Cayetano vs Monsod (1991) traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-

giving, document drafting, and negotiation.

Facts:
In Re: Petition to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Michael Medado (2013)
Chairman of the Commission on Elections. His
appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Facts:
Appointments. Monsod’s appointment was opposed
by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not Medado graduated from the University of the
qualify for he failed to meet the Constitutional Philippines with the degree of Bachelor of Laws in
requirement which provides that the chairman of the 1979 1 and passed the same year's bar examinations
COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice with a general weighted average of 82.7. On 7 May
law for at least ten years. Monsod’s experience as a 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the Philippine
lawyer consisted of the following: (1) Passed the bar in International Convention Center (PICC) together with
1960 with a rating of 86.55%; (2) Immediately after the successful bar examinees. He was scheduled to
passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one year; sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980,4 but he
(3) Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he failed to do so on his scheduled date, allegedly
had a degree in economics in the University of because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll
Pennsylvania and held various positions in various of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went
foreign corporations; (4) In 1970, he returned to the home to his province for a vacation. Several years
Philippines and held executive jobs for various local later, while rummaging through his old college files,
corporations such as the Meralco Group until 1986; Medado found the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys.
and (5) In 1986, he became a member of the It was then that he realized that he had not signed in
Constitutional Commission. He also became National the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of
Chairman of NAMFREL. the PICC was probably just an attendance record. By
the time Medado found the notice, he was already
Issue: Whether or not Monsod was engaged in the working. He stated that he was mainly doing corporate
practice of law to qualify him as COMELEC chairman. and taxation work, and that he was not actively
involved in litigation practice. Thus, he operated
Held: Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a “under the mistaken belief [that] since he ha[d] already
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer- taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was
entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer”;
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and and “the matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost
the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional its urgency and compulsion, and was subsequently
requirement — that he has been engaged in the forgotten.” In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory
practice of law for at least ten years. As noted by Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was
various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to required to provide his roll number in order for his
court appearances. MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed
The members of the bench and bar and the in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his
informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in roll number. About seven years later, or on 6 February
most developed societies today, substantially more 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he
legal work is transacted in law offices than in the be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both Issue: Whether or not Medado should be allowed to
litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
cases they find themselves spending more time doing
what is loosely described as business counseling than Held: Yes (sort of). At the onset, the Court said that
in trying cases. In the course of a working day the Medado has demonstrated good faith and good moral
average general practitioner wig engage in a number character when he finally filed the instant petition.
of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, However, he has committed unauthorized practice of
legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, law the moment he realized that what he had signed
and other interested parties. Even the increasing was merely an attendance record. At that point,
numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig usually Medado should have known that he was not a full-
perform at least some legal services outside their fledged member of the Philippine Bar because of his
specialty. By no means will most of this work involve failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, as it was the act
litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare of signing therein that would have made him so.
types — a litigator who specializes in this work to the When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue
exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require practicing law without taking the necessary steps to
the lawyer to have mastered the full range of complete all the requirements for admission to the
Bar, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice A.C. No. 5161
of law.
Medado was made to wait for one year before
being allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER
OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR. ROLANDO S. TORRES … Petitioner
PRESENT: SERENO, CJ; CARPIO; VELASCO, JR; LEONARDO-DE CASTRO; PERALTA; BERSAMIN; DEL
CASTILLO*; MENDOZA**; PERLAS-BERNABE; LEONEN; JARDELEZA***; CAGUIOA; MARTIRES AND
TIJAM, JJ
Promulgated: July 11, 2017

RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
For resolution is the Petition1 dated March 10, 2017 filed by Rolando S. Torres (Torres) who seeks judicial
clemency in order to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.
Records show that in a Resolution2 dated April 14, 2004 in Ting-Dumali v. Torres,3 the Court meted the supreme
penalty of disbarment on Torres for “presentation of false testimony; participation in, consent to, and failure to
advise against, the forgery of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross
misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery,”4 thereby committing gross misconduct
and violating Canons 1 and 10 the Code of Professional Responsibility. The dispositive portion of the said
Resolution reads:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres guilty of gross misconduct and
violation of the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby
rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from
the practice of law, and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
x x x5
Aggrieved, Torres twice moved for reconsideration,6 both of which were denied with finality by the Court,7 which
then stated that “[n]o further pleadings will be entertained.”8 This notwithstanding, Torres: (a) filed an Ex-
Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment9 dated January 26, 2006 begging for compassion, mercy, and
understanding;10 and (b) wrote letters to former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban11 and former Associate
Justice Dante O. Tinga12 reiterating his pleas for compassion and mercy. However, these were ordered
expunged through the Court’s Resolutions dated June 13, 200613 and September 5, 2006,14 considering the
previous directive that no further pleadings will be further entertained in this case. Still undaunted, Torres
continued to file numerous submissions either seeking his reinstatement to the bar15 or the reduction of his
penalty of disbarment to suspension,16 all of which were either expunged from the records17 or denied18 by the
Court.
More than ten (10) years from his disbarment, Torres filed a Petition19 dated June 11, 2015 seeking judicial
clemency from the Court to reinstate him in the Roll of Attorneys.20 In a Resolution21 dated August 25, 2015
(August 25, 2015 Resolution), the Court denied the petition, holding that Torres had failed to provide substantial
proof that he had reformed himself, especially considering the absence of showing that he had reconciled or
attempted to reconcile with his sister-in-law, the original complainant in the disbarment case against him; nor
was it demonstrated that he was remorseful over the fraudulent acts he had committed against her.22
Despite the foregoing, Torres filed the instant petition, again seeking judicial clemency from the Court to reinstate
him in the Roll of Attorneys.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is not meritorious.
The principle which should hold true for lawyers, being officers of the court, is that judicial clemency, as an act of
mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts.
Thus, the Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of
potential and promise are indispensable.23 In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S.
Torres as a member of the Philippine Bar,24 the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests
for judicial clemency, to wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications
or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges
associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of
guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-
reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can
be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to
legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as
potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.25
In support of the instant petition for reinstatement, Torres merely rehashed all the several testimonials and
endorsements which he had already attached to his previous petitions, in addition to another endorsement, this
time coming from the incumbent Secretary of Justice, stating that Torres “is a person of good moral character
and a law abiding citizen.”26However, these testimonials and endorsements do not prove whatsoever that Torres
had already successfully reformed himself subsequent to his disbarment. Neither do they exhibit remorse
towards the actions which caused his delisting from the Roll of Attorneys, i.e., the fraudulent acts he committed
against his sister-in-law. In this regard, it is noteworthy to point out that since the promulgation of the Court’s
August 25, 2015 Resolution, there was still no showing that Torres had reconciled or even attempted to reconcile
with his sister-in-law so as to show remorse for his previous faults.
Moreover, Torres also failed to present any evidence to demonstrate his potential for public service or that he -
now being 70 years of age27- still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a
chance to redeem himself.
In sum, Torres failed to comply with the guidelines for the grant of judicial clemency; hence, the instant petition
must necessarily be denied.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
SHORT TITLE: QUE VS REVILLA sufficiently rehabilitated himself or herself in
LONG TITLE: CONRADO N. conduct and character. x x x The lawyer has to
QUE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. demonstrate and prove by clear and convincing
REVILLA, evidence that he or she is again worthy of
JR., Respondent membership in the Bar. The Court will take into
A. A.C. No.7054 consideration his or her character and standing
November 11, 2014 PER prior to the disbarment, the nature and character
CURIAM of the charge/s for which he or she was disbarred,
TOPIC: his or her conduct subsequent to the disbarment,
Reinstatement to the Practice of Law -- The basic and the time that has elapsed in between the
inquiry in a petition for reinstatementto the disbarment and the application for
practice of law is whether the lawyer has reinstatement.25
STATEMENT OF FACTS: certification19 from St. Peter Parish, Commonwealth
ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR. (REVILLA) was Avenue, Quezon City, proving that he and his family
disbarred by the court from the practice of law on the are dedicated parishioners.
following grounds: abuse of court procedures and ISSUE:
processes; filing of multiple actions and forum- WON Atty Revilla is qualified for reinstatement in
shopping; willful, intentional and deliberate resort to the practice of law.
falsehood and deception before the courts; maligning HELD:
the name of his fellow lawyer; and fraudulent and NO, Atty Revilla is no longer qualified.
unauthorized appearances in court. Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with
Prior to said disbarment , the court had penalized him conditions.20 It is not a natural, absolute or
already in Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo Garcia constitutional right granted to everyone who demands
versus Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla for his willful and it, but rather, a special privilege granted and continued
intentional falsehood before the court; for misuse of only to those who demonstrate special fitness
court procedures and processes to delay the inintellectual attainment and in moral character.21 The
execution of a judgment; and for collaborating with same reasoning applies to reinstatement of a
non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. We showed disbarred lawyer. When exercising its inherent power
leniency then by reducing his penalty to suspension to grant reinstatement, the Court should see to it that
for six (6) months. only those who establish their present moral fitness
The court in rendering their decision stated that: He is and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the
a continuing risk, too, to the public that the legal Bar. Thus, though the doors to the practice of law are
profession serves. Not even his ardor and never permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the
overzealousness in defending the interests of his Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to
client can save him. Such traits at the expense of the general public to ensure that if the doors are
everything else, particularly the integrity of the opened,it is done so only as a matter of justice.22
profession and the orderly administration of justice, The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement to
this Court cannot accept nor tolerate. the practice of law is whether the lawyer has
STATEMENT OF CASE: sufficiently rehabilitated himself or herself in
On July 8, 2010, Revilla filed a Petition for Judicial conduct and character.23 Whether the applicant
Clemency and Compassion3 praying that his license to shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to
practice law be restored based on humanitarian a great extent on the sound discretion of the
considerations, but the Court En Banc resolved to Court.24 The lawyer has to demonstrate and prove
deny the petition for lack of merit. Subsequently, by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is
Revilla appealed his case and pleaded the court’s again worthy of membership in the Bar. The Court
mercy, but his prayers were denied by the court. will take into consideration his or her character
Albeit, Revilla continued to file appeals before the and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature
court and continued to receive negative response from and character of the charge/s for which he or she
the court. was disbarred, his or her conduct subsequent to
On July 18, 2014, the respondent filed a Profound the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed in
Appeal for Judicial Clemency17 reiterating his between the disbarment and the application for
apologies to the Court. He stressed that the penalty of reinstatement.25
disbarment has already taken its toll on his health; he
has now become most frail and weak; and he had In the present case, we are not fully convinced that the
been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease at stage passage of more than four (4) years is sufficient to
five (5) and undergoing dialysis thrice weekly. He also enable the respondent to reflect and to realize his
stressed that in the years that he had been excluded professional transgressions.
from the practice of law, he devoted his time to We emphasize that this is the second timethat the
Christian and charity pursuits serving with all humility respondent was accused and was found guilty of
as a Lay Minister and a regular lecturer on Legal gross misconduct.1âwphi1 The respondent, in an
Aspect of Marriage at St. Peter Church, Quezon City. earlier case of Plus Builders, Inc. v. Atty. Anastacio E.
The respondent also pleads for clemency, not Revilla,Jr.,29 was likewise found guilty of gross
because he intends to practice law again, but to be misconduct for committing willful and intentional
made whole, to recover from being shattered, and to falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure
finally have peace of mind. Heexpressed his sincere and processes to delay the execution of a judgment;
repentance and deep remorse by taking full and collaborating with nonlawyers in the illegal
responsibility for his misdemeanor. He also prayed practice of law – mostly the same grounds on which
that his disbarment be lifted and that he be reinstated the Decision dated December 4, 2009 (2nd
as a member of the Philippine bar. As part of his disbarment) was based. In Plus Builders, we granted
petition, he submitted a Medical Abstract18evidencing the respondent’s motion for reconsideration and
his diagnosis for chronic kidney disease, and a reduced the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law from two (2) years to six (6) months out of respondent deceived her into marrying him despite his
compassion to the respondent. prior subsisting marriage with a certain Helen
Considering the respondent’s earlier disbarment Esparza. The complainant averred that he started
case(and subsequent reduction of the penalty
courting her in April 1991, he representing himself as a
imposed as an act of clemency), and another
disbarment case against him still pending review by bachelor; that they eventually contracted marriage
the Court, we are not fully and convincingly satisfied which was celebrated on two
that the respondent has already reformed. The period occasions administered by Rev. Rogelio J. Bolivar, the
of five (5) years is likewise not considerably long first on December 18, 1991 in the latter’s Manila office,
considering the nature and perversityof the and the second on December 28, 1991 at the Asian
respondent’s misdeeds. We believe that it is still early Institute of Tourism Hotel in Quezon City; and that
for the Court to consider the respondent’s
although respondent admitted that he was married to
reinstatement.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the Helen Esparza on June 16, 1982, he succeeded in
respondent's sincerity in acknowledging his convincing complainant, her family and friends that his
guilt.1âwphi1 While he expressly stated in his appeal previous marriage was void.
that he had taken full responsibility of his
misdemeanor, his previous inclination to pass the Complainant further averred that respondent entered
blame to other individuals, to invoke self-denial, and to into a third marriage with one Josephine
make alibis for his wrongdoings, contradicted his T. Constantino; and that he abandoned complainant
assertion. The respondent also failed to submit proof and their children without providing them any regular
satisfactorily showing his contrition. He failed to support up to the present time, leaving them in
establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is
precarious living conditions.
again worthy of membership in the legal profession.
We thus entertain serious doubts that the respondent Respondent denied employing deception in his
had completely reformed. marriage to complainant, insisting instead that
As a final word, while the Court sympathizes with the
complainant was fully aware of his prior subsisting
respondent's unfortunate physical condition, we stress
that in considering his application for reinstatement to marriage to Helen Esparza, but that she dragged him
the practice of law, the duty of the Court is to against his will to a “sham wedding” to protect her and
determine whether he has established moral her family’s reputation since she was then three-
reformation and rehabilitation, disregarding its feeling months pregnant. He submitted in evidence that in the
of sympathy or pity. Surely at this point, this civil case “Edmundo L. Macarubbo v. Florence J.
requirement was not met. Until such time when the Teves,” it declared his marriage to complainant void ab
respondent can demonstrate to the Court that he has
completely rehabilitated himself and deserves to initio. He drew attention to the trial court’s findings on
resume his membership in the Bar, Our decision to the basis of his evidence which was not controverted,
disbar him from the practice of law stands. that the marriage was indeed “a sham and make
believe” one, “vitiated by fraud, deceit, force and
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: intimidation, and further exacerbated by the existence
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Profound of a legal impediment” and want of a valid marriage
Appeal for Judicial Clemency filed by Atty. Anastacio
license. Respondent raised the additional defenses
E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby DENIED.
that the judicial decree of annulment of his marriage to
FLORENCE TEVES MACARRUBO, the Minors complainant is res judicata upon the present
JURIS ALEXIS T. MACARRUBO and administrative case; that complainant is in estoppel for
GABRIEL ENRICO T. MACARRUBO as represented admitting her status as mere live-in partner to
by their Mother/Guardian, FLORENCE TEVES respondent in her letter to Josephine T. Constantino.
MACARRUBO, complainant, v. ATTY. EDMUNDO Stressing that he had always been the victim in his
L. MACARRUBO, respondent. marital relations, respondent invoked the final and
A.C. No. 6148. February 27, 2004. executory August 21, 1998 in the case “Edmundo L.
Macarubbo v. Helen C. Esparza,” declaring his first
Facts: marriage void on the ground of his wife’s psychological
Florence Teves Macarrubo, complainant, filed on June incapacity.
6, 2000 a verified complaint for disbarment against It is recommended that respondent Atty. Edmundo L.
Atty. Edmundo L. Macarubbo,respondent, with the Macarrubo be suspended for three months for gross
Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging that
misconduct reflecting unfavorably on the moral norms respondent filed the instant Petition (For Extraordinary
of the profession. The IBP Board of Mercy) seeking judicial clemency and reinstatement in
Governors adopted and approved the Report and the Roll of Attorneys.
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Appealing for Clemency, the Court laid down the
Issue: following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial
clemency, to wit:
Whether or not the respondent should be suspended
for gross misconduct 1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.
These shall include but should not be limited to
Ruling: certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
While the marriage between complainant and judges or judges associations and prominent
respondent has been annulled by final judgment, this members of the community with proven integrity and
does not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an
impropriety. He and complainant started living as administrative case for the same or similar misconduct
husband and wife in December 1991 when his first will give rise to a strong presumption of non
marriage was still subsisting, as it was only on August reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the
21, 1998 that such first marriage was annulled,
imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform.
rendering him liable for concubinage. Such conduct is 3. The age of the person asking for clemency must
inconsistent with the good moral character that is show that he still has productive years ahead of him
required for the continued right to practice law as a that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to
member of the Philippine bar. Even assuming that redeem himself.
respondent was coerced by complainant to marry her, 4. There must be a showing of promise (such as
intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or
the duress, by his own admission as the following
contribution to legal scholarship and the development
transcript of his testimony reflects, ceased after their of the legal system or administrative and other
wedding day, respondent having freely cohabited with relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
her and even begot a second child by her. Thus, 5. There must be other relevant factors and
respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is found guilty of circumstances that may justify clemency (Citations
gross immorality and is hereby disbarred from the omitted)
practice of law.
Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the
Macarrubo vs Macarrubo applicant must, like any other candidate for admission
RE: PETITION (FOR EXTRAORDINARY MERCY) OF to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good
EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO. moral character.

Facts: Issue:

For resolution is the Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy) WON petitioner is qualified for reinstatement in the
filed by respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo Roll of Attorneys.
(respondent) who seeks to be reinstated in the Roll of
Attorneys.
Rulings:
Records show that in the Decision dated February 27,
2004, the Court disbarred respondent from the Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the
practice of law for having contracted a bigamous Court finds the instant petition meritorious.
marriage with complainant Florence Teves and a third
marriage with one Josephine Constantino while his Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and
first marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting, acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession
which acts constituted gross immoral conduct in and in his personal life. He has asked forgiveness
violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule from his children by complainant Teves and
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. maintained a cordial relationship with them as shown
by the herein attached pictures. Records also show
Aggrieved, respondent filed a Motion for that after his disbarment, respondent returned to his
Reconsideration/Appeal for Compassion and Mercy hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time
which the Court denied with finality. Eight years after, tending an orchard and taking care of his ailing mother
until her death in 2008. In 2009, he was appointed as
Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and Atty. Marcial Edilion stubbornly refused to pay
thereafter, assumed the position of Local Assessment the annual IBP dues resulting in an investigation which
Operations Officer II/ Office-In-Charge in the ultimately led to the IBP Board of Governor’s
Assessor’s Office, which office he continues to serve recommendation to remove his name from the Roll of
to date. Moreover, he is a parttime instructor at the Attorneys. Edilion’s arguments are as follows: (1)
University of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College Forced membership in the IBP is unconstitutional as it
during the School Year 20112012.14 Respondent violates his right of freedom to associate (and not to
likewise took an active part in socio-civic activities by associate); (2) The provision of the Rules of Court
helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire requiring payment of a membership fee is void; (3)
need. The enforcement of the penalty provisions would
amount to a deprivation of property without due
Furthermore, respondent’s plea for reinstatement is process and hence infringes on one of his
duly supported by the Integrated Bar of the constitutional rights; (4) The Supreme Court has not
Philippines, Cagayan Chapter and by his former and power or jurisdiction to strike the name of a lawyer
present colleagues. His parish priest, Rev. Fr. Camilo from its Roll of Attorneys.
Castillejos, Jr., certified that he is faithful to and puts to
actual practice the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Issue: Whether or not mandatory membership in the
He is also observed to be a regular churchgoer. IBP is constitutional.
Records further reveal that respondent has already Held: Yes. The integration of the Philippine Bar was
settled his previous marital squabbles, as in fact, no obviously dictated by overriding considerations of
opposition to the instant suit was tendered by public interest and public welfare to such an extent as
complainant Teves. He sends regular support to his more than constitutionally and legally justifies the
children in compliance with the Court’s directive in the restrictions that integration imposes upon the personal
Decision dated February 27, 2004. interests and personal convenience of individual
lawyers. Apropos to the above, it must be stressed
The Court notes the eight (8) long years that had that all legislation directing the integration of the Bar
elapsed from the time respondent was disbarred and have been uniformly and universally sustained as a
recognizes his achievement as the first lawyer product valid exercise of the police power over an important
of Lemu National High School, and his fourteen (14) profession. The practice of law is not a vested right but
years of dedicated government service from 1986 to a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with public
July 2000 as Legal Officer of the Department of interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not
Education, Culture and Sports; Supervising Civil only to his client, but also to his brethren in the
Service Attorney of the Civil Service Commission; profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes
Ombudsman Graft Investigation Officer; and State part in one of the most important functions of the State
Prosecutor of the Department of Justice. From the — the administration of justice — as an officer of the
attestations and certifications presented, the Court court.
finds that respondent has sufficiently atoned for his
transgressions. At 58 years of age, he still has Furthermore, Sec 5 (5) of Article VIII of the
productive years ahead of him that could significantly Constitution provides that one of the powers of the
contribute to the upliftment of the law profession and Supreme Court is to “Promulgate rules concerning the
the betterment of society. While the Court is ever protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove its pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar,
compassion to those who have reformed their ways, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.” Also,
as in this case. Sec. 1 of RA 6397 provides: “Within two years from
the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt
Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered reinstated rules of Court to effect the integration of the Philippine
to the practice of law. He is, however, reminded that Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to
such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby raise the standards of the legal profession, improve
adherence to the rigid standards of intellect, moral the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and discharge its public responsibility more effectively.”
the law are continuing requirements.
With respect to Edilion’s arguments:
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues
group of which he is not already a member.
Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (1978)
He became a member of the Bar when he
Facts: passed the Bar examinations. Bar integration
does not compel the lawyer to associate with
 anyone. He is free to attend or not attend4.the No local custom prohibits the continued use of a
meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote deceased partner's name in a professional firm's
or refuse to vote in its elections as he name;
chooses. The only compulsion to which he is
subjected is the payment of annual dues. 5. The continued use of a deceased partner's name in
Assuming that the questioned provision does the firm name of law partnerships has been
in a sense compel a lawyer to be a member of consistently allowed by U.S. Courts and is an
the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is accepted practice in the legal profession of most
justified as an exercise of the police power of countries in the world
the State. Issue: Whether or not petitioners should be allowed to
The fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, continue the use of the names of their deceased
designed to raise funds for carrying out the partners in their firm name.
objectives and purposes of integration. Held: No. Art. 1815 of the Civil Code provides: “Every
Respondent's right to practice law before the courts of partnership shall operate under a firm name, which
this country should be and is a matter subject may or may not include the name of one or more of
to regulation and inquiry the partners. Those who, not being members of the
partnership, include their names in the firm name,
It is but an inherent judicial function and responsibility. shall be subject to the liability, of a partner.”
Petitioners can’t invoke Art. 1840, because it treats
more of a commercial partnership with a good will to
protect rather than of a professional partnership.

Petition for authority to continue use of the firm Also, the legal profession cannot be likened to
names “Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez and other professions, because of these primary
Castillo” and “Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta characteristics: (1) A duty of public service, of which
and Reyes” (1979) the emolument is a byproduct, and in which one may
attain the highest eminence without making much
Facts: money; (2) A relation as an "officer of court" to the
administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
Two separate Petitions were filed before this integrity, and reliability; (3) A relation to clients in the
Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander highest degree fiduciary; (4) A relation to colleagues at
Sycip, who died on May 5, 1975, and 2) by the the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and
surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, who died unwillingness to resort to current business methods of
on February 14, 1976, praying that they be allowed to advertising and encroachment on their practice, or
continue using, in the names of their firms, the names dealing directly with their clients.
of partners who had passed away. Petitioners argued
that: The right to practice law is not a natural or
constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or
1. Under the law, a partnership is not prohibited from franchise.
continuing its business under a firm name which
includes the name of a deceased partner; in fact, It is true that Canon 33 does not consider as
Article 1840 of the Civil Code explicitly sanctions the unethical the continued use of the name of a
practice. It provides: “The use by the person or deceased or former partner in the firm name of a law
partnership continuing the business of the partnership partnership when such a practice is permissible by
name, or the name of a deceased partner as part local custom but the Canon warns that care should be
thereof, shall not of itself make the individual property taken that no imposition or deception is practiced
of the deceased partner liable for any debts contracted through this use. It must be conceded that in the
by such person or partnership.” Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the
continued use of a deceased or former partner's name
2. Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics in the firm names of law partnerships. Firm names,
adopted by the American Bar Association declares under our custom, Identify the more active and/or
that: “The continued use of the name of a deceased or more senior members or partners of the law firm. A
former partner when permissible by local custom, is glimpse at the history of the firms of petitioners and of
not unethical but care should be taken that no other law firms in this country would show how their
imposition or deception is practiced through this use.” firm names have evolved and changed from time to
time as the composition of the partnership changed.
3. There is no possibility of imposition or deception
because the deaths of their respective deceased
partners were well-publicized PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a complaint[1] dated March 19, [Respondent] intend (sic) for particular purpose that
2010 filed by complainant Datu Budencio E. HIS LAW OFFICE in Valencia City is one of the
Dumanlag (complainant) against respondent Atty. COURTS in the Philippines as to investigate
Winston B. Intong (respondent) for gross misconduct [complainant] thereat."[5] To bolster his indignation,
and negligence. complainant cited Republic Act No. (RA)
8371,[6] otherwise known as "The Indigenous
The Facts
Peoples' Rights Act of 1997," specifically Section 21
which accords equal protection and non discrimination
Complainant claims to be a leader of the Indigenous
of Indigenous Cultural Communities and Indigenous
People of Bangcud, Malaybalay and the President of
Peoples (ICCs/IPs), as follows:
the Philippine Datus Cultural Minorities Assistance,
Inc. and the Frontier's Mining Prospectors and Section 21. Equal Protection and Non-
Location Corporation.[2] On March 12, 2010, discrimination of ICCs/IPs. Consistent
complainant received a letter[3] from with the equal protection clause of the
Constitution of the Republic of the
respondent,[4] which is reproduced in full hereunder:
Philippines, the Charter of the United
February 08, 2010 Nations, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights including the Convention
TO: DATU BUDENCIO DUMANLAG on the Elimination of Discrimination
Infront Mac Feedmill, San Jose Against Women and International Human
P-1, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon Rights Law, the State shall, with due
recognition of their distinct characteristics
Sir: and identity, accord to the members of
the ICCs/IPs the rights, protections and
Please consider this as a letter request privileges enjoyed by the rest of the
for your presence on 12 citizenry. It shall extend to them the same
employment rights, opportunities, basic
February 2010 at 2:00 o'clock in the services, educational and other rights and
afternoon located at Purok 11, Poblacion, privileges available to every member of
Valencia City, Bukidnon. the society. Accordingly, the State shall
likewise ensure that the employment of
This is for the settlement and pre- any form of force or coercion against
litigation conference prior to any legal ICCs/IPs shall be dealt with by law.
action against you as complainant by my
client JAIME AJOC & ENCARNACION xxxx
DUMANLAG-AJOC ofLapu-lapu St.,
Valencia City.
He likewise quoted an Evaluation Report[7] of the
Hoping for your preferential and positive Office of the Ombudsman dated October 11, 2001
action on this matter. Thank you very
where he, as complainant, stressed that "[n]o court in
much. My highest esteem.
the Philippines, therefore, should punish any member
of a cultural community but shall extend to them
Very truly yours, courtesies in accordance with [the aforesaid] law."[8]

