Ethics (Procedure For Admission) Cases
Ethics (Procedure For Admission) Cases
Ethics (Procedure For Admission) Cases
Petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Thus, a non-member of the Philippine Bar —
Lucila, in 1979, were senior law students of a party to an action is authorized to appear in
the U.P.assistance to the needy clients in the court and conduct his own case; and, in the
Office of the Legal Aid. inferior courts, the litigant may be aided by a
friend or agent or by an attorney. However, in
the Courts of First Instance, now Regional
Thus, in August 1979, petitioners Malana and
Trial Courts, he can be aided only by an
Lucila filed their separate appearances, as
attorney.
friends of complainant-petitioner
Cantimbuhan.
On the other hand, it is the submission of the
respondents that pursuant to Sections 4 and
Herein respondent Fiscal Leodegario C.
15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, it is the
Quilatan opposed the appearances of said
fiscal who is empowered to determine who
petitioners, and
shall be the private prosecutor as was done
by respondent fiscal when he objected to the
respondent judge, in an Order dated August appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila.
16, 1979, sustained the respondent fiscal and Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of
disallowed the appearances of petitioners Court provide:
Malana and Lucila, as private prosecutors in
têñ.£îhqwâ£
SO ORDERED.
It is understandable that the bitterness in the
heart of complainant cannot easily be erased,
7.A.M. No. 545-SBC December 26, 1974 but that should not prove decisive. Even the
most heinous of crimes prescribe after a
PURISIMA BARBA, complainant, certain period.5 Moreover, as the
vs. transgression resulted from the frailty of
HECTOR S. PEDRO, respondent.
flesh, the sociologist MacIver referring to it
FACTS: as "so powerful an appetite," an imperative
of life closely associated with the
Hector S. Pedro, a successful bar candidate "recklessness and the caprice of
in the 1956 examinations, having obtained desire,"6 this Court feels that all the years
an average of 81.16%, but thus far he has been denied the privilege of being a
unsuccessful in his efforts to be allowed to lawyer would satisfy the requirement that
take the lawyer's oath, which had to be failure to live up to the requisite moral
deferred because of a complaint for standard is not to be taken lightly. It could
immorality filed against him by Purisima also be said that in offenses of this
Barba, reiterates his plea for admission to character, the blame hardly belongs to the
the bar. man alone.7
vs.
barred from membership in the Philippine
BENITO P. TUBACES, respondent.
Bar."
FERNANDO, J.:p
This Court, on April 16, 1970, resolved: "...
Complainant Evangeline Argañoza sent a
(a) to note the contents of the telegram of
telegram to this Court on April 7, 1970
Evangeline Argañoza requesting that the
requesting that "the oath-taking of Atty. Benito
oath-taking of Benito P. Tubaces be withheld
P. Tubaces be held in abeyance.
on the ground of immorality;
" It was therein further stated that the reason
(b) to require that a copyof the letter of
relied upon was immorality and that a letter
Evangeline Argañoza be sent to Benito P.
would follow.
Tubaces and
a letter duly subscribed and sworn by the
(c) require respondent Tubaces to answer
complainant was received by this Court. It was
said letter-complaint, within 10 daysfrom
therein alleged: "In 1966, I agreed to live with
notice hereof." Instead
4
of answering,
Benito who was then a sophomore student in
respondent Benito P. Tubaces waited until
Cebu and we had a child. Per his request, I
August 26, 1970 when he filed a petition
left with our kid in July 1967 so he can muster
alleging that complainantwas retracting or
the usual financial support from his parents.
withdrawing her complaint and that therefore
As agreed I sacrificed almost two years of
he should be allowed to take the lawyer's
painful seclusional though, I received constant
oath.
communication from him as he likewise did
from me. We saw each other again in 1968
when he came to Manila for his review and Then came the resolution of this Court of
participation in the bar examinations. In August 31, 1970 to the following effect:
November of the same year, however, he "Complainant is required to comment, within
returned to his home province, leaving me and 10 days from notice hereof,on the petition of
the kid behind giving flimsy excuse the the respondent with the latter's affidavit
uncertainty of his passing in the exam." The
1 attached thereto,praying that he be allowed to
next paragraph of such letter was worded take the lawyer's oath in view of the
thus: "He did flunk in the first exam and having complainants withdrawal of her
decidedto take the next, he further requested complaint." The reply of complainant was
6
me to stop communicating with him untilthe received on September 21, 1970. It was
examination was over. I wrote him several stated therein: "In reply thereto, I amhereby
letters immediately after especially when I informing your good office that I am objecting
delivered our second baby but I constantly to said lawyer's oathtaking of Mr. Benito P.
faced a blank wall. This never put me off, Tubaces on grounds of immorality on one
though. Instead, my eagerness to hear from hand and deceit on the either. Accordingly, I
him kept on mounting until that eventful day thereby request that my letter dated August
came — the release of the results ofthe bar 26, 1970 to your Office be withdrawn and
considered without force and effect. Evidently, a matter traceable solely to his far-from-
I am reviving my complaint against Mr. Benito exemplary conduct, ought to admonish him to
P. Tubaces on grounds of immorality because observe with fidelity itscanons of behavior. He
of his refusal, upon my request, to put in must by this time be fully cognizant that a
writing the fulfillment of his promise to marry failure to do so would be sufficient cause for
me not later than December 21, 1971." 7
the appropriate disciplinary action.
