In Re: Cunanan

Resolution | March 18, 1954 Facts: - Controversies arose when Republic Act No. 9 ! "#ar $lun%ers& Act o' 195() was enacte*. - +n*er the Rules o' Court ,overnin, a*-ission to the bar, "in or*er that a can*i*ate .'or a*-ission to the #ar/ -a0 be *ee-e* to have passe* his e1a-inations success'ull0, he -ust have obtaine* a ,eneral avera,e o' sec. 14, Rules o' 5 per Court/. cent in all sub2ects, without 'allin, below 53 per cent in an0 sub2ect.) .Rule 1! , - #elievin, the-selves as 'ull0 4uali'ie* to practice law as those reconsi*ere* an* passe* b0 this court, an* 'eelin, conscious o' havin, been *iscri-inate* a,ainst, unsuccess'ul can*i*ates who obtaine* avera,es o' a 'ew percenta,e lower than those a*-itte* to the #ar a,itate* in Con,ress 'or, an* secure* in 1951 the passa,e o' 5enate #ill No. 1! which, a-on, others, re*uce* the passin, ,eneral avera,e in bar e1a-inations to 1946. - 7he court e1presse* their un'avorable opinion about the bill passe* b0 the 5enate. - 8n 9une !1, 195(, the :resi*ent allowe* R.A. 9 ! to beco-e a law without his si,nature. - A'ter its approval, -an0 unsuccess'ul bar can*i*ates appeale* an* re4ueste* 'or the re-e1a-ination o' their ,ra*es. 3 per cent e''ective since

Issue: ;hether or not Republic Act No. 9 ! is constitutional.

Held: 7he public interest *e-an*s o' le,al pro'ession a*e4uate preparation an* e''icienc0, precisel0 -ore so as le,al proble- evolve* b0 the ti-es beco-e

-ore *i''icult. An a*e4uate le,al preparation is one o' the vital re4uisites 'or the practice o' law that shoul* be *evelope* constantl0 an* -aintaine* 'ir-l0. 7o the le,al pro'ession is entruste* the protection o' propert0, li'e, honor an* civil liberties.

7o approve o''iciall0 o' those ina*e4uatel0 prepare* in*ivi*uals to *e*icate the-selves to such a *elicate -ission is to create a serious social *an,er. Moreover, the state-ent that there was an insu''icienc0 o' le,al rea*in, -aterials is ,rossl0 e1a,,erate*.

7here is no e1press provision in the Constitution which in*icates an intent that this tra*itional power o' the 2u*icial *epart-ent shoul* in an0 -anner be sub2ect to le,islative control. :erhaps the *o-inant thou,ht o' the 'ra-ers o' our constitution was to -a%e the three ,reat *epart-ents o' ,overn-ent separate an* in*epen*ent o' one another. 7he i*ea that the <e,islature -i,ht e-barrass the 2u*icial *epart-ent b0 prescribin, ina*e4uate 4uali'ications 'or attorne0s at law is inconsistent with the *o-inant purpose o' -a%in, the 2u*icial in*epen*ent o' the le,islative *epart-ent, an* such a purpose shoul* not be in'erre* in the absence o' e1press constitutional provisions.

A*-ission to the practice o' law is the e1ercise o' a 2u*icial 'unction, an* is an inherent power o' the court. 8n this -atter there is certainl0 a clear *istinction between the 'unctions o' the 2u*icial an* le,islative *epart-ents o' the ,overn-ent. 7he portion o' article 1 o' Republic Act No. 9 ! re'errin, to the e1a-inations o' 1946 to 195!, an* .b/ all o' article ! o' sai* law are unconstitutional an*, there'ore, voi* an* without 'orce an* e''ect.

$or lac% o' unani-it0 in the ei,ht 9ustices, that part o' article 1 which re'ers to the e1a-inations subse4uent to the approval o' the law, that is 'ro- 195( to

1955 inclusive, is vali* an* shall continue to be in 'orce, in con'or-it0 with section 13, article =>> o' the Constitution.

7he petitions o' can*i*ates who 'aile* 'ro- 1946 to 195( are *enie*. All can*i*ates o' obtaine* a ,eneral avera,e o' 1.5 without a ,ra*e 53? below an0 sub2ect in the 195( bar e1a-inations, are consi*ere* havin, passe*.

$ull te1t@ http@AAwww.lawphil.netA2u*2urisA2uri1954A-ar1954A,rBl-1B1954.ht-l

A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978 In the Matter of the IBP Membersh ! "ues "e# n$uen%& of Att&. MARCIA' A. ("I'I)N *IBP A+m n strat ,e Case No. M""-1.

RESOLUTION

CA/0R), C.J.: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. On Nove !er "#$ %#&'$ the Integrated (ar o) the Philippines *I(P )or short+ (oard o) ,overnors unani ously adopted Resolution No. &'-.' in Ad inistrative /ase No. M00-% *In the Matter o) the Me !ership 0ues 0elin1uency o) Atty. Marcial A. Edillon+ reco ending to the /ourt the re oval o) the na e o) the respondent )ro its Roll o) Attorneys )or 2stu!!orn re)usal to pay his e !ership dues2 to the I(P since the latter3s constitution not4ithstanding due notice. On 5anuary "%$ %#&.$ the I(P$ through its then President Liliano (. Neri$ su! itted the said resolution to the /ourt )or consideration and approval$ pursuant to paragraph "$ Section "6$ Article III o) the (y-La4s o) the I(P$ 4hich reads7 .... Should the delin1uency )urther continue until the )ollo4ing 5une "#$ the (oard shall pro ptly in1uire into the cause or causes o) the continued delin1uency and ta8e 4hatever action it shall dee appropriate$ including a reco endation to the Supre e /ourt )or the re oval o) the delin1uent e !er3s na e )ro the Roll o) Attorneys. Notice o) the action ta8en shall !e sent !y registered ail to the e !er and to the Secretary o) the /hapter concerned. On 5anuary "&$ %#&.$ the /ourt re1uired the respondent to co ent on the resolution and letter adverted to a!ove9 he su! itted his co ent on :e!ruary ";$ %#&.$ reiterating his re)usal to pay the e !ership )ees due )ro hi . On March "$ %#&.$ the /ourt re1uired the I(P President and the I(P (oard o) ,overnors to reply to Edillon3s co ent7 on March "6$ %#&.$ they su! itted a <oint reply. Therea)ter$ the case 4as set )or hearing on 5une ;$ %#&.. A)ter the hearing$ the parties 4ere re1uired to su! it e oranda in a pli)ication o) their oral argu ents. The atter 4as thence)orth su! itted )or resolution.

At the threshold$ a painsta8ing scrutiny o) the respondent3s pleadings 4ould sho4 that the propriety and necessity o) the integration o) the (ar o) the Philippines are in essence conceded. The respondent$ ho4ever$ o!<ects to particular )eatures o) Rule o) /ourt %;#A *hereina)ter re)erred to as the /ourt Rule+ 1 = in accordance 4ith 4hich the (ar o) the Philippines 4as integrated = and to the provisions o) par. "$ Section "6$ Article III$ o) the I(P (y-La4s *hereina!ove cited+.
The authority o) the I(P (oard o) ,overnors to reco end to the Supre e /ourt the re oval o) a delin1uent e !er3s na e )ro the Roll o) Attorneys is )ound in par. " Section "6$ Article Ill o) the I(P (y-La4s *supra+$ 4hereas the authority o) the /ourt to issue the order applied )or is )ound in Section %> o) the /ourt Rule$ 4hich reads7 SE/. %>. Effect of non-payment of dues. Su!<ect to the provisions o) Section %" o) this Rule$ de)ault in the pay ent o) annual dues )or si? onths shall 4arrant suspension o) e !ership in the Integrated (ar$ and de)ault in such pay ent )or one year shall !e a ground )or the re oval o) the na e o) the delin1uent e !er )ro the Roll o) Attorneys. The all-enco passing$ all-inclusive scope o) o) the /ourt Rule7 e !ership in the I(P is stated in these 4ords

SE/TION %. Organization. = There is here!y organi@ed an o))icial national !ody to !e 8no4n as the 3Integrated (ar o) the Philippines$3 co posed o) all persons 4hose na es no4 appear or ay herea)ter !e included in the Roll o) Attorneys o) the Supre e /ourt. The o!ligation to pay e !ership dues is couched in the )ollo4ing 4ords o) the /ourt Rule7

SE/. #. Membership dues. Every e !er o) the Integrated (ar shall pay such annual dues as the (oard o) ,overnors shall deter ine 4ith the approval o) the Supre e /ourt. ... The core o) the respondent3s argu ents is that the a!ove provisions constitute an invasion o) his constitutional rights in the sense that he is !eing co pelled$ as a pre-condition to aintaining his status as a la4yer in good standing$ to !e a e !er o) the I(P and to pay the corresponding dues$ and that as a conse1uence o) this co pelled )inancial support o) the said organi@ation to 4hich he is ad ittedly personally antagonistic$ he is !eing deprived o) the rights to li!erty and property guaranteed to hi !y the /onstitution. Aence$ the respondent concludes$ the a!ove provisions o) the /ourt Rule and o) the I(P (y-La4s are void and o) no legal )orce and e))ect. The respondent si ilarly 1uestions the <urisdiction o) the /ourt to stri8e his na e )ro the Roll o) Attorneys$ contending that the said atter is not a ong the <usticia!le cases tria!le !y the /ourt !ut is rather o) an 2ad inistrative nature pertaining to an ad inistrative !ody.2 The case at !ar is not the )irst one that has reached the /ourt relating to constitutional issues that inevita!ly and ine?trica!ly co e up to the sur)ace 4henever atte pts are ade

to regulate the practice o) la4$ de)ine the conditions o) such practice$ or revo8e the license granted )or the e?ercise o) the legal pro)ession. The atters here co plained o) are the very sa e issues raised in a previous case !e)ore the /ourt$ entitled 2Ad inistrative /ase No. '".$ In the Matter o) the Petition )or the Integration o) the (ar o) the Philippines$ Ro an O@aeta$ et al.$ Petitioners.2 The /ourt e?haustively considered all these atters in that case in its Resolution ordaining the integration o) the (ar o) the Philippines$ pro ulgated on 5anuary #$ %#&;. The /ourt there ade the unani ous pronounce ent that it 4as ... )ully convinced$ a)ter a thoroughgoing conscientious study o) all the argu ents adduced in Ad . /ase No. '". and the authoritative aterials and the ass o) )actual data contained in the e?haustive Report o) the /o ission on (ar Integration$ that the integration o) the Philippine (ar is 3per)ectly constitutional and legally uno!<ectiona!le3. ... (e that as it ay$ 4e no4 restate !rie)ly the posture o) the /ourt.

An 2Integrated (ar2 is a State-organi@ed (ar$ to 4hich every la4yer ust !elong$ as distinguished )ro !ar associations organi@ed !y individual la4yers the selves$ e !ership in 4hich is voluntary. Integration o) the (ar is essentially a process !y 4hich every e !er o) the (ar is a))orded an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the o!<ectives o) the (ar as 4ell as o!liged to !ear his portion o) its responsi!ilities. Organi@ed !y or under the direction o) the State$ an integrated (ar is an o))icial national !ody o) 4hich all la4yers are re1uired to !e e !ers. They are$ there)ore$ su!<ect to all the rules prescri!ed )or the governance o) the (ar$ including the re1uire ent o) pay ent o) a reasona!le annual )ee )or the e))ective discharge o) the purposes o) the (ar$ and adherence to a code o) pro)essional ethics or pro)essional responsi!ility !reach o) 4hich constitutes su))icient reason )or investigation !y the (ar and$ upon proper cause appearing$ a reco endation )or discipline or dis!ar ent o) the o))ending e !er. 2 The integration o) the Philippine (ar 4as o!viously dictated !y overriding considerations o) pu!lic interest and pu!lic 4el)are to such an e?tent as ore than constitutionally and legally <usti)ies the restrictions that integration i poses upon the personal interests and personal convenience o) individual la4yers. 3 Apropos to the a!ove$ it ust !e stressed that all legislation directing the integration o) the (ar have !een uni)or ly and universally sustained as a valid e?ercise o) the police po4er over an i portant pro)ession. The practice o) la4 is not a vested right !ut a privilege$ a privilege oreover clothed 4ith pu!lic interest !ecause a la4yer o4es su!stantial duties not only to his client$ !ut also to his !rethren in the pro)ession$ to the courts$ and to the nation$ and ta8es part in one o) the ost i portant )unctions o) the State = the ad inistration o) <ustice = as an o))icer o) the court. 1 The practice o) la4 !eing clothed 4ith pu!lic interest$ the holder o) this privilege ust su! it to a degree o) control )or the co on good$ to the e?tent o) the interest he has created. As the U. S. Supre e /ourt through Mr. 5ustice Ro!erts e?plained$ the e?pression 2a))ected 4ith a

pu!lic interest2 is the e1uivalent o) 2su!<ect to the e?ercise o) the police po4er2 *Ne!!ia vs. Ne4 Bor8$ "#% U.S. '>"+. Chen$ there)ore$ /ongress enacted Repu!lic Act No. .;#& 2 authori@ing the Supre e /ourt to 2adopt rules o) court to e))ect the integration o) the Philippine (ar under such conditions as it shall see )it$2 it did so in the e?ercise o) the para ount police po4er o) the State. The Act3s avo4al is to 2raise the standards o) the legal pro)ession$ i prove the ad inistration o) <ustice$ and ena!le the (ar to discharge its pu!lic responsi!ility ore e))ectively.2 Aence$ the /ongress in enacting such Act$ the /ourt in ordaining the integration o) the (ar through its Resolution pro ulgated on 5anuary #$ %#&;$ and the President o) the Philippines in decreeing the constitution o) the I(P into a !ody corporate through Presidential 0ecree No. %D% dated May 6$ %#&;$ 4ere pro pted !y )unda ental considerations o) pu!lic 4el)are and otivated !y a desire to eet the de ands o) pressing pu!lic necessity.
The State$ in order to pro ote the general 4el)are$ ay inter)ere 4ith and regulate personal li!erty$ property and occupations. Persons and property ay !e su!<ected to restraints and !urdens in order to secure the general prosperity and 4el)are o) the State *U.S. vs. ,o e@ 5esus$ ;% Phil "%D+$ )or$ as the Latin a?i goes$ 2Salus populi est supre e le?.2 The public welfare is the supreme law. To this )unda ental principle o) govern ent the rights o) individuals are su!ordinated. Li!erty is a !lessing 4ithout 4hich li)e is a isery$ !ut li!erty should not !e ade to prevail over authority !ecause then society 4in )all into anarchy */alalang vs. Cillia s$ &> Phil. &".+. It is an undou!ted po4er o) the State to restrain so e individuals )ro all )reedo $ and all individuals )ro so e )reedo . (ut the ost co pelling argu ent sustaining the constitutionality and validity o) (ar integration in the Philippines is the e?plicit une1uivocal grant o) precise po4er to the Supre e /ourt !y Section ' *'+ o) Article E o) the %#&; /onstitution o) the Philippines$ 4hich reads7 Sec. '. The Supre e /ourt shall have the )ollo4ing po4ers7 ??? ??? ??? *'+ Pro ulgate rules concerning pleading$ practice$ and pro. procedure in all courts$ and the ad ission to the practice o) la4 and the integration o) the (ar ...$ and Section % o) Repu!lic Act No. .;#&$ 4hich reads7 SE/TION %. Cithin t4o years )ro the approval o) this Act$ the Supre e /ourt ay adopt rules o) /ourt to e))ect the integration o) the Philippine (ar under such conditions as it shall see )it in order to raise the standards o) the legal pro)ession$ i prove the ad inistration o) <ustice$ and ena!le the (ar to discharge its pu!lic responsi!ility ore e))ectively.

Fuite apart )ro the a!ove$ let it !e stated that even 4ithout the ena!ling Act *Repu!lic Act No. .;#&+$ and loo8ing solely to the language o) the provision o) the /onstitution granting the Supre e /ourt the po4er 2to pro ulgate rules concerning pleading$ practice and procedure in all courts$ and the ad ission to the practice o) la4$2 it at once !eco es indu!ita!le that this constitutional declaration vests the Supre e /ourt 4ith plenary po4er in all cases regarding the ad ission to and supervision o) the practice o) la4. Thus$ 4hen the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal pro)ession$ his practice o) la4 and his e?ercise o) the said pro)ession$ 4hich a))ect the society at large$ 4ere *and are+ su!<ect to the po4er o) the !ody politic to re1uire hi to con)or to such regulations as ight !e esta!lished !y the proper authorities )or the co on good$ even to the e?tent o) inter)ering 4ith so e o) his li!erties. I) he did not 4ish to su! it hi sel) to such reasona!le inter)erence and regulation$ he should not have clothed the pu!lic 4ith an interest in his concerns. On this score alone$ the case )or the respondent ust already )all.

The issues !eing o) constitutional di ension$ ho4ever$ 4e no4 concisely deal 4ith the seriatim.

%. The )irst o!<ection posed !y the respondent is that the /ourt is 4ithout po4er to co pel hi to !eco e a e !er o) the Integrated (ar o) the Philippines$ hence$ Section % o) the /ourt Rule is unconstitutional )or it i pinges on his constitutional right o) )reedo to associate *and not to associate+. Our ans4er is7 To co pel a la4yer to !e a e !er o) the Integrated (ar is not violative o) his constitutional )reedo to associate. 3 Integration does not a8e a la4yer a e !er o) any group o) 4hich he is not already a e !er. Ae !eca e a e !er o) the (ar 4hen he passed the (ar e?a inations. 7 All that integration actually does is to provide an o))icial national organi@ation )or the 4ellde)ined !ut unorgani@ed and incohesive group o) 4hich every la4yer is a ready a e !er. 8 (ar integration does not co pel the la4yer to associate 4ith anyone. Ae is )ree to attend or not attend the eetings o) his Integrated (ar /hapter or vote or re)use to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only co pulsion to 4hich he is su!<ected is the pay ent o) annual dues. The Supre e /ourt$ in order to )urther the State3s legiti ate interest in elevating the 1uality o) pro)essional legal services$ ay re1uire that the cost o) i proving the pro)ession in this )ashion !e shared !y the su!<ects and !ene)iciaries o) the regulatory progra = the la4yers. 9 Assu ing that the 1uestioned provision does in a sense co pel a la4yer to !e a e !er o) the Integrated (ar$ such co pulsion is <usti)ied as an e?ercise o) the police po4er o) the State. 14 ". The second issue posed !y the respondent is that the provision o) the /ourt Rule re1uiring pay ent o) a e !ership )ee is void. Ce see nothing in the /onstitution that

prohi!its the /ourt$ under its constitutional po4er and duty to pro ulgate rules concerning the ad ission to the practice o) la4 and the integration o) the Philippine (ar *Article E$ Section ' o) the %#&; /onstitution+ = 4hich po4er the respondent ac8no4ledges = )ro re1uiring e !ers o) a privileged class$ such as la4yers are$ to pay a reasona!le )ee to4ard de)raying the e?penses o) regulation o) the pro)ession to 4hich they !elong. It is 1uite apparent that the )ee is indeed i posed as a regulatory easure$ designed to raise )unds )or carrying out the o!<ectives and purposes o) integration. 11 ;. The respondent )urther argues that the en)orce ent o) the penalty provisions 4ould a ount to a deprivation o) property 4ithout due process and hence in)ringes on one o) his constitutional rights. Chether the practice o) la4 is a property right$ in the sense o) its !eing one that entitles the holder o) a license to practice a pro)ession$ 4e do not here pause to consider at length$ as it clear that under the police po4er o) the State$ and under the necessary po4ers granted to the /ourt to perpetuate its e?istence$ the respondent3s right to practise la4 !e)ore the courts o) this country should !e and is a atter su!<ect to regulation and in1uiry. And$ i) the po4er to i pose the )ee as a regulatory easure is recogni@e$ then a penalty designed to en)orce its pay ent$ 4hich penalty ay !e avoided altogether !y pay ent$ is not void as unreasona!le or ar!itrary. 12 (ut 4e ust here e phasi@e that the practice o) la4 is not a property right !ut a ere privilege$ 13 and as such ust !o4 to the inherent regulatory po4er o) the /ourt to e?act co pliance 4ith the la4yer3s pu!lic responsi!ilities. 6. Relative to the issue o) the po4er andGor <urisdiction o) the Supre e /ourt to stri8e the na e o) a la4yer )ro its Roll o) Attorneys$ it is su))icient to state that the atters o) ad ission$ suspension$ dis!ar ent and reinstate ent o) la4yers and their regulation and supervision have !een and are indisputa!ly recogni@ed as inherent <udicial )unctions and responsi!ilities$ and the authorities holding such are legion. 11
In In e !par"s *".& Hy. #;$ %>% S.C. *"d+ %#6+$ in 4hich the report o) the (oard o) (ar /o issioners in a dis!ar ent proceeding 4as con)ir ed and dis!ar ent ordered$ the court$ sustaining the (ar Integration Act o) Hentuc8y$ said7 2The po4er to regulate the conduct and 1uali)ications o) its o))icers does not depend upon constitutional or statutory grounds. It is a po4er 4hich is inherent in this court as a court = appropriate$ indeed necessary$ to the proper ad inistration o) <ustice ... the argu ent that this is an ar!itrary po4er 4hich the court is arrogating to itsel) or accepting )ro the legislative li8e4ise isconceives the nature o) the duty. It has li itations no less real !ecause they are inherent. It is an unpleasant tas8 to sit in <udg ent upon a !rother e !er o) the (ar$ particularly 4here$ as here$ the )acts are disputed. It is a grave responsi!ility$ to !e assu ed only 4ith a deter ination to uphold the Ideals and traditions o) an honora!le pro)ession and to protect the pu!lic )ro overreaching and )raud. The very !urden o) the duty is itsel) a guaranty that the po4er 4ill not !e isused or prostituted. ...2 The /ourt3s <urisdiction 4as greatly rein)orced !y our %#&; /onstitution 4hen it e?plicitly granted to the /ourt the po4er to 2Pro ulgate rules concerning pleading$ practice ... and

the ad ission to the practice o) la4 and the integration o) the (ar ... *Article E$ Sec. '*'+ the po4er to pass upon the )itness o) the respondent to re ain a e !er o) the legal pro)ession is indeed undou!tedly vested in the /ourt. Ce thus reach the conclusion that the provisions o) Rule o) /ourt %;#-A and o) the (y-La4s o) the Integrated (ar o) the Philippines co plained o) are neither unconstitutional nor illegal. CAERE:ORE$ pre ises considered$ it is the unani ous sense o) the /ourt that the respondent Marcial A. Edillon should !e as he is here!y dis!arred$ and his na e is here!y ordered stric8en )ro the Roll o) Attorneys o) the /ourt.

B.M. No. 712 5u#& 13, 1992 IN 06( MA00(R )7 06( A"MI//I)N 0) 06( BAR AN" )A06-0A8IN9 )7 /:CC(//7:' BAR APP'ICAN0 A' C. AR9)/IN), petitioner. RESOLUTION

7('ICIAN), J.:
A cri inal in)or ation 4as )iled on 6 :e!ruary %##" 4ith the Regional Trial /ourt o) Fue@on /ity$ (ranch %>%$ charging Mr. A./. Argosino along 4ith thirteen *%;+ other individuals$ 4ith the cri e o) ho icide in connection 4ith the death o) one Raul /a aligan on D Septe !er %##%. The death o) Raul /a aligan ste ed )ro the in)liction o) severe physical in<uries upon hi in the course o) 2ha@ing2 conducted as part o) university )raternity initiation rites. Mr. Argosino and his co-accused then entered into plea !argaining 4ith the prosecution and as a result o) such !argaining$ pleaded guilty to the lesser o))ense o) ho icide through rec8less i prudence. This plea 4as accepted !y the trial court. In a <udg ent dated %% :e!ruary %##;$ each o) the )ourteen *%6+ accused individuals 4as sentenced to su))er i prison ent )or a period ranging )ro t4o *"+ years$ )our *6+ onths and one *%+ day to )our *6+ years. Eleven *%%+ days later$ Mr. Argosino and his colleagues )iled an application )or pro!ation 4ith the lo4er court. The application )or pro!ation 4as granted in an Order dated %D 5une %##; issued !y Regional Trial /ourt 5udge Pedro T. Santiago. The period o) pro!ation 4as set at t4o *"+ years$ counted )ro the pro!ationer3s initial report to the pro!ation o))icer assigned to supervise hi .

Less than a onth later$ on %; 5uly %##;$ Mr. Argosino )iled a Petition )or Ad ission to Ta8e the %##; (ar E?a inations. In this Petition$ he disclosed the )act o) his cri inal conviction and his then pro!ation status. Ae 4as allo4ed to ta8e the %##; (ar E?a inations in this /ourt3s En #anc Resolution dated %6 August %##;. 1 Ae passed the (ar E?a ination. Ae 4as not$ ho4ever$ allo4ed to ta8e the la4yer3s oath o) o))ice.
On %' April %##6$ Mr. Argosino )iled a Petition 4ith this /ourt to allo4 hi to ta8e the attorney3s oath o) o))ice and to ad it hi to the practice o) la4$ averring that 5udge Pedro T. Santiago had ter inated his pro!ation period !y virtue o) an Order dated %% April %##6. Ce note that his pro!ation period did not last )or ore than ten *%>+ onths )ro the ti e o) the Order o) 5udge Santiago granting hi pro!ation dated %D 5une %##;. Since then$ Mr.

Argosino has )iled three *;+ Motions )or Early Resolution o) his Petition )or Ad ission to the (ar.

The practice o) la4 is not a natural$ a!solute or constitutional right to !e granted to everyone 4ho de ands it. Rather$ it is a high personal privilege li ited to citi@ens o) good moral character$ 4ith special educational 1uali)ications$ duly ascertained and certi)ied. 2 The essentiality o) good oral character in those 4ho 4ould !e la4yers is stressed in the )ollo4ing e?cerpts 4hich 4e 1uote 4ith approval and 4hich 4e regard as having persuasive e))ect7
In e $armer7 3

??? ??? ??? This 2upright character2 prescri!ed !y the statute$ as a condition precedent to the applicant3s right to receive a license to practice la4 in North /arolina$ and o) 4hich he ust$ in addition to other re%uisites$ satis)y the court$ includes all the ele ents necessary to a8e up such a character. It is something more than an absence of bad character. It is the good na e 4hich the applicant has ac1uired$ or should have ac1uired$ through association 4ith his )ello4s. It eans that he ust have conducted hi sel) as a an o) upright character ordinarily 4ould$ or should$ or does. !uch character e&presses itself' not in negati(es nor in following the line of least resistance $ but %uite often$ in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right $ and the resol(e not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. . . . ??? ??? ??? And 4e ay pause to say that this re1uire ent o) the statute is e inently proper. )onsider for a moment the duties of a lawyer. Ae is sought as counsellor$ and his advice co es ho e$ in its ulti ate e))ect$ to every an3s )ireside. *ast interests are committed to his care 9 he is the recipient o)unbounded trust and confidence9 he deals with is client+s property$ reputation$ his life$ his all. An attorney at la4 is a sworn officer of the )ourt$ 4hose chie) concern$ as such$ is to aid the administration of ,ustice. . . .
??? ??? ??? 1 In e Application of -aufman$ 2 citing Re La4 E?a ination o) %#". *%#".+ %#% Cis ;'#$ "%> NC &%>7

It can also !e truth)ully said that there e?ists no4here greater te ptations to deviate )ro the straight and narro4 path than in the ultiplicity o) circu stances that arise in the practice o) pro)ession. :or these reasons the 4isdo o) re1uiring an applicant )or ad ission to the !ar to possess a high oral standard there)ore !eco es clearly apparent$ and the !oard o) !ar e?a iners as an ar o) the court$ is re1uired to cause a inute e?a ination

to !e ade o) the oral standard o) each candidate )or ad ission to practice. . . . It needs no )urther argu ent$ there)ore$ to arrive at the conclusion that the highest degree of scrutiny must be e&ercised as to the moral character of a candidate who presents himself for admission to the bar . The e(il must$ if possible$ be successfully met at its (ery source$and pre(ented$ )or$ a)ter a la4yer has once !een ad itted$ and has pursued his pro)ession$ and has esta!lished hi sel) therein$ a )ar ore di))icult situation is presented to the court 4hen proceedings are instituted )or dis!ar ent and )or the recalling and annul ent o) his license.
In e -eenan7 3

The right to practice law is not one of the inherent rights of e(ery citizen $ as in the right to carry on an ordinary trade or !usiness. It is a peculiar pri(ilege granted and continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and in moral character. All ay aspire to it on an a!solutely e1ual !asis$ !ut not all 4ill attain it. Ela!orate achinery has !een set up to test applicants !y standards )air to all and to separate the )it )ro the un)it. Only those 4ho pass the test are allo4ed to enter the pro)ession$ and only those 4ho aintain the standards are allo4ed to re ain in it.
e ouss7 7

Membership in the bar is a pri(ilege burdened with conditions' and a fair pri(ate and professional character is one of them. to refuse admission to an unworthy applicant is not to punish him for past offense/ an e&amination into character$ li8e the e?a ination into learning$ is merely a test of fitness.
)obb (s. 0udge of !uperior )ourt7 8

Attorney3s are licensed !ecause o) their learning and a!ility$ so that they ay not only protect the rights and interests o) their clients$ !ut !e a!le to assist court in the trial o) the cause. Bet 4hat protection to clients or assistance to courts could such agents giveI They are re%uired to be of good moral character$ so that the agents and officers of the court $ 4hich they are$ may not bring discredit upon the due administration of the law $ and it is of the highest possible conse%uence that both those who ha(e not such %ualifications in the first instance$ or 4ho$ having had the $ have )allen there)ro $ shall not be permitted to appear in courts to aid in the administration of ,ustice. It has also !een stressed that the re1uire ent o) good oral character is$ in )act$ o) greater i portance so )ar as the general pu!lic and the proper ad inistration o) <ustice are concerned$ than the possession o) legal learning7 . . . *In re Applicants )or License$ '' S.E. .;'$ %6; N./. %$ %> L.R.A. JN.S.K "DD$ %> Ann.G/as. %D&+7

The pu!lic policy o) our state has al4ays !een to ad it no person to the practice o) the la4 unless he covered an upright oral character. The possession of this by the attorney is more important$ if anything$ to the public and to the proper administration of ,ustice than legal learning . Legal learning ay !e ac1uired in a)ter years$ !ut if the applicant passes the threshold of the bar with a bad moral character the chances are that his character will remain bad$ and that he will become a disgrace instead of an ornament to his great calling = a curse instead of a benefit to his community = a Fuir8$ a ,a on or a Snap$ instead o) a 0avis$ a S ith or a Ru))in. 9

All aspects o) oral character and !ehavior ay !e in1uired into in respect o) those see8ing ad ission to the (ar. The scope o) such in1uiry is$ indeed$ said to !e properly !roader than in1uiry into the oral proceedings )or dis!ar ent7
e !tepsay7 14

The in1uiry as to the oral character o) an attorney in a proceeding )or his ad ission to practice isbroader in scope than in a dis!ar ent proceeding.
e 1ells7 11

. . . that an applicant3s contention that upon application )or ad ission to the /ali)ornia (ar the court cannot re<ect hi )or 4ant o) good oral character unless it appears that he has !een guilty o) acts 4hich 4ould !e cause )or his dis!ar ent or suspension$ could not !e sustained9 that the in%uiry is broader in its scope than that in a disbarment proceeding' and the court ay receive any e(idence which tends to show the applicant+s character as respects honesty' integrity' and general morality' and may no doubt refuse admission upon proofs that might not establish his guilt of any of the acts declared to be causes for disbarment.

The re1uire ent o) good oral character to !e satis)ied !y those 4ho 4ould see8 ad ission to the !ar ust o) necessity !e ore stringent than the nor o) conduct e?pected )ro e !ers o) the general pu!lic. There is a very real need to prevent a general perception that entry into the legal pro)ession is open to individuals 4ith inade1uate oral 1uali)ications. The gro4th o) such a perception 4ould signal the progressive destruction o) our people3s con)idence in their courts o) la4 and in our legal syste as 4e 8no4 it. 12
Mr. Argosino3s participation in the deplora!le 2ha@ing2 activities certainly )ell )ar short o) the re1uired standard o) good oral character. The deli!erate *rather than erely accidental or inadvertent+ in)liction o) severe physical in<uries 4hich pro?i ately led to the death o) the un)ortunate Raul /a aligan$ certainly indicated serious character )la4s on the part o) those 4ho in)licted such in<uries. Mr. Argosino and his co-accused had )ailed to discharge their oral duty to protect the li)e and 4ell-!eing o) a 2neophyte2 4ho had$ !y see8ing ad ission to the )raternity involved$ reposed trust and con)idence in all o) the that$ at the very least$ he 4ould not !e !eaten and 8ic8ed to death li8e a useless stray dog. Thus$ participation in the prolonged and indless physical !eatings in)licted upon Raul /a aligan constituted

evident re<ection o) that oral duty and 4as totally irresponsi!le !ehavior$ 4hich a8es i possi!le a )inding that the participant 4as then possessed o) good oral character. No4 that the original period o) pro!ation granted !y the trial court has e?pired$ the /ourt is prepared to considerde no(o the 1uestion o) 4hether applicant A./. Argosino has purged hi sel) o) the o!vious de)iciency in oral character re)erred to a!ove. Ce stress that good oral character is a re1uire ent possession o) 4hich ust !e de onstrated not only at the ti e o) application )or per ission to ta8e the !ar e?a inations !ut also$ and ore i portantly$ at the ti e o) application )or ad ission to the !ar and to ta8e the attorney3s oath o) o))ice. Mr. Argosino ust$ there)ore$ su! it to this /ourt$ )or its e?a ination and consideration$ evidence that he ay !e no4 regarded as co plying 4ith the re1uire ent o) good oral character i posed upon those see8ing ad ission to the !ar. Ais evidence ay consist$ inter alia$ o) s4orn certi)ications )ro responsi!le e !ers o) the co unity 4ho have a good reputation )or truth and 4ho have actually "nown Mr. Argosino )or a significant period of time$ particularly since the <udg ent o) conviction 4as rendered !y 5udge Santiago. Ae should sho4 to the /ourt ho4 he has tried to a8e up )or the senseless 8illing o) a helpless student to the )a ily o) the deceased student and to the co unity at large. Mr. Argosino ust$ in other 4ords$ su! it relevant evidence to sho4 that he is a di))erent person no4$ that he has !eco e orally )it )or ad ission to the ancient and learned pro)ession o) the la4. :inally$ Mr. Argosino is here!y 0IRE/TE0 to in)or this /ourt$ !y appropriate 4ritten ani)estation$ o) the na es and addresses o) the )ather and other *in de)ault thereo)$ !rothers and sisters$ i) any$ o) Raul /a aligan+$ 4ithin ten *%>+ day )ro notice hereo). Let a copy o) this Resolution !e )urnished to the parents or !rothers and sisters$ i) any$ o) Raul /a aligan.

;B.M. No. 1121. 5une 8, 2441<

IN 06( MA00(R )7 06( "I/=:A'I7ICA0I)N )7 BAR (>AMIN(( 6AR)N /. M('IN9 IN 06( 2442 BAR (>AMINA0I)N/ AN" 7)R "I/CIP'INAR? AC0I)N A/ M(MB(R )7 06( P6I'IPPIN( /6ARI@A BAR, A00?. 7R)I'AN R. M('(N"R(A, petitioner, R(/)':0I)N
0IN9A, J.:

The /ourt is here con)ronted 4ith a 2etition that see8s t4in relie)s$ one o) 4hich is ripe 4hile the other has !een rendered oot !y a supervening event. The antecedents )ollo4. On Octo!er %6$ ">>"$ Atty. :roilan R. Melendre@ *Melendre@+ )iled 4ith the O))ice o) the (ar /on)idant *O(/+ a 2etition to dis1uali)y Aaron S. Meling *Meling+ )ro ta8ing the ">>" (ar E?a inations and to i pose on hi the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a e !er o) the Philippine ShariLa (ar.
J%K

In the 2etition$ Melendre@ alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to ta8e the ">>" (ar E?a inations that he has three *;+ pending cri inal cases !e)ore the Municipal Trial /ourt in /ities *MT//+$ /ota!ato /ity$ na ely7 /ri inal /ases Noa. %'.D' and %'.D.$ !oth )or ,rave Oral 0e)a ation$ and /ri inal /ase No. %'.D& )or Less Serious Physical In<uries. The a!ove- entioned cases arose )ro an incident 4hich occurred on May "%$ ">>%$ 4hen Meling allegedly uttered de)a atory 4ords against Melendre@ and his 4i)e in )ront o) edia practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly attac8ed and hit the )ace o) Melendre@L 4i)e causing the in<uries to the latter.

:urther ore$ Melendre@ alleges that Meling has !een using the title MAttorneyN in his co unications$ as Secretary to the Mayor o) /ota!ato /ity$ despite the )act that he is not a e !er o) the (ar. Attached to the 2etition is an indorse ent letter 4hich sho4s that Meling used the appellation and appears on its )ace to have !een received !y the Sangguniang Panglungsod o) /ota!ato /ity on Nove !er "&$ ">>%. Pursuant to this /ourtLs his Answer 4ith the O(/.
J;K

esolution dated 0ece !er ;$ ">>"$ Meling )iled

J"K

In his Answer$ Meling e?plains that he did not disclose the cri inal cases )iled against hi !y Melendre@ !ecause retired 5udge /orocoy Moson$ their )or er pro)essor$ advised hi to settle his isunderstanding 4ith Melendre@. (elieving in good )aith that the case 4ould !e settled !ecause the said 5udge has oral ascendancy over the $ he !eing their )or er pro)essor in the /ollege o) La4$ Meling considered the three cases that actually arose )ro a single incident and involving the sa e parties as Mclosed and ter inated.N Moreover$ Meling denies the charges and adds that the acts co plained o) do not involve oral turpitude. As regards the use o) the title MAttorney$N Meling ad its that so e o) his co unications really contained the 4ord MAttorneyN as they 4ere$ according to hi $ typed !y the o))ice cler8. In its eport and ecommendation dated 0ece !er D$ ">>;$ the O(/ disposed o) the charge o) non-disclosure against Meling in this 4ise7
J6K

The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in his petition to take the Bar Examinations are ludicrous. He should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. n fact, the cases filed against Meling are still pending. !urthermore, granting arguendo that these cases were already dismissed, he is still re"uired to disclose the same for the #ourt to ascertain his good moral character. $etitions to take the Bar Examinations are made under oath, and should not %e taken lightly %y an applicant. The merit of the cases against Meling is not material in this case. &hat matters is his act of concealing them which constitutes dishonesty. n Bar Matter '()*, the #ourt stated, thus+ t has %een held that good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held %y the pu%lic in the place where he is known. Moral character is not

a su%jective term %ut one which corresponds to o%jective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied %y such conduct as it merely ena%les a person to escape the penalty of criminal law. ,ood moral character includes at least common honesty. The non-disclosure of Meling of the criminal cases filed against him makes him also answera%le under .ule /.)' of the #ode of $rofessional .esponsi%ility which states that 0a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.1
J'K

As regards MelingLs use o) the title MAttorneyN$ the O(/ had this to say7 2nent the issue of the use of the appellation 02ttorney1 in his letters, the explanation of Meling is not accepta%le. 2ware that he is not a mem%er of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he signed as 0attorney1 whoever may have typed the letters. 2lthough there is no showing that Meling is engaged in the practice of law, the fact is, he is signing his communications as 02tty. Haron 3. Meling1 knowing fully well that he is not entitled thereto. 2s held %y the #ourt in Bar Matter '()*, the unauthori4ed use of the appellation 0attorney1 may render a person lia%le for indirect contempt of court.
J.K

/onse1uently$ the O(/ reco ended that Meling not !e allo4ed to ta8e the La4yerLs Oath and sign the Roll o) Attorneys in the event that he passes the (ar E?a inations. :urther$ it reco ended that MelingLs e !ership in the ShariLa (ar !e suspended until )urther orders )ro the /ourt.
J&K

Ce )ully concur 4ith the )indings and reco endation o) the O(/. Meling$ ho4ever$ did not pass the ">>; (ar E?a inations. This renders the 2etition' inso)ar as it see8s to prevent Meling )ro ta8ing the La4yerLs Oath and signing the Roll o) Attorneys$ oot and acade ic. On the other hand$ the prayer in the sa e 2etition )or the /ourt to i pose the appropriate sanctions upon hi as a e !er o) the ShariLa (ar is ripe )or resolution and has to !e acted upon. Practice o) la4$ 4hether under the regular or the ShariLa /ourt$ is not a atter o) right !ut erely a privilege !esto4ed upon individuals 4ho are not only learned in the la4 !ut 4ho are also 8no4n to possess good oral character. The re1uire ent o) good oral character is not only a condition precedent to ad ission to the practice o) la4$ its continued possession is also essential )or re aining in the practice o) la4.
JDK J#K

The standard )or issued in connection 4ith the application to ta8e the ">>" (ar E?a inations re1uires the applicant to aver that he or she Mhas not !een charged 4ith any act or o ission punisha!le !y la4$ rule or regulation !e)ore a )iscal$ <udge$ o))icer or ad inistrative !ody$ or indicted )or$ or accused or convicted !y any court or tri!unal o)$ any o))ense or cri e involving oral turpitude9 nor is there any pending case or charge against hi Gher.N 0espite the declaration re1uired !y the )or $ Meling did not reveal that he has three pending cri inal cases. Ais deli!erate silence constitutes conceal ent$ done under oath at that. The disclosure re1uire ent is i posed !y the /ourt to deter ine 4hether there is satis)actory evidence o) good oral character o) the applicant. The nature o) 4hatever cases are pending against the applicant 4ould aid the /ourt in deter ining 4hether he is endo4ed 4ith the oral )itness de anded o) a la4yer. (y concealing the e?istence o) such cases$ the applicant then )lun8s the test o) )itness even i) the cases are ulti ately proven to !e un4arranted or insu))icient to i pugn or a))ect the good oral character o) the applicant.
J%>K

MelingLs conceal ent o) the )act that there are three *;+ pending cri inal cases against hi spea8s o) his lac8 o) the re1uisite good oral character and results in the )or)eiture o) the privilege !esto4ed upon hi as a e !er o) the ShariLa (ar. Moreover$ his use o) the appellation MAttorneyN$ 8no4ing )ully 4ell that he is not entitled to its use$ cannot go unchec8ed. In Alawi (. Alauya' the /ourt had the occasion to discuss the i propriety o) the use o) the title MAttorneyN !y e !ers o) the ShariLa (ar 4ho are not li8e4ise e !ers o) the Philippine (ar. The respondent therein$ an e?ecutive cler8 o) court o) the 6 th 5udicial ShariLa 0istrict in Mara4i /ity$ used the title MAttorneyN in several correspondence in connection 4ith the rescission o) a contract entered into !y hi in his private capacity. The /ourt declared that7
J%%K

5persons who pass the 3hari6a Bar are not full-fledged mem%ers of the $hilippine Bar, hence, may only practice law %efore 3hari6a courts. &hile one who has %een admitted to the 3hari6a Bar, and one who has %een admitted to the $hilippine Bar, may %oth %e considered 0counselors,1 in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an 0attorney.1 The title 0attorney1 is reserved to those who, having o%tained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have %een admitted to the ntegrated Bar of the $hilippines and remain mem%ers thereof in good standing7 and it is they only who are authori4ed to practice law in this jurisdiction.
J%"K

The <udiciary has no place )or dishonest o))icers o) the court$ such as Meling in this case. The sole n tas8 o) ad inistering <ustice de ands that those 4ho are privileged to !e part o) service therein$ )ro the highest o))icial to the lo4liest e ployee$ ust not only !e co petent and dedicated$ !ut li8e4ise live and practice the virtues o) honesty and integrity. Anything short o) this standard 4ould di inish the pu!lic3s )aith in the 5udiciary and constitutes in)idelity to the constitutional tenet that a pu!lic o))ice is a pu!lic trust. In 3eda (. Tabang' supra' the respondent concealed the )act o) his arriage in his application to ta8e the (ar e?a inations and ade con)licting su! issions !e)ore the /ourt. As a result$ 4e )ound the respondent grossly un)it and un4orthy to continue in the practice o) la4 and suspended hi there)ro until )urther orders )ro the /ourt. B6(R(7)R($ the 2etition is ,RANTE0 inso)ar as it see8s the i position o) appropriate sanctions upon Aaron S. Meling as a e !er o) the Philippine ShariLa (ar. Accordingly$ the e !ership o) Aaron S. Meling in the Philippine ShariLa (ar is here!y SUSPEN0E0 until )urther orders )ro the /ourt$ the suspension to ta8e e))ect i ediately. Inso)ar as the 2etition see8s to prevent Aaron S. Meling )ro ta8ing the La4yerLs Oath and signing the Roll o) Attorneys as a e !er o) the Philippine (ar$ the sa e is 0ISMISSE0 )or having !eco e oot and acade ic. /opies o) this 0ecision shall !e circulated to all the ShariLa /ourts in the country )or their in)or ation and guidance. /) )R"(R(".

A.C. No. 211

Mar%h 29, 1933

IN 06( MA00(R )7 06( P(0I0I)N 7)R "I/BARM(N0 )7 0('(/7)R) A. "IA), vs. /(C(RIN) 9. MAR0IN(A, petitioner. B(N9A)N, C.J.: A)ter success)ully passing the corresponding e?a inations held in %#';$ Teles)oro A. 0iao 4as ad itted to the (ar. A!out t4o years later$ Severino Martine@ charged hi 4ith having )alsely represented in his application )or such (ar e?a ination$ that he had the re1uisite acade ic 1uali)ications. The atter 4as in due course re)erred to the Solicitor ,eneral 4ho caused the charge to !e investigated9 and later he su! itted a report reco ending that 0iao3s na e !e erased )ro the roll o) attorneys$ !ecause contrary to the allegations in his petition )or e?a ination in this /ourt$ he *0iao+ had not completed$ !e)ore ta8ing up la4 su!<ects$ the re1uired pre-legal education prescri!ed !y the 0epart ent o) Private Education$ specially$ in the )ollo4ing particulars7
*a+ 0iao did not co plete his high school training9 and *!+ 0iao never attended Fuisu !ing /ollege$ and never o!tained his A.A. diplo a there)ro = 4hich contradicts the credentials he had su! itted in support o) his application )or e?a ination$ and o) his allegation therein o) success)ul co pletion o) the 2re1uired pre-legal education2.

Ans4ering this o))icial report and co plaint$ Teles)oro A. 0iao$ practically ad its the )irst charge7 !ut he clai s that although he had le)t high school in his third year$ he entered the service o) the U.S. Ar y$ passed the ,eneral /lassi)ication Test given therein$ 4hich *according to hi + is e1uivalent to a high school diplo a$ and upon his return to civilian li)e$ the educational authorities considered his ar y service as the e1uivalent o) ;rd and 6th year high school. Ce have serious dou!ts$ a!out the validity o) this clai $ 4hat 4ith respondent3s )ailure to e?hi!it any certi)ication to that e))ect *the e1uivalence+ !y the proper school o))icials. Ao4ever$ it is unnecessary to d4ell on this$ since the second charge is clearly eritorious. 0iao never o!tained his A.A. )ro Fuisu !ing /ollege9 and yet his application )or e?a ination represented hi as an A.A. graduate *%#6>-%#6%+ o) such college. No4$ asserting he had o!tained his A.A. title )ro the Arellano University in April$ %#6#$ he says he 4as erroneously certi)ied$ due to con)usion$ as a graduate o) Fuisu !ing /ollege$ in his school records.

Chere)ore$ the parties respect)ully pray that the )oregoing stipulation o) )acts !e ad itted and approved !y this Aonora!le /ourt$ 4ithout pre<udice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered !y this stipulation o) )acts.

45wph64.78t

This e?planation is not accepta!le$ )or the reason that the 2error2 or 2con)usion2 4as o!viously o) his o4n a8ing. Aad his application disclosed his having o!tained A.A. )ro Arellano University$ it 4ould also have disclosed that he got it in April' 49:9$ there!y sho4ing that he !egan his la4 studies *"nd se ester o) %#6D-%#6#+ si& months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he 4ould not have !een per itted to ta8e the !ar tests$ !ecause our Rules provide$ and the applicant )or the (ar e?a ination ust a))ir under oath$ 2That previous to the study o) la4$ he had success)ully and satis)actorily co pleted the re1uired pre-legal education*A.A.+ as prescri!ed !y the 0epart ent o) Private Education$2 *e phasis on 2previous2+. Plainly$ there)ore$ Teles)oro A. 0iao 4as not 1uali)ied to ta8e the !ar e?a inations9 !ut due to his )alse representations$ he 4as allo4ed to ta8e it$ luc8ily passed it$ and 4as therea)ter ad itted to the (ar. Such ad ission having !een o!tained under )alse pretenses ust !e$ and is here!y revo8ed. The )act that he hurdled the (ar e?a inations is i aterial. Passing such e?a inations is not the only 1uali)ication to !eco e an attorney-at-la49 ta8ing the prescri!ed courses o) legal study in the regular anner is e%ually essential.. The /ler8 is$ there)ore$ ordered to stri8e )ro the roll o) attorneys$ the na e o) Teles)oro A. 0iao. And the latter is re1uired to return his la4yer3s diplo a 4ithin thirty days. So ordered.

B.M. No. 11 7ebruar& 14, 1989 (:7R)/INA ?AP 0AN, co plainant$ vs. NIC)'A/ ('. /ABAN"A', respondent. B.M. No. 29 7ebruar& 14, 1989 B(N5AMIN CABI9)N, co plainant$ vs. NIC)'A/ ('. /ABAN"A', respondent. /BC No. 321 7ebruar& 14, 1989 C)RN('I) A9NI/ an+ "I)M("(/ ". A9NI/, co plainants$ vs. NIC)'A/ ('. /ABAN"A', respondent. Alberto )oncha for Eufrosina ;ap Tan. <elbert 2oculan for respondent. RESOLUTION

M('(NCI)-6(RR(RA, J.: Respondent Nicolas El. Sa!andal passed the %#&D (ar E?a inations !ut !ecause o) pending ad inistrative co plaints )iled against hi $ he 4as not allo4ed to ta8e the la4yers oath. Ae then )iled a Petition to !e ad itted to the Philippine (ar and to !e allo4ed to sign the Rollo o) Attorneys. The co plainants$ na ely$ Eu)rosina B. Tan$ (en<a in /a!igon$ /ornelio Agnis and 0io edes 0. Agnis$ opposed the Petition on several grounds. In a Resolution o) this /ourt en banc pro ulgated on "# Nove !er %#D;$ respondent3s petition 4as denied$ the /ourt )inding$ inter alia$ that7 ... the evidence supports the charge o) unauthori@ed practice o) la4. Chile respondent3s in)raction ay !e itigated in that he appeared )or his in-la4s in /AR /ases Nos. ;6& and ;". 4here they 4ere parties$ it is clear )ro the proceedings in /AR /ase No. ;6& that he clari)ied his position only a)ter the opposing counsel had o!<ected to his appearance. (esides$ he speci)ically ani)ested 2Atty. Nicolas Sa!andal$ appearing )or the de)endants$ Bour

Aonor2 *E?hi!it 2A-l2+. Ae called hi sel) 2attorney2 8no4ing )ull 4ell that he 4as not yet ad itted to the (ar. Oppositors evidence su))iciently sho4s that respondent had held hi sel) out as an 2attorney2 in the agrarian$ civil and cri inal cases entioned !y said oppositors. Respondent cannot shi)t the !la e on the stenographer$ )or he could have easily as8ed )or recti)ication. ... Oppositors had also presented evidence o) proceedings 4herein 4itnesses testi)ied as to respondent3s !eing their la4yer and their co pensating hi )or his services *E?hi!its 20-D2 and 20-#2+. It ay !e that in the /ourt o) a unicipality$ even non-la4yers ay appear *Sec. ;6$ Rule %;D$ Rules o) /ourt+. I) respondent had so ani)ested$ no one could have challenged hi . Chat he did$ ho4ever$ 4as to hold hi sel) out as a la4yer$ and even to 4rite the Station /o ander o) Ro?as$ co plaining o) harass ent to 2our clients.2 4hen he could not !ut have 8no4n that he could not yet engage in the practice o) la4. Ais argu ent that the ter 2client2 is 2dependent or person under the protection o) another and not a person 4ho engages in the pro)ession2 is puerile. *%". S/RA .>$ at .& O .D+ A Motion )or Reconsideration o) the a)oresaid Resolution 4as )iled !y respondent on "; 5anuary %#D6$ 4hich 4as opposed !y /o plainants$ 4ho stated that the 2span o) ti e 4as so short to deter ine 4ith su))icient de)initeness 4hether or not respondent has re)or ed92 that 2the testi onials are sel)-serving o!viously prepared !y respondent hi sel) and had the signed !y the signatories 4ho could not re)use hi .2 In its Resolution o) D May %#D6 the /ourt denied reconsideration. On "; May %#D' respondent )iled an E?-parte Motion )or Reconsideration reiterating his prayer to !e allo4ed to ta8e the la4yer3s oath$ 4hich 4as again opposed !y /o plainants$ and 4hich 4as denied !y the /ourt on %. 5uly %#D'$ 4ith the /ourt stating that no other Motions o) this 8ind 4ould !e entertained. Undaunted$ on " 0ece !er %#D'$ respondent )iled another Motion )or Reconsideration and Appeal )or Mercy and :orgiveness$ 4hich the /ourt si ply NOTE0 in its Resolution o) & 5anuary %#D.. In a letter dated 6 0ece !er %#D. respondent3s children echoed his appeal to the /ourt to allo4 hi to ta8e the la4yer3s oath$ 4hich the /ourt noted 4ithout action on & 5uly %#D&. On "D 5une %#DD$ respondent )iled a second Petition to !e allo4ed to ta8e the la4yer3s oath. /o plainants 4ere re1uired to co ent !ut they have not done so to date. In a letter dated "; Nove !er %#DD addressed to the /hie) 5ustice and Associate 5ustices o) this /ourt$ respondent as8s )or )orgiveness$ understanding and !enevolence and pro ises that$ i) given a chance to !e a e !er o) the Philippine (ar$ he 4ould al4ays !e )aith)ul to the la4yer3s oath and conduct hi sel) in an upright anner. Chether or not respondent shall !e ad itted to the Philippine (ar rests to a great e?tent in the sound discretion o) the /ourt. An applicant ust satis)y the /ourt that he is a person o) good oral character$ )it and proper to practice la4.

In several cases 4herein reinstate ents to the legal pro)ession 4ere allo4ed$ the )ollo4ing criteria 4ere considered7 the person appreciates the insigni)icance o) his dereliction and he has assured the /ourt that he no4 possesses the re1uisite pro!ity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is 4orthy to !e restored to the practice o) la4 *Magat vs. Santiago$ L6;;>%-6'..'$ April %$ %#D>$ #& S/RA %+9 the ti e that has elapsed !et4een dis!ar ent and the application )or reinstate ent$ his good conduct and honora!le dealing su!se1uent to his dis!ar ent$ his active involve ent in civic$ educational$ and religious organi@ations *In Re7 5uan T. Pu!lico$ %>" S/RA &"% J%#D%K+9 the )avora!le indorse ent o) the Integrated (ar o) the Philippines$ as 4ell as the local govern ent o))icials and citi@ens o) his co unity *In Re7 Fuinciano 0. Pailoces$ Ad . /ase No. 6;#$ Septe !er ;>$ %#D"$ %%& S/RA %+9 the pleas o) his other and 4i)e )or the sa8e and the )uture o) his )a ily *Andres vs. /a!rera$ S(/-'D'$ :e!ruary "#$ %#D6$ %"& S/RA D>"+. The )oregoing criteria ay !e ade applica!le to respondent3s case. A)ter the lapse o) ten *%>+ years )ro the ti e respondent too8 and passed the %#&D (ar E?a ination$ he has sho4n contrition and 4illingness to re)or . Ae has also su! itted several testi onials$ including one )ro the I(P Qa !oanga del Norte$ attesting to his good oral character and civic consciousness. A//OR0IN,LB$ respondent Nicolas El. Sa!andal is here!y allo4ed to ta8e the la4yer3s oath$ 4ith the /ourt !inding hi to his assurance that he shall strictly a!ide !y and adhere to the language$ eaning and spirit o) the La4yer3s Oath and the highest standards o) the legal pro)ession. SO OR0ERE0.

Sharia Bar Passers be recognized as Attorneys

Petition Background (Preamble):

Shari'a or the Islamic Law is a set of laws governing the legal aspects of life of every Muslims, which is primarily based on the Holy Qur-an In the !hilippines, some professional Muslims ought to enroll Shari'a in months of training for them to be able to practice legal profession However, for them to be granted such privilege, they have to pass the "-wee# Special $ar %&aminations for the Shari'a 'ourts given by the Supreme 'ourt in every two years (hen they will successfully passed the e&am, they are entitled to practice legal profession, be lawyers as such $ut their practice is only limited within the )urisdiction of the established Shari'a 'ourts in the 'ountry, which were created by !* +,-. or the Muslim !ersonal 'ode of +/0. for the effective administration and enforcement of the said law 1hey cannot practice as lawyers in the regular courts In an %n $anc resolution of the Supreme 'ourt dated 2ugust 3, +//., in $ar Matter 4o 5-+ 67e8 !etition to 2llow Shari'a Lawyers to e&ercise their profession at the regular courts,6 the 'ourt categorically stated that 6a person who has passed the Shari'a $ar %&amination is 94L: a special member of the !hilippine $ar and not a full-fledged member thereof & & & 2s such, he is authori;ed to practice 94L: in the Shari'a courts6 Hence, they are not allowed to be called as 2ttorneys and use the title of 62tty 6 'onsidering, however, the hardship that they have undergone in the Shari'a training and even months of preparation for the Shari'a $ar, they are nevertheless tantamount with the e&perience of a person who studied in law school and apparently passed the !hilippine $ar %&am 1he legality of the issue addressed herein affects the Muslim populace in whole and indeed viewed as an in)ustice for their identity in general 1his had been the clamor since the inception of the Shari'a $ar %&amination to professionali;e Muslims in this field of legal #nowledge Shari'a $ar !assers are lawyers in essence, but never called as 6attorneys6 1hey are merely called as Shari'a 'ouncilors, when they can be at par with the regular law bar passers or are even better with respect to Shari'a )urisprudence and the li#e 1herefore, it is high time that something must be done Hence, this petition is see#ing the authori;ed personnel on this matter to recogni;ed the Sharia $ar !assers as 62ttorneys6 here in the !hilippines It is not as#ed that they be granted the right to practice in the regular courts as granted to the 6full-pledge lawyers6 who have undergone < years of law schooling and subse=uently passed the --sub)ect bar e&am (hat is as#ed is a mere recognition as a person belonging in the legal profession> that they be granted a title of 62tty 6 2nd to do such, it is as#ed in this petition that a 67oll of 2ttorneys of the Shari'a 'ourts6 be incorporated, similar with the 67oll of 2ttorneys of the Supreme 'ourt6 for the regular bar passers 2ll Shari'a $ar !assers shall sign in the 7oll to ac=uire the privilege as 62ttorneys6

9.R. No. '-23929 No,ember 29, 1971 P6I'IPPIN( A//)CIA0I)N )7 7R(( 'AB)R :NI)N/ *PA7':., (NRI=:( (N0I'A D CIC0)RIAN) 0(NAAA/ petitioners$ vs. BINA'BA9AN I/AB('A /:9AR C)MPAN?, C):R0 )7 IN":/0RIA' R('A0I)N/, D =:IN0IN M:NIN9respondents. )ipriano )id = Associates for petitioners. )eferino Magat and Manuel ). >onzales for respondent ?uintin Muning.

R(?(/, 5.B.'., J.:

May a non-la4yer recover attorney3s )ees )or legal services renderedI This is the issue presented in this petition )or revie4 o) an order$ dated %" May %#.6$ and the en banc resolution$ dated D 0ece !er %#.6$ o) the /ourt o) Industrial Relations$ in its /ase No. &"-ULP-Iloilo$ granting respondent Fuintin Muning a non-la4yer$ attorney3s )ees )or pro)essional services in the said case. The a!ove-na ed petitioners 4ere co plainants in /ase No. &"-ULP-Iloilo entitled$ 2PA:LU et al. vs. (inal!agan Isa!ela Sugar /o.$ et al.2 A)ter trial$ the /ourt o) Industrial Relations rendered a decision$ on "# March %#.%$ ordering the reinstate ent 4ith !ac84ages o) co plainants Enri1ue Entila and Pictorino Tena@as. Said decision !eca e )inal. On %D Octo!er %#.;$ /ipriano /id O Associates$ counsel o) record )or the 4inning co plainants$ )iled a notice o) attorney3s lien e1uivalent to ;>R o) the total !ac84ages. On "" Nove !er %#.;$ Atty. Atanacio Pacis also )iled a si ilar notice )or a reasona!le a ount. /o plainants Entila and Tena@as on ; 0ece !er %#.;$ )iled a ani)estation indicating their non-o!<ection to an a4ard o) attorney3s )ees )or "'R o) their !ac84ages$ and$ on the sa e day$ Fuentin Muning )iled a 2Petition )or the A4ard o) Services Rendered2 e1uivalent to ">R o) the !ac84ages. Munings petition 4as opposed !y /ipriano /id O Associates the ground that he is not a la4yer. The records o) /ase No. &"-ULP-Iloilo sho4 that the charge 4as )iled !y /ipriano /id O Associates through Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the hearings 4ere held in (acolod /ity and appearances ade in !ehal) o) the co plainants 4ere at )irst !y Attorney Pacis and su!se1uently !y respondent Fuintin Muning. On %" May %#.6$ the /ourt o) Industrial Relations a4arded "'R o) the !ac84ages as co pensation )or pro)essional services rendered in the case$ apportioned as )ollo4s7

Attys. /ipriano /id O Associates ............................................. %>R Fuintin Muning ......................................................................... %>R Atty. Atanacio Pacis ................................................................. 'R The a4ard o) %>R to Fuintin Muning 4ho is not a la4yer according to the order$ is sought to !e voided in the present petition.

Respondent Muning oved in this /ourt to dis iss the present petition on the ground o) late )iling !ut his otion 4as overruled on "> 5anuary %#.'. 1 Ae as8ed )or reconsideration$ !ut$ considering that the otion contained aver ents that go into the erits o) the case$ this /ourt ad itted and considered the otion )or reconsideration )or all purposes as respondent3s ans4er to the petitioner )or revie4. 2 The case 4as considered su! itted )or decision 4ithout respondent3s !rie). 3 Applica!le to the issue at hand is the principle enunciated in Amalgamated 3aborers+ Association' et al. (s. )ourt of Industrial elations' et al .$ L-";6.&$ "& March %#.D$ 1 that an agree ent providing )or the division o) attorney3s )ees$ 4here!y a non-la4yer union president is allo4ed to share in said )ees 4ith la4yers$ is conde ned !y /anon ;6 o) Legal Ethics and is i oral and cannot !e <usti)ied. An a4ard !y a court o) attorney3s )ees is no less i oral in the a!sence o) a contract$ as in the present case.
The provision in Section '*!+ o) Repu!lic Act No. D&' that = In the proceeding !e)ore the /ourt or Aearing E?a iner thereo)$ the parties shall not !e re1uired to !e represented !y legal counsel ... is no <usti)ication )or a ruling$ that the person representing the party-litigant in the /ourt o) Industrial Relations$ even i) he is not a la4yer$ is entitled to attorney3s )ees7 )or the sa e section adds that = it shall !e the duty and o!ligation o) the /ourt or Aearing O))icer to e?a ine and cross e?a ine 4itnesses on !ehal) o) the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation o) evidence. thus a8ing it clear that the representation should !e e?clusively entrusted to duly 1uali)ied e !ers o) the !ar. The per ission )or a non- e !er o) the !ar to represent or appear or de)end in the said court on !ehal) o) a party-litigant does not !y itsel) entitle the representative to co pensation )or such representation. :or Section "6$ Rule %;D$ o) the Rules o) /ourt$ providing = Sec. "6. )ompensation of attorney+s agreement as to fees . = An attorney shall !e entitled to have and recover )ro his client no ore than a reasona!le co pensation )or his services$ ...

i ports the e?istence o) an attorney-client relationship as a condition to the recovery o) attorney3s )ees. Such a relationship cannot e?ist unless the client3s representative in court !e a la4yer. Since respondent Muning is not one$ he cannot esta!lish an attorney-client relationship 4ith Enri1ue Entila and Pictorino Tene@as or 4ith PA:LU$ and he cannot$ there)ore$ recover attorney3s )ees. /ertainly pu!lic policy de ands that legal 4or8 in representation o) parties litigant should !e entrusted only to those possessing tested 1uali)ications and 4ho are s4orn$ to o!serve the rules and the ethics o) the pro)ession$ as 4ell as !eing su!<ect to <udicial disciplinary control )or the protection o) courts$ clients and the pu!lic. On the present issue$ the rule in A erican <urisdictions is persuasive. There$ it is stated7
(ut in practically all <urisdictions statutes have no4 !een enacted prohi!iting persons not licensed or ad itted to the !ar )ro practising la4$ and under statutes o) this 8ind$ the great 4eight o) authority is to the e))ect that co pensation )or legal services cannot !e recovered !y one 4ho has not !een ad itted to practice !e)ore the court or in the <urisdiction the services 4ere rendered. 2 No one is entitled to recover co pensation )or services as an attorney at la4 unless he has !een duly ad itted to practice ... and is an attorney in good standing at the ti e. 3

The reasons are that the ethics o) the legal pro)ession should not !e violated9 7 that acting as an attorney 4ith authority constitutes conte pt o) court$ 4hich is punisha!le !y )ine or i prison ent or !oth$ 8 and the la4 4ill not assist a person to reap the )ruits or !ene)it o) an act or an act done in violation o) la49 9 and that i) 4ere to !e allo4ed to non-la4yers$ it 4ould leave the pu!lic in hopeless con)usion as to 4ho to consult in case o) necessity and also leave the !ar in a chaotic condition$ aside )ro the )act that non-la4yers are not a ena!le to disciplinary easures. 14
And the general rule a!ove-stated *re)erring to non-recovery o) attorney3s )ees !y nonla4yers+ cannot !e circu vented 4hen the services 4ere purely legal$ !y see8ing to recover as an 2agent2 and not as an attorney. 11

The 4eight o) the reasons hereto)ore stated 4hy a non-la4yer ay not !e a4arded attorney3s )ees should su))ice to re)ute the possi!le argu ent that appearances !y nonla4yers !e)ore the /ourt o) Industrial Relations should !e e?cepted on the ground that said court is a court o) special <urisdiction9 such special <urisdiction does not 4eigh the a)oresaid reasons and cannot <usti)y an e?ception. The other issue in this case is 4hether or not a union ay appeal an a4ard o) attorney3s )ees 4hich are deducti!le )ro the !ac8pay o) so e o) its e !ers. This issue arose !ecause it 4as the union PA:LU$ alone$ that oved )or an e?tension o) ti e to )ile the present petition )or revie49 union e !ers Entila and Tena@as did not as8 )or e?tension !ut they 4ere included as petitioners in the present petition that 4as su!se1uently )iled$ it !eing contended that$ as to the *Entila and Tena@as+$ their inclusion in the petition as copetitioners 4as !elated.

Ce hold that a union or legiti ate la!or organi@ation ay appeal an a4ard o) attorney3s )ees 4hich are deducti!le )ro the !ac8pay o) its e !ers !ecause such union or la!or

organi@ation is per itted to institute an action in the industrial court$ 12 on !ehal) o) its e !ers9 and the union 4as organi@ed 2)or the pro otion o) the e loyees3 oral$ social and econo ic 4ell-!eing29 13 hence$ i) an a4ard is disadvantageous to its e !ers$ the union ay prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party$ under Section .$ Repu!lic Act D&'$ 4hich provides7
Sec. .. @nfair 3abor 2ractice cases = Appeals. = Any person aggrieved !y any order o) the /ourt ay appeal to the Supre e /ourt o) the Philippines ...$ since ore o)ten than not the individual unionist is not in a position to !ear the )inancial !urden o) litigations. Petitioners allege that respondent Muning is engaged in the ha!itual practice o) la4 !e)ore the /ourt o) Industrial Relations$ and any o) the li8e hi 4ho are not licensed to practice$ registering their appearances as 2representatives2 and appearing daily !e)ore the said court. I) true$ this is a serious situation de anding corrective action that respondent court should actively pursue and en)orce !y positive action to that purpose. (ut since this atter 4as not !rought in issue !e)ore the court a %uo$ it ay not !e ta8en up in the present case. Petitioners$ ho4ever$ ay )ile proper action against the persons alleged to !e illegally engaged in the practice o) la4. CAERE:ORE$ the orders under revie4 are here!y set aside inso)ar as they a4arded %>R o) the !ac84ages as attorney3s )ees )or respondent Fuintin Muning. Said orders are a))ir ed in all other respects. /osts against respondent Muning.

n re+ david

Respondent was suspended for bad practices in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer for a period of five years from the November 9, 1949. The defendant admits this suspension in `his written report filed on March 17, 1951, yet he continued to exercise the profession within the period of suspension, November 9, 1949 to November 8, 1954. On Feb 28 1950 the respondent file a claim in the case of Tan Tek vs Sy not as a lawyer but as an agent. (For and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy) CFI decided in favor of Tan Tek, subsequently Atty Felix David filed a motion for execution. In another civil case of the CFI called Malayan Saw Mill, Inc vs Tolentino, defendant filed a brief for an order to demolish homes. In order - says the appeal - to show That I did not Have the intention to disregard the suspension of the Supreme Court, I did not With The Knowledge of Tan Tek Identified Sy Even myself as the attorney for the Appelles But In Good Faith, I signed for and in Behalf of the appellee Without Designating That I am Practicing as attorney-at-law. ISSUE: Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is tantamount to practice of law. HELD: Yes. Neither can he allow his name to appear in such pleading by itself or as part of firm name under the signature of another qualified lawyer because the signature of an agent amounts to signing of a non-qualified senator or congressman, the office of an attorney being originally an agency, and because he will, by such act, be appearing in court or quasijudicial or administrative body in violation of the constitutional restriction. He cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits directly.

9.R. No. '-1333

Ma& 34, 1921

7(R"INAN" (. MARC)/ an+ MAN:(' C)NC)R"IA, petitioners$ vs. C6I(7 )7 /0A77, ARM(" 7)RC(/ )7 06( P6I'IPPIN(/, (0 A'., respondents. ?---------------------------------------------------------? 9.R. No. '-1371 Ma& 34, 1921

MAN:(' A. C)NC)R"IA an+ 7(R"INAN" (. MARC)/, petitioners$ vs. C6I(7 )7 /0A77, ARM(" 7)RC(/ )7 06( P6I'IPPIN(/, (0 A'., respondents. 2etitioners in their own behalf. 0udge Ad(ocate >eneral $red uiz )astro and 3eonardo 7(RIA, J.: These are t4o special civil actions o) mandamus instituted !y the sa e petitioners against the respondents ,eneral /ourt-Martials co posed each o) di))erent e !ers or o))icers o) the Philippine Ar y$ in 4hich it is alleged that the respondents Military Tri!unals e?cluded unla4)ully the petitioners )ro the en<oy ent o) their right to appear as counsel )or the accused prosecuted !e)ore said tri!unals$ to 4hich the petitioners are entitled !ecause they are attorneys duly ad itted to practice la4 in the Philippine /ourts$ on the ground that they are dis1uali)ied or inhi!ited !y section %&$ Article %& o) the /onstitution to appear as counsel )or said de)endants. Said Section %& reads as )ollo4s7
SE/. %&. No Senator or Me !er o) the Aouse o) Representatives shall directly or indirectly !e )inancially interested in any contract 4ith the ,overn ent or any su!division or instru entality thereo)$ or in any )ranchise or special privilege granted !y the /ongress during his ter o) o))ice. Ae shall not appear as counsel !e)ore the Electoral Tri!unals or !e)ore any court in any civil case 4herein the ,overn ent or any su!division or instru entality thereo) is the adverse party$ or in any cri inal case 4herein an o))er or e ployee o) the ,overn ent is accused o) an o))ense co itted in relation to his o))ice. . . ..

. 3ucena for respondents.

The only 1uestion )or this /ourt to deter ine in these t4o cases is 4hether the prohi!ition contained in the a!ove 1uoted section %& o) our /onstitution is applica!le to the petitioners. Ce are o) the opinion and there)ore hold that it is applica!le$ !ecause the 4ords 2any court2 includes the ,eneral /ourt-Martial$ and a court- artial case is a cri inal case 4ithin the eaning o) the a!ove 1uoted provisions o) our /onstitution. It is o!vious that the 4ords 2any court$2 used in prohi!iting e !ers o) /ongress to appear as counsel 2in any cri inal case in 4hich an o))icer or e ployee o) the ,overn ent is accused o) an o))ense co itted in relation to his o))ice$2 re)ers$ not only to a civil$ !ut also to a ilitary court or a /ourt-Martial. (ecause$ in construing a /onstitution$ 2it ust !e ta8en as esta!lished that 4here 4ords are used 4hich have !oth a restricted and a general eaning$ the general ust prevail over the restricted unless the nature o) the su!<ect atter o) the conte?t clearly indicates that the li ited sense is intended.2 *%% A erican 5urisprudence$ pp. .D>-.D"+. In the case o) amon uffy (s. )hief of !taff of the 2hilippine Army' S 6; O)). ,a@.$ D''$ 4e did not hold that the 4ord 2court2 in general used in our /onstitution does not include a /ourt-Martial9 4hat 4e held is that the 4ords 2in)erior courts2 used in connection 4ith the appellate <urisdiction o) the Supre e /ourt to 2revie4 on appealcertiorari or 4rit o) error$ as the la4 or rules o) court ay provide$ )inal <udg ents o) inferior courts in all cri inal cases in 4hich the penalty i posed is death or li)e i prison ent$2 as provided )or in section "$ Article PIII$ o) the /onstitution$ do not re)er to /ourts-Martial or Military /ourts. Cinthrop3s Military La4 and Precedents$ 1uoted !y the petitioners and !y this /ourt in the case o) amon uffy et al (s. )hief of !taff of the 2hilippine Army' supra $ has to say in this connection the )ollo4ing7
Not4ithstanding that the court- artial is only an instru entality o) the e?ecutive po4er having no relation or connection$ in la4$ 4ith the <udicial esta!lish ents o) the country$ it is yet$ so )ar as it is a court at all$ and 4ithin its )ield o) action$ as )ully a court o) la4 and <ustice as is any civil tri!unal. As a court o) la4$ it is !ound$ li8e any court$ !y the )unda ental principles o) la4$ and$ in the a!sence o) special provision o) the su!<ect in the ilitary code$ it o!serves in general the rules o) evidence as adopted in the co on-la4 courts. As a court o) <ustice$ it is re1uired !y the ter s o) its statutory oath$ *art. D6.+ to ad<udicate !et4een the U.S. an the accused 24ithout partiality$ )avor$ or a))ection$2 and according$ not only to the la4s and custo s o) the service$ !ut to its 2conscience$2 i.e. its sense o) su!stantial right and <ustice una))ected !y technicalities. In the 4ords o) the Attorney ,eneral$ court- artial are thus$ 2in the strictest sense courts o) <ustice. *Cinthrop3s Military La4 and Precedents$ Pol. % and "$ "nd Ed.$ p. '6.+

In re (ogart$ ; :ed. /as.$ &#.$ D>%$ citing . Op. Attys. ,en. 6"'$ 4ith approval$ the court said7

In the language o) Attorney ,eneral /ushing$ a court- artial is a la4)ul tri!unal e?isting !y the sa e authority that any other e?ists !y$ and the la4 ilitary is a !ranch o) la4 as valid as any other$ and it di))ers )ro the general la4 o) the land in authority only in this7 that it applies to o))icers and soldiers o) the ar y !ut not to other e !ers o) the !ody politic$ and that it is li ited to !reaches o) ilitary duty.

And in re 0avison$ "% :. .%D$ .">$ it 4as held7

That court- artial are la4)ul tri!unals e?isting !y the sa e authority as civil courts o) the United States$ have the sa e plenary <urisdiction in o))enses !y the la4 ilitary as the latter courts have in controversies 4ithin their cogni@ance$ and in their special and ore li ited sphere are entitled to as untra eled an e?ercise o) their po4ers.

And lastly$ A erican 5urisprudence says7

SE/. ##. epresentation by )ounsel. = It is the general rule that one accused o) the cri e has the right to !e represented !e)ore the court !y counsel$ and this is e?pressly so declared !y the statues controlling the procedure in court- artial. It has !een held that a constitutional provision e?tending that right to one accused in any trial in any court 4hatever applies to a court-martial and gives the accused the undenia!le right to de)end !y counsel$ and that a court- artial has no po4er to re)use an attorney the right to appear !e)ore it i) he is properly licensed to practice in the courts o) the state. */iting the case o) State e? rel Au))a8er (s. /ros!y$ "6 Nev. %%'$ '> Pac. %"&9 ;. A erican 5urisprudence "';+

The )act that a <udg ent o) conviction$ not o) ac1uittal$ rendered !y a court- artial ust !e approved !y the revie4ing authority !e)ore it can !e e?ecuted *Article o) Car 6.+$ does not change or a))ect the character o) a court- artial as a court. A <udg ent o) the /ourt o) :irst Instance i posing death penalty ust also !e approved !y the Supre e /ourt !e)ore it can !e e?ecuted. That court- artial cases are cri inal cases 4ithin the eaning o) Section %&$ Article PI$ o) the /onstitution is also evident$ !ecause the cri es and isde eanors )or!idden or punished !y the Articles o) Car are o))enses against the Repu!lic o) the Philippines. According to section %$ Rule %>.$ o) the Rules o) /ourt$ a cri inal action or case is one 4hich involves a 4rong or in<ury done to the Repu!lic$ )or the punish ent o) 4hich the o))ender is prosecuted in the na e o) the People o) the Philippines9 and pursuant to Article o) Car %&$ 2the trial advocate o) a general or special court- artial shall prosecute *the accused+ in the na e o) the People o) the Philippines.2 Cinthtrop$ in his 4ell 8no4n 4or8 2Military La4 and Precedents3 says the )ollo4ing7
In regard to the class o) courts to 4hich it !elongs$ it is lastly to !e noted that the court- artial is strictly a cri inal court. It has no civil <urisdiction 4hatever9 cannot en)orce a contract$ collect a de!t$ or a4ard da ages in )avor o) an individual. . . . Its <udg ent is a cri inal sentence not a civil verdict9 its proper )unction is to a4ard

punish ent upon the ascertain ent o) guilt. *Cinthrop3s Military La4 and Precedents$ Pols. % O "$ "nd Ed.$ p. ''.+ In N. B. it 4as held that the ter 2cri inal case$2 used in the clause$ ust !e allo4ed so e eaning$ and none can !e conceived$ other than a prosecution )or a cri inal o))ense. E? parte /arter. .. S. C. '6>$ '66$ %.. No. .>6$ '& L.R.A. .'6$ 1uoting People vs. Helly$ "6 N.B. &69 /ounsel an vs. Aitchcoc8$ %" S. /t. %#'9 %6" U.S. '6&$ L. Ed. %%%o. *Cords and Phrases$ Pol. %>$ p. 6D'.+

(esides$ that a court- artial is a court$ and the prosecution o) an accused !e)ore it is a cri inal and not an ad inistrative case$ and there)ore it 4ould !e$ under certain conditions$ a !ar to another prosecution o) the de)endant )or the sa e o))ense$ !ecause the latter 4ould place the accused in <eopardy$ is sho4n !y the decision o) the Supre e /ourt o) the United States in the case o) ,ra)ton (s. United States$ ">. U. S. ;;;9 '% La4. Ed.$ %>DD$ %>#"$ in 4hich the )ollo4ing 4as held7
I) a court- artial has <urisdiction to try an o))icer or soldier )or a cri e$ its <udg ent 4ill !e accorded the )inality and conclusiveness as to the issues involved 4hich attend the <udg ent o) a civil court in a case o) 4hich it ay legally ta8e cogni@ance9 and restricting our decision to the a!ove 1uestion o) dou!le <eopardy$ 4e <udge that$ consistently 4ith the a!ove act o) %#>"$ and )or the reasons stated$ the plainti)) in error$ a soldier in the Ar y$ having !een ac1uitted o) the cri e o) ho icide$ alleged to have !een co itted !y hi in the Philippines$ !y a ilitary court o) co petent <urisdiction$ proceeding under the authority o) the United States$ could not !e su!se1uently tried )or the sa e o))ense in a civil court e?ercising authority in that territory.

:urther ore$ ta8ing into consideration the apparent intention or purpose o) the )ra ers o) our /onstitution in enacting section %&$ Article PI o) the Philippine /onstitution$ it is o!vious that there e?ist the sa e i) not ore reason )or prohi!iting the appearance o) e !ers o) the Senate and the Aouse o) Representatives as counsel )or the accused in court- artial$ as )or inhi!iting the to appear as such in civil courts$ !ecause the independence o) civil court3s <udges is guaranteed !y our /onstitution. @bi eadem ibi eadem le&. Chere)ore$ as the petitioners are dis1uali)ied to appear as counsel )or the accused in court- artial$ the respondents did not unla4)ully e?clude the )ro the en<oy ent o) any right$ and hence the petitions )ormandamus in these t4o cases are denied 4ith costs against the petitioners.

[A.M. No. P-99-1287. January 26, 2001]

OFFICE OF THE CO !T A"MINI#T!ATO!, complainant, vs. ATT$. MI#AE% M. %A"A&A, 'ran() C*+r, o- Cour., !+/0ona* Tr0a* Cour., 'ran() 111, Ma,a.0 C0.y, respondent. !E#O%
2AP NAN, J.3

TION

n a 8etter, dated 2ugust 9', '**:, respondent 2tty. Misael M. 8adaga, Branch #lerk of #ourt of the .egional Trial #ourt of Makati, Branch '99, re"uested the #ourt 2dministrator, ;ustice 2lfredo 8. Benipayo, for authority to appear as pro bono counsel of his cousin, <arcisa <aldo4a 8adaga, in #riminal #ase <o. :=::>, entitled 0 People vs. Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga1 for !alsification of $u%lic ?ocument pending %efore the Metropolitan Trial #ourt of @ue4on #ity, Branch =).A'B &hile respondent6s letter-re"uest was pending action, 8isa $ayoyo 2ndres, the private complainant in #riminal #ase <o. :=::>, sent a letter to the #ourt 2dministrator, dated 3eptem%er (, '**:, re"uesting for a certification with regard to respondent6s authority to appear as counsel for the accused in the said criminal case. A(B Cn 3eptem%er /, '**:, the Cffice of the #ourt 2dministrator referred the matter to respondent for comment.A9B n his #omment,A=B dated 3eptem%er '=, '**:, respondent admitted that he had appeared in #riminal #ase <o. :=::> without prior authori4ation. He reasoned out that the factual circumstances surrounding the criminal case compelled him to handle the defense of his cousin who did not have enough resources to hire the services of a counsel de parte7 while, on the other hand, private complainant was a mem%er of a powerful family who was out to get even with his cousin. !urthermore, he rationali4ed that his appearance in the criminal case did not prejudice his office nor the interest of the pu%lic since he did not take advantage of his position. n any case, his appearances in court were covered %y leave application approved %y the presiding judge. Cn ?ecem%er :, '**:, the #ourt issued a resolution denying respondent6s re"uest for authori4ation to appear as counsel and directing the Cffice of the #ourt 2dministrator to file formal charges against him for appearing in court without the re"uired authori4ation from the #ourt.A>B Cn ;anuary (>, '***, the #ourt 2dministrator filed the instant administrative complaint

against respondent for violating 3ec. /D%ED(E of .epu%lic 2ct <o. F/'9, otherwise known as the 0#ode of #onduct and Ethical 3tandards for $u%lic Cfficials and Employees,1 which provides+

3ec. /. $rohi%ited 2cts and Transactions. G n addition to acts and omissions of pu%lic officials and employees now prescri%ed in the #onstitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohi%ited acts and transactions of any pu%lic official and employee and are here%y declared to %e unlawful+
x x x

D%E Cutside employment and other activities related thereto.- $u%lic officials and employees during their incum%ency shall not+

D(E Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authori4ed %y the #onstitution or law, $rovided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions7
n our .esolution, dated !e%ruary *, '***, we re"uired respondent to comment on the administrative complaint. n his #omment, respondent explained that he and Ms. 8adaga are 0close %lood cousins1 who %elong to a 0powerless family1 from the impoverished town of Bacauag, 3urigao del <orte. !rom childhood until he finished his law degree, Ms. 8adaga had always supported and guided him while he looked up to her as a mentor and an adviser. Because of their close relationship, Ms. 8adaga sought respondent6s help and advice when she was charged in #riminal #ase <o. :=::> for falsification %y the private complainant, 8isa $ayoyo 2ndres, whose only purpose in filing the said criminal case was to 0seek vengeance1 on her cousin. He explained that his cousin6s discord with Ms. 2ndres started when the latter6s hus%and, 3$C= $edro 2ndres, left the conjugal home to coha%it with Ms. 8adaga. ?uring the course of their illicit affair, 3$C= 2ndres and Ms. 8adaga %egot three D9E children. The %irth certificate of their eldest child is the su%ject of the falsification charge against Ms. 8adaga. .espondent stated that since he is the only lawyer in their family, he felt it to %e his duty to accept Ms. 8adaga6s plea to %e her counsel since she did not have enough funds to pay for the services of a lawyer. .espondent also pointed out that in his seven D/E years of untainted government service, initially with the #ommission on Human .ights and now with the judiciary, he had performed his duties with honesty and integrity and that it was only in this particular case that he had %een administratively charged for extending a helping hand to a close relative %y giving a free legal assistance for 0humanitarian purpose.1 He never took advantage of his position as %ranch clerk of court since the "uestioned appearances were made in the Metropolitan Trial #ourt of @ue4on #ity and not in Makati where he is holding office. He stressed that during the hearings of the criminal case, he was on leave as shown %y his approved leave applications attached to his comment. n our .esolution, dated ;une ((, '***, we noted respondent6s comment and referred the administrative matter to the Executive ;udge of the .egional Trial #ourt of Makati, ;udge ;osefina ,uevarra-3alonga, for investigation, report and recommendation.

n her .eport, dated 3eptem%er (*, '***, ;udge 3alonga made the following findings and recommendation+

There is no "uestion that 2tty. Misael 8adaga appeared as counsel for and in %ehalf of his cousin, <arcisa <aldo4a 8adaga, an accused in #riminal #ase <o. :=-::> for 0!alsification of $u%lic ?ocuments1 %efore the MET# of @ue4on #ity. t is also denied that the appearance of said respondent in said case was without the previous permission of the #ourt. 2n examination of the records shows that during the occasions that the respondent appeared as such counsel %efore the MET# of @ue4on #ity, he was on official leave of a%sence. Moreover, his $residing ;udge, ;udge <apoleon noturan was aware of the case he was handling. That the respondent appeared as pro bonocounsel likewise cannot %e denied. His cousin-client <arcisa 8adaga herself positively declared that the respondent did not receive a single centavo from her. Helpless as she was and respondent %eing the only lawyer in the family, he agreed to represent her out of his compassion and high regard for her. t may not %e amiss to point out, this is the first time that respondent ever handled a case for a mem%er of his family who is like a %ig sister to him. He appeared for free and for the purpose of settling the case amica%ly. !urthermore, his $residing ;udge was aware of his appearance as counsel for his cousin. Cn top of this, during all the years that he has %een in government service, he has maintained his integrity and independence. .E#CMME<?2T C< n the light of the foregoing, it appearing that the respondent appeared as counsel for his cousin without first securing permission from the court, and considering that this is his first time to do it coupled with the fact that said appearance was not for a fee and was with the knowledge of his $residing ;udge, it is here%y respectfully recommended that he %e .E$. M2<?E? with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would %e dealt with more severely.AFB
&e agree with the recommendation of the investigating judge. .espondent is charged under 3ec. /D%ED(E of the #ode of #onduct and Ethical 3tandards for $u%lic Cfficials and Employees which prohi%its civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. 2 similar prohi%ition is found under 3ec. 9>, .ule '9: of the .evised .ules of #ourt which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their profession. The said section reads+

3E#. 9>. #ertain attorneys not to practice.- <o judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Cffice of the 3olicitor ,eneral, shall engage in private practice as a mem%er of the %ar or give professional advise to clients.
However, it should %e clarified that 0private practice1 of a profession, specifically the law profession in this case, which is prohi%ited, does not pertain to an isolated court appearance7 rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature ha%itually or customarily holding one6s self to the pu%lic as a lawyer. n the case of People vs. Villanueva,A/B we explained the meaning of the term 0private practice1 prohi%ited %y the said section, to wit+

&e %elieve that the isolated appearance of #ity 2ttorney !ule did not constitute private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the .ules. $ractice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in fre"uent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. n other words, it is fre"uent ha%itual exercise D3tate vs. #otner, '(/, p. ', :/ Han. :F=, =( 8.2, <.3. /F:E $ractice of law to fall within the prohi%ition of statute has %een interpreted as customarily or ha%itually holding one6s self out to the pu%lic, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services D3tate vs. Bryan, = 3.E. >((, *: <.#. F==, F=/E. The appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. The following o%servation of the 3olicitor ,eneral is noteworthy+ 0Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to %e in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are availa%le to the pu%lic for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services.1 !or one thing, it has never %een refuted that #ity 2ttorney !ule had %een given permission %y his immediate superior, the 3ecretary of ;ustice, to represent the complainant in the case at %ar, who is a relative. A:B
Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono counsel of his cousin in #riminal #ase <o. :=::> does not constitute the 0private practice1 of the law profession contemplated %y law. <onetheless, while respondent6s isolated court appearances did not amount to a private practice of law, he failed to o%tain a written permission therefor from the head of the ?epartment, which is this #ourt as re"uired %y 3ection '(, .ule IJ of the .evised #ivil 3ervice .ules, thus+

3ec. '(. No o--0(+r or +45*oy++ 6)a** +n/a/+ 70r+(.*y 0n any private %usiness, vocation, or 5ro-+660on or %e connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking 80.)ou. a 8r0..+n 5+r40660on -ro4 .)+ )+a7 o- .)+

"+5ar.4+n.+ Provided, That this prohi%ition will %e a%solute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and responsi%ilities re"uire that their entire time %e at the disposal of the ,overnment7 Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities, time so devoted outside of office hours should %e fixed %y the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee+ And provided, finally, That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made %y an officer or employee, which do not involve real or apparent conflict %etween his private interests and pu%lic duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or %ecome an officer of the %oard of directors. A*B
.espondent entered his appearance and attended court proceedings on numerous occasions, i.e., May =-'>, '**:, ;une ':, '**:, ;uly '9, '**: and 2ugust >, '**:, as %orne out %y his own admission. t is true that he filed leave applications corresponding to the dates he appeared in court. However, he failed to o%tain a prior permission from the head of the ?epartment. The presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not the head of the ?epartment contemplated %y law. 9HE!EFO!E, in view of the foregoing, respondent 2tty. Misael M. 8adaga is here%y .E$. M2<?E? with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would %e dealt with more severely. #O O!"E!E".

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila

EN BANC

!"I#! S$ !%A&!' Co-plaina nt,

A.M$ No$ -./0/1/SC :resent@

C8R8NA, C.J., CAR:>8, CAR:>8 M8RA<C5,

=C<A5C8, 9R., NACD+RA, <C8NARE8-EC CA57R8,

versus

#R>8N, :CRA<7A, #CR5AM>N, EC< CA57><<8, A#AE, =><<ARAMA, 9R., :CRCF, MCNE8FA, an*

(S#ICE )AN#E !$ #IN*A +Ret$,' Respon*ent .

5CRCN8, JJ.

:ro-ul,ate*@

Eece-ber , !313

1//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////1 )ECISI!N

BRI!N' J.:

#e'ore us is the *isbar-ent case a,ainst retire* 5upre-e Court Associate 9ustice Eante 8. 7in,a . respondent/ 'ile* b0 Mr. 9ovito 5. 8laGo .complainant/. 7he respon*ent is char,e* o' violatin, Rule 6.3!,H1I Rule 6.3(H!I an* Rule 1.31H(I o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0 'or representin, con'lictin, interests.

Factual Bac23round

>n March 1993, the co-plainant 'ile* a sales application coverin, a parcel o' lan* situate* in Barangay <ower #icutan in the Municipalit0 o' 7a,ui,. 7he lan* .subject land/ was previousl0 part o' $ort An*res #oni'acio that was se,re,ate* an* *eclare* open 'or *isposition pursuant to :rocla-ation No. !4 6, H4I issue* on 9anuar0 , 1986, an* :rocla-ation No. 1 !, H5I issue* on 8ctober 16, 198 .

7o i-ple-ent :rocla-ation No. 1 !, Me-oran*u- No. 119 was issue* b0 then C1ecutive 5ecretar0 Catalino Macarai,, creatin, a Co--ittee on Awar*s whose *ut0 was to stu*0, evaluate, an* -a%e a reco--en*ation on the applications to purchase the lan*s *eclare* open 'or *isposition. 7he Co--ittee on Awar*s was hea*e* b0 the Eirector o' <an*s an* the respon*ent was one o' the Co--ittee -e-bers, in his o''icial capacit0 as the Con,ress-an o' 7a,ui, an* :ateros .'ro- 198 to 1998/J the respon*ent&s *istrict inclu*es the areas covere* b0 the procla-ations.

The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02

>n

the

co-plaint,H6I the

co-plainant

clai-e*

that

the

respon*ent abuse* his position as Con,ress-an an* as a -e-ber o' the Co--ittee on Awar*s when he un*ul0 inter'ere* with the co-plainant&s sales application because o' his personal interest over the sub2ect lan*. 7he co-plainant alle,e* that the respon*ent e1erte* un*ue pressure an* in'luence over the co-plainant&s 'ather, Mi,uel :. 8laGo, 'or the latter to contest the co-plainant&s sales application an* clai- the sub2ect lan* 'or hi-sel'. 7he co-plainant also alle,e* that the respon*ent prevaile* upon Mi,uel 8laGo to accept, on various *ates, su-s o' -one0 as pa0-ent o' the latter&s alle,e* ri,hts over the sub2ect

lan*. 7he co-plainant 'urther clai-e* that the respon*ent bro%ere* the trans'er o' ri,hts o' the sub2ect lan* between Mi,uel 8laGo an* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG, who is the nephew o' the respon*ent&s *ecease* wi'e.

As a result o' the respon*ent&s abuse o' his o''icial 'unctions, the co-plainant&s sales application was *enie*. 7he conve0ance o' ri,hts to 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG an* his sales application were subse4uentl0 ,iven *ue course b0 the Eepart-ent o' Cnviron-ent an* Natural Resources .DENR/.

The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03

7he secon* char,e involves another parcel o' lan* within the proclai-e* areas belon,in, to Manuel 8laGo, the co-plainant&s brother. 7he co-plainant alle,e* that the respon*ent persua*e* Mi,uel 8laGo to *irect Manuel to conve0 his ri,hts over the lan* to 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG. As a result o' the respon*ent&s pro-ptin,s, the ri,hts to the lan* were trans'erre* to 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG.

>n a**ition, the co-plainant alle,e* that in Ma0 1999, the respon*ent -et with Manuel 'or the purpose o' nulli'0in, the conve0ance o' ri,hts over the lan* to 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG.

7he co-plainant clai-e* that the respon*ent wante* the ri,hts over the lan* trans'erre* to one Rolan*o 8laGo, the Barangay Chair-an o' Da,ono0, 7a,ui,. 7he respon*ent in this re,ar* e1ecute* an "Assurance) where he state* that he was the law0er o' Ra-on <ee an* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG.

The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01

7he co-plainant alle,e* that the respon*ent en,a,e* in unlaw'ul con*uct consi*erin, his %nowle*,e that 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG was not a 4uali'ie* bene'iciar0 un*er Me-oran*u- No. 119. 7he co-plainant averre* that 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG is not a bona fide resi*ent o' the proclai-e* areas an* *oes not 4uali'0 'or an awar*. 7hus, the approval o' his sales application b0 the Co--ittee on Awar*s a-ounte* to a violation o' the ob2ectives o' :rocla-ation No. 1 ! an* Me-oran*u- No. 119.

7he co-plainant also alle,e* that the respon*ent violate* 5ection .b/.!/ o' the Co*e o' Con*uct an* Cthical 5tan*ar*s 'or :ublic 8''icials an* C-plo0ees or Republic Act . R.A./ No. 6 1( since he en,a,e* in the practice o' law, within the one-0ear prohibition perio*, when he appeare* as a law0er 'or Ra-on <ee an* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG be'ore the Co--ittee on Awar*s.

>n his Co--ent,H I the respon*ent clai-e* that the present co-plaint is the thir* -alicious char,e 'ile* a,ainst hi- b0 the co-plainant. 7he 'irst one was sub-itte* be'ore the 9u*icial an* #ar Council when he was no-inate* as an Associate 9ustice o' the 5upre-e CourtJ the secon* co-plaint is now pen*in, with the 8''ice o' the 8-bu*s-an, 'or alle,e* violation o' 5ection (.e/ an* .i/ o' R.A. No. (319, as a-en*e*. ;ith his own supportin, *ocu-ents, the respon*ent

presente* a *i''erent version o' the antece*ent events.

7he respon*ent asserte* that Mi,uel 8laGo owne* the ri,hts over the sub2ect lan* an* he later conve0e* these ri,hts to 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG. Mi,uel 8laGo&s ri,hts over the sub2ect lan* an* the trans'er o' his ri,hts to 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG were *ul0 reco,niGe* b0 the 5ecretar0 o' the ECNR be'ore who- the con'lict o' ri,hts over the sub2ect lan* .between Mi,uel 8laGo an* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG, on one han*, an* the co-plainant on the other han*/ was brou,ht. >n its *ecision, the ECNR 'oun* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG a 4uali'ie* applicant, an* his application over the sub2ect lan* was ,iven *ue course. 7he respon*ent e-phasiGe* that the ECNR *ecision is now 'inal an* e1ecutor0. >t was a''ir-e* b0 the 8''ice o' the :resi*ent, b0 the Court o' Appeals an* b0 the 5upre-e Court.

7he respon*ent also a*vance* the 'ollowin, *e'enses@

.1/ De *enie* the co-plainant&s alle,ation that Mi,uel 8laGo tol* hi- .co-plainant/ that the respon*ent ha* been orchestratin, to ,et the sub2ect lan*. 7he respon*ent ar,ue* that this alle,ation was without corroboration an* was *ebun%e* b0 the a''i*avits o' Mi,uel 8laGo an* $rancisca 8laGo, the co-plainant&s sister.

.!/ De *enie* the co-plainant&s alle,ation that he o''ere* the co-plainant :53,333.33 'or the sub2ect lan* an* that he .the respon*ent/ ha* e1erte* un*ue pressure an* in'luence on Mi,uel 8laGo to clai- the ri,hts over the sub2ect lan*. 7he respon*ent also *enie* that he ha* an inor*inate interest in the sub2ect lan*.

.(/ De clai-e* that there was nothin, wron, in si,nin, as a witness in Mi,uel 8laGo&s a''i*avit where the latter asserte* his ri,hts over the sub2ect lan*. 7he a''i*avit -erel0 atteste* to the truth.

.4/ De asserte* that he an* Mi,uel 8laGo were cousins an* that the latter *eci*e* to sell his ri,hts over the sub2ect lan* 'or the -e*ical treat-ent o' his heart con*ition an* the illness o' his *au,hter, $rancisca 8laGo. 7he

respon*ent insiste* that the -one0 he e1ten*e* to thewas a 'or- o' loan.

.5/ 7he

respon*ent&s

participation

in

the

transaction

between Mi,uel 8laGo an* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG involve* the pa0-ent o' the loan that the respon*ent e1ten*e* to Mi,uel 8laGo.

.6/ Manuel&s

belate*

an*

secon*han* *ate*

alle,ation !3,

in

his Sinumpaang

Salaysay,

9anuar0

!333,

re,ar*in, what his 'ather tol* hi-, cannot prevail over his earlier Sinumpaang Salaysay with $rancisca 8laGo, *ate* Au,ust !, 199 . >n the sai* Sinumpaang Salaysay, Manuel cate,oricall0 asserte* that his 'ather Mi,uel 8laGo, not the co-plainant, was the 'ar-er-bene'iciar0. Manuel also e1presse* his a,ree-ent to the trans'er o' ri,hts . agpapatibay Sa 'ather&s application aglilipat Ng !arapatan / in 'avor o' to ,ive wa0 to 9oseph 9e''re0

9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG, an* the with*rawal o' his Ro*ri,ueG&s application.

. / 7he co-plainant&s alle,ation that the respon*ent ha* pressure* an* in'luence* Mi,uel 8laGo to sell the sub2ect lan* was not su''icient as it was lac%in, in speci'icit0 an*

corroboration. 7he ECNR *ecision was clear that the co-plainant ha* no ri,hts over the sub2ect lan*.

7he respon*ent a**itionall0 *enie* violatin, Rule 1.31 o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0. De alle,e* that *urin, his thir* ter- as Con,ress-an 'ro- 1995 to 199 , the con'lictin, applications o' the co-plainant, Mi,uel 8laGo an* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG were not inclu*e* in the a,en*a 'or *eliberation o' the Co--ittee on Awar*s. Rather, their con'lictin, clai-s an* their respective supportin, *ocu-ents were be'ore the 8''ice o' the Re,ional Eirector, NCR o' the ECNR. 7his o''ice rule* over the con'lictin, clai-s onl0 on Au,ust !, !333. 7his rulin, beca-e the basis o' the *ecision o' the 5ecretar0 o' the ECNR.

5i-ilarl0, the respon*ent cannot be hel* liable un*er Rule 6.3! o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0 since the provision applies to law0ers in the ,overn-ent service who are allowe* b0 law to en,a,e in private law practice an* to those who, thou,h prohibite* 'ro- en,a,in, in the practice o' law, have 'rien*s, 'or-er associates an* relatives who are in the active practice o' law.H8I>n this re,ar*, the respon*ent ha* alrea*0 co-plete* his thir* ter- in Con,ress an* his stint in the Co--ittee on Awar*s when he represente* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG on Ma0 !4, 1999.

<astl0, the respon*ent clai-e* that he cannot be hel* liable un*er Rule 6.3( o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0 since he *i* not intervene in the *isposition o' the con'lictin, applications o' the co-plainant an* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG because the applications were not sub-itte* to the Co--ittee on Awar*s when he was still a -e-ber.

#he Court4s Rulin3

Kenerall0, a law0er who hol*s a ,overn-ent o''ice -a0 not be *iscipline* as a -e-ber o' the #ar 'or -iscon*uct in the *ischar,e o' his *uties as a ,overn-ent o''icial. H9I De -a0 be *iscipline* b0 this Court as a -e-ber o' the #ar onl0 when his -iscon*uct also constitutes a violation o' his oath as a law0er. H13I

7he issue in this case calls 'or a *eter-ination o' whether the respon*ent&s actions constitute a breach o' the stan*ar* ethical con*uct L 'irst, while the respon*ent was still an elective public o''icial an* a -e-ber o' the Co--ittee on Awar*sJ an* secon*, when he was no lon,er a public o''icial, but a private law0er who represente* a client be'ore the o''ice he was previousl0 connecte* with.

A'ter a care'ul evaluation o' the plea*in,s 'ile* b0 both parties an* their respective pieces o' evi*ence, we resolve to *is-iss the a*-inistrative co-plaint.

Accounta ilit! of a go"ern#ent la$!er in %u lic office

#anon F of the #ode of $rofessional .esponsi%ility highlights the continuing standard of ethical conduct to %e o%served %y government lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. n addition to the standard of conduct laid down under ..2. <o. F/'9 for government employees, a lawyer in the government service is o%liged to o%serve the standard of conduct under the #ode of $rofessional .esponsi%ility. 3ince pu%lic office is a pu%lic trust, the ethical conduct demanded upon lawyers in the government service is more exacting than the standards for those in private practice. 8awyers in the government service are su%ject to constant pu%lic scrutiny under norms of pu%lic accounta%ility. They also %ear the heavy %urden of having to put aside their private interest in favor of the interest of the pu%lic7 their private activities should not interfere with the discharge of their official functions.
A''B

7he 'irst char,e involves a violation o' Rule 6.3! o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0. >t i-poses the 'ollowin, restrictions in the con*uct o' a ,overn-ent law0er@

2 lawyer in the government service shall not use his pu%lic position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his pu%lic duties.

7he above provision prohibits a law0er 'ro- usin, his or her public position to@ .1/ pro-ote private interestsJ .!/ a*vance private interestsJ or .(/ allow private interest to inter'ere with his or her public *uties. ;e previousl0 hel* that the restriction e5tends to all 3o6ernment la78ers who use their public o''ices to pro-ote their private interests. H1!I

>n "uyssen #. $utierre%,H1(I we *e'ine* pro-otion o' private interest to inclu*e solicitin, ,i'ts or an0thin, o' -onetar0 value in an0 transaction re4uirin, the approval o' his or her o''ice, or -a0 be a''ecte* b0 the 'unctions o' his or her o''ice. >n Ali #. Bubong,
H14I

we reco,niGe* that private interest is not li-ite* to *irect

interest, but e1ten*s to a*vancin, the interest o' relatives. ;e also rule* that private interest inter'eres with public *ut0 when the respon*ent uses the o''ice an* his or her %nowle*,e o' the intricacies o' the law to bene'it relatives. H15I

>n &itriolo #. Dasig,H16I we 'oun* the act o' the respon*ent .an o''icial o' the Co--ission on Di,her C*ucation/ o' e1tortin, -one0 'ro- persons with applications or re4uests pen*in, be'ore her o''ice to be a serious breach o' Rule 6.3! o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0.H1 I ;e reache* the sa-e conclusion in "uyssen, where we 'oun* the respon*ent .an e-plo0ee o'

the#ureau o' >--i,ration an* Eeportation/ liable un*er Rule 6.3! o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0, base* on the evi*ence showin, that he *e-an*e* -one0 'ro- the co-plainant who ha* a pen*in, application 'or visas be'ore his o''ice.H18I 5i-ilarl0, in 'goy #. SorianoH19I we 'oun* the respon*ent .a Court Attorne0 o' this Court/ liable 'or violatin, Rule 6.3! o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0, a'ter consi*erin, the evi*ence showin, that he *e-an*e* an* receive* -one0 'rothe co-plainant who ha* a pen*in, case be'ore this Court.

Appl0in, these le,al precepts to the 'acts o' the case, we 'in* the absence o' an0 concrete proo' that the respon*ent abuse* his position as a Con,ress-an an* as a -e-ber o' the Co--ittee on Awar*s in the -anner *e'ine* un*er Rule 6.3! o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0.

(irst, the recor*s *o not clearl0 show i' the co-plainant&s sales application was ever brou,ht be'ore the Co--ittee on Awar*s. #0 the co-plaint&s own account, the co-plainant 'ile* a sales application in March 1993 be'ore the <an* Mana,e-ent #ureau. #0 1996, the co-plainant&s sales application was pen*in, be'ore the 8''ice o' the Re,ional Eirector, NCR o' the ECNR *ue to the con'lictin, clai-s o' Mi,uel 8laGo, an*, subse4uentl0, o' 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG. 7he recor*s show that it was onl0 on Au,ust !, !333 that the 8''ice o' the Re,ional

Eirector, NCR o' the ECNR ren*ere* its *ecision, or a'ter the tero' the respon*ent&s elective public o''ice an* -e-bership to the Co--ittee on Awar*s, which e1pire* in 199 .

7hese circu-stances *o not show that the respon*ent *i* in an0 wa0 pro-ote, a*vance or use his private interests in the *ischar,e o' his o''icial *uties. 7o repeat, since the sales application was not brou,ht be'ore the Co--ittee on Awar*s when the respon*ent was still a -e-ber, no su''icient basis e1ists to conclu*e that he use* his position to obtain personal bene'its. ;e note in this re,ar* that the *enial o' the co-plainant&s sales application over the sub2ect lan* was -a*e b0 the ECNR, not b0 the Co--ittee on Awar*s. Second, the co-plainant&s alle,ation that the respon*ent "orchestrate*) the e''orts to ,et the sub2ect lan* *oes not speci'0 how the orchestration was un*erta%en. ;hat appears clear in the recor*s is the uncorroborate* Sinumpaang Salaysay o' Mi,uel 8laGo, *ate* Ma0 !5, !33(,H!3I cate,oricall0 statin, that the respon*ent ha* no interest in the sub2ect lan*, an* neither was he a contractin, part0 in the trans'er o' his ri,hts over the sub2ect lan*. >n the absence o' an0 speci'ic char,e, 8laGo&s *isclai-er is the nearest relevant state-ent on the respon*ent&s alle,e* participation, an* we 'in* it to be in the respon*ent&s 'avor.

)*ird, the other *ocu-ents e1ecute* b0 Mi,uel 8laGo, that the co-plainant presente* to support his clai- that the respon*ent e1erte* un*ue pressure an* in'luence over his 'ather .na-el0@ the letter, *ate* 9une !!, 1996, to the ECNR Re,ional Eirector-NCRJH!1I the Sinumpaang Salaysay *ate* 9ul0 1!, 1996J
H!!I

an* the Sinumpaang Salaysay *ate* 9ul0 1 , 1996H!(I/, *o not

contain an0 re'erence to the alle,e* pressure or 'orce e1erte* b0 the respon*ent over Mi,uel 8laGo. 7he *ocu-ents -erel0 showe* that the respon*ent helpe* Mi,uel 8laGo in havin, his 'ar- lots .covere* b0 the proclai-e* areas/ surve0e*. 7he0 also showe* that the respon*ent -erel0 acte* as a witness in the Sinumpaang Salaysay *ate* 9ul0 1 , 1996. 7o our -in*, there are neutral acts that -a0 be ren*ere* b0 one relative to another, an* *o not show how the respon*ent coul* have in'luence* the *ecision o' Mi,uel 8laGo to contest the co-plainant&s sales application. At the sa-e ti-e, we cannot ,ive an0 cre*it to the Sinumpaang Salaysay, *ate* 9anuar0 !3, !333, o' Manuel. 7he0 are not onl0 hearsa0 but are contrar0 to what Mi,uel 8laGo states on the recor*. ;e note that Manuel ha* no personal %nowle*,e, other than what Mi,uel 8laGo tol* hi-, o' the 'orce alle,e*l0 e1erte* b0 the respon*ent a,ainst Mi,uel 8laGo.

>n turn, the respon*ent was able to provi*e a satis'actor0 e1planation - bac%e* b0 corroboratin, evi*ence - o' the nature o' the transaction in which he ,ave the various su-s o' -one0 to Mi,uel 8laGo an* $rancisca 8laGo in the 0ear 1995. >n her

a''i*avits *ate* Ma0 !5, !33(H!4I an* 9ul0 !1, !313,H!5I $rancisca 8laGo corroborate* the respon*ent&s clai- that the su-s o' -one0 he e1ten*e* to her an* Mi,uel 8laGo were loans use* 'or their -e*ical treat-ent. Mi,uel 8laGo, in his Sinumpaang Salaysay *ate* Ma0 !5, !33(, asserte* that so-e o' the -one0 borrowe* 'ro- the respon*ent was use* 'or his -e*ical treat-ent an* hospitaliGation e1penses.

7he a''i*avit o' 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG 'urther corroborate* the respon*ent&s clai- that the latter&s involve-ent was li-ite* to bein, pai* the loans he ,ave to Mi,uel 8laGo an* $rancisca 8laGo. Accor*in, to 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG, he an* Mi,uel 8laGo a,ree* that a portion o' the loan woul* be *irectl0 pai* b0 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG to the respon*ent an* the a-ount pai* woul* be consi*ere* as part o' the purchase price o' the sub2ect lan*. H!6I

>t also bears stressin, that a 'acial co-parison o' the *ocu-entar0 evi*ence, speci'icall0 the *ates when the su-s o' -one0 were e1ten*e* b0 the respon*ent L on $ebruar0 !1, 1995, 5epte-ber !, 1995 an* 8ctober 1 , 1995, an* the *ate when the Eee* o' Conve0anceH! I over the sub2ect lan* was e1ecute* or on 8ctober !5, 1995, showe* that the su-s o' -one0 were e1ten*e* prior to the trans'er o' ri,hts over the sub2ect lan*. 7hese pieces o' evi*ence are consistent with the respon*ent&s alle,ation that Mi,uel 8laGo *eci*e* to sell his ri,hts over the sub2ect lan* to pa0

the loans he obtaine* 'ro- the respon*ent an*, also, to 'inance his continuin, -e*ical treat-ent.

&ri"ate %ractice of la$ after se%aration fro# %u lic office

As

proo'

that

the

respon*ent

was

en,a,e*

in

an

unauthoriGe* practice o' law a'ter his separation 'ro- the ,overn-ent service, the co-plainant presente* the Sinumpaang Salaysay, *ate* 9anuar0 !3, !333, o' Manuel an* the *ocu-ent entitle* "Assurance) where the respon*ent le,all0 represente* Ra-on <ee an* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG. Nevertheless, the 'ore,oin, pieces o' evi*ence 'ail to persua*e us to conclu*e that there was a violation o' Rule 6.3( o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0.

>n Cayetano #. +onsod,H!8I we *e'ine* the practice o' law as an0 activit0, in an* out o' court, that re4uires the application o' law, le,al proce*ure, %nowle*,e, trainin, an* e1perience. Moreover, we rule* that to en,a,e in the practice o' law is to per'or- those acts which are characteristics o' the pro'essionJ to practice law is to ,ive notice or ren*er an0 %in* o' service, which

*evice or service re4uires the use in an0 *e,ree o' le,al %nowle*,e or s%ill.

+n*er the circu-stances, the 'ore,oin, *e'inition shoul* be correlate* with R.A. No. 6 1( an* Rule 6.3( o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0 which i-pose certain restrictions on ,overn-ent law0ers to en,a,e in private practice a'ter their separation 'ro- the service.

5ection .b/.!/ o' R.A. No. 6 1( rea*s@

Section '. &rohi ited Acts and Transactions. M >n a**ition to acts an* o-issions o' public o''icials an* e-plo0ees now prescribe* in the Constitution an* e1istin, laws, the 'ollowin, shall constitute prohibite* acts an* transactions o' an0 public o''icial an* e-plo0ee an* are hereb0 *eclare* to be unlaw'ul@

1 1 1 1

.b/ ,utside employment and ot*er acti#ities related t*ereto . L :ublic o''icials an* e-plo0ees *urin, their incu-benc0 shall not@

1 1 1 1

.!/ Cn,a,e in the private practice o' their pro'ession unless authoriGe* b0 the Constitution or law, provi*e*, that such practice will not con'lict or ten* to con'lict with their o''icial 'unctionsJ 1 1 1

7hese prohibitions shall continue to appl0 'or a perio* o' one .1/ 0ear a'ter resi,nation, retire-ent, or separation 'ro- public o''ice, e1cept in the case o' subpara,raph .b/ .!/ above, but the pro'essional concerne* cannot practice his pro'ession in connection with an0 -atter be'ore the o''ice he use* to be with, in which case the one-0ear prohibition shall li%ewise appl0.

As a rule, ,overn-ent law0ers are not allowe* to en,a,e in the private practice o' their pro'ession *urin, their incu-benc0.
H!9I

#0 wa0 o' e1ception, a ,overn-ent law0er can en,a,e in the o' his or the her private pro'ession practice un*er is the 'ollowin, b0 the authoriGe*

practice

con*itions@ first,

Constitution or b0 the lawJ an* second, the practice will not con'lict or ten* to con'lict with his or her o''icial 'unctions. H(3I 7he last para,raph o' 5ection provi*es an e1ception to the e1ception. >n case o' law0ers separate* 'ro- the ,overn-ent service who are covere* un*er subpara,raph .b/ .!/ o' 5ection o' R.A. No. 6 1(, a one-0ear prohibition is i-pose* to practice law in connection -it* any matter before t*e office *e used to be -it*

Rule 6.3( o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0 echoes this restriction an* prohibits law0ers, a'ter leavin, the

,overn-ent service, to accept en,a,e-ent or e-plo0-ent in connection with an0 -atter in which he ha* intervene* while in the sai* service. 7he %e0wor* in Rule 6.3( o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0 is the ter- "intervene) which we previousl0 interprete* to inclu*ean act o' a person who has the power to in'luence the procee*in,s. H(1I 8therwise state*, to 'all within the a-bit o' Rule 6.3( o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0, the respon*ent -ust have accepte* en,a,e-ent or e-plo0-ent in a -atter which, b0 virtue o' his public o''ice, he ha* previousl0 e1ercise* power to in'luence the outco-e o' the procee*in,s.

As the recor*s show, no evi*ence e1ists showin, that the respon*ent previousl0 inter'ere* with the sales application coverin, Manuel&s lan* when the 'or-er was still a -e-ber o' the Co--ittee on Awar*s. 7he co-plainant, too, 'aile* to su''icientl0 establish that the respon*ent was en,a,e* in the practice o' law. At 'ace value, the le,al service ren*ere* b0 the respon*ent was li-ite* onl0 in the preparation o' a sin,le *ocu-ent. >n Borja, Sr. #. Sulyap, 'nc.,H(!I we speci'icall0 *escribe* private practice o' law as one that conte-plates a succession o' acts o' the sa-e nature habituall0 or custo-aril0 hol*in, one&s sel' to the public as a law0er.

>n an0 event, even ,rantin, that respon*ent&s act 'ell within the *e'inition o' practice o' law, the available pieces o' evi*ence are insu''icient to show that the le,al representation was -a*e be'ore the Co--ittee on Awar*s, or that the Assurance was inten*e* to be presente* be'ore it. 7hese are -atters 'or the co-plainant to prove an* we cannot consi*er an0 uncertaint0 in this re,ar* a,ainst the respon*ent&s 'avor.

Violation of Rule 1.01

Rule 1.31 prohibits a law0er 'ro- en,a,in, in unlaw'ul, i--oral or *eceit'ul con*uct. $ro- the above *iscussion, we alrea*0 struc% *own the co-plainant&s alle,ation that respon*ent en,a,e* in an unauthoriGe* practice o' law when he appeare* as a law0er 'or Ra-on <ee an* 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG be'ore the Co--ittee on Awar*s.

;e 'in* that a si-ilar treat-ent shoul* be ,iven to the co-plainant&s clai- that the respon*ent violate* para,raph 4.1/
H((I

o' Me-oran*u- No. 119 when he encoura,e* the sales

application o' 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG *espite his %nowle*,e that his nephew was not a 4uali'ie* applicant. 7he -atter o' 9oseph 9e''re0 Ro*ri,ueG&s 4uali'ications to appl0 'or a sales application over lots covere* b0 the proclai-e* areas has been resolve* in the a''ir-ative b0 the 5ecretar0 o' the ECNR in the *ecision

*ate* April (, !334,H(4I when the ECNR ,ave *ue course to his sales application over the sub2ect lan*. ;e are, at this point, boun* b0 this 'in*in,.

As pointe* out b0 the respon*ent, the ECNR *ecision was a''ir-e* b0 the 8''ice o' the :resi*ent, the Court o' AppealsH(5Ian*, 'inall0, the Court, per our +inute Resolution, *ate* 8ctober 11, !336, in K.R. No. 1 (45(. >n our Resolution, we *is-isse* the petition 'or review on certiorari 'ile* b0 the co-plainant a'ter 'in*in,, a-on, others, that no reversible error was co--itte* b0 the Court o' Appeals in its *ecision. H(6I

All tol*, consi*erin, the serious conse4uences o' the penalt0 o' *isbar-ent or suspension o' a -e-ber o' the #ar, the bur*en rests on the co-plainant to present clear, convincin, an* satis'actor0 proo' 'or the Court to e1ercise its *isciplinar0 powers.
H( I

7he respon*ent ,enerall0 is un*er no obli,ation to prove

hisAher *e'ense,H(8I until the bur*en shi'ts to hi-Aher because o' what the co-plainant has proven. ;here no case has in the 'irst place been proven, nothin, has to be rebutte* in *e'ense. H(9I

;ith this in -in*, we resolve to *is-iss the a*-inistrative case a,ainst the respon*ent 'or the co-plainant&s 'ailure to prove b0 clear an* convincin, evi*ence that the 'or-er co--itte*

unethical in'ractions warrantin, the e1ercise o' the Court&s *isciplinar0 power.

9HEREF!RE,

pre-ises

consi*ere*,

we )ISMISS the

a*-inistrative case 'or violation o' Rule 6.3!, Rule 6.3( an* Rule 1.31 o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0, 'ile* a,ainst retire* 5upre-e Court Associate 9ustice Eante 8. 7in,a, 'or lac% o' -erit.

S! !R)ERE)$

() *A)C

PE#I#I!N F!R %EA"E #! RES(ME PRAC#ICE !F %A9'

#.M. No. 16 8

BEN AMIN M$ )ACANA:' Petitioner' :resent@ $K<C, .!., @K 3KMB <,,L M<2.E3-32<T 2,C, 32<?CJ28-,KT E..EN, #2.$ C, 2K3T. 2-M2.T <EN, #C.C<2, #2.$ C MC.28E3, 2N#K<2, T <,2, #H #C-<2N2. C, KARC>A, =C<A5C8, 9R. NACD+RA, RCNC5 an* <C8NARE8-EC CA57R8, JJ.

:ro-ul,ate*@

Eece-ber 1 , !33

1---------------------------------------------------1

RES!%(#I!N C!R!NA' J$:

7his bar -atter concerns the petition o' petitioner #en2a-in M. Eacana0 'or leave to resu-e the practice o' law. :etitioner was a*-itte* to the :hilippine bar in March 1963. De practice* law until he -i,rate* to Cana*a in Eece-ber 1998 to see% -e*ical attention 'or his ail-ents. De subse4uentl0 applie* 'or Cana*ian citiGenship to avail o' Cana*a&s 'ree -e*ical ai* pro,ra-. Dis application was approve* an* he beca-e a Cana*ian citiGen in Ma0 !334.

8n 9ul0 14, !336, pursuant to Republic Act .RA/ 9!!5 .CitiGenship Retention an* Re-Ac4uisition Act o' !33(/, petitioner reac4uire* his :hilippine citiGenship. H1I 8n that *a0, he too% his oath o' alle,iance as a $ilipino citiGen be'ore the :hilippine Consulate Keneral in 7oronto, Cana*a. 7herea'ter, he returne* to the :hilippines an* now inten*s to resu-e his law practice. 7here

is a 4uestion, however, whether petitioner #en2a-in M. Eacana0 lost his -e-bership in the :hilippine bar when he ,ave up his :hilippine citiGenship in Ma0 !334. 7hus, this petition.

>n a report *ate* 8ctober 16, !33 , the 8''ice o' the #ar Con'i*ant cites 5ection !, Rule 1(8 .Attorne0s an* A*-ission to

#ar/ o' the Rules o' Court@

5CC7>8N !. Re.uirements for all applicants for admission to t*e bar. L Cver0 applicant 'or a*-ission as a -e-ber o' the bar must be a citi;en of the Philippines, at least twent0-one 0ears o' a,e, o' ,oo* -oral character, an* a resi*ent o' the :hilippinesJ an* -ust pro*uce be'ore the 5upre-e Court satis'actor0 evi*ence o' ,oo* -oral character, an* that no char,es a,ainst hi-, involvin, -oral turpitu*e, have been 'ile* or are pen*in, in an0 court in the :hilippines.

Appl0in, the provision, the 8''ice o' the #ar Con'i*ant opines that, b0 virtue o' his reac4uisition o' :hilippine citiGenship, in !336, petitioner has a,ain -et all the 4uali'ications an* has none o' the *is4uali'ications 'or -e-bership in the bar. >t reco--en*s that he be allowe* to resu-e the practice o' law in the :hilippines, con*itione* on his reta%in, the law0er&s oath to

re-in* hi- o' his *uties an* responsibilities as a -e-ber o' the :hilippine bar.

;e approve the reco--en*ation o' the 8''ice o' the #ar Con'i*ant with certain -o*i'ications.

7he practice o' law is a privile,e bur*ene* with con*itions.

H!I

>t is so *elicatel0 a''ecte* with public interest that it is both a

power an* a *ut0 o' the 5tate .throu,h this Court/ to control an* re,ulate it in or*er to protect an* pro-ote the public wel'are. H(I

A*herence to ri,i* stan*ar*s o' -ental 'itness, -aintenance o' the hi,hest *e,ree o' -oralit0, 'aith'ul observance o' the rules o' the le,al pro'ession, co-pliance with the -an*ator0 continuin, le,al e*ucation re4uire-ent an* pa0-ent o' -e-bership 'ees to the >nte,rate* #ar o' the :hilippines .>#:/ are the con*itions re4uire* 'or -e-bership in ,oo* stan*in, in the bar an* 'or en2o0in, the privile,e to practice law. An0 breach b0 a law0er o' an0 o' these con*itions -a%es hi- unworth0 o' the trust an* con'i*ence which the courts an* clients repose in hi- 'or the continue* e1ercise o' his pro'essional privile,e. H4I

5ection 1, Rule 1(8 o' the Rules o' Court provi*es@

5CC7>8N 1. /*o may practice la-. L An0 person hereto'ore *ul0 a*-itte* as a -e-ber o' the bar, or therea'ter a*-itte* as such in accor*ance with the provisions o' this Rule, an* who is in ,oo* an* re,ular stan*in,, is entitle* to practice law.

:ursuant thereto, an0 person a*-itte* as a -e-ber o' the :hilippine bar in accor*ance with the statutor0 re4uire-ents an* who is in ,oo* an* re,ular stan*in, is entitle* to practice law.

A*-ission to the bar re4uires certain 4uali'ications. 7he Rules o' Court -an*ates that an applicant 'or a*-ission to the bar be a citiGen o' the :hilippines, at least twent0-one 0ears o' a,e, o' ,oo* -oral character an* a resi*ent o' the :hilippines.
H5I

De -ust also pro*uce be'ore this Court satis'actor0 evi*ence o'

,oo* -oral character an* that no char,es a,ainst hi-, involvin, -oral turpitu*e, have been 'ile* or are pen*in, in an0 court in the :hilippines.H6I

Moreover, a*-ission to the bar involves various phases such as 'urnishin, satis'actor0 proo' o' e*ucational, -oral an* other 4uali'icationsJH I passin, the bar e1a-inationsJH8I ta%in, the

law0er&s oathH9I an* si,nin, the roll o' attorne0s an* receivin, 'ro- the cler% o' court o' this Court a certi'icate o' the license to practice.H13I

7he secon* re4uisite 'or the practice o' law O -e-bership in ,oo* stan*in, O is a continuin, re4uire-ent. 7his -eans continue* -e-bership an*, conco-itantl0, pa0-ent o' annual -e-bership *ues in the >#:J H11I pa0-ent o' the annual

pro'essional ta1JH1!I co-pliance with the -an*ator0 continuin, le,al e*ucation re4uire-entJH1(I 'aith'ul observance o' the rules an* ethics o' the le,al pro'ession an* bein, continuall0 sub2ect to 2u*icial *isciplinar0 control.H14I

Kiven the 'ore,oin,, -a0 a law0er who has lost his $ilipino citiGenship still practice law in the :hilippinesP No.

7he Constitution provi*es that the practice o' all pro'essions in the :hilippines shall be li-ite* to $ilipino citiGens save in cases prescribe* b0 law.H15I 5ince $ilipino citiGenship is a re4uire-ent 'or

a*-ission to the bar, loss thereo' ter-inates -e-bership in the :hilippine bar an*, conse4uentl0, the privile,e to en,a,e in the practice o' law. >n other wor*s, the loss o' $ilipino citiGenship ipso jure ter-inates the privile,e to practice law in the :hilippines. 7he practice o' law is a privile,e *enie* to 'orei,ners. H16I

7he e1ception is when $ilipino citiGenship is lost b0 reason o' naturaliGation as a citiGen o' another countr0 but subse4uentl0 reac4uire* pursuant to RA 9!!5. 7his is because "all :hilippine citiGens who beco-e citiGens o' another countr0 shall be deemed not to *a#e lost t*eir *ilippine citi%ens*ip un*er the con*itions o' HRA 9!!5I.)H1 I 7here'ore, a $ilipino law0er who beco-es a citiGen o' another countr0 is *ee-e* never to have lost his :hilippine citiGenship if he reac<uires it in accordance 7ith RA

=>>0. Althou,h he is also *ee-e* never to have ter-inate* his -e-bership in the :hilippine bar, no auto-atic ri,ht to resu-e law practice accrues.

+n*er RA 9!!5, i' a person inten*s to practice the le,al pro'ession in the :hilippines an* he reac4uires his $ilipino citiGenship pursuant to its provisions ".he/ shall appl0 with the proper authorit0 'or a license or per-it to en,a,e in such practice.)H18I 5tate* otherwise, be'ore a law0er who reac4uires

$ilipino citiGenship pursuant to RA 9!!5 can resu-e his law practice, he -ust 'irst secure 'ro- this Court the authorit0 to *o so, con*itione* on@ .a/ the up*atin, an* pa0-ent in 'ull o' the annual -e-bership *ues in the >#:J .b/ .c/ the pa0-ent o' pro'essional ta1J the co-pletion o' at least (6 cre*it hours o' -an*ator0 continuin, le,al e*ucationJ this is speciall0 si,ni'icant to re'resh the applicantApetitioner&s %nowle*,e o'

:hilippine laws an* up*ate hi- o' le,al *evelop-ents an* .*/ the reta2in3 of the la78er4s oath which will not onl0 re-in* hi- o' his *uties an* responsibilities as a law0er an* as an o''icer o' the Court, but also renew his ple*,e to -aintain alle,iance to the Republic o' the :hilippines.