Complainant averred further that the incorporation

(SGD) ATTY. WINSTON B. INTONG papers of the Philippine Datus Cultural Minorities
Assistance, Inc. and the Frontier's Mining Prospectors
For and in behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Ajoc
and Location Corporation were supposed to be
notarized at respondent's law office, but the charge for
Complainant took offense with the aforequoted letter notarization amounting to P10,000.00 was "very dear,
as it was allegedly intended "to FORCE, very expensive," and complainant could not afford the
COMPULSORY (sic), to investigate, or fiscalize, in the same.[9] He then accused respondent of soliciting
moment (sic) [complainant] in his LAW OFFICE at cases for purposes of gain, which act constitutes
Purok 11 Poblacion Valencia City, Bukidnon.
malpractice, citing Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules cumbersome litigations is not an act of malpractice,
of Court,[10] to wit: and does not constitute gross misconduct.[19]
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of The IBP's Findings
attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor. - A member of the bar may be In his Report and Recommendation[20] dated May 27,
disbarred or suspended from his office as
2014, the IBP CBD Investigating Commissioner
attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross Cecilia A. C. Villanueva (Commissioner Villanueva)
misconduct in such office, grossly proposed the dismissal of the complaint for failure
immoral conduct, or by reason of his of the complainant to substantiate his accusations
conviction of a crime involving moral against respondent. Commissioner Villanueva found
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath no force, threat or intimidation in the tenor of the letter
which he is required to take before sent by respondent, and described the same as a
admission to practice, or for a willful
"mere request" that was "carefully worded, done in a
disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully respectful manner."[21] He pointed out, however, the
appearing as an attorney for a party to a demeanor of the complainant at the mandatory
case without authority to do so. The conference as that of a senior citizen who was "very
practice of soliciting cases at law for the sensitive and demanding of his reputation as a leader
purpose of gain, either personally or of cultural group. People should be careful of things to
through paid agents or brokers, say to him lest he gets offended or even get mad."
constitutes malpractice.
Commissioner Villanueva almost cited complainant in
contempt when the latter threatened him and the
stenographer with a lawsuit before the Commission on
In a Resolution[11] dated July 19,2010, the Court
Human Rights, this Court, and the United Nations.[22]
required respondent to file his comment on the
complaint, which he failed to do. Consequently, in a
Be that as it may, Commissioner Villanueva
Resolution[12] dated March 9, 2011, the Court issued
recommended[23] that respondent
a show cause order against respondent reiterating
be reprimanded for his disrespectful actuations
compliance with Resolution dated July 19, 2010. On
before the Court and the IBP-CBD committed as
September 28, 2011, the Court imposed a fine of
follows:
P1,000.00 upon respondent for his continued failure to
comply with the directive to file Respondent's propensity to ignore the
comment.[13] However, respondent still failed to pay lawful orders of the [Court] as well as
said fine,[14] or to file his comment. Thus, in a those of the IBP[-CBD] is manifest from
Resolution[15] dated July 1, 2013, the Court the record. The [Court] issued three
resolutions requiring respondent to
dispensed with the filing of respondent's comment,
comment on the complaint filed by
and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the complainant, but he simply ignored the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and Court's orders and did not file his
recommendation. comment. Consequently, the [Court]
resolved to dispense with the filing of the
On January 21, 2014, the IBP-Commission on Bar comment but referred the matter to the
Discipline (IBP CBD) issued a Notice of Mandatory IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation so as not to deprive
Conference/Hearing[16] directing the parties to submit respondent of his right to due process.
their respective mandatory conference briefs. In
compliance therewith, respondent filed his brief[17] on Again, respondent was given several
March 11, 2014 claiming that the letter dated February opportunities to express his side on the
8, 2010 merely invited complainant "for his presence charge during the investigation thereof by
and to confront, if not, sit and resolve any issue/s that the IBP. Neither did he file a position
paper as required by the Commission on
he x x x may have against JAIME AJOC and his wife
Bar Discipline. Again, he merely ignored
ENCARNACION";[18] and that such effort at conflict the Commission's directives.[24]
resolution in the hope of avoiding costly and
 Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
On April 19, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued Responsibility (CPR), "[a] lawyer shall encourage his
a Resolution[25] which adopted and approved with clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will
modification the aforesaid Report and admit of a fair settlement." There was nothing wrong,
Recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva. In view therefore, with respondent's efforts to set up a
of respondent's propensity to ignore the lawful orders conference between complainant and his clients.
of the Court, as well as the IBP-CBD, which was found
to be unbecoming of him as officer of the court, With respect to the claim of exorbitant notarization
respondent was suspended from the practice of law fees, the same deserves scant consideration in view
for six (6) months.[26] of complainant's failure to offer corroborative proof to
support his bare allegations. While a lawyer is
Thereafter, the IBP forwarded the case to the Court as mandated under Canon 20 of the CPR to charge only
provided under Rule 139-B, Section 12 (b)[27] of the fair and reasonable fees, and that he may be
Rules ofCourt.[28] penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his
office as an attorney for breach of the ethics of the
The Court's Ruling
legal profession as embodied in the CPR,[34] such
violation must be established by clear, convincing and
The Court sustains the findings of the IBP Board of
satisfactory proof, which was not done in this case.
Governors, except as to the penalty.
Respondent cannot, however, escape accountability
It has been consistently held that an attorney enjoys
for his repetitive disregard of the resolutions of the
the legal presumption that he is innocent of the
Court requiring him to file his comment to the
charges against him until the contrary is proved, and
complaint and to pay the fine imposed upon him for
that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have
his failure to do so. As correctly pointed out by
performed his duties in accordance with his
Commissioner Villanueva, the Court issued three
oath.[29]Thus, in disbarment proceedings, the burden
resolutions dated July 19, 2010, March 9, 2011, and
of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the Court
September 28, 2011, requiring respondent to file his
to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against
comment, to show cause for his failure to file, and to
the respondent must be established by clear,
pay a fine of P1,000.00 for such failure. But all three
convincing and satisfactory proof.[30] However, in this
were left unheeded. Respondent ought to know that
case, complainant failed to discharge the burden of
orders of the court are "not mere requests but
proving his accusations of gross misconduct on the
directives which should have been complied with
part of the respondent.
promptly and completely." "He disregarded the oath he
took when he was accepted to the legal profession 'to
Complainant's allegation of force and compulsion
obey the laws and the legal orders of the duly
accompanying the letter dated February 8, 2010 is
constituted legal authorities.' x x x His conduct was
negated by the very words used therein. Respondent
unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to obey
described said letter in the opening paragraph as a
court orders and processes and is expected to stand
"letter request for [complainant's] presence."[31] He
foremost in complying with court directives as an
then went on to close the letter with "[h]oping for your
officer of the court,"[35] pursuant to Canon 11 of the
[(complainant's)] preferential and positive action on
CPR, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall observe
this matter" and "[m]y highest esteem."[32] As aptly
and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
pointed out by Commissioner Villanueva in his Report
judicial officers x x x."
and Recommendation, the letter was "carefully
worded, done in a respectful manner."[33] There was
It has been stressed that the determination of whether
absolutely nothing on the face of the letter that would
an attorney should be disbarred or merely suspended
justify complainant's indignation against any
for a period involves the exercise of sound judicial
discourtesy or discrimination against him. The letter
discretion. The penalties for a lawyer's failure to file a
was a mere invitation for complainant to attend a
brief or other pleading range from reprimand, warning
settlement and pre-litigation conference, which
with fine, suspension, and, in grave cases,
respondent, as a lawyer, is obligated to pursue. Under
disbarment.[36] In the present case, the Court finds
too harsh the recommendation of the IBP Board of Soriano punched Dizon first to fend off an impending
Governors that respondent be suspended from the attack. Soriano prevented another attempt by Dizon to
practice of law for a period of six months. After all, hit him. Dizon went back to his car and got his revolver
respondent did file his mandatory conference brief with the handle wrapped in a handkerchief. As Soriano
before the IBP where he cited the Resolution dated was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked
July 19, 2010 of the Court, requiring him to file his up from the pavement, Dizon fired and shot him.
comment to the complaint. He also attended the Soriano fell on the thigh of the accused, and the latter
mandatory conference/hearing scheduled by the IBP, merely pushed him out and sped off. The bullet hit
although he failed to file his position paper despite the Soriano’s neck and lacerated his carotid artery.
directive to do so. Under the circumstances, and According to the doctors who treated him, he would
considering that this appears to be respondent's first have died if not for the timely medical assistance.
infraction, the Court finds it proper to reprimand him Soriano sustained spinal cord injury causing the left
with warning that commission of the same or similar side of his body to be paralyzed, disabling him for his
infraction will be dealt with more severely. This is job as a taxi driver.
consistent with the ruling in the recent case of Andres
v. Nambi,[37] where respondent therein was found to Dizon was eventually convicted for frustrated homicide
have ignored the Court's resolution directing him to file but was allowed probation, conditioned on payment of
comment, and to have failed to attend the mandatory civil liabilities. However, four years after judgment was
conference before the IBP Commission on Bar rendered, Dizon has not yet fulfilled his civil obligation.
Discipline despite notice, as well as to file his position
paper. Since it was also his first infraction, respondent Soriano filed complaint before the Commission on Bar
therein was merely reprimanded by the Court, as in Discipline of the IBP for Dizon’s disbarment. The
this case. Commissioner of the CBD recommended that
respondent be disbarred for having been convicted of
WHEREFORE, the Court REPRIMANDS respondent a crime involving moral turpitude and for violating
Atty. Winston B. Intong (respondent) for refusing to Rule. 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
obey lawful orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar Responsibility. The IBP adopted the recommendation
of the Philippines, with a warning that a repetition of of the CBD and sent their resolution to the Supreme
the same or similar act or offense shall be dealt with Court for review.
more severely.
ISSUES:
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of Whether or not the crime of frustrated homicide
the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral
personal record as a member of the Bar. turpitude.
Whether or not Atty. Dizon’s guilt warrants his
SO ORDERED. disbarment.

HELD:
Roberto Soriano vs. Atty. Manuel Dizon The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the
AC 6792
CBD that the crime of frustrated homicide
January 25, 2006
committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral
turpitude. The court defined moral turpitude as
FACTS:
“everything which is done contrary to justice,
Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his car under the
modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness,
influence of liquor when along Abanao Street, Baguio
vileness or depravity in the private and social
City, a taxi driver overtook him. Incensed, Dizon tailed
duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to
the taxi, pulled it over, and berated Roberto Soriano,
society in general, contrary to justice, honesty,
the taxi driver, and held him by his shirt. To stop the
modesty, or good morals.” Moral turpitude was
aggression, Soriano forced open his door, causing
shown when Atty. Dizon shot a taxi driver for
Dizon to fall to the ground. Soriano tried to help Dizon
no justifiable reason. His act definitely did not
get up, but the latter was about to punch him so
constitute self-defense. It was he who was the
 aggressor because he first tried to punch with great caution, and that disbarment should
Soriano. The latter was merely defending never be decreed when any lesser penalty
himself when he counterpunched Dizon. would accomplish the end desired, the court
Moreover, Dizon’s act was aggravated with held that meting out a lesser penalty would
treachery when he shot Soriano when the be irreconcilable with the lofty aspiration that
latter was not in a position to defend himself. every lawyer be a shining exemplar of truth
Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, and justice. Atty. Dizon was disbarred.
which he just picked up, when he was shot. A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963
Furthermore, Dizon tried to escape
punishment by wrapping the handle of his gun
in handkerchief in order not to
leave fingerprints on the gun used. Dizon’s
violent reaction to a simple traffic incident
indicated his skewed morals.