Both complainant and respondent were WHEREFORE, the urgent joint motion of
required by resolution of this Court of March 3, 1971, praying that respondent
November 18, 1970 it on appear personally Tubaces be allowed to take the lawyer's oath,
before it on December 16, 1970. Both is granted.
complainant and respondent duly appeared
and informed the Court thatthey had settled
their differences and were intending to get
married. Five dayslater, on December 21,
1970, in a pleading filed with this Court by
respondent,there was an allegation of such
marriage having taken place on December 18,
1970 with City Judge Oscar A. Inocentes of
Quezon City having performed the ceremony,
a photostat copy of the marriage contract
accompanying such manifestation. To satisfy
itself, this Court resolved, on January, 5,
1971, torequire that both complainant and
respondent appear before it on Monday,
February 22, 1971. At such a date, the parties
appeared before this Court withthe additional
information that they intended to get married
in a religious ceremony, such a marriage to
take place on March 1, 1971 in the
Immaculate Concepcion Parish Church with
Rev. Fr. Emilio Castro officiating. A photostat
copy of the marriage contract was submitted
by complainant and respondent in an urgent
joint motion praying that the respondent be
allowed to take the oath of attorney, filed with
this Court on March 3, 1971. Included in such
motion is a photostat copy of the marriage
contract resulting from the religious ceremony.
On the basis of such pleas, the trial court The offense therefore was not only
rendered judgment dated 11 February 1993 homicide but murder since the accused
imposing on each of the accused a sentence took advantage of the neophyte's
of imprisonment and granted herein helplessness implying abuse of con8dence,
petitioner's application for probation. taking advantage of superior strength and
treachery.
On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an
order approving a report dated 6 April 1994 b.He consented to the accused's plea of
submitted by the Probation Officer guilt to the lesser offense of reckless
recommending petitioner's discharge from imprudence resulting in homicide only out
probation. of pity for the mothers of the accused and a
pregnant wife of one of the accused who
On 14 April 1994, petitioner led before this went to their house on Christmas day 1991
Court a petition to be allowed to take the and Maundy Thursday 1992, literally on
their knees, crying and begging for profession with the following admonition:
forgiveness and compassion. They also told In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer'
him that the father of one of the accused s oath, the Court recognizes that Mr.
had died of a heart attack upon learning of Argosino is not inherently of bad moral
his son's involvement in the incident. character.
c.As a Christian, he has forgiven petitioner On the contrary, the various certifications
and his co-accused for the death of his son. show that he is a devout Catholic with a
However, as a loving father who had lost a genuine concern for civic duties and public
son whom he had hoped would succeed service. The Court is persuaded that Mr.
him in his law practice, he still feels the pain Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for
of an untimely demise and the stigma of the the death of Raul Camaligan.
gruesome manner of his death.
We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's
d.He is not in a position to say whether oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality
petitioner is now morally fit for admission for practicing law. Every lawyer should at
to the bar. He therefore submits the matter ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to
to the sound discretion of the Court. the sworn promises he makes when taking
the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted
The practice of law is a privilege granted themselves strictly according to the lawyer's
only to those who possess the strict oath and the Code of Professional
intellectual and moral quali8cations Responsibility, the administration of justice
required of lawyers who are instruments in will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier
the effective and efficient administration of for everyone concerned.
justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not
only to "weed out" lawyers who have The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino
become a disgrace to the noble profession will continue with the assistance he has
of the law but, also of equal importance, to been giving to his community.
prevent "mis8ts" from taking the lawyer' s
oath, thereby further tarnishing the public As a lawyer he will now be in a better
image of lawyers which in recent years has position to render legal and other services
undoubtedly become less than to the more unfortunate members of
irreproachable. society.
Facts:
Ratio:
This is an administrative case filed against One of the indispensable requisites for
respondent with moral turpitude and admission to the Philippine Bar is that the
immorality. Complainant gave birth to a applicant must be of good moral character.
baby girl named Maria Rochie Bacarro This requirement aims to maintain and
Pinatacan; that because of respondent's uphold the high moral standards and the
betrayal, her family suffered shame, dignity of the legal profession, and one of
disrepute, moral distress and anxiety; and, the ways of achieving this end is to admit to
that these acts of respondent render him the practice of this noble profession only
unfit to become a member of the Bar. On the those persons who are known to be honest
other hand, respondent maintains that even and to possess good moral character. "As a
admitting the truth of complainant's man of law, (a lawyer) is necessary a leader
allegations, the circumstances of their of the community, looked up to as a model
relationship with each other, does not justify citizen" He sets an example to his fellow
him for disqualification to the practice of citizens not only for his respect for the law,
law. but also for his clean living. Thus, becoming
a lawyer is more than just going through a
Issue: law course and passing the Bar
examinations.
SO ORDERED.
It was also an alleged falsity when he
included his “IBP-Rizal 259060” where in
fact he was not in good standing.
Petitioner cited that Atty. Llamas was
dismissed as Pasay City Judge. But later
revealed that the decision was reversed and
he was subsequently promoted as RTC
Judge of Makati. He also had criminal case
involving estafa but was appealed pending
in the Court of Appeals. In the numerous
violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he expressed willingness to
settle the IBP dues and plea for a more
temperate application of the law.
ISSUE:
13. A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000
Whether or not Atty. Llamas is guilty of
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, violating the Code of Professional
JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. Responsibility.
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, Respondent.
On the other hand, respondent, who is now In addition, by indicating “IBP Rizal 259060”
of age, averred that he is only engaged in a in his pleadings and thereby
“limited” practice of law and under RA misprepresenting to the public and the
7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the
from payment of income taxes and included Rizal Chpater, respondent is guilty of
in this exemption is the payment of violating the Code of Professional
membership dues. Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His
act is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which
provides that: A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor mislead or allow the court to
be misled by any artifice.
RATIO: