the 'esol!tion dated 0&an!ary 2002

'espondent averred that for the period stated in the

affidavit of complainant Maniago, d!ring $hich sheallegedly practiced la$, she $as neither s!spendednor in any $ay prohibited from practice Thecomplaint, she added, $as baseless and malicio!s,and sho!ld be dismissed o!tright"n the 'esol!tion dated 1eptember 2, 2007, theCo!rt referred the matter to the *ffice of the +arConfidant (*+C) for eval!ation, report andrecommendation "nitially, the *+C directed thecomplainant to file a s!pplemental affidavit, statingtherein the e5act period of appearances of Atty #e#ios and the partic!lar co!rts $here respondentappeared as co!nsel in the follo$ing cases> ()Criminal Case .o /-2002 (2) Civil Case .o 33-0-2003 and () 1p roc .o M-/3"n compliance there$ith, complainant s!bmitted a1!pplemental Affidavit in the vernac!lar, $hichreads>2 1a Criminal Case .o /-2002 entitled eople ofthe hilippines vs %iroshi Miyata ay Bnagsim!langmagB-appear si Atty Lo!rdes de #ios m!la April ,200, na Bnaka-attach ang Certification m!la sa+ranch 7B, 'egional Trial Co!rtB, *longapo City 1a Civil Case .o 33-0-200/ ay Bnagsim!langmagB-appear si Atty de #ios noong *ctober 0,2003, nakasaad din ito sa Certification m!la sa+ranch 7, 'egional Trial Co!rt of *longapo City Atsa 1p roc .o M-/3 ay ito ay naB-ifile ni Attyde #ios noong 1eptember 2/, 2003 at hanggangngayon ay pending pa sa Co!rt of Appeals4 +ilang karagdagan po ay nakaB-attach angCertified Dero5 Copy ng Min!tes of the 1ession ng1!bic M!nicipal Trial Co!rt na k!ng saan aynagB-appear si Atty de #ios sa Civil Case .o 042-0 entitled Andrea Loreno, plaintiff, -vers!s-1imeon !llido noong #ecember 4, 2003 At makikita rin po sa Anne5 A-3 ng Comment niAtty de #ios, 5 5 5 -3Ba .ag file ng kaso si Atty Lo!rdes de #iosnoong May 7, 200 entitled 1hirley agad!an vs#anilo agad!anB, Civil Case .o 24-0-200 "toay gina$a ni Atty de #ios isang () ara$ pa lamangm!la magsim!la ang kanyang s!spension noonBgMay /, 2003b .ag file din ng kaso si Atty de #ios noong May:, 200 entitled 8ilmi5co vers!s #r Ma erlaTabasondra-'amos and #r 'icardo 'amos CivilCase .o 2/-0-200 "to ay dala$ang (2) ara$ m!lamagsim!la ang s!spension ni Atty de #ios noongMay /, 2003c At nag notaryo si Atty de #ios ng isang (a)affidavit e5ec!ted by Carolina C +a!tista noongMay /, 200, (b) Affidavit e5ec!ted by &essicaMorales-Mesa on May 7, 200 at (c) isang1tatement of non-liability of Alfredo C #ia on May/, 200 Ang mga pag notaryo na ito ay gina$anoong nagsim!la na ang s!spension ni Atty de #iosnoong May /, 200


2/37

/ 6ina$a ko ang 1!pplemental Affidavit na itobilang pat!nay sa mga nakasaad base sa akingpersonal na kaalamanan at mga dok!mentong ha$akko !pang ipakita na nilabag ni Atty de #ios angkanyang s!spension base sa s!lat ni #ep!ty Clerk ofCo!rt and +ar Confidant Ma Cristina + Lay!sa namay petsang 2 8ebr!ary 2007 at sa admission niAtty de #ios na nagsim!la ang kanyang s!spensionnoong May /, 200A 1!pplemental Comment $as thereafter filed byrespondent, stating that there $ere no ne$ mattersraised in the 1!pplemental Affidavit, and assertingthat the opinion of +ar Confidant, Atty Ma Cristina+ Lay!sa, as contained in her letter dated 28ebr!ary 2007, cannot s!persede the 'esol!tiondated April 2, 2007 of this %onorable Co!rtAccording to her, the resol!tion sho!ld be the finalnail to the coffin of this case*n .ovember :, 200:, the *+C s!bmitted itsMemorand!m for the Co!rts considerationThe *+C e5plained that the letter adverted to bycomplainant in her affidavit $as the *+Cs reply toan in

res!me her practice of la$ $itho!t s!bmitting there

the inherent reg!latory po$er of the 1!preme Co!rtto e5act compliance $ith the la$yers p!blic

responsibilitiesB Ehenever it is made to appearthat an attorney is no longer $orthy of the tr!st andconfidence of his clients and of the p!blic, it becomesnot only the right b!t also the d!ty of the 1!premeCo!rt, $hich made him one of its officers and gavehim the privilege of ministering $ithin its +ar, to$ithdra$ that privilegeB4 %o$ever, as m!ch as theCo!rt $ill not hesitate to discipline an erring la$yer,it sho!ld, at the same time, also ens!re that a la$yermay not be deprived of the freedom and right toe5ercise his profession !nreasonably

". L"6%T *8 T%9 8*'96*".6, it is hereby'91*L@9# that the follo$ing g!idelines beobserved in the matter of the lifting of an orders!spending a la$yer from the practice of la$>) After a finding that respondentla$yer m!st be s!spended from the practice of la$,the Co!rt shall render a decision imposing thepenalty2) ?nless the Co!rt e5plicitly statesthat the decision is immediately e5ec!tory !ponreceipt thereof, respondent has 3 days $ithin $hichto file a motion for reconsideration thereof Thedenial of said motion shall render the decision finaland e5ec!tory) ?pon the e5piration of the periodof s!spension, respondent shall file a 1$orn1tatement $ith the Co!rt, thro!gh the *ffice of the+ar Confidant, stating therein that he or she hasdesisted from the practice of la$ and has not

appeared in any co!rt d!ring the period of his or hers!spension4) Copies of the 1$orn 1tatementshall be f!rnished to the Local Chapter of the "+ andto the 95ec!tive &!dge of the co!rts $hererespondent has pending cases handled by him or her,andFor $here he or she has appeared as co!nsel3) The 1$orn 1tatement shall beconsidered as proof of respondents compliance $iththe order of s!spension

/) Any finding or report contrary tothe statements made by the la$yer !nder oath shallbe a gro!nd for the imposition of a more severep!nishment, or disbarment, as may be $arranted1* *'#9'9#

L9TT9' *8 ATTG C9C"L"* G A'9@AL*, &','9H?91T".6 9D9MT"*. 8'*M AGM9.T*8 "+ #?91

This is a re

"n his letter, dated 22 1eptember 2004, petitionerso!ght e5emption from payment of "+ d!es in theamo!nt of 2,0300 as alleged !npaidacco!ntability for the years 77-2003 %e allegedthat after being admitted to the hilippine +ar in/, he became part of the hilippine Civil 1ervicefrom &!ly /2 !ntil :/, then migrated to, and$orked in, the ?1A in #ecember :/ !ntil hisretirement in the year 200 %e maintained that hecannot be assessed "+ d!es for the years that he $as$orking in the hilippine Civil 1ervice since the

Civil 1ervice la$ prohibits the practice of oneIsprofession $hile in government service, and neither


3/37

can he be assessed for the years $hen he $as$orking in the ?1A

*n 03 *ctober 2004, the letter $as referred to the"+ for comment2

*n / .ovember 2004, the "+ s!bmitted itscomment stating inter alia> that membership in the"+ is not based on the act!al practice of la$ that ala$yer contin!es to be incl!ded in the 'oll ofAttorneys as long as he contin!es to be a member ofthe "+ that one of the obligations of a member isthe payment of ann!al d!es as determined by the "++oard of 6overnors and d!ly approved by the1!preme Co!rt as provided for in 1ections and 0,'!le -A of the '!les of Co!rt that the validity ofimposing d!es on the "+ members has been !pheldas necessary to defray the cost of an "ntegrated +arrogram and that the policy of the "+ +oard of6overnors of no e5emption from payment of d!es is

b!t an implementation of the Co!rtIs directives for allmembers of the "+ to help in defraying the cost ofintegration of the bar "t maintained that there is nor!le allo$ing the e5emption of payment of ann!ald!es as re

"n his reply4 dated 22 8ebr!ary 2003, petitionercontends that $hat he is

lainly, the iss!e here is> $hether or nor petitioner isentitled to e5emption from payment of his d!esd!ring the time that he $as inactive in the practice ofla$ that is, $hen he $as in the Civil 1ervice from/2-:/ and he $as $orking abroad from :/-200K

Ee r!le in the negative

An "ntegrated +ar is a 1tate-organied +ar, to$hich every la$yer m!st belong, as disting!ishedfrom bar association organied by individ!al la$yers

themselves, membership in $hich is vol!ntary"ntegration of the +ar is essentially a process by

$hich every member of the +ar is afforded anopport!nity to do his shares in carrying o!t theobJectives of the +ar as $ell as obliged to bear hisportion of its responsibilities *rganied by or !nderthe direction of the 1tate, an "ntegrated +ar is anofficial national body of $hich all la$yers arere

The integration of the hilippine +ar means theofficial !nification of the entire la$yer pop!lationThis re

every attorney as condition sine


4/37

Th!s, payment of d!es is a necessary conse

There is nothing in the la$ or r!les $hich allo$se5emption from payment of membership d!es Atmost, as correctly observed by the "+, he co!ld haveinformed the 1ecretary of the "ntegrated +ar of hisintention to stay abroad before he left "n s!ch case,his membership in the "+ co!ld have beenterminated and his obligation to pay d!es co!ld havebeen discontin!ed

As abovementioned, the "+ in its comment statedthat the "+ +oard of 6overnors is in the process ofdisc!ssing the sit!ation of members !nder inactivestat!s and the nonpayment of their d!es d!ring s!ch

inactivity "n the meantime, petitioner is d!ty bo!ndto comply $ith his obligation to pay membershipd!es to the "+

etitioner also contends that the enforcement of thepenalty of removal $o!ld amo!nt to a deprivation ofproperty $itho!t d!e process and hence infringes onone of his constit!tional rights

This

1* *'#9'9#

%"L"".9 LAEG9'I1 A11*C"AT"*.,petitioner,vsC9L9#*."* A6'A@A, in his capacity as #irector

of the hilippines atent *ffice, respondent

Art!ro A Alafri for petitioner*ffice of the 1olicitor 6eneral Ambrosio adilla and1olicitor acifico de Castro for respondent

M*.T9MAG*', &>

This is the petition filed by the hilippine La$yerIsAssociation for prohibition and inJ!nction againstCeledonio Agrava, in his capacity as #irector of thehilippines atent *ffice

*n may 27, 37, respondent #irector iss!ed acirc!lar anno!ncing that he had sched!led for &!ne27, 37 an e5amination for the p!rpose ofdetermining $ho are

hilippine +ar, engineers and other persons $iths!fficient scientific and technical training are

the hilippine +ar in good standing to take and passan e5amination given by the atent *ffice as acondition precedent to their being allo$ed to practicebefore said office, s!ch as representing applicants inthe preparation and prosec!tion of applications forpatent, is in e5cess of his J!risdiction and is inviolation of the la$

"n his ans$er, respondent #irector, thro!gh the1olicitor 6eneral, maintains that the prosec!tion ofpatent cases does not involve entirely or p!rely thepractice of la$ b!t incl!des the application ofscientific and technical kno$ledge and training, so

m!ch so that, as a matter of act!al practice, theprosec!tion of patent cases may be handled not onlyby la$yers, b!t also engineers and other persons $iths!fficient scientific and technical training $ho passthe prescribed e5aminations as given by the atent*ffice that the '!les of Co!rt do not prohibit theatent *ffice, or any other


5/37

Altho!gh as already stated, the #irector of atents, inthe past, $o!ld appear to have been holding tests ore5aminations the passing of $hich $as imposed as are

The 1!preme Co!rt has the e5cl!sive andconstit!tional po$er $ith respect to admission to thepractice of la$ in the hilippines and to anymember of the hilippine +ar in good standing maypractice la$ any$here and before any entity, $hetherJ!dicial or

practice of la$

The practice of la$ is not limited to the cond!ct ofcases or litigation in co!rt it embraces thepreparation of pleadings and other papers incident toactions and social proceedings, the management ofs!ch actions and proceedings on behalf of clientsbefore J!dges and co!rts, and in addition, conveying"n general, all advice to clients, and all action takenfor them in matters connected $ith the la$corporation services, assessment and condemnationservices contemplating an appearance before aJ!dicial body, the foreclos!re of a mortgage,

enforcement of a creditorIs claim in bankr!ptcy andinsolvency proceedings, and cond!cting proceedingsin attachment, and in matters of estate andg!ardianship have been held to constit!te la$practice as do the preparation and drafting of legalinstr!ments, $here the $ork done involves thedetermination by the trained legal mind of the legaleffect of facts and conditions (3 Am &!r p 2/2,2/) (9mphasis s!pplied)

ractice of la$ !nder modern conditions consists inno small part of $ork performed o!tside of any co!rtand having no immediate relation to proceedings in

co!rt "t embraces conveyancing, the giving of legaladvice on a large variety of s!bJects, and thepreparation and e5ec!tion of legal instr!mentscovering an e5tensive field of b!siness and tr!strelations and other affairs Altho!gh thesetransactions may have no direct connection $ithco!rt proceedings, they are al$ays s!bJect to becomeinvolved in litigation They re


6/37

appeal to the 1!preme Co!rt from any final order ordecision of the director

"n other $ords, the appeal is taken to this Trib!nal "fthe transaction of b!siness in the atent *ffice andthe acts, orders and decisions of the atent #irectorinvolved e5cl!sively or mostly technical andscientific kno$ledge and training, then logically, theappeal sho!ld be taken not to a co!rt or J!dicial body,b!t rather to a board of scientists, engineers ortechnical men, $hich is not the case

Another aspect of the

The Commissioner, in iss!ing or $ithholdingpatents, in reiss!es, interferences, and e5tensions,e5ercises

give a!thenticated copies to any person, on paymentof the legal fees (40 Am &!r 37) (9mphasiss!pplied)

The Commissioner has the only originalinitiatory J!risdiction that e5ists !p to the grantingand delivering of a patent, and it is his d!ty to decide$hether the patent is ne$ and $hether it is the propers!bJect of a patent and his action in a$arding orref!sing a patent is a J!dicial f!nction "n passing onan application the commissioner sho!ld decide notonly

the article invented (/0 C&1 4/0) (9mphasiss!pplied)

The #irector of atents, e5ercising as he does J!dicialor

papers and doc!ments, s!ch as, the dra$ing ortechnical description of an invention or machineso!ght to be patented, in the same $ay that a la$yerfiling an application for the registration of a parcel ofland on behalf of his clients, is re

+!t respondent #irector claims that he is e5presslya!thoried by the la$ to re

'egistration of attorneys and agents N A register ofan attorneys and a register agents are kept in theatent *ffice on $hich are entered the names of allpersons recognied as entitled to represent applicantsbefore the atent *ffice in the preparation andprosec!tion of applicants for patent 'egistration inthe atent *ffice !nder the provisions of these r!les

shall only entitle the person registered to practicebefore the atent *ffice

(a) Attorney at la$ N Any attorney at la$ in goodstanding admitted to practice before any ?nited1tates Co!rt or the highest co!rt of any 1tate orTerritory of the ?nited 1tates $ho f!lfills there

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

(c) 'e


7/37

co!rt may by its r!les determine (9mphasiss!pplied)

'espondent #irector concl!des that 1ection 7: of'ep!blic Act .o /3 being similar to the provisionsof la$ J!st reprod!ced, then he is a!thoried toprescribe the r!les and reg!lations re

The above provisions of 1ection 7: certainly and byfar, are different from the provisions of the ?nited

1tates atent La$ as regards a!thority to holde5aminations to determine the

of persons allo$ed to practice before the atent*ffice

1ection 33 of the 'evised Administrative Codea!thories every chief of b!rea! to prescribe formsand make reg!lations or general orders notinconsistent $ith la$, to sec!re the harmonio!s andefficient administration of his branch of the serviceand to carry into f!ll effect the la$s relating tomatters $ithin the J!risdiction of his b!rea! 1ection/0: of 'ep!blic Act 7, kno$n as the Tariff andC!stoms Code of the hilippines, provides that theCommissioner of C!stoms shall, s!bJect to the

approval of the #epartment %ead, makes all r!les andreg!lations necessary to enforce the provisions ofsaid code 1ection : of the .ational "nternal'even!e Code, Common$ealth Act .o 4// asamended, states that the 1ecretary of 8inance, !ponrecommendation of the Collector of "nternal'even!e, shall prom!lgate all needf!l r!les andreg!lations for the effective enforcement of theprovisions of the code Ee !nderstand that r!les andreg!lations have been prom!lgated not only for the+!rea! of C!stoms and "nternal 'even!e, b!t also forother b!rea!s of the 6overnment, to govern thetransaction of b!siness in and to enforce the la$ forsaid b!rea!s

Eere $e to allo$ the atent *ffice, in the absence ofan e5press and clear provision of la$ giving thenecessary sanction, to re

1till not satisfied, respondents filed in the same trialco!rt7 a motion


8/37

for payment of la$yersO fees for 30 million:

*n April 4, 2000, the trial co!rt ordered petitioner topay 3 million to Atty de &es!s, 2 million to AttyAmbrosio and 2 million to Atty Mariano

*n appeal, the Co!rt of Appeals red!ced the amo!ntas follo$s> million to Atty de &es!s, 300,000 toAtty Ambrosio and 300,000 to Atty Mariano Themotion for reconsideration $as denied %ence, thisreco!rse

The iss!es raised in this petition are>

() $hether the asig 'TC, +ranch 3 hadJ!risdiction over the claim for additional legal feesand

(2) $hether respondents $ere entitled to additionallegal fees

8irst, a la$yer may enforce his right to his fees byfiling the necessary petition as an incident of themain action in $hich his services $ere rendered or inan independent s!it against his client The former ispreferable to avoid m!ltiplicity of s!its

The asig 'TC, +ranch 3, $here the case for thedeclaration of n!llity of marriage $as filed, hadJ!risdiction over the motion for the payment of legalfees 'espondents so!ght to collect 30 million$hich $as e

$hat respondents $ere demanding $as additionalpayment for legal services rendered in the same case

1econd, the professional engagement bet$eenpetitioner and respondents $as governed by theprinciple of

#emanding 30 million on top of the genero!s s!msand perks already given to them $as an act of!nconscionable greed $hich is shocking to thisCo!rt

As la$yers, respondents sho!ld be reminded thatthey are members of an honorable profession, theprimary vision of $hich is J!stice "t is respondentsOdespicable behavior $hich gives la$yering a badname in the minds of some people The vernac!larhas a $ord for it> nagsasamantala The practice of la$is a decent profession and not a money-making trade

Compensation sho!ld be b!t a mere incident2

'espondentsO claim for additional legal fees $as notJ!stified They co!ld not charge petitioner a fee basedon percentage, absent an e5press agreement to thateffect The payments to them in cash, checks, freeprod!cts and services from petitionerOs b!siness Nall of $hich $ere not denied by respondents N morethan s!fficed for the $ork they did The f!llpayment for settlement sho!ld have dischargedpetitionerOs obligation to them

The po$er of this Co!rt to red!ce or even delete thea$ard of attorneysO fees cannot be denied La$yersare officers of the Co!rt and they participate in thef!ndamental f!nction of administering J!stice4Ehen they took their oath, they s!bmitted themselvesto the a!thority of the Co!rt and s!bJected theirprofessional fees to J!dicial control 3

E%9'98*'9, the petition is hereby A'T"ALLG6'A.T9# The decision of the Co!rt of Appeals

dated April 0, 2002 in CA6' C@ .o /:0:0 ishereby M*#"8"9# The a$ard of additionalattorneyOs fees in favor of respondents is hereby#9L9T9#

1* *'#9'9#

"n the Matter of the "+ Membership #!es#elin

of the name of the respondent from its 'oll ofAttorneys for st!bborn ref!sal to pay hismembership d!es to the "+ since the latterIsconstit!tion not$ithstanding d!e notice

*n &an!ary 2, 7/, the "+, thro!gh its thenresident Liliano + .eri, s!bmitted the saidresol!tion to the Co!rt for consideration andapproval, p!rs!ant to paragraph 2, 1ection 24, Article""" of the +y-La$s of the "+, $hich reads>

1ho!ld the delin

into the ca!se or ca!ses of the contin!ed delin


9/37

*n March 2, 7/, the Co!rt re on March 24, 7/, theys!bmitted a Joint reply

Thereafter, the case $as set for hearing on &!ne ,7/ After the hearing, the parties $ere re

At the threshold, a painstaking scr!tiny of therespondentIs pleadings $o!ld sho$ that the proprietyand necessity of the integration of the +ar of thehilippines are in essence conceded The respondent,ho$ever, obJects to partic!lar feat!res of '!le ofCo!rt -A (hereinafter referred to as the Co!rt'!le) N in accordance $ith $hich the +ar of thehilippines $as integrated N and to the provisions ofpar 2, 1ection 24, Article """, of the "+ +y-La$s

(hereinabove cited)

The a!thority of the "+ +oard of 6overnors torecommend to the 1!preme Co!rt the removal of adelin

19C 0 9ffect of non-payment of d!es N 1!bJectto the provisions of 1ection 2 of this '!le, defa!lt inthe payment of ann!al d!es for si5 months shall

$arrant s!spension of membership in the "ntegrated+ar, and defa!lt in s!ch payment for one year shall bea gro!nd for the removal of the name of thedelin

19CT"*. *rganiation N There is herebyorganied an official national body to be kno$n asthe I"ntegrated +ar of the hilippines,I composed ofall persons $hose names no$ appear or may

hereafter be incl!ded in the 'oll of Attorneys of the1!preme Co!rt

The obligation to pay membership d!es is co!ched inthe follo$ing $ords of the Co!rt '!le>

19C Membership d!es 9very member of the"ntegrated +ar shall pay s!ch ann!al d!es as the+oard of 6overnors shall determine $ith theapproval of the 1!preme Co!rt

The core of the respondentIs arg!ments is that theabove provisions constit!te an invasion of hisconstit!tional rights in the sense that he is beingcompelled, as a pre-condition to maintaining hisstat!s as a la$yer in good standing, to be a memberof the "+ and to pay the corresponding d!es, andthat as a conse

among the J!sticiable cases triable by the Co!rt b!t israther of an administrative nat!re pertaining to anadministrative body

The case at bar is not the first one that has reachedthe Co!rt relating to constit!tional iss!es thatinevitably and ine5tricably come !p to the s!rface$henever attempts are made to reg!late the practiceof la$, define the conditions of s!ch practice, orrevoke the license granted for the e5ercise of thelegal profession

The matters here complained of are the very sameiss!es raised in a previo!s case before the Co!rt,entitled Administrative Case .o 32/, "n the Matterof the etition for the "ntegration of the +ar of thehilippines, 'oman *aeta, et al, etitioners TheCo!rt e5ha!stively considered all these matters inthat case in its 'esol!tion ordaining the integration ofthe +ar of the hilippines, prom!lgated on &an!ary ,

7 The Co!rt there made the !nanimo!sprono!ncement that it $as

f!lly convinced, after a thoro!ghgoingconscientio!s st!dy of all the arg!ments add!ced inAdm Case .o 32/ and the a!thoritative materialsand the mass of fact!al data contained in thee5ha!stive 'eport of the Commission on +ar"ntegration, that the integration of the hilippine +aris Iperfectly constit!tional and legally!nobJectionableI

+e that as it may, $e no$ restate briefly the post!re

of the Co!rt

An "ntegrated +ar is a 1tate-organied +ar, to$hich every la$yer m!st belong, as disting!ishedfrom bar associations organied by individ!alla$yers themselves, membership in $hich isvol!ntary "ntegration of the +ar is essentially aprocess by $hich every member of the +ar isafforded an opport!nity to do his share in carryingo!t the obJectives of the +ar as $ell as obliged tobear his portion of its responsibilities *rganied byor !nder the direction of the 1tate, an integrated +aris an official national body of $hich all la$yers are

re

The integration of the hilippine +ar $as obvio!slydictated by overriding considerations of p!blicinterest and p!blic $elfare to s!ch an e5tent as morethan constit!tionally and legally J!stifies therestrictions that integration imposes !pon thepersonal interests and personal convenience ofindivid!al la$yers

Apropos to the above, it m!st be stressed that alllegislation directing the integration of the +ar havebeen !niformly and !niversally s!stained as a valide5ercise of the police po$er over an importantprofession The practice of la$ is not a vested rightb!t a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed $ithp!blic interest beca!se a la$yer o$es s!bstantiald!ties not only to his client, b!t also to his brethren in

the profession, to the co!rts, and to the nation, andtakes part in one of the most important f!nctions of


10/37

the 1tate N the administration of J!stice N as anofficer of the co!rt 4 The practice of la$ beingclothed $ith p!blic interest, the holder of thisprivilege m!st s!bmit to a degree of control for thecommon good, to the e5tent of the interest he hascreated As the ? 1 1!preme Co!rt thro!gh Mr&!stice 'oberts e5plained, the e5pression affected$ith a p!blic interest is the e

Ehen, therefore, Congress enacted 'ep!blic Act .o/7 3 a!thoriing the 1!preme Co!rt to adopt r!lesof co!rt to effect the integration of the hilippine +ar!nder s!ch conditions as it shall see fit, it did so inthe e5ercise of the paramo!nt police po$er of the1tate The ActIs avo$al is to raise the standards ofthe legal profession, improve the administration ofJ!stice, and enable the +ar to discharge its p!blicresponsibility more effectively %ence, the Congress

in enacting s!ch Act, the Co!rt in ordaining theintegration of the +ar thro!gh its 'esol!tionprom!lgated on &an!ary , 7, and the resident ofthe hilippines in decreeing the constit!tion of the"+ into a body corporate thro!gh residential#ecree .o : dated May 4, 7, $ere promptedby f!ndamental considerations of p!blic $elfare andmotivated by a desire to meet the demands ofpressing p!blic necessity

The 1tate, in order to promote the general $elfare,may interfere $ith and reg!late personal liberty,property and occ!pations ersons and property may

be s!bJected to restraints and b!rdens in order tosec!re the general prosperity and $elfare of the 1tate(?1 vs 6ome &es!s, hil 2:), for, as the Latinma5im goes, 1al!s pop!li est s!preme le5 Thep!blic $elfare is the s!preme la$ To thisf!ndamental principle of government the rights ofindivid!als are s!bordinated Liberty is a blessing$itho!t $hich life is a misery, b!t liberty sho!ld notbe made to prevail over a!thority beca!se thensociety $in fall into anarchy (Calalang vs Eilliams,70 hil 72/) "t is an !ndo!bted po$er of the 1tate torestrain some individ!als from all freedom, and allindivid!als from some freedom

+!t the most compelling arg!ment s!staining theconstit!tionality and validity of +ar integration in thehilippines is the e5plicit !ne

1ec 3 The 1!preme Co!rt shall have the follo$ingpo$ers>

555 555 555

(3) rom!lgate r!les concerning pleading,practice, and pro proced!re in all co!rts, and theadmission to the practice of la$ and the integration ofthe +ar ,

and 1ection of 'ep!blic Act .o /7, $hich reads>

19CT"*. Eithin t$o years from the approval ofthis Act, the 1!preme Co!rt may adopt r!les of Co!rtto effect the integration of the hilippine +ar !nders!ch conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise thestandards of the legal profession, improve theadministration of J!stice, and enable the +ar todischarge its p!blic responsibility more effectively

H!ite apart from the above, let it be stated that even$itho!t the enabling Act ('ep!blic Act .o /7),and looking solely to the lang!age of the provision ofthe Constit!tion granting the 1!preme Co!rt thepo$er to prom!lgate r!les concerning pleading,practice and proced!re in all co!rts, and theadmission to the practice of la$, it at once becomesind!bitable that this constit!tional declaration veststhe 1!preme Co!rt $ith plenary po$er in all casesregarding the admission to and s!pervision of thepractice of la$

Th!s, $hen the respondent 9dillon entered !pon thelegal profession, his practice of la$ and his e5erciseof the said profession, $hich affect the society atlarge, $ere (and are) s!bJect to the po$er of the bodypolitic to re

hilippines, hence, 1ection of the Co!rt '!le is!nconstit!tional for it impinges on his constit!tionalright of freedom to associate (and not to associate)*!r ans$er is> To compel a la$yer to be a member ofthe "ntegrated +ar is not violative of hisconstit!tional freedom to associate /

"ntegration does not make a la$yer a member of anygro!p of $hich he is not already a member %ebecame a member of the +ar $hen he passed the +are5aminations 7 All that integration act!ally does is toprovide an official national organiation for the $ell-defined b!t !norganied and incohesive gro!p of

$hich every la$yer is a ready a member :

+ar integration does not compel the la$yer toassociate $ith anyone %e is free to attend or notattend the meetings of his "ntegrated +ar Chapter orvote or ref!se to vote in its elections as he choosesThe only comp!lsion to $hich he is s!bJected is thepayment of ann!al d!es The 1!preme Co!rt, in orderto f!rther the 1tateIs legitimate interest in elevatingthe

Ass!ming that the


11/37

pay a reasonable fee to$ard defraying the e5pensesof reg!lation of the profession to $hich they belong"t is

The respondent f!rther arg!es that theenforcement of the penalty provisions $o!ld amo!ntto a deprivation of property $itho!t d!e process andhence infringes on one of his constit!tional rightsEhether the practice of la$ is a property right, in thesense of its being one that entitles the holder of alicense to practice a profession, $e do not here pa!seto consider at length, as it clear that !nder the policepo$er of the 1tate, and !nder the necessary po$ersgranted to the Co!rt to perpet!ate its e5istence, therespondentIs right to practise la$ before the co!rts ofthis co!ntry sho!ld be and is a matter s!bJect toreg!lation and in

the fee as a reg!latory meas!re is recognie, then apenalty designed to enforce its payment, $hichpenalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is notvoid as !nreasonable or arbitrary 2

+!t $e m!st here emphasie that the practice of la$is not a property right b!t a mere privilege, and ass!ch m!st bo$ to the inherent reg!latory po$er ofthe Co!rt to e5act compliance $ith the la$yerIsp!blic responsibilities

4 'elative to the iss!e of the po$er andFor J!risdiction of the 1!preme Co!rt to strike the name

of a la$yer from its 'oll of Attorneys, it is s!fficientto state that the matters of admission, s!spension,disbarment and reinstatement of la$yers and theirreg!lation and s!pervision have been and areindisp!tably recognied as inherent J!dicial f!nctionsand responsibilities, and the a!thorities holding s!chare legion 4

"n "n 'e 1parks (2/7 ;y , 0 1E (2d) 4), in$hich the report of the +oard of +ar Commissionersin a disbarment proceeding $as confirmed anddisbarment ordered, the co!rt, s!staining the +ar"ntegration Act of ;ent!cky, said> The po$er to

reg!late the cond!ct and

E%9'98*'9, premises considered, it is the!nanimo!s sense of the Co!rt that the respondentMarcial A 9dillon sho!ld be as he is herebydisbarred, and his name is hereby ordered strickenfrom the 'oll of Attorneys of the Co!rt

9T"T"*. 8*' A?T%*'"TG T* C*.T".?9?19 *8 T%9 8"'M .AM9 1GC", 1ALA=A',89L"C"A.*, %9'.A.#9= Q CA1T"LL*L?C"A.* 9 1ALA=A', 8L*'9.T".* 89L"C"A.*, +9."L#* 6 %9'.A.#9=6'96*'"* ' CA1T"LL* AL+9'T* 1A.&?A., &?A. C '9G91 &', A.#'91 66ATMA"TA., &?1T".* % CACA.".#"., .*9LA LAMA., 9T%9LE*L#* 9 89'.A.#9=,A.69L"T* C "M9'"*, 9#?A'#* ' C9."=A,T'"1TA. A CAT".#"6, A.C%9TA ; TA., andAL"C9 @ 91"6A., petitioners

". T%9 MATT9' *8 T%9 9T"T"*. 8*'A?T%*'"TG T* C*.T".?9 ?19 *8 T%9 8"'M.AM9 *=A9TA, '*M?L*, #9 L9*.,MA+A.TA Q '9G91 '"CA'#* & '*M?L*,+9.&AM". M #9 L9*., '*MA. MA+A.TA,&', &*19 MA, '9G91, &91?1 1 & 1AG*C,9#?A'#* #9 L*1 A.69L91, and &*19 [email protected]?'A, petitioners

' 9 1 * L ? T " * .

M9L9.C"*-%9''9'A, &>RSUV$phW

T$o separate etitions $ere filed before this Co!rt )by the s!rviving partners of Atty Ale5ander 1ycip,$ho died on May 3, 73, and 2) by the s!rvivingpartners of Atty %erminio *aeta, $ho died on8ebr!ary 4, 7/, praying that they be allo$ed tocontin!e !sing, in the names of their firms, the namesof partners $ho had passed a$ay "n the Co!rtIs'esol!tion of 1eptember 2, 7/, both etitions $ereordered consolidated

etitioners base their petitions on the follo$ing

arg!ments>

?nder the la$, a partnership is notprohibited from contin!ing its b!siness !nder a firmname $hich incl!des the name of a deceased partnerin fact, Article :40 of the Civil Code e5plicitlysanctions the practice $hen it provides in the lastparagraph that> tXRUYh


12/37

firm name $hich incl!des the name of a deceasedpartner, at least $here s!ch firm name has ac

The Canons of rofessional 9thics are nottransgressed by the contin!ed !se of the name of adeceased partner in the firm name of a la$partnership beca!se Canon of the Canons ofrofessional 9thics adopted by the American +arAssociation declares that> tXRUYh

*n &!ne /, 3:, this Co!rt resolved> tXRUYhAttorneys Alfred #een and 9ddy A #een of Ceb!City to desist from incl!ding in their firm

designation, the name of C # &ohnston, deceasedThe Co!rt believes that, in vie$ of the personal andconfidential nat!re of the relations bet$een attorneyand client, and the high standards demanded in thecanons of professional ethics, no practice sho!ld beallo$ed $hich even in a remote degree co!ld giverise to the possibility of deception 1aid attorneys areaccordingly advised to drop the name 9';".1from their firm name

etitioners herein no$ seek a re-e5amination of thepolicy th!s far en!nciated by the Co!rt

The Co!rt finds no s!fficient reason to depart fromthe r!lings th!s laid do$n

A "nasm!ch as 1ycip, 1alaar, 8eliciano,%ernande and Castillo and *aeta, 'om!lo, #eLeon, Mabanta and 'eyes are partnerships, the !sein their partnership names of the names of deceased

partners $ill r!n co!nter to Article :3 of the CivilCode $hich provides> tXRUYh


13/37

partnership name or the name of the deceased partneras part thereof Ehat the la$ contemplates therein isa hold-over sit!ation preparatory to formalreorganiation

1econdly, Article :40 treats more of a commercialpartnership $ith a good $ill to protect rather than ofa professional partnership, $ith no saleable good $illb!t $hose rep!tation depends on the personal

As a general r!le, !pon the dissol!tion of acommercial partnership the s!cceeding partners orparties have the right to carry on the b!siness !nderthe old name, in the absence of a stip!lationforbidding it, (s)ince the name of a commercial

partnership is a partnership asset inseparable from thegood $ill of the firm (/0 Am &!r 2d, s 204, p 3)(9mphasis s!pplied)

*n the other hand, tXRUYh

rimary characteristics $hich disting!ish the legalprofession from b!siness are>

A d!ty of p!blic service, of $hich theemol!ment is a byprod!ct, and in $hich one mayattain the highest eminence $itho!t making m!chmoney

2 A relation as an officer of co!rt to theadministration of J!stice involving thoro!gh sincerity,integrity, and reliability

A relation to clients in the highest degreefid!ciary

4 A relation to colleag!es at the bar characteried by candor, fairness, and !n$illingnessto resort to c!rrent b!siness methods of advertisingand encroachment on their practice, or dealingdirectly $ith their clients

The right to practice la$ is not a nat!ral orconstit!tional right b!t is in the nat!re of a privilegeor franchise 4 "t is limited to persons of good moralcharacter $ith special

privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nat!reof a p!blic tr!st /

# etitioners cited Canon of the Canons ofrofessional 9thics of the American +ar Associationin s!pport of their petitions

"t is tr!e that Canon does not consider as !nethicalthe contin!ed !se of the name of a deceased orformer partner in the firm name of a la$ partnership$hen s!ch a practice is permissible by local c!stomb!t the Canon $arns that care sho!ld be taken that noimposition or deception is practiced thro!gh this !se

"t m!st be conceded that in the hilippines, no localc!stom permits or allo$s the contin!ed !se of adeceased or former partnerIs name in the firm namesof la$ partnerships 8irm names, !nder o!r c!stom,"dentify the more active andFor more senior membersor partners of the la$ firm A glimpse at the historyof the firms of petitioners and of other la$ firms inthis co!ntry $o!ld sho$ ho$ their firm names haveevolved and changed from time to time as thecomposition of the partnership changed tXRUYh

memorand!m, the .e$ Gork 1!preme Co!rts!stained the !se of the firm name Ale5ander Q


14/37

6reen even if none of the present ten partners of thefirm bears either name beca!se the practice $assanctioned by c!stom and did not offend anystat!tory provision or legislative policy and $asadopted by agreement of the parties The Co!rt statedtherein> tXRUYh The contin!ed !se of thename of a deceased or former partner, $henpermissible by local c!stom is not !nethical, b!t caresho!ld be taken that no imposition or deception ispracticed thro!gh this !se There is no

Appellate #ivision of the 8irst #epartment hasconsidered the matter and reached The concl!sionthat s!ch practice sho!ld not be prohibited(9mphasis s!pplied)

555 555 555

.either the artnership La$ nor the enal La$prohibits the practice in

.ot so in this J!risdiction $here there is no local

c!stom that sanctions the practice C!stom has beendefined as a r!le of cond!ct formed by repetition ofacts, !niformly observed (practiced) as a social r!le,legally binding and obligatory Co!rts take noJ!dicial notice of c!stom A c!stom m!st be provedas a fact, according to the r!les of evidence 20 Alocal c!stom as a so!rce of right cannot beconsidered by a co!rt of J!stice !nless s!ch c!stom isproperly established by competent evidence like anyother fact 2 Ee find s!ch proof of the e5istence of alocal c!stom, and of the elements re

mean that Co!rts can rely on the same for p!rposesof adJ!dication as a J!ridical c!stom &!ridicalc!stom m!st be differentiated from social c!stomThe former can s!pplement stat!tory la$ or beapplied in the absence of s!ch stat!te .ot so $ith thelatter

Moreover, J!dicial decisions applying or interpretingthe la$s form part of the legal system 22 Ehen the1!preme Co!rt in the #een and erkins cases iss!edits 'esol!tions directing la$yers to desist fromincl!ding the names of deceased partners in their firmdesignation, it laid do$n a legal r!le against $hichno c!stom or practice to the contrary, even if proven,can prevail This is not to speak of o!r civil la$$hich clearly ordains that a partnership is dissolvedby the death of any partner 2 C!stom $hich arecontrary to la$, p!blic order or p!blic policy shall notbe co!ntenanced 24

The practice of la$ is intimately and pec!liarlyrelated to the administration of J!stice and sho!ld notbe considered like an ordinary money-makingtrade tXRUYhprofession, namely, organiation and p!rs!it of alearned art have their J!stification in that they sec!reand maintain that spirit 23

"n fine, petitionersI desire to preserve the "dentity oftheir firms in the eyes of the p!blic m!st bo$ to legaland ethical impediment

ACC*'#".6LG, the petitions filed herein aredenied and petitioners advised to drop the names1GC" and *=A9TA from their respective firmnames Those names may, ho$ever, be incl!ded inthe listing of individ!als $ho have been partners in

their firms indicating the years d!ring $hich theyserved as s!ch

1* *'#9'9#

Teehankee, Concepcion, &r, 1antos, 8ernande,6!errero and #e Castro, &&, conc!r

8ernando, C& and Abad 1antos, &, took no part

1eparate *pinions

89'.A.#*, C&, conc!rring>

The petitions are denied, as there are only fo!r votesfor granting them, seven of the &!stices being of thecontrary vie$, as e5plained in the pl!rality opinion of&!stice Ame!rfina Melencio-%errera "t is o!t ofdelicadea that the !ndersigned did not participate inthe disposition of these petitions, as the la$ office of1ycip, 1alaar, 8eliciano, %ernande and Castillostarted $ith the partnership of H!is!mbing, 1ycip,

and H!is!mbing, the senior partner, the late 'amonH!is!mbing, being the father-in-la$ of the!ndersigned, and the most J!nior partner then,.orberto & H!is!mbing, being his brother- in-la$8or the record, the !ndersigned $ishes to invite theattention of all concerned, and not only of petitioners,to the last sentence of the opinion of &!sticeAme!rfina Melencio-%errera> IThose names B1ycipand *aeta may, ho$ever, be incl!ded in the listingof individ!als $tes

AH?".*, &, dissenting>

" dissent The fo!rteen members of the la$ firm,

1ycip, 1alaar, 8eliciano, %ernande Q Castillo, in


15/37

their petition of &!ne 0, 73, prayed for a!thority tocontin!e the !se of that firm name, not$ithstandingthe death of Attorney Ale5ander 1ycip on May 3,73 (May he rest in peace) %e $as the fo!nder ofthe firm $hich $as originally kno$n as the 1ycipLa$ *ffice

*n the other hand, the seven s!rviving partners of thela$ firm, *aeta, 'om!lo, #e Leon, Mabanta Q'eyes, in their petition of A!g!st , 7/, prayedthat they be allo$ed to contin!e !sing the said firmname not$ithstanding the death of t$o partners,former &!stice 'oman *aeta and his son, %erminio,on May , 72 and 8ebr!ary 4, 7/, respectively

They alleged that the said la$ firm $as acontin!ation of the *aeta La$ *ffice $hich $asestablished in 37 by &!stice *aeta and his son andthat, as to the said la$ firm, the name *aeta hasac

Article :40 of the Civil Code, $hich speaks of the!se by the partnership of the name of a deceasedpartner as part of the partnership name, is cited toJ!stify the petitions Also invoked is the canon thatthe contin!ed !se by a la$ firm of the name of adeceased partner, $hen permissible by local c!stom,is not !nethical as long as no imposition ordeception is practised thro!gh this !se (Canon ofthe Canons of Legal 9thics)

" am of the opinion that the petition may be granted$ith the condition that it be indicated in the

letterheads of the t$o firms (as the case may be) thatAle5ander 1ycip, former &!stice *aeta and%erminio *aeta are dead or the period $hen theyserved as partners sho!ld be stated therein

*bvio!sly, the p!rpose of the t$o firms in contin!ingthe !se of the names of their deceased fo!nders is toretain the clients $ho had c!stomarily so!ght thelegal services of Attorneys 1ycip and *aeta and tobenefit from the good$ill attached to the names ofthose respected and esteemed la$ practitioners Thatis a legitimate motivation

The retention of their names is not illegal per se Thatpractice $as follo$ed before the $ar by the la$ firmof &ames 'oss .ot$ithstanding the death of &!dge'oss the fo!nder of the la$ firm of 'oss, La$rence,1elph and Carrascoso, his name $as retained in thefirm name $ith an indication of the year $hen hedied .o one complained that the retention of thename of &!dge 'oss in the firm name $as illegal or!nethical

[ 1eparate *pinions

89'.A.#*, C&, conc!rring>

The petitions are denied, as there are only fo!r votesfor granting them, seven of the &!stices being of thecontrary vie$, as e5plained in the pl!rality opinion of&!stice Ame!rfina Melencio-%errera "t is o!t ofdelicadea that the !ndersigned did not participate inthe disposition of these petitions, as the la$ office of1ycip, 1alaar, 8eliciano, %ernande and Castillostarted $ith the partnership of H!is!mbing, 1ycip,and H!is!mbing, the senior partner, the late 'amonH!is!mbing, being the father-in-la$ of the!ndersigned, and the most J!nior partner then,

.orberto & H!is!mbing, being his brother- in-la$8or the record, the !ndersigned $ishes to invite the

attention of all concerned, and not only of petitioners,to the last sentence of the opinion of &!sticeAme!rfina Melencio-%errera> IThose names B1ycipand *aeta may, ho$ever, be incl!ded in the listingof individ!als $tes

AH?".*, &, dissenting>

" dissent The fo!rteen members of the la$ firm,1ycip, 1alaar, 8eliciano, %ernande Q Castillo, intheir petition of &!ne 0, 73, prayed for a!thority tocontin!e the !se of that firm name, not$ithstandingthe death of Attorney Ale5ander 1ycip on May 3,73 (May he rest in peace) %e $as the fo!nder ofthe firm $hich $as originally kno$n as the 1ycipLa$ *ffice

*n the other hand, the seven s!rviving partners of thela$ firm, *aeta, 'om!lo, #e Leon, Mabanta Q'eyes, in their petition of A!g!st , 7/, prayed

that they be allo$ed to contin!e !sing the said firmname not$ithstanding the death of t$o partners,former &!stice 'oman *aeta and his son, %erminio,on May , 72 and 8ebr!ary 4, 7/, respectively

They alleged that the said la$ firm $as acontin!ation of the *aeta La$ *ffice $hich $asestablished in 37 by &!stice *aeta and his son andthat, as to the said la$ firm, the name *aeta hasac

Article :40 of the Civil Code, $hich speaks of the!se by the partnership of the name of a deceased

partner as part of the partnership name, is cited toJ!stify the petitions Also invoked is the canon thatthe contin!ed !se by a la$ firm of the name of adeceased partner, $hen permissible by local c!stom,is not !nethical as long as no imposition ordeception is practised thro!gh this !se (Canon ofthe Canons of Legal 9thics)

" am of the opinion that the petition may be granted$ith the condition that it be indicated in theletterheads of the t$o firms (as the case may be) thatAle5ander 1ycip, former &!stice *aeta and%erminio *aeta are dead or the period $hen they

served as partners sho!ld be stated therein

*bvio!sly, the p!rpose of the t$o firms in contin!ingthe !se of the names of their deceased fo!nders is toretain the clients $ho had c!stomarily so!ght thelegal services of Attorneys 1ycip and *aeta and tobenefit from the good$ill attached to the names ofthose respected and esteemed la$ practitioners Thatis a legitimate motivation

The retention of their names is not illegal per se Thatpractice $as follo$ed before the $ar by the la$ firmof &ames 'oss .ot$ithstanding the death of &!dge'oss the fo!nder of the la$ firm of 'oss, La$rence,1elph and Carrascoso, his name $as retained in thefirm name $ith an indication of the year $hen hedied .o one complained that the retention of thename of &!dge 'oss in the firm name $as illegal or!nethical

1*%"A ALAE", complainant,vsA1%A'G M ALA?GA, Clerk of Co!rt @", 1hariIa#istrict Co!rt, Mara$i City, respondent


16/37

.A'@A1A, C&>

1ophia Ala$i $as (and pres!mably still is) a salesrepresentative (or coordinator) of 9+ @illarosa Qartners Co, Ltd of #avao City, a real estate andho!sing company Ashari M Ala!ya is the inc!mbente5ec!tive clerk of co!rt of the 4th &!dicial 1hariIa#istrict in Mara$i City, They $ere classmates, and!sed to be friends

"t appears that thro!gh Ala$iIs agency, a contract $ase5ec!ted for the p!rchase on installments by Ala!yaof one of the ho!sing !nits belonging to the abovementioned firm (hereafter, simply @illarosa Q Co)and in connection there$ith, a ho!sing loan $as alsogranted to Ala!ya by the .ational %ome Mortgage8inance Corporation (.%M8C)

.ot long after$ards, or more precisely on #ecember3, 3, Ala!ya addressed a letter to the resident of

@illarosa Q Co advising of the termination of hiscontract $ith the company %e $rote>

" am formally and officially $ithdra$ing from andnotifying yo! of my intent to terminate theContractFAgreement entered into bet$een me andyo!r company, as represented by yo!r 1alesAgentFCoordinator, 1*%"A ALAE", of yo!rcompanyIs branch office here in Cagayan de *roCity, on the gro!nds that my consent $as vitiated bygross misrepresentation, deceit, fra!d, dishonesty andab!se of confidence by the aforesaid sales agent$hich made said contract void ab initio 1aid sales

agent acting in bad faith perpetrated s!ch illegal and!na!thoried acts $hich made said contract an*nero!s Contract preJ!dicial to my rights andinterests %e then proceeded to e5po!nd inconsiderable detail and

Ala!ya sent a copy of the letter to the @ice-residentof @illarosa Q Co at 1an edro, 6!sa, Cagayan de*ro City The envelope containing it, and $hichact!ally $ent thro!gh the post, bore no stamps"nstead at the right hand corner above the descriptionof the addressee, the $ords, 8ree ostage - # 2/,had been typed

*n the same date, #ecember 3, 3, Ala!ya also$rote to Mr 8ermin T Araga, @ice-resident, CreditQ Collection 6ro!p of the .ational %ome Mortgage8inance Corporation (.%M8C) at 1alcedo @illage,Makati City, rep!diating as fra!d!lent and void hiscontract $ith @illarosa Q Co and asking forcancellation of his ho!sing loan in connectionthere$ith, $hich $as payable from salary ded!ctionsat the rate of 4,:00 a month Among other things,he said>

(T)hro!gh this $ritten notice, " am terminating, as" hereby ann!l, cancel, rescind and voided, themanip!lated contract entered into bet$een me andthe 9+ @illarosa Q artner Co, Ltd, as represented

by its sales agentFcoordinator, 1*%"A ALAE", $homalicio!sly and fra!d!lently manip!lated said

contract and !nla$f!lly sec!red and p!rs!ed theho!sing loan $itho!t my a!thority and against my$ill Th!s, the contract itself is deemed to be void abinitio in vie$ of the attending circ!mstances, that myconsent $as vitiated by misrepresentation, fra!d,deceit, dishonesty, and ab!se of confidence and thatthere $as no meeting of the minds bet$een me andthe s$indling sales agent $ho concealed the realfacts from me

And, as in his letter to @illarosa Q Co, he narrated insome detail $hat he took to be the anomalo!sact!ations of 1ophia Ala$i

Ala!ya $rote three other letters to Mr Araga of the.%M8C, dated 8ebr!ary 2, /, April 3, /,and May , /, in all of $hich, for the samereasons already cited, he insisted on the cancellationof his ho!sing loan and discontin!ance of ded!ctionsfrom his salary on acco!nt thereof a %e also $rote

on &an!ary :, / to Ms Coraon M *rdoRe,%ead of the 8iscal Management Q +!dget *ffice,and to the Chief, 8inance #ivision, both of thisCo!rt, to stop ded!ctions from his salary in relationto the loan in

The !pshot $as that in May, /, the .%M8C$rote to the 1!preme Co!rt re

for the b!y-back of (Ala!yaIs) mortgage and the ref!nd of (his) payments c

*n learning of Ala!yaIs letter to @illarosa Q Co of#ecember 3, 3, 1ophia Ala$i filed $ith thisCo!rt a verified complaint dated &an!ary 23, / Nto $hich she appended a copy of the letter, and of theabove mentioned envelope bearing the type$ritten$ords, 8ree ostage - # 2/ "n that complaint,she acc!sed Ala!ya of>

"mp!tation of malicio!s and libelo!scharges $ith no solid gro!nds thro!gh manifest

ignorance and evident bad faith

2 Ca!sing !nd!e inJ!ry to, and blemishingher honor and established rep!tation

?na!thoried enJoyment of the privilege offree postage and

4 ?s!rpation of the title of attorney, $hichonly reg!lar members of the hilippine +ar mayproperly !se

1he deplored Ala!yaIs references to her as!nscr!p!lo!s s$indler, forger, manip!lator, etc$itho!t even a bit of evidence to cloth (sic) hisallegations $ith the essence of tr!th, deno!ncing hisimp!tations as irresponsible, all concoctions, lies,baseless and co!pled $ith manifest ignorance andevident bad faith, and asserting that all her dealings$ith Ala!ya had been reg!lar and completelytransparent 1he closed $ith the plea that Ala!ya bedismissed from the senice, or be appropriatelydesciplined (sic)

The Co!rt resolved to order Ala!ya to comment onthe complaint, Conformably $ith established !sagethat notices of resol!tions emanate from the

corresponding *ffice of the Clerk of Co!rt, the notice


17/37

of resol!tion in this case $as signed by Atty Alfredo Marasigan, Assistant #ivision Clerk of Co!rt 2

Ala!ya first s!bmitted a reliminary Comment in$hich he

The Co!rt referred the case to the *ffice of the Co!rtAdministrator for eval!ation, report andrecommendation 4

The first acc!sation against Ala!ya is that in hisaforesaid letters, he made malicio!s and libelo!scharges (against Ala$i) $ith no solid gro!nds

thro!gh manifest ignorance and evident bad faith,res!lting in !nd!e inJ!ry to (her) and blemishing herhonor and established rep!tation "n those letters,Ala!ya had $ritten inter alia that>