2. The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provides that “A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.” Dizon failed to
obey the laws of the land through his illegal
possession of an unlicensed firearm. He failed to
respect legal processes through his unjust refusal to
satisfy his civil liabilities, the condition for his
probation. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO,
Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of vs.
Professional Responsibility, which provides SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner.
that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, BENGZON, C.J.:
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
Dizon’s violation was exhibited when he After successfully passing the corresponding
tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was
the family of Soriano but when the admitted to the Bar.
negotiations failed, he made it appear as if it
About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him
was the family who approached him to get a
with having falsely represented in his application for
referral to a neurosurgeon. In addition, Dizon
such Bar examination, that he had the requisite
fabricated a story that it was Soriano and two
academic qualifications. The matter was in due course
other persons who mauled him. According to
referred to the Solicitor General who caused the
the three doctors who examined Dizon, his
charge to be investigated; and later he submitted a
injuries were so minor that his allegation was
report recommending that Diao's name be erased
so improbable.
from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the
allegations in his petition for examination in this Court,
The court ruled that the appalling treachery
he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up law
and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly
subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed
showed his unfitness to continue as a member
by the Department of Private Education, specially, in
of the bar. Membership in the legal profession
the following particulars:
is a privilege demanding a high degree of
good moral character, which is not only a (a) Diao did not complete his high school
condition precedent to admission, but also a training; and
continuing requirement for the practice of law.
While the power to disbar must be exercised
 (b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, prescribed by the Department of Private Education,"
and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom (emphasis on "previous").
— which contradicts the credentials he had
Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified
submitted in support of his application for
to take the bar examinations; but due to his false
examination, and of his allegation therein of
representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily
successful completion of the "required pre-
passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar.
legal education".
Such admission having been obtained under false
Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact
A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: but he that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial.
claims that although he had left high school in his third Passing such examinations is not the only qualification
year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed
the General Classification Test given therein, which courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally
(according to him) is equivalent to a high school essential..
diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the
The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll
educational authorities considered his army service as
of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the
the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.
latter is required to return his lawyer's diploma within
We have serious doubts, about the validity of this thirty days. So ordered.
claim, what with respondent's failure to exhibit any
certification to that effect (the equivalence) by the
proper school officials. However, it is unnecessary to
dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly
meritorious. Diao never obtained his A.A. from
Quisumbing College; and yet his application for
examination represented him as an A.A. graduate
(1940-1941) of such college. Now, asserting he had
obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in Case #26 (Zosa)
 [A.C. No. 1163. August 29, 1975.]
April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due 
 IN RE: RAMON E. GALANG, alias ROMAN E.
to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in GALANG, 1971 Bar Examinee, respondent.
his school records. 
 
 Topic: Requirements for application to the Bar – no
filed or pending case of moral turpitude
 
 FACTS:
 1.
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the The case is one of the consolidated cases in In re
foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and Lanuevo.
approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to
the parties adducing other evidence to prove their 2. Ramon E. Galang passed the 1971 bar examination
but his exam papers were subjected to unauthorized
case not covered by this stipulation of
re-correction and re-evaluation by 5 examiners.

facts. 1äwphï1.ñët 3. An investigation by the NBI revealed
that Ramon (Roman/Romy) was a student of School
This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that
of Law of MLQU;
the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own that in Sept 8, 1959, he was charged with the crime of
making. Had his application disclosed his having slight physical injuries(SPI) of another student
obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also of the same university;
have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby that in a 1973 hearing, he was confronted with this
showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester information but declared he does not
of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his remember being charged with the same.

4. Victim was summoned and narrated the case and
Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have
identified Galang as the very same person charged
been permitted to take the bar tests, because our with SPI in that case.

Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar 5. An administrative proceeding was filed for his
examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to disbarment along with Bar Confidant Lanuevo.
the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily
completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as ISSUE:
Whether or not Galang must be stricken off in the roll a general ave of 75% in all subjects w/o falling below
of attorneys for concealing his case of SPI. 50% in any subject, although for the past few exams
the passing grades were changed depending on the
DECISION: YES
 1. Under Rule 127, Sec 2 every strictness of the correcting of the bar examinations
applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all his (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-
involvement in any criminal case, pending or 1953 – 75%).
otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to fully
ascertain or determine applicant's moral Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice
character.
 
 2. As to what crime involves moral law as those reconsidered and passed by the S.C.,
turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine. and feeling that they have been discriminated against,
Hence, the necessity of laying before or informing the unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a
Court of one's personal record — whether he was few percentages lower than those admitted to the bar
criminally indicted, acquitted, convicted or the case went to congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill
dismissed or is still pending — becomes more no. 12, but was vetoed by the president after he was
compelling.
 given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the
3. In 1963 and 1964, when Galang took the Bar for the senate then approved senate bill no. 372 embodying
second and third time, respectively, the application substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill
form provided by the Court for use of applicants then became law on June 21, 1953
already required the applicant to declare under oath
that "he has not been accused of, indicted for or Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its
convicted by any court or tribunal of any offense author, to admit to the Bar those candidates who
involving moral turpitude; and that there is no pending suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and
case of that nature against him."
 inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is
4. By 1966, when Galang took the Bar examinations contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law
for the fourth time, the application form prepared by graduates who had inadequate preparation for the
the Court for use of applicants required the applicant practice of law profession, as evidenced by their
to reveal all his criminal cases whether involving moral failure in the exams.
turpitude or not. Yet, Galang continued to intentionally
withhold or conceal from the Court his criminal case of ISSUES OF THE CASE:
slight physical injuries which was then and until now is
pending in the City Court of Manila; and thereafter Due to the far reaching effects that this law would
repeatedly omitted to make mention of the same in his have on the legal profession and the administration of
applications to take the Bar examinations in 1967, justice, the S.C. would seek to know if it is
1969 and 1971.
 CONSTITUTIONAL.
5. That the concealment of an attorney in his An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital
application to take the Bar examinations of the fact requisites for the practice of the law that should be
that he had been charged with, or indicted for, an developed constantly and maintained firmly.
alleged crime, is a ground for revocation of his license The Judicial system from which ours has been
to practice law is well — settled.
 derived, the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring,
6. Under the circumstances in which respondent and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the
Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, was profession is concededly judicial.
allowed to take the Bar examinations and the highly The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress
irregular manner in which he passed the Bar, WE and the S.C. equal responsibilities concerning the
have no other alternative but to order the surrender of admission to the practice of law. The primary power
his attorney's certificate and the striking out of his and responsibility which the constitution recognizes
name from the Roll of Attorneys. continue to reside in this court.
Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the
Resolution Cunanan, et. al law seeks to “cure” are not the rules set in place by
18March1954 the S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of
the court, and this power is not included in the power
FACTS OF THE CASE: granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively
In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar w/in the judiciary.
of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino Reasons for Unconstitutionality:
Cunanan et. al petitioners. 1. There was a manifest encroachment on the
constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
In recent years few controversial issues have aroused 2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of
so much public interest and concern as R.A. 972 the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them,
popularly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” in attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the
Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtains Constitution.
3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, The above-named petitioners were complainants in
alter, and supplement the rules on admission to the Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs.
bar (since the rules made by congress must elevate Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the
the profession, and those rules promulgated are
Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision, on
considered the bare minimum.)
4. It is a class legislation 29 March 1961, ordering the reinstatement with
5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the backwages of complainants Enrique Entila and
law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18
being inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the October 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of
entire law is void. record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of
HELD: attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total
backwages. On 22 November 1963, Atty. Atanacio
Under the authority of the court:
Pacis also filed a similar notice for a reasonable
1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas on 3
examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their
said law are unconstitutional and therefore void and non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of
w/o force and effect. their backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of Services
subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is
Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages.
valid and shall continue in force. (those petitions by
the candidates who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 Munings petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid &
are denied, and all the candidates who in the Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer.
examination of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5%
w/o getting a grade of below 50% in any subject are The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the
considered as having passed whether they have filed charge was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through
petitions for admissions or not.) Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the hearings were held in
Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf of the
G.R. No. L-23959 November 29, 1971 complainants were at first by Attorney Pacis and
subsequently by respondent Quintin Muning.

