Ethics (Procedure For Admission) Cases

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 17

3. G.R. No.

000 July 18, 1975 to be given, namely, in the subjects of


Remedial Law and Labor and Social
IN RE: PEDRO A. AMPARO (1974 Bar Legislation, on Sunday, December 8, 1974,
Candidate), petitioner, without prejudice to allowing him to take the
Bar examinations after this year."
 
In a letter dated December 5, 1974, Amparo
RESOLUTION requested that "before final action is or
becomes effective" he "be given a chance to
explain" his side.

On December 5, 1974 the Court reconsidered


CASTRO, J.: its prior resolution and allowed Amparo to take
the Bar examinations on the coming Sunday,
Pedro A. Amparo of Guindulman, Bohol filed a
petition to take the 1974 Bar examinations. As ordered, the Clerk of Court conducted an
This petition was granted. investigation on December 9, 1974 at which
the respondent Amparo
In the afternoon of December 1, 1974 he was
at his assigned seat no. 17, room 401, fourth (a) appeared in his own behalf,
floor, Manuel L. Quezon University Building on
R. Hidalgo, Manila. The Bar examination that
(b) cross-examined the witnesses against
afternoon was in Criminal Law.
him.
While the examination was in progress, the
(c) presented himself as his own witness, and
headwatcher in room 401, Lilian Mendigorin,
(d) presented as his witnesses three Bar
reported that examinee Amparo was found
candidates who in the afternoon of December
reading, at approximately 3:15 o'clock, a piece
1 were seated near him in the examination
of paper containing notes in Criminal Law.
room.
He at first refused to surrender the paper, but
At the investigation, headwatcher Mendigorin
later gave it to Mendigorin when she
identified Amparo as the Bar examinee whom
threatened to report the matter to the
she saw reading a piece of paper inside the
authorities.
examination room in the course of the
examination in Criminal Law. The piece of
A verbal report was relayed to the Bar paper, later marked as exhibit C, contains
Chairman who forthwith gave instructions that handwritten notes, on both sides, on the
no investigation be then made in order to durations of penalties and a formula of
forestall any commotion that might disturb the computing them, particularly reclusion
other candidates. temporal. Mendigorin testified that she
approached Amparo and asked for the piece
Amparo was permitted to continue answering of paper; that he refused and put the paper in
the questions. his pocket; that when she approached him a
second time, he fished the paper from his
Headwatcher Mendigorin thereafter submitted pocket and gave it to her; that when, at the
a special report on the incident. end of the examination period, Amparo
submitted his examination notebook, he told
On the following day, Clerk of Court Romeo her that he really had intended to cheat. On
Mendoza filed a formal report. Acting thereon, cross-examination, she elaborated that
the Court en banc, on December 3, 1974, Amparo gave the piece of paper only when
unanimously resolved "to disqualify Pedro she told him that she would bring the matter
Amparo from taking the Bar examinations still up to higher authority.
Vernon B. Vasquez, a watcher under (1) bringing notes into the examination room
headwatcher Mendigorin, corroborated the and
latter's testimony. He declared that from a
distance of five meters, he saw Amparo (2) attempted cheating. According to the
reading a piece of paper on his lap; that he official report of the Bar Confidant, approved
wanted to approach him but his headwatcher by the Court, Amparo did not pass the 1974
was already ahead of him; and that Amparo Bar examinations.
thereupon placed the paper in his pocket, but
when Mendigorin threatened to report the ACCORDINGLY, it is the sense of the Court
matter, Amparo yielded exhibit C with a smile. that Pedro A. Amparo should be as he is
hereby disqualified from taking the Bar
Bar candidates Jovencio Fajilan, Norman M. examinations for the year 1975.
Balagtas and Apolinario O. Calix, Sr., who
were seated near Amparo in room 401, were
presented by the respondent as his witnesses,
but all of them professed lack of knowledge
about the incident as they were engrossed in
answering the examination questions.

It is clear that Amparo, in the course of the


examination in Criminal Law, had possession
of the piece of paper containing notes on the
durations of penalties and that he knew that it
is contrary to the rules to bring notes and
books inside the examination room. It thus
results that he knowingly violated Section 10,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which
pertinently provides that "Persons taking the
examination shall not bring papers, books or
notes into the examination rooms."

Amparo's impression that the notes had no


"material use" to him is correct, in the sense
that they bore no reference to any question
asked in the examination in Criminal Law;
even so he committed an overt act indicative
of an attempt to cheat by reading the notes,

His refusal to surrender the paper containing


the notes when first demanded;

his eventual surrender of it only after he was


informed that he would be reported;

and the facts that the notes pertained to


Criminal Law and the examination then in
Criminal Law — all these override and rebut
his explanation that he merely read the notes
to find out what they were as he had forgotten
about them.

We find the respondent Amparo guilty of


5. G.R. No. L-51813-14 November 29, 1983 Judge issued an order denying petitioners'
motion for reconsideration.
ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, NELSON B.
MALANA, and ROBERT V. Hence, this petition for certiorari, mandamus
LUCILA, petitioners, and prohibition with prayers, among others,
vs. that the Orders of respondent judge, dated
HON. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., Presiding August 16, 1979 and September 4, 1979, be
Judge of the Municipal Court of set aside as they are in plain violation of
Parañaque, Metro Manila, and FISCAL Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
LEODEGARIO C. QUILATAN, respondents. and/or were issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Basis of this petition is Section 34, Rule 138 of


RELOVA, J.: ñé+.£ªwph!1
the Rules of Court which states:  têñ.£îhqwâ£

PRINCIPLE: if we are to allow non-members SEC. 34. By whom litigation


of the bar to appear in court and prosecute conducted. — In the court of a
cases or defend litigants in the guise of being justice of the peace a party
friends of the litigants, then the requirement of may conduct his litigation in
membership in the Integrated Bar of the person, with the aid of an
Philippines and the additional requirement of agent or friend appointed by
paying professional taxes for a lawyer to him for that purpose, or with
appear in court, would be put to naught. " (p. the aid of an attorney. In any
25, Rollo) other court, a party may
conduct his litigation
Records show that on April 6, 1979, petitioner personally or by aid of an
Romulo Cantimbuhan filed separate criminal attorney, and his appearance
complaints against Patrolmen Danilo San must be either personal or by
Antonio and Rodolfo Diaz for less serious a duly authorized member of
physical injuries. the bar.

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£

said criminal cases. Likewise, on September


SEC. 4. Who must prosecute
4, 1979, respondent
criminal actions. — All criminal
actions either commenced by whether he be a lawyer or not, in the trial of
complaint or by information the case. On the other hand, if the fiscal
shall be prosecuted under the desires the active participation of the private
direction and control of the prosecutor, he can just manifest to the court
fiscal. that the private prosecutor, with its approval,
will conduct the prosecution of the case under
xxx xxx xxx his supervision and control. Further, We may
add that if a non-lawyer can appear as
SEC. 15. Intervention of the defense counsel or as friend of the accused in
offended party in criminal a case before the municipal trial court, with
action. — Unless the offended more reason should he be allowed to appear
party has waived the civil as private prosecutor under the supervision
action or expressly reserved and control of the trial fiscal.
the right to institute it
separately from the criminal In the two criminal cases filed before the
action, and subject to the Municipal Court of Parañaque, petitioner
provisions of section 4 hereof, Cantimbuhan, as the offended party, did not
he may intervene, personally expressly waive the civil action nor reserve his
or by attorney, in the right to institute it separately and, therefore,
prosecution of the offense. the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted
in said criminal cases. Thus, said complainant
And, they contend that the exercise by the Romulo Cantimbuhan has personal interest in
offended party to intervene is subject to the the success of the civil action and, in the
direction and control of the fiscal and that his prosecution of the same, he cannot be
appearance, no less than his active conduct of deprived of his right to be assisted by a friend
the case later on, requires the prior approval who is not a lawyer.
of the fiscal.
WHEREFORE, the Orders issued by
We find merit in the petition. Section 34, Rule respondent judge dated August 16, 1979 and
138 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that September 4, 1979 which disallowed the
in the municipal court a party may conduct his appearances of petitioners Nelson B. Malana
litigation in person with the aid of an agent and Robert V. Lucila as friends of party-litigant
appointed by him for the purpose. petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan. are hereby
SET ASIDE and respondent judge is hereby
ordered to ALLOW the appearance and
Thus, in the case of Laput vs. Bernabe, 55
intervention of petitioners Malana and Lucila
Phil. 621, a law student was allowed to
as friends of Romulo Cantimbuhan.
represent the accused in a case pending
Accordingly, the temporary restraining order
before the then Municipal Court, the City
issued on November 8, 1979 is LIFTED.
Court of Manila, who was charged for
damages to property through reckless
imprudence. "It is accordingly our view that SO ORDERED. 1äwphï1.ñët

error was committed in the municipal court in


not allowing Crispiniano V. Laput to act as an
agent or friend of Catalino Salas to aid the
latter in conducting his defense."

The permission of the fiscal is not necessary


for one to enter his appearance as private
prosecutor. In the first place, the law does not
impose this condition. What the fiscal can do,
if he wants to handle the case personally is to
disallow the private prosecutor's participation,
"baseless and mere products of
oppositor’s bedevilled mind, for the
6. Tan vs Sabandal truth; and that the Code of Ethics does
not apply to him but only to members of
FACTS: the Bar.

At issue in the above-entitled Oppositor’s evidence sufficiently show


consolidated cases is the petition of that respondent had held himself out as
respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal, a an attorney in the agrarian, civil and
successful Bar examinee in 1978, to be criminal cases and he was paid for his
admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be “legal services”
allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
From the array of evidence presented by
Complainants-oppositors, namely, the parties, it is evident that the
Eufrosina Y. Tan (Bar Matter No. 44, charges of violation of the Anti-Graft
Eufrosina Y. Tan v. Nicolas E. and Corrupt Practices Act, gross
Sabandal); Benjamin Cabigon (Bar dishonesty in public service and
Matter No. 591, Benjamin Cabigon v. falsification of public documents, have
Nicolas E. Sabandal); and Cornelio not been substantiated.
Agnis, Et. Al. (SBC-624, Cornelio Agnis,
Et. Al. v. Nicolas E. Sabandal), have However, the evidence supports the
opposed the petition. They have charge of unauthorized practice of law.
charged respondent with: illegal practice While respondent’s infraction may be
of law for accepting clients and for his mitigated in that he appeared for his in-
appearances as a lawyer even if he has laws in CAR Cases Nos. 347 and 326
not yet been admitted to the Bar; where they were parties, it is clear from
dishonesty, for filling up daily time the proceedings in CAR Case No. 347
records as an Investigator of the Bureau that he clarified his position only after
of Lands during those days that he the opposing counsel had objected to
appeared as counsel; falsification of his appearance. Besides, he specifically
public documents; gross dishonesty in manifested "Atty. Nicolas Sabandal,
public service; and violations of the appearing for the defendants, Your
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Honor" (Exhibit "A-1"). He called himself
"attorney" knowing full well that he was
not yet admitted to the Bar
At the hearings conducted on March 23,
24 and 25, 1983, Respondent’s additional defense that the
code of professional ethics does not
Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal waived apply to him as he is not yet a member
his right to attend the investigations for of the Bar proves him unfit to be
reasons of financial constraints and his admitted to the profession that exacts
belief that the evidence he had already the highest ethical conduct of all its
submitted together with his pleadings members, and good moral character
are sufficient to prove his case so that even for applicants for admission to the
he felt it unnecessary to submit Bar. He could at least have shown his
additional evidence. fitness for admission by showing
adherence to and observance of the
standards of conduct required by all who
red

In his defense, respondent maintained aspire to profess the law.


that the charges against him were
ACCORDINGLY, the petition of Nicolas
El. Sabandal to be allowed to take the
oath as member of the Philippine Bar
and to sign the Roll of Attorneys in
accordance with Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court is hereby denied. chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

For failure of complainants-oppositors,


namely, Diomedes D. Agnis, Dr. Gabriel
Catane, Hedy Catane, Antonio Agnis and
Fe E. Agnis in SBC-624 to appear before
the Investigator of this Court, their
oppositions to the petition of Nicolas El.
Sabandal to be admitted to the
Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign
the Roll of Attorneys are hereby
dismissed, with prejudice.

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

It is unquestioned that he had amorous It must be impressed on respondent Hector


relations with the complainant resulting in S. Pedro, however, that while his plea to
the birth of a child. take the lawyer's oath is to be granted, it is
indispensable, if he expects to be a member
He failed, however, to marry her, having of the bar in good standing, that he
thereafter chosen another woman for his complies with the moral and legal
bride. obligation incumbent upon him as the
father of the child born out of wedlock as a
After the lapse of eighteen years, and result of his relationship with complainant
considering that his conduct in the Purisima Barba.
meanwhile has not on the whole shown to
be blameworthy, this Court feels that he WHEREFORE, the resolution of March 6,
has sufficiently atoned for that youthful 1969, suspending a previous resolution of
indiscretion, having in mind likewise, that February 26, 1969, is set aside and in
people of prominence in the municipality accordance therewith, respondent Hector S.
where he resides, did intercede on his Pedro is allowed to take the lawyer's oath
behalf. as was provided in the February 26, 1969
resolution.
Accordingly the long-sought privilege of
membership in the bar will not be denied
him any longer, but with this caveat. He
must comply with his moral and legal
obligation to his child born out of wedlock
with complainant Purisima Barba.
examinations. He made the grade this time
and I was no more glad than my folks. We
sent him two congratulatory messages and
again we were disappointed to hear no word
from him."  This Court was likewise informed
2

therein that they met accidentally, on which


occasion she tried to convince him that they
8. A.M. No. 510 September 30, 1971 should live together but instead of agreeing,
his proposal was just to get the two children to
live with him and for them to separate for
EVANGELINE ARGAÑOZA, complainant,
good.  She would plead then that "he be
3

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.

This Court takes due cognizance that


respondent Benito P. Tubaces appears to
have mended his ways and that a
satisfactorily long period had elapsed from the
time the results of the 1969 bar examinations
were announced on March 5, 1970. Under the
circumstances, it is of the opinion that his plea
to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath may be
favorably acted on. Respondent is
admonished to be duly mindful of the standard
of rectitude to which a memberof the bar is
expected to live up to. The delay in his being
duly admitted to the practice of his profession,
lawyer's oath based on the order of his
discharge from probation.

On 13 July 1995, the Court through then


Senior Associate Justice Florentino P.
Feliciano issued a resolution requiring
petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the
9. IN RE: ARGOSINO, BM NO. 712 (1997) Court evidence that he may now be
regarded as complying with the
Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the requirement of good moral character
bar examinations held in 1993. imposed upon those seeking admission to
the bar. In compliance with the above
The Court however deferred his oath-taking resolution, petitioner submitted no less
due to his previous conviction for Reckless than (15) certifications/letters executed by
Imprudence Resulting In Homicide. among others two (2) senators, (5) trial
court judges, and six (6) members of
The criminal case which resulted in religious orders.
petitioner's conviction, arose from the
death of a neophyte during fraternity On 26 September 1995, the Court required
initiation rites sometime in September Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to
1991. comment on petitioner's prayer to be
allowed to take the lawyer's oath. In his
Petitioner and CD Technologies Asia, Inc. comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty.
2018 and seven (7) other accused initially Camaligan states that:
entered pleas of not guilty to homicide
charges. The eight (8) accused later a.He still believes that the infliction of
withdrew their initial pleas and upon re- severe physical injuries which led to the
arraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless death of his son was deliberate rather than
imprudence resulting in homicide. accidental.

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.

The resolution of the issue before us PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner Al


required a weighing and re-weighing of the Caparros Argosino is hereby ALLOWED to
reasons for allowing or disallowing take the lawyer's oath on a date to be set
petitioner's admission to the practice of by the Court, to sign the Roll of Attorneys
law. and, thereafter, to practice the legal
profession. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C .J .,
After a very careful evaluation of this case, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo,
we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and
Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal Torres, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Holding:

Yes, the court allowed Ruben to take the


lawyers oath. considering that respondent
has legally recognized and acknowledged
complainant's child Maria Rochie Bacarro
Pinatacan as his own, and has undertaken to
give financial support to the said child, We
hold that he has realized the wrongfulness of
10. CARMEN E. BACARRO, his past conduct and is now prepared to turn
Complainant, over a new leaf. But he must be admonished
vs. that his admission to and continued
RUBEN M. PINATACAN, Respondent. membership in the Bar are dependent,
among others, on his compliance with his
Adm. Case No. 559-SBC January 31, 1984 moral and legal obligations as the father of
Maria Rochie Bacarro Pinatacan. 

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.

WON respondent is entitled to take the


lawyers oath despite having a case involving
his good moral character
Respondent attorney, in his answer to these
charges, asserted that he notified his clients
of the decision in question and that he
defended complainants' case to the best of
his ability as demanded by the
circumstances and that he never showed
indifference, lack of interest or disloyalty to
their cause.

On April 19, 1963, respondent Atty. de Vera


received a copy of the decision but he failed
to inform his clients of the judgment against
them.
12. A.C. No. 620 March 21, 1974 On July 17, 1963, a sheriff came to
complainants' house to serve a writ of
JOSE ALCALA and AVELINA
IMPERIAL, petitioners, execution issued in said case.
vs.
HONESTO DE VERA, respondent. Totally caught by surprise, Jose Alcala
immediately wrote to the trial court and
inquired for the status of case 2478.
On May 19, 1964, Jose Alcala (now The deputy Clerk of Court, in his reply
deceased) and his wife, Avelina Imperial, dated July 22, 1963, informed Alcala that
filed this present petition for disbarment the case was decided on April 17, 1963, that
against respondent Honesto de Vera, a a copy of the decision was received by
practicing attorney of Locsin, Albay, who respondent attorney on April 19, 1963, and
was retained by them as their counsel in that since no appeal was taken, a writ of
civil case 2478 of the Court of First Instance execution was issued by the trial court on
of Albay, entitled: "Ray Semenchuk vs. Jose motion of the plaintiff Semenchuk.
Alcala".
On September 12, 1963, spouses Alcala
Complainants charge Atty. Honesto de Vera instituted civil case 2723 for damages
with gross negligence and malpractice: against Atty. Honesto de Vera for having
failed to inform them of the decision in case
1) for having maliciously and deliberately 2478 as a result of which they lost their
omitted to notify them of the decision in right to appeal from said decision.
civil case 2478 resulting in the deprivation
of their right to appeal from the adverse The trial court that heard case 2723 found
judgment rendered against them; and for a fact that respondent did not inform his
clients of the decision rendered in case
2) for respondent's indifference, disloyalty 2478;
and lack of interest in petitioners' cause
resulting to their damage and prejudice.
however, it denied damages for lack of
proof that the spouses Alcala suffered any
damage as a result of respondent's failure
to notify them of the aforesaid decision.

The judgment in case 2723 was appealed to


the Court of Appeals1 by respondent herein
but the same was affirmed by said appellate
court.

Although respondent's negligence does not


warrant disbarment or suspension under
the circumstances of the case, nonetheless
it cannot escape a rebuke from Us as we
hereby rebuke and censure him,
considering that his failure to notify his
clients of the decision in question manifests
a lack of total dedication or devotion to
their interest expected of him under his
lawyer's oath and the Canons of
Professional Ethics. Respondent's inaction
merits a severe censure from the Court.

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the evidence,


the report and recommendation of the
Solicitor General, and the fact that this
appears to be the first misconduct of
respondent in the exercise of his legal
profession, We hereby hold said respondent
GUILTY only of simple negligence in the
performance of his duties as a lawyer of
complainants, and We hereby SEVERELY
CENSURE him. Let this decision be noted in
respondent's record — as a member of the
Bar — in this Court.

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.

Facts:  Held: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that


every member of the Integrated Bar shall
Complaint for misrepresentation and non- pay annual dues and default thereof for six
payment of bar membership dues. months shall warrant suspension of
membership and if nonpayment covers a
It appears that Atty. Llamas, who for a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground
number of years now, has not indicated the for removal of the delinquent’s name from
proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter
pleadings. whether or not respondent is only engaged
in “limited” practice of law. Moreover, the
If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” exemption invoked by respondent does not
but he has been using this for at least 3 include exemption from payment of
years already. membership or association dues. 

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. 

Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he


has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.

YES. Respondent was suspended from the


practice of law for one (1) year, or until he
has paid his IBP dues.

RATIO:

Even if he had “limited” practice of law, it


does not relieve him of the duties such as
payment of IBP dues. Rule 139-A provides:

Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. —


Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of
this Rule, default in the payment of annual
dues for six months shall warrant
suspension of membership in the Integrated
Bar, and default in such payment for one
year shall be a ground for the removal of
the name of the delinquent member from
the Roll of Attorneys.

Under the Code of Professional


Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in


unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any


falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
court; nor shall he mislead or allow the
court to be misled by any artifice.

You might also like