) Ala$i obtained his consent to the contractsin

2) Ala$i acted in bad faith and perpetrated illegal and !na!thoried acts preJ!dicial to (his) rights and interests

) Ala$i $as an !nscr!p!lo!s (ands$indling) sales agent $ho had fooled him bydeceit, fra!d, misrepresentation, dishonesty andab!se of confidence and

4) Ala$i had malicio!sly and fra!d!lentlymanip!lated the contract $ith @illarosa Q Co, and!nla$f!lly sec!red and p!rs!ed the ho!sing loan$itho!t (his) a!thority and against (his) $ill,and concealed the real facts

Ala!yaIs defense essentially is that in making thesestatements, he $as merely acting in defense of hisrights, and doing only $hat is e5pected of any man!nd!ly preJ!diced and inJ!red, $ho had s!fferedmental ang!ish, sleepless nights, $o!nded feelingsand !ntold financial s!ffering, considering that in si5months, a total of 2/,02:/0 had been ded!ctedfrom his salary 3

The Code of Cond!ct and 9thical 1tandards for!blic *fficials and 9mployees ('A /7) inter aliaen!nciates the 1tate policy of promoting a highstandard of ethics and !tmost responsibility in thep!blic service / 1ection 4 of the Code commandsthat (p)!blic officials and employees at all timesrespect the rights of others, and refrain from doing

acts contrary to la$, good morals, good c!stoms,p!blic policy, p!blic order, p!blic safety and p!blic


18/37

interest 7 More than once has this Co!rtemphasied that the cond!ct and behavior of everyofficial and employee of an agency involved in theadministration of J!stice, from the presiding J!dge tothe most J!nior clerk, sho!ld be circ!mscribed $iththe heavy b!rden of responsibility Their cond!ctm!st at all times be characteried by, among others,strict propriety and decor!m so as to earn and keepthe respect of the p!blic for the J!diciary :

.o$, it does not appear to the Co!rt consistent $ithgood morals, good c!stoms or p!blic policy, orrespect for the rights of others, to co!chden!nciations of acts believed N ho$ever sincerelyN to be deceitf!l, fra!d!lent or malicio!s, ine5cessively intemperate, ins!lting or vir!lentlang!age Ala!ya is evidently convinced that he has aright of action against 1ophia Ala$i The la$re

anyone in a manner consistent $ith good morals,good c!stoms, p!blic policy, p!blic order, s!pra orother$ise stated, that he act $ith J!stice, giveeveryone his d!e, and observe honesty and goodfaith 'ighteo!s indignation, or vindication ofright cannot J!stify resort to vit!perative lang!age, ordo$nright name-calling As a member of the 1hariIa+ar and an officer of a Co!rt, Ala$i is s!bJect to astandard of cond!ct more stringent than for mostother government $orkers As a man of the la$, hemay not !se lang!age $hich is ab!sive, offensive,scandalo!s, menacing, or other$ise improper 20 Asa J!dicial employee, it is e5pected that he accord

respect for the person and the rights of others at alltimes, and that his every act and $ord sho!ld becharacteried by pr!dence, restraint, co!rtesy,dignity %is radical deviation from these sal!tarynorms might perhaps be mitigated, b!t cannot bee5c!sed, by his strongly held conviction that he hadbeen grievo!sly $ronged

As regards Ala!yaIs !se of the title of Attorney, thisCo!rt has already had occasion to declare thatpersons $ho pass the 1hariIa +ar are not f!ll-fledgedmembers of the hilippine +ar, hence may onlypractice la$ before 1hariIa co!rts 2 Ehile one $ho

has been admitted to the 1hariIa +ar, and one $ho hasbeen admitted to the hilippine +ar, may both beconsidered co!nsellors, in the sense that they giveco!nsel or advice in a professional capacity, only thelatter is an attorney The title of attorney isreserved to those $ho, having obtained the necessarydegree in the st!dy of la$ and s!ccessf!lly taken the+ar 95aminations, have been admitted to the"ntegrated +ar of the hilippines and remainmembers thereof in good standing and it is they only$ho are a!thoried to practice la$ in this J!risdiction

Ala!ya says he does not $ish to !se the title,co!nsellor or co!nsellor-at-la$, beca!se in hisregion, there are peJorative connotations to the term,or it is conf!singly similar to that given to locallegislators The ratiocination, valid or not, is of nomoment %is disinclination to !se the title ofco!nsellor does not $arrant his !se of the title ofattorney

8inally, respecting Ala!yaIs alleged !na!thoried !seof the franking privilege, 22 the record contains noevidence ade

E%9'98*'9, respondent Ashari M Ala!ya ishereby '9'"MA.#9# for the !se of e5cessively

intemperate, ins!lting or vir!lent lang!age, ie,lang!age !nbecoming a J!dicial officer, and for

!s!rping the title of attorney and he is $arned thatany similar or other impropriety or miscond!ct in thef!t!re $ill be dealt $ith more severely

1* *'#9'9#

9T"T"*. 8*' L9A@9 T* '91?M9 'ACT"C9*8 LAE,+9.&AM". M #ACA.AG, petitioner

' 9 1 * L ? T " * .

C*'*.A, &>

This bar matter concerns the petition of petitioner+enJamin M #acanay for leave to res!me thepractice of la$

etitioner $as admitted to the hilippine bar inMarch /0 %e practiced la$ !ntil he migrated toCanada in #ecember : to seek medical attentionfor his ailments %e s!bse

*n &!ly 4, 200/, p!rs!ant to 'ep!blic Act ('A)223 (Citienship 'etention and 'e-Ac

his la$ practice There is a

"n a report dated *ctober /, 2007, the *ffice of the+ar Confidant cites 1ection 2, '!le : (Attorneysand Admission to +ar) of the '!les of Co!rt>

19CT"*. 2 'e

hilippines, at least t$enty-one years of age, of goodmoral character, and a resident of the hilippines andm!st prod!ce before the 1!preme Co!rt satisfactoryevidence of good moral character, and that no chargesagainst him, involving moral t!rpit!de, have beenfiled or are pending in any co!rt in the hilippines

Applying the provision, the *ffice of the +arConfidant opines that, by virt!e of his reac


19/37

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness,maintenance of the highest degree of morality,faithf!l observance of the r!les of the legalprofession, compliance $ith the mandatorycontin!ing legal ed!cation re

1ection , '!le : of the '!les of Co!rt provides>

19CT"*. Eho may practice la$ Any personheretofore d!ly admitted as a member of the bar, orthereafter admitted as s!ch in accordance $ith theprovisions of this '!le, and $ho is in good and

reg!lar standing, is entitled to practice la$

!rs!ant thereto, any person admitted as a member ofthe hilippine bar in accordance $ith the stat!toryre

Admission to the bar re

become citiens of another co!ntry shall be deemednot to have lost their hilippine citienship !nder theconditions of B'A 2237 Therefore, a 8ilipinola$yer $ho becomes a citien of another co!ntry isdeemed never to have lost his hilippine citienshipif he reac

Compliance $ith these conditions $ill restore hisgood standing as a member of the hilippine bar

E%9'98*'9, the petition of Attorney +enJamin M#acanay is hereby 6'A.T9#, s!bJect tocompliance $ith the conditions stated above ands!bmission of proof of s!ch compliance to the +arConfidant, after $hich he may retake his oath as amember of the hilippine bar

1* *'#9'9#

@"CT*'"A C %99.A., Complainant,vsATTG 9'L".A 919&*, 'espondent

# 9 C " 1 " * .

@9LA1C*, &', &>

This resolves the administrative complaint filed by@ictoria %eenan (@ictoria) against Atty 9rlina 9speJo

(Atty 9speJo) before the Commission on +ar#iscipline (C+#) of the "ntegrated +ar of thehilippines ("+) for violation of la$yerOs oath,docketed as C+# Case .o 0-2/

The 8acts

1ometime in &an!ary 200, @ictoria met Atty 9speJothro!gh her godmother, Coraon 9!sebio (Coraon)8ollo$ing the introd!ction, Coraon told @ictoriathat Atty 9speJo $as her la$yer in need of moneyand $anted to borro$ t$o h!ndred fifty tho!sandpesos (h 230,000) from her (@ictoria) 1hortlythereafter, @ictoria $ent to the ho!se of Coraon for a

meeting $ith Atty 9speJo $here they disc!ssed the


20/37

terms of the loan 1ince Atty 9speJo $as introd!cedto her as her godmotherOs la$yer, @ictoria fo!nd noreason to distr!st the former %ence, d!ring the samemeeting, @ictoria agreed to accomodate Atty 9speJoand there and then handed to the latter the amo!nt ofh 230,000 To sec!re the payment of the loan, Atty9speJo sim!ltaneo!sly iss!ed and t!rned over to@ictoria a check dated 8ebr!ary 2, 200 for t$oh!ndred seventy-five tho!sand pesos (h 273,000)covering the loan amo!nt and agreed interest *n d!edate, Atty 9speJo re

At the mandatory conference, only @ictoria

appeared0

Th!s, Commissioner @illan!eva-Malala iss!ed an*rder noting Atty 9speJoOs fail!re to appear d!ringthe mandatory conference and her fail!re to file anAns$er Accordingly, Atty 9speJo $as declared indefa!lt @ictoria, on the other hand, $as directed tofile her verified position paper, $hich she filed on&!ne , 2002

8indings and 'ecommendation of the "+

"n its 'eport and 'ecommendation dated &!ly 3,200, the C+# recommended the s!spension of Atty9speJo from the practice of la$ and as a member ofthe +ar for a period of five (3) years

The C+# reasoned>

The fail!re of a la$yer to ans$er the complaint fordisbarment despite d!e notice and to appear on thesched!led hearings set, sho$s his flo!ting resistance

to la$f!l orders of the co!rt and ill!strates hisdeficiency for his oath of office as a la$yer, $hichdeserves disciplinary sanction

Moreover, respondentBOs acts of iss!ing checks $ithins!fficient f!nds and despite repeated demands Bshefailed to comply $ith her obligation and herdisregard and fail!re to appear for preliminaryinvestigation and to s!bmit her co!nter-affidavit toans$er the charges against her for 9stafa and@iolation of + 22, constit!te grave miscond!ct thatalso $arrant disciplinary action against respondent

*n #ecember 4, 202, the +oard of 6overnorspassed a 'esol!tion4 adopting the 'eport and'ecommendation of the C+# $ith the modificationlo$ering Atty 9speJoOs s!spension from five (3)years to t$o (2) years Atty 9speJo $as also orderedto ret!rn to @ictoria the amo!nt of h 230,000$ithin thirty (0) days from receipt of notice $ithlegal interest reckoned from the time the demand $asmade The 'esol!tion reads>