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations
UNIONS (PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA & awarded 25% of the backwages as compensation for
VICTORIANO TENAZAS petitioners, professional services rendered in the case,
vs. apportioned as follows:
BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, & QUINTIN ............................................. 10%
MUNING respondents.
Quintin Muning
Cipriano Cid & Associates for petitioners. .............................................................
Ceferino Magat and Manuel C. Gonzales for ............ 10%
respondent Quintin Muning. Atty. Atanacio Pacis
.............................................................
.... 5%
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal lawyer according to the order, is sought to be voided in
services rendered? This is the issue presented in this the present petition.
petition for review of an order, dated 12 May 1964,
and the en banc resolution, dated 8 December 1964, Respondent Muning moved in this Court to dismiss
of the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 72- the present petition on the ground of late filing but his
ULP-Iloilo, granting respondent Quintin Muning a non- motion was overruled on 20 January 1965.1 He asked
lawyer, attorney's fees for professional services in the for reconsideration, but, considering that the motion
said case. contained averments that go into the merits of the
case, this Court admitted and considered the motion
for reconsideration for all purposes as respondent's a relationship cannot exist unless the client's
answer to the petitioner for review.2 The case was representative in court be a lawyer. Since respondent
considered submitted for decision without Muning is not one, he cannot establish an attorney-
respondent's brief.3 client relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino
Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore,
Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle recover attorney's fees. Certainly public policy
enunciated in Amalgamated Laborers' Association, et demands that legal work in representation of parties
al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-23467, 27 litigant should be entrusted only to those possessing
March 1968,4 that an agreement providing for the tested qualifications and who are sworn, to observe
division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer the rules and the ethics of the profession, as well as
union president is allowed to share in said fees with being subject to judicial disciplinary control for the
lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics protection of courts, clients and the public.
and is immoral and cannot be justified. An award by a
On the present issue, the rule in American jurisdictions
court of attorney's fees is no less immoral in the
is persuasive. There, it is stated:
absence of a contract, as in the present case.
But in practically all jurisdictions
The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875
statutes have now been enacted
that —
prohibiting persons not licensed or
In the proceeding before the Court or admitted to the bar from practising
Hearing Examiner thereof, the parties law, and under statutes of this kind,
shall not be required to be the great weight of authority is to the
represented by legal counsel ... effect that compensation for legal
services cannot be recovered by one
is no justification for a ruling, that the person who has not been admitted to practice
representing the party-litigant in the Court of Industrial before the court or in the jurisdiction
Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is entitled to
the services were rendered. 5
attorney's fees: for the same section adds that —
No one is entitled to recover
it shall be the duty and obligation of
compensation for services as an
the Court or Hearing Officer to
attorney at law unless he has been
examine and cross examine witnesses
duly admitted to practice ... and is an
on behalf of the parties and to assist in
the orderly presentation of evidence. attorney in good standing at the time.6

thus making it clear that the representation should be The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession
exclusively entrusted to duly qualified members of the should not be violated;7 that acting as an attorney with
bar. authority constitutes contempt of court, which is
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both,8 and the
The permission for a non-member of the bar to
law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit
represent or appear or defend in the said court on
behalf of a party-litigant does not by itself entitle the of an act or an act done in violation of law; 9 and that if
representative to compensation for such were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the
representation. For Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in
of Court, providing — case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic
condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not
Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's
amenable to disciplinary measures. 10
agreement as to fees. — An attorney
shall be entitled to have and recover And the general rule above-stated
from his client no more than a (referring to non-recovery of attorney's
reasonable compensation for his fees by non-lawyers) cannot be
services, ... circumvented when the services were
purely legal, by seeking to recover as
imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship
an "agent" and not as an attorney. 11
as a condition to the recovery of attorney's fees. Such
The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a proper action against the persons alleged to be
non-lawyer may not be awarded attorney's fees should illegally engaged in the practice of law.
suffice to refute the possible argument that
WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby
appearances by non-lawyers before the Court of
set aside insofar as they awarded 10% of the
Industrial Relations should be excepted on the ground
backwages as attorney's fees for respondent Quintin
that said court is a court of special jurisdiction; such
Muning. Said orders are affirmed in all other respects.
special jurisdiction does not weigh the aforesaid
Costs against respondent Muning.
reasons and cannot justify an exception.

The other issue in this case is whether or not a union

may appeal an award of attorney's fees which are
deductible from the backpay of some of its members.
This issue arose because it was the union PAFLU,
alone, that moved for an extension of time to file the
present petition for review; union members Entila and
Tenazas did not ask for extension but they were
included as petitioners in the present petition that was
subsequently filed, it being contended that, as to them
(Entila and Tenazas), their inclusion in the petition as
co-petitioners was belated.

We hold that a union or legitimate labor organization

may appeal an award of attorney's fees which are
deductible from the backpay of its members because
such union or labor organization is permitted to
institute an action in the industrial court, 12 on behalf
of its members; and the union was organized "for the
promotion of the emloyees' moral, social and
economic well-being"; 13 hence, if an award is
disadvantageous to its members, the union may
prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party, under
Section 6, Republic Act 875, which provides:

Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases —

Appeals. — Any person aggrieved by
any order of the Court may appeal to
the Supreme Court of the Philippines
...,

since more often than not the individual unionist is not

in a position to bear the financial burden of litigations.

Petitioners allege that respondent Muning is engaged

in the habitual practice of law before the Court of
Industrial Relations, and many of them like him who
are not licensed to practice, registering their
appearances as "representatives" and appearing daily
before the said court. If true, this is a serious situation
demanding corrective action that respondent court
should actively pursue and enforce by positive action
to that purpose. But since this matter was not brought
in issue before the court a quo, it may not be taken up
in the present case. Petitioners, however, may file