'91*L@9# to A#*T and A'*@9, as it ishereby !nanimo!sly A#*T9# and A'*@9#,$ith modification, the 'eport and 'ecommendation

of the "nvestigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this 'esol!tion asAnne5 A, and finding the recommendation f!llys!pported by the evidence on record and applicablela$s and r!les, and considering respondentOs gravemiscond!ct, Atty 9rlinda 9speJo is hereby1?19.#9# from the practice of la$ for t$o (2)years and *rdered to 'et!rn to complainant theamo!nt of T$o %!ndred 8ifty Tho!sand(230,00000) esos $ithin thirty (0) days fromreceipt of notice $ith legal interest reckoned from thetime the demand $as made

*n A!g!st :, 20, the C+# transmitted to this Co!rtthe .otice of the 'esol!tion pertaining to 'esol!tion.o DD-202-4 along $ith the records of thiscase3

The Co!rtOs '!ling

Ee s!stain the findings of the "+ and adopt itsrecommendation in part Atty 9speJo did not denyobtaining a loan from @ictoria or traverse allegationsthat she iss!ed !nf!nded checks to pay herobligation "t has already been settled that thedeliberate fail!re to pay J!st debts and the iss!ance of$orthless checks constit!te gross miscond!ct, for

$hich a la$yer may be sanctioned/


21/37

@erily, la$yers m!st at all times faithf!lly performtheir d!ties to society, to the bar, to the co!rts and totheir clients "n Tomlin "" v Moya "", Ee e5plainedthat the prompt payment of financial obligations isone of the d!ties of a la$yer, th!s>

"n the present case, respondent admitted his monetaryobligations to the complaint b!t offered no J!stifiablereason for his contin!ed ref!sal to pay Complainantmade several demands, both verbal and $ritten, b!trespondent J!st ignored them and even made himselfscarce Altho!gh he ackno$ledged his financialobligations to complainant, respondent never offerednor made arrangements to pay his debt *n thecontrary, he ref!sed to recognie any $rong doingnor sho$n remorse for iss!ing $orthless checks, anact constit!ting gross miscond!ct 'espondent m!stbe reminded that it is his d!ty as a la$yer tofaithf!lly perform at all times his d!ties to society, tothe bar, to the co!rts and to his clients As part of his

d!ties, he m!st promptly pay his financialobligations7

The fact that Atty 9speJo obtained the loan andiss!ed the $orthless checks in her private capacityand not as an attorney of @ictoria is of no momentAs Ee have held in several cases, a la$yer may bedisciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty inhis profession b!t also for gross miscond!ct o!tsideof his professional capacity Ehile the Co!rt may notordinarily discipline a la$yer for miscond!ctcommitted in his non- professional or privatecapacity, the Co!rt may be J!stified in s!spending or

removing him as an attorney $here his miscond!cto!tside of the la$yerOs professional dealings is sogross in character as to sho$ him morally !nfit and!n$orthy of the privilege $hich his licenses and thela$ confer:

"n Eilkie v Limos, Ee reiterated that the iss!ance ofa series of $orthless checks, $hich is e5actly $hatAtty 9speJo committed in this case, manifests ala$yerOs lo$ regard for her commitment to her oath,for $hich she may be disciplined Th!s>

Ee have held that the iss!ance of checks $hich $ere

later dishonored for having been dra$n against aclosed acco!nt indicates a la$yerOs !nfitness for thetr!st and confidence reposed on her "t sho$s a lackof personal honesty and good moral character as torender her !n$orthy of p!blic confidence Theiss!ance of a series of $orthless checks also sho$sthe remorseless attit!de of respondent, !nmindf!l tothe deleterio!s effects of s!ch act to the p!blicinterest and p!blic order "t also manifests a la$yerOslo$ regard to her commitment to the oath she hastaken $hen she Joined her peers, serio!sly andirreparably tarnishing the image of the profession shesho!ld hold in high esteem

5 5 5 5

"n +arrios v Martine, $e disbarred the respondent$ho iss!ed $orthless checks for $hich he $asconvicted in the criminal case filed against him "nLao v Medel, $e held that the deliberate fail!re topay J!st debts and the iss!ance of $orthless checksconstit!te gross miscond!ct, for $hich a la$yer maybe sanctioned $ith one-year s!spension from thepractice of la$ The same sanction $as imposed onthe respondent-la$yer in 'ang$ani v #ino havingbeen fo!nd g!ilty of gross miscond!ct for iss!ing badchecks in payment of a piece of property the title of

$hich $as only entr!sted to him by thecomplainant

8!rther, the miscond!ct of Atty 9speJo is aggravatedby her !nJ!stified ref!sal to obey the orders of the"+ directing her to file an ans$er to the complaint of@ictoria and to appear at the sched!led mandatoryconference This constit!tes blatant disrespect for the"+ $hich amo!nts to cond!ct !nbecoming a la$yer"n Almendare, &r v Langit, Ee held that a la$yerm!st maintain respect not only for the co!rts, b!t alsofor J!dicial officers and other d!ly constit!teda!thorities, incl!ding the "+>

The miscond!ct of respondent is aggravated by his!nJ!stified ref!sal to heed the orders of the "+re

?ndo!btedly, Atty 9speJoOs iss!ance of $orthlesschecks and her blatant ref!sal to heed the directives

of the H!eon City rosec!torOs *ffice and the "+contravene Canon , '!le 0 Canon 7, '!le 70and Canon of the Code of rofessional'esponsibility, $hich provide>

CA.*. A LAEG9' 1%ALL ?%*L# T%9C*.1T"T?T"*., *+9G T%9 LAE1 *8 T%9LA.# A.# '*M*T9 '919CT 8*' T%9 LAEA.# L96AL '*C91191 '!le 0 A la$yershall not engage in !nla$f!l, dishonest, immoral ordeceitf!l cond!ct CA.*. 7 A LAEG9' 1%ALLAT ALL T"M91 ?%*L# T%9 ".T96'"TG A.##"6."TG *8 T%9 L96AL '*8911"*. A.#

1?*'T T%9 ACT"@"T"91 *8 T%9".T96'AT9# +A' '!le 70 A la$yer shall notengage in cond!ct that adversely reflects on hisfitness to practice la$, nor shall he, $hether in p!blicor private life, behave in a scandalo!s manner to thediscredit of the legal profession CA.*. ALAEG9' 1%ALL *+19'@9 A.# MA".TA".T%9 '919CT #?9 T* T%9 C*?'T1 A.# T*&?#"C"AL *88"C91 A.# 1%*?L# ".1"1T *.1"M"LA' C*.#?CT +G *T%9'1

Ee find the penalty of s!spension from the practiceof la$ for t$o (2) years, as recommended by the "+,commens!rate !nder the circ!mstances Ee,ho$ever, cannot s!stain the "+Os recommendationordering Atty 9speJo to ret!rn the money sheborro$ed from @ictoria "n disciplinary proceedingsagainst la$yers, the only iss!e is $hether the officerof the co!rt is still fit to be allo$ed to contin!e as amember of the +ar *!r only concern is thedetermination of respondentOs administrative liability*!r findings have no material bearing on otherJ!dicial action $hich the parties may to choose meagainst each other 8!rthermore, disciplinaryproceedings against la$yers do not involve a trial ofan action, b!t rather investigations by the Co!rt intothe cond!ct of one of its officers The only

for determination in these proceedings is $hether ornot the attorney is still fit to be allo$ed to contin!e as


22/37

a member of the +ar Th!s, this Co!rt cannot r!le onthe iss!e of the amo!nt of money that sho!ld beret!rned to the complainant22

E%9'98*'9, Ee find Atty 9rlinda + 9speJo6?"LTG of gross miscond!ct and violating Canons, 7 and of the Code of rofessional'esponsibility Ee 1?19.# respondent from thepractice of la$ for t$o (2) years affectiveimmediately

Let copies of this #ecision be f!rnished the *ffice ofthe Co!rt Administrator for dissemination to allco!rts, the "ntegrated +ar of the hilippines and the*ffice of the +ar Confidant and recorded in thepersonal files of respondent

1* *'#9'9#

". T%9 MATT9' *8 T%9 9T"T"*. 8*'#"1+A'M9.T *8 T9L918*'* A #"A*,vs19@9'".* 6 MA'T".9=, petitioner

+9.6=*., C&>

After s!ccessf!lly passing the correspondinge5aminations held in 3, Telesforo A #iao $asadmitted to the +ar

Abo!t t$o years later, 1everino Martine chargedhim $ith having falsely represented in his applicationfor s!ch +ar e5amination, that he had the re

academic

(a) #iao did not complete his high school trainingand

(b) #iao never attended H!is!mbing College, andnever obtained his AA diploma therefrom N $hichcontradicts the credentials he had s!bmitted ins!pport of his application for e5amination, and of hisallegation therein of s!ccessf!l completion of there

Ans$ering this official report and complaint,Telesforo A #iao, practically admits the first charge>b!t he claims that altho!gh he had left high school inhis third year, he entered the service of the ?1Army, passed the 6eneral Classification Test given

therein, $hich (according to him) is e

Ee have serio!s do!bts, abo!t the validity of thisclaim, $hat $ith respondentIs fail!re to e5hibit anycertification to that effect (the e

(40-4) of s!ch college .o$, asserting he had

obtained his AA title from the Arellano ?niversityin April, 4, he says he $as erroneo!sly certified,d!e to conf!sion, as a grad!ate of H!is!mbingCollege, in his school records

Eherefore, the parties respectf!lly pray that theforegoing stip!lation of facts be admitted andapproved by this %onorable Co!rt, $itho!t preJ!diceto the parties add!cing other evidence to prove theircase not covered by this stip!lation of facts]$ph^R_t

This e5planation is not acceptable, for the reason thatthe error or conf!sion $as obvio!sly of his o$nmaking %ad his application disclosed his havingobtained AA from Arellano ?niversity, it $o!ld alsohave disclosed that he got it in April, 4, therebysho$ing that he began his la$ st!dies (2nd semesterof 4:-4) si5 months before obtaining hisAssociate in Arts degree And then he $o!ld not have

been permitted to take the bar tests, beca!se o!r'!les provide, and the applicant for the +are5amination m!st affirm !nder oath, That previo!sto the st!dy of la$, he had s!ccessf!lly andsatisfactorily completed the re

lainly, therefore, Telesforo A #iao $as not

false pretenses m!st be, and is hereby revoked Thefact that he h!rdled the +ar e5aminations isimmaterial assing s!ch e5aminations is not the only

The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the rollof attorneys, the name of Telesforo A #iao And thelatter is re

". '9> 9T"T"*. T* 1"6. ". T%9 '*LL *8ATT*'.9G1

M"C%A9L A M9#A#*, etitioner

' 9 1 * L ? T " * .

19'9.*, C&>

Ee resolve the instant etition to 1ign in the 'oll ofAttorneys filed by petitioner Michael A Medado(Medado)

Medado grad!ated from the ?niversity of thehilippines $ith the degree of +achelor of La$s in

7 and passed the same yearIs bar e5aminations$ith a general $eighted average of :272

*n 7 May :0, he took the AttorneyOs *ath at thehilippine "nternational Convention Center ("CC)together $ith the s!ccessf!l bar e5aminees %e $assched!led to sign in the 'oll of Attorneys on May:0,4 b!t he failed to do so on his sched!led date,allegedly beca!se he had misplaced the .otice to1ign the 'oll of Attorneys3 given by the +ar *ffice$hen he $ent home to his province for a vacation/

1everal years later, $hile r!mmaging thro!gh his oldcollege files, Medado fo!nd the .otice to 1ign the

'oll of Attorneys "t $as then that he realied that he


23/37

had not signed in the roll, and that $hat he hadsigned at the entrance of the "CC $as probably J!stan attendance record7

+y the time Medado fo!nd the notice, he $as already$orking %e stated that he $as mainly doingcorporate and ta5ation $ork, and that he $as notactively involved in litigation practice Th!s, heoperated !nder the mistaken belief that since he hadalready taken the oath, the signing of the 'oll ofAttorneys $as not as !rgent, nor as cr!cial to hisstat!s as a la$yer: and the matter of signing in the'oll of Attorneys lost its !rgency and comp!lsion,and $as s!bse

"n 2003, $hen Medado attended MandatoryContin!ing Legal 9d!cation (MCL9) seminars, he$as re

.ot having signed in the 'oll of Attorneys, he $as!nable to provide his roll n!mber

Abo!t seven years later, or on / 8ebr!ary 202,Medado filed the instant etition, praying that he beallo$ed to sign in the 'oll of Attorneys

The *ffice of the +ar Confidant (*+C) cond!cted aclarificatory conference on the matter on 21eptember 2022 and s!bmitted a 'eport and'ecommendation to this Co!rt on 4 8ebr!ary20 The *+C recommended that the instantpetition be denied for petitionerOs gross negligence,

gross miscond!ct and !tter lack of merit4 "te5plained that, based on his ans$ers d!ring theclarificatory conference, petitioner co!ld offer novalid J!stification for his negligence in signing in the'oll of Attorneys3

After a J!dicio!s revie$ of the records, $e grantMedadoOs prayer in the instant petition, s!bJect to thepayment of a fine and the imposition of a penaltye

At the o!tset, $e note that not allo$ing Medado tosign in the 'oll of Attorneys $o!ld be akin to

imposing !pon him the !ltimate penalty ofdisbarment, a penalty that $e have reserved for themost serio!s ethical transgressions of members of the+ar

"n this case, the records do not sho$ that this actionis $arranted

8or one, petitioner demonstrated good faith and goodmoral character $hen he finally filed the instantetition to 1ign in the 'oll of Attorneys Ee note thatit $as not a third party $ho called this Co!rtOsattention to petitionerOs omission rather, it $asMedado himself $ho ackno$ledged his o$n lapse,albeit after the passage of more than 0 years Ehenasked by the +ar Confidant $hy it took him this longto file the instant petition, Medado very candidlyreplied>

Mahirap hong i-e5plain yan pero, y!n bang at thetime, $hat can yo! sayK Takot ka k!ng anongmangyayari sa `yo, yo! donOt kno$ $hatOs gonnahappen At the same time, itOs a combination ofapprehension and an5iety of $hatOs gonna happenAnd, finally itOs the right thing to do " have to comehere sign the roll and take the oath as necessary/

8or another, petitioner has not been s!bJect to anyaction for dis

$hich is more than $hat $e can say of otherindivid!als $ho $ere s!ccessf!lly admitted asmembers of the hilippine +ar 8or this Co!rt, thisfact demonstrates that petitioner strove to adhere tothe strict re

8inally, Medado appears to have been a competentand able legal practitioner, having held vario!spositions at the La!rel La$ *ffice,: etron,etrophil Corporation, the hilippine .ational *ilCompany, and the 9nergy #evelopmentCorporation

All these demonstrate MedadoOs $orth to become af!ll-fledged member of the hilippine +arZ$phiEhile the practice of la$ is not a right b!t aprivilege,20 this Co!rt $ill not !n$arrantedly

$ithhold this privilege from individ!als $ho havesho$n mental fitness and moral fiber to $ithstand therigors of the profession

That said, ho$ever, $e cannot f!lly e5c!lpatepetitioner Medado from all liability for his years ofinaction

etitioner has been engaged in the practice of la$since :0, a period spanning more than 0 years,$itho!t having signed in the 'oll of Attorneys2 %eJ!stifies this behavior by characteriing his acts asneither $illf!l nor intentional b!t based on a

mistaken belief and an honest error of J!dgment22

Ee disagree

Ehile an honest mistake of fact co!ld be !sed toe5c!se a person from the legal conse

?nder the '!les of Co!rt, the !na!thoried practiceof la$ by oneOs ass!ming to be an attorney or officerof the co!rt, and acting as s!ch $itho!t a!thority,may constit!te indirect contempt of co!rt,27 $hich isp!nishable by fine or imprisonment or both2: 1!ch afinding, ho$ever, is in the nat!re of criminalcontempt2 and m!st be reached after the filing ofcharges and the cond!ct of hearings0 "n this case,$hile it appears

engaging in !na!thoried practice of la$, $e refrainfrom making any finding of liability for indirect


24/37

contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto hasbeen filed against him

;no$ingly engaging in !na!thoried practice of la$like$ise transgresses Canon of Ithe Code ofrofessional 'esponsibility, $hich provides>

CA.*. -A la$yer shall not, directly or indirectly,assist in the !na!thoried practice of la$

Ehile a reading of Canon appears to merelyprohibit la$yers from assisting in the !na!thoriedpractice of la$, the !na!thoried practice of la$ bythe la$yer himself is s!bs!med !nder this provision,beca!se at the heart of Canon is the la$yerIs d!ty toprevent the !na!thoried practice of la$ This d!tylike$ise applies to la$ st!dents and +ar candidatesAs aspiring members of the +ar, they are bo!nd tocomport themselves in accordance $ith the ethicalstandards of the legal profession

T!rning no$ to the applicable penalty, previo!sviolations of Canon have $arranted the penalty ofs!spension from the practice of la$ As Medado isnot yet a f!ll-fledged la$yer, $e cannot s!spend himfrom the practice of la$ %o$ever, $e see it fit toimpose !pon him a penalty akin to s!spension byallo$ing him to sign in the 'oll of Attorneys one ()year after receipt of this 'esol!tion 8or histransgression of the prohibition against the!na!thoried practice of la$, $e like$ise see it fit tofine him in the amo!nt of 2,000 #!ring the oneyear period, petitioner is $arned that he is not

allo$ed to engage in the practice of la$, and issternly $arned that doing any act that constit!tespractice of la$ before he has signed in the 'oll ofAttorneys $ill be dealt $ith severely by this Co!rt

E%9'98*'9, the instant etition to 1ign in the'oll of Attorneys is hereby 6'A.T9# etitionerMichael A Medado is ALL*E9# to sign in the 'ollof Attorneys *.9 () G9A' after receipt of this'esol!tion etitioner is like$ise *'#9'9# to paya 8".9 of 2,000 for his !na!thoried practice ofla$ #!ring the one year period, petitioner is .*TALL*E9# to practice la$, and is 1T9'.LG

EA'.9# that doing any act that constit!tes practiceof la$ before he has signed in the 'oll of Attorneys$ill be dealt $ill be severely by this Co!rt

Let a copy of this 'esol!tion be f!rnished the *fficeof the +ar Confidant, the "ntegrated +ar

of the hilippines, and the *ffice of the Co!rtAdministrator for circ!lation to all co!rts in theco!ntry

1* *'#9'9#

#*..A MA'"9 1 A6?"''9, Complainant,vs9#E". L 'A.A, 'espondent

# 9 C " 1 " * .

CA'"*, &>

The Case

+efore one is admitted to the hilippine +ar, he m!stpossess the re

learning The practice of la$ is a privilege besto$ed

only on the morally fit A bar candidate $ho ismorally !nfit cannot practice la$ even if he passesthe bar e5aminations

The 8acts

'espondent 9d$in L 'ana (respondent) $asamong those $ho passed the 2000 +ar 95aminations

*n 2 May 200, one day before the sched!led massoath-taking of s!ccessf!l bar e5aminees as membersof the hilippine +ar, complainant #onna MarieAg!irre (complainant) filed against respondent aetition for #enial of Admission to the +arComplainant charged respondent $ith !na!thoriedpractice of la$, grave miscond!ct, violation of la$,and grave misrepresentation

The Co!rt allo$ed respondent to take his oath as amember of the +ar d!ring the sched!led oath-taking

on 22 May 200 at the hilippine "nternationalConvention Center %o$ever, the Co!rt r!led thatrespondent co!ld not sign the 'oll of Attorneyspending the resol!tion of the charge against himTh!s, respondent took the la$yerOs oath on thesched!led date b!t has not signed the 'oll ofAttorneys !p to no$

Complainant charges respondent for !na!thoriedpractice of la$ and grave miscond!ct Complainantalleges that respondent, $hile not yet a la$yer,appeared as co!nsel for a candidate in the May 200elections before the M!nicipal +oard of 9lection

Canvassers (M+9C) of Mandaon, MasbateComplainant f!rther alleges that respondent filed$ith the M+9C a pleading dated May 200entitled 8ormal *bJection to the "ncl!sion in theCanvassing of @otes in 1ome recincts for the *fficeof @ice-Mayor "n this pleading, respondentrepresented himself as co!nsel for and in behalf of@ice Mayoralty Candidate, 6eorge +!nan, andsigned the pleading as co!nsel for 6eorge +!nan(+!nan)

*n the charge of violation of la$, complainant claimsthat respondent is a m!nicipal government employee,

being a secretary of the 1angg!niang +ayan ofMandaon, Masbate As s!ch, respondent is notallo$ed by la$ to act as co!nsel for a client in anyco!rt or administrative body

*n the charge of grave miscond!ct andmisrepresentation, complainant acc!ses respondent ofacting as co!nsel for vice mayoralty candidate6eorge +!nan (+!nan) $itho!t the latter engagingrespondentOs services Complainant claims thatrespondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent theproclamation of the $inning vice mayoraltycandidate

*n 22 May 200, the Co!rt iss!ed a resol!tionallo$ing respondent to take the la$yerOs oath b!tdisallo$ed him from signing the 'oll of Attorneys!ntil he is cleared of the charges against him "n thesame resol!tion, the Co!rt re

"n his Comment, respondent admits that +!nanso!ght his specific assistance to represent himbefore the M+9C 'espondent claims that hedecided to assist and advice +!nan, not as a la$yerb!t as a person $ho kno$s the la$ 'espondentadmits signing the May 200 pleading that

obJected to the incl!sion of certain votes in thecanvassing %e e5plains, ho$ever, that he did not

7/25/20

Ligaya Maniago vs Atty

Documents

Transcript of Ligaya Maniago vs Atty