Co-pliance with these con*itions will restore his ,oo* stan*in, as a -e-ber o' the :hilippine bar.

9HEREF!RE, the petition o' Attorne0 #en2a-in M. Eacana0 is hereb0 *RAN#E)' sub2ect to co-pliance with the con*itions state* above an* sub-ission o' proo' o' such co-pliance to the #ar Con'i*ant, a'ter which he -a0 reta%e his oath as a -e-ber o' the :hilippine bar.

S! !R)ERE).

F+RST ,+V+S+-)

9I%FRE)! M$ CA#(' Complainant'

A.C. No. 5 (8

:resent@

:+N8, C.J., C*airpe rson, 5ANE8=A<K+7>CRRCF, / 6ersus / C8R8NA, AFC+NA an* <C8NARE8-EC CA57R8, JJ.

A##:$ "ICEN#E *$ RE%%!SA' Respondent$ :ro-ul,ate*@

$ebruar0 19, !338

5//////////////////////////////////////////// / / / / / / /5

RES!%(#I!N C!R!NA' J$:

Co-plainant ;il're*o M. Catu is a co-owner o' a lot H1I an* the buil*in, erecte* thereon locate* at 959 5an An*res 5treet, Malate, Manila. Dis -other an* brother, Re,ina Catu an* Antonio Catu, conteste* the possession o' CliGabeth C. EiaG-Catu H!I an* Antonio :astorH(I o' one o' the units in the buil*in,. 7he latter i,nore* *e-an*s 'or the- to vacate the pre-ises. 7hus, a co-plaint was initiate* a,ainst !(, Fone thein the 0upong

)agapamayapa o' #aran,a0

9 o' the 5 th Eistrict o'

ManilaH4I where the parties resi*e.

Respon*ent,

as punong

barangay o'

#aran,a0

!(,

su--one* the parties to conciliation -eetin,s. H5I ;hen the parties 'aile* to arrive at an a-icable settle-ent, respon*ent issue* a certi'ication 'or the 'ilin, o' the appropriate action in court.

7herea'ter, Re,ina an* Antonio 'ile* a co-plaint 'or e2ect-ent a,ainst CliGabeth an* :astor in the Metropolitan 7rial Court o' Manila, #ranch 11. Respon*ent entere* his appearance as counsel 'or the *e'en*ants in that case. #ecause o' this, co-plainant 'ile* the instant a*-inistrative co-plaint, H6I clai-in, that respon*ent co--itte* an act o' i-propriet0 as a law0er an*

as a public o''icer when he stoo* as counsel 'or the *e'en*ants *espite the 'act that he presi*e* over the conciliation

procee*in,s between the liti,ants as punong barangay.

>n his *e'ense, respon*ent clai-e* that one o' his *uties as punong barangay was to hear co-plaints re'erre* to the baran,a0&s 0upong )agapamayapa. As such, he hear* the

co-plaint o' Re,ina an* Antonio a,ainst CliGabeth an* :astor. As hea* o' the 0upon, he per'or-e* his tas% with ut-ost ob2ectivit0, without bias or partialit0 towar*s an0 o' the parties. 7he parties, however, were not able to a-icabl0 settle their *ispute an* Re,ina an* Antonio 'ile* the e2ect-ent case. >t was then that CliGabeth sou,ht his le,al assistance. De acce*e* to her re4uest. De han*le* her case 'or 'ree because she was 'inanciall0 *istresse* an* he wante* to prevent the co--ission o' a patent in2ustice a,ainst her.

7he co-plaint was re'erre* to the >nte,rate* #ar o' the :hilippines .>#:/ 'or investi,ation, report an* reco--en*ation. As there was no 'actual issue to thresh out, the >#:&s Co--ission on #ar Eiscipline .C#E/ re4uire* the parties to sub-it their respective position papers. A'ter evaluatin, the contentions o' the

parties,

the
I

>#:-C#E

'oun*

su''icient

,roun*

to

*iscipline

respon*ent.H

Accor*in, as punong

to

the

>#:-C#E, he

respon*ent over

a*-itte* the

that,

barangay,

presi*e*

conciliation

procee*in,s an* hear* the co-plaint o' Re,ina an* Antonio a,ainst CliGabeth an* :astor. 5ubse4uentl0, however, he

represente* CliGabeth an* :astor in the e2ect-ent case 'ile* a,ainst the- b0 Re,ina an* Antonio. >n the course thereo', he prepare* an* si,ne* plea*in,s inclu*in, the answer with counterclai-, pre-trial brie', position paper an* notice o' appeal. #0 so *oin,, respon*ent violate* Rule 6.3( o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0@

Rule 6.3( L A law0er shall not, a'ter leavin, ,overn-ent service, accept en,a,e-ent or e-plo0-ent in connection with an0 -atter in which he intervene* while in sai* service.

$urther-ore, as an elective o''icial, respon*ent contravene* the prohibition un*er 5ection .b/.!/ o' RA 6 1(@H8I

5CC. . ro*ibited Acts and )ransactions. L >n a**ition to acts an* o-issions o' public o''icials an*

e-plo0ees now prescribe* in the Constitution an* e1istin, laws, the 'ollowin, shall constitute prohibite* acts an* transactions o' an0 public o''icial an*s e-plo0ee an* are hereb0 *eclare* to be unlaw'ul@

111

111

111

.b/ ,utside employment and ot*er acti#ities related t*ereto. L :ublic o''icials an* e-plo0ees *urin, their incu-benc0 shall not@

111

111

111

.!/ En3a3e in the pri6ate practice of profession unless authori;ed b8 the Constitution or la7, provi*e* that such practice will not con'lict or ten* to con'lict with their o''icial 'unctionsJ 111 .e-phasis supplie*/

Accor*in, to the >#:-C#E, respon*ent&s violation o' this prohibition constitute* a breach o' Canon 1 o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0@

CAN8N 1. A <A;NCR 5DA<< +:D8<E 7DC C8N57>7+7>8N, !BE: #HE %A9S !F #HE %AN)' PR!M!#E RESPEC# F!R %A9 ANE <CKA< :R8CC55C5. .e-phasis supplie*/

$or

these

in'ractions,

the

>#:-C#E

reco--en*e*

the

respon*ent&s suspension 'ro- the practice o' law 'or one -onth with a stern warnin, that the co--ission o' the sa-e or si-ilar act will be *ealt with -ore severel0. H9I 7his was a*opte* an* approve* b0 the >#: #oar* o' Kovernors.H13I

;e

-o*i'0

the

'ore,oin,

'in*in,s

re,ar*in,

the

trans,ression o' respon*ent as well as the reco--en*ation on the i-posable penalt0.

R(%E C!)E

?$.@

!F

#HE

!F PR!FESSI!NA% RESP!NSIBI%I#: APP%IES !N%: #! F!RMER *!"ERNMEN# %A9:ERS

Respon*ent cannot be 'oun* liable 'or violation o' Rule 6.3( o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0. As wor*e*, that Rule applies onl0 to a law0er who has left go#ernment ser#ice an* in

connection "with an0 -atter in which he intervene* while in sai* service.) >n C$$ #. Sandiganbayan,H11I we rule* that Rule

6.3( prohibits former 3o6ernment la78ers 'ro- acceptin, "en,a,e-ent or e-plo0-ent in connection with an0 -atter in which Hthe0I ha* intervene* while in sai* service.)

Respon*ent was an incu-bent punong barangay at the ti-e he co--itte* the act co-plaine* o'. 7here'ore, he was not covere* b0 that provision.

SEC#I!N =. !F RA 1-?.' N!# SEC#I!N 1+B,+>, !F RA ?1-@' *!"ERNS #HE PRAC#ICE !F PR!FESSI!N !F E%EC#I"E %!CA% *!"ERNMEN# !FFICIA%S

5ection

.b/.!/ o' RA 6 1( prohibits public o''icials an*

e-plo0ees, *urin, their incu-benc0, 'ro- en,a,in, in the private practice o' their pro'ession "unless authoriGe* b0 the Constitution or law, provi*e* that such practice will not con'lict or ten* to

con'lict with their o''icial 'unctions.) 7his is the ,eneral law which applies to all public o''icials an* e-plo0ees. $or elective local ,overn-ent o''icials, 5ection 93 o' RA 163H1!I ,overns@
3E#. *). Practice of Profession. G DaE 2ll governors, city and municipal mayors are prohi%ited from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives. D%E "anggunian mem%ers may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours+Provided, That sanggunian mem%ers who are mem%ers of the Bar shall not+ D'E 2ppear as counsel %efore any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party7 D(E 2ppear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office7 D9E #ollect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an official7 and D=E Kse property and personnel of the ,overnment except when the sanggunian mem%er concerned is defending the interest of the ,overnment. DcE ?octors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only on occasions of emergency+ Provided, That the officials concerned do not derive monetary compensation therefrom.

7his is a special provision that applies speci'icall0 to the practice o' pro'ession b0 elective local o''icials. As a special law with a *e'inite scope .that is, the practice o' pro'ession b0

elective local o''icials/, it constitutes an e1ception to 5ection

.b/

.!/ o' RA 6 1(, the ,eneral law on en,a,in, in the private practice o' pro'ession b0 public o''icials an* e-plo0ees. 0e1 specialibus derogat generalibus.H1(I

+n*er RA

163, elective local o''icials o' provinces, cities,

-unicipalities an* baran,a0s are the 'ollowin,@ the ,overnor, the vice ,overnor an* -e-bers o' the sangguniang panlala-igan 'or provincesJ the cit0 -a0or, the cit0 vice -a0or an* the -e-bers o' the sangguniang panlungsod 'or citiesJ the -unicipal -a0or, the -unicipal vice -a0or an* the -e-bers o' the sangguniang bayan 'or -unicipalities an* the punong barangay, the -e-bers o' the sangguniang barangay an* the -e-bers o'

thesangguniang 2abataan 'or baran,a0s.

8' these elective local o''icials, ,overnors, cit0 -a0ors an* -unicipal -a0ors are prohibite* 'ro- practicin, their pro'ession or en,a,in, in an0 occupation other than the e1ercise o' their 'unctions as local chie' e1ecutives. 7his is because the0 are re4uire* to ren*er 'ull ti-e service. 7he0 shoul* there'ore *evote all their ti-e an* attention to the per'or-ance o' their o''icial *uties.

8n

the

other

han*,

-e-bers

o'

the sangguniang

panlala-igan, sangguniang

panlungsod or sangguniang

bayan -a0 practice their pro'essions, en,a,e in an0 occupation, or teach in schools e1cept *urin, session hours. >n other wor*s, the0 -a0 practice their pro'essions, en,a,e in an0 occupation, or teach in schools outsi*e their session hours.

+nli%e ,overnors, cit0 -a0ors an* -unicipal -a0ors, -e-bers o' the sangguniang panlala-igan, sangguniang

panlungsod or sangguniang bayan are re4uire* to hol* re,ular sessions onl0 at least once a wee%. H14I 5ince the law itsel' ,rants the- the authorit0 to practice their pro'essions, en,a,e in an0 occupation or teach in schools outsi*e session hours, there is no lon,er an0 nee* 'or the- to secure prior per-ission or authoriGation 'ro- an0 other person or o''ice 'or an0 o' these purposes.

;hile, as alrea*0 *iscusse*, certain local elective o''icials .li%e ,overnors, are -a0ors, e1pressl0 provincial sub2ecte* boar* to a -e-bers total or an*

councilors/

partial

proscription to practice their pro'ession or en,a,e in an0 occupation, no such the inter*iction -e-bers is -a*e o' on the punong

barangay an*

the sangguniang

barangay. E1pressio unius est e1clusio alterius .H15I 5ince the0 are

e1clu*e* 'ro- an0 prohibition, the presu-ption is that the0 are allowe* to practice their pro'ession. An* this stan*s to reason because the0 are not -an*ate* to serve 'ull ti-e. >n 'act, the sangguniang barangay is suppose* to hol* re,ular sessions onl0 twice a -onth.H16I

Accor*in,l0,

as punong

barangay,

respon*ent

was

not

'orbi**en to practice his pro'ession. Dowever, he shoul* have procure* prior per-ission or authoriGation 'ro- the hea* o' his Eepart-ent, as re4uire* b0 civil service re,ulations.

A %A9:ER IN *!"ERNMEN# SER"ICE 9H! IS N!# PR!HIBI#E) #! PRAC#ICE %A9 M(S# SEC(RE PRI!R A(#H!RI#: FR!M #HE HEA) !F HIS )EPAR#MEN#

A civil service o''icer or e-plo0ee whose responsibilities *o not re4uire his ti-e to be 'ull0 at the *isposal o' the ,overn-ent can en,a,e in the private practice o' law onl0 with the written per-ission o' the hea* o' the *epart-ent concerne*. H1 I 5ection 1!, Rule Q=>>> o' the Revise* Civil 5ervice Rules provi*es@

5ec. 1!. No officer or emplo8ee shall en3a3e directl8 in an8 private business, vocation, or profession or be connecte* with an0 co--ercial, cre*it, a,ricultural, or in*ustrial un*erta%in, 7ithout a 7ritten permission from the head of the )epartment@ ro#ided, 7hat this prohibition will be absolute in the case o' those o''icers an* e-plo0ees whose *uties an* responsibilities re4uire that their entire ti-e be at the *isposal o' the Kovern-entJ ro#ided, furt*er, 7hat i' an e-plo0ee is ,rante* per-ission to en,a,e in outsi*e activities, ti-e so *evote* outsi*e o' o''ice hours shoul* be 'i1e* b0 the a,enc0 to the en* that it will not i-pair in an0 wa0 the e''icienc0 o' the o''icer or e-plo0ee@ An* pro#ided, finally, that no per-ission is necessar0 in the case o' invest-ents, -a*e b0 an o''icer or e-plo0ee, which *o not involve real or apparent con'lict between his private interests an* public *uties, or in an0 wa0 in'luence hi- in the *ischar,e o' his *uties, an* he shall not ta%e part in the -ana,e-ent o' the enterprise or beco-e an o''icer o' the boar* o' *irectors. .e-phasis supplie*/

As punong barangay, respon*ent shoul* have there'ore obtaine* the prior written per-ission o' the 5ecretar0 o' >nterior an* <ocal Kovern-ent be'ore he entere* his appearance as counsel 'or CliGabeth an* :astor. 7his he 'aile* to *o.

7he 'ailure o' respon*ent to co-pl0 with 5ection 1!, Rule Q=>>> o' the Revise* Civil 5ervice Rules constitutes a violation o' his oath as a law0er@ to obe0 the laws. <aw0ers are servants o' the law, #ires legis, -en o' the law. 7heir para-ount *ut0 to societ0 is to obe0 the law an* pro-ote respect 'or it. 7o un*erscore the pri-ac0 an* i-portance o' this *ut0, it is enshrine* as the 'irst canon o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0.

>n actin, as counsel 'or a part0 without 'irst securin, the re4uire* written per-ission, respon*ent not onl0 en,a,e* in the unauthoriGe* practice o' law but also violate* civil service rules which is a breach o' Rule 1.31 o' the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0@

Rule 1.31 L A la78er shall not en3a3e in unla7ful, *ishonest, i--oral or *eceit'ul conduct. .e-phasis supplie*/

$or not livin, up to his oath as well as 'or not co-pl0in, with the e1actin, ethical stan*ar*s o' the le,al pro'ession,

respon*ent 'aile* to co-pl0 with Canon :ro'essional Responsibilit0@

o' the Co*e o'

CAN8N . A %A9:ER SHA%% A# A%% #IMES (PH!%) #HE IN#E*RI#: AN) #HE )I*NI#: !F #HE %E*A% PR!FESSI!N ANE 5+::8R7 7DC AC7>=>7>C5 8$ 7DC >N7CKRA7CE #AR. .e-phasis supplie*/

>n*ee*, a law0er who *isobe0s the law *isrespects it. >n so *oin,, he *isre,ar*s le,al ethics an* *is,races the *i,nit0 o' the le,al pro'ession.

:ublic con'i*ence in the law an* in law0ers -a0 be ero*e* b0 the irresponsible an* i-proper con*uct o' a -e-ber o' the bar.H18I Cver0 law0er shoul* act an* co-port hi-sel' in a -anner that pro-otes public con'i*ence in the inte,rit0 o' the le,al pro'ession.H19I

A -e-ber o' the bar -a0 be *isbarre* or suspen*e* 'rohis o''ice as an attorne0 'or violation o' the law0er&s oath H!3Ian*Aor 'or breach o' the ethics o' the le,al pro'ession as e-bo*ie* in the Co*e o' :ro'essional Responsibilit0.

9HEREF!RE, respon*ent Att0. =icente K. Rellosa is hereb0 'oun* *(I%#: o' pro'essional -iscon*uct 'or violatin, his oath as a law0er an* Canons 1 an* an* Rule 1.31 o' the Co*e o'

:ro'essional Responsibilit0. De is there'ore S(SPEN)E) from the practice of la7 'or a perio* o' si1 -onths e''ective 'ro- his receipt o' this resolution. De is sternl0 9ARNE) that an0 repetition o' si-ilar acts shall be *ealt with -ore severel0.

Respon*ent is stron,l0 a*vise* to loo% up an* ta%e to heart the -eanin, o' the wor* delicade%a.

<et a cop0 o' this resolution be 'urnishe* the 8''ice o' the #ar Con'i*ant an* entere* into the recor*s o' respon*ent Att0. =icente K. Rellosa. 7he 8''ice o' the Court A*-inistrator shall 'urnish copies to all the courts o' the lan* 'or their in'or-ation an* ,ui*ance.

S! !R)ERE).

;B.M. No. 793. 5u#& 34, 2441<

IN R(: /:/P(N/I)N 7R)M 06( PRAC0IC( )7 'AB IN 06( 0(RRI0)R? )7 9:AM )7 A00?. '()N 9. MA=:(RA R(/)':0I)N
0IN9A, J.:

May a e !er o) the Philippine (ar 4ho 4as dis!arred or suspended )ro the practice o) la4 in a )oreign <urisdiction 4here he has also !een ad itted as an attorney !e eted the sa e sanction as a e !er o) the Philippine (ar )or the sa e in)raction co itted in the )oreign <urisdictionI There is a Rule o) /ourt provision covering this caseLs central issue. Up to this <uncture$ its reach and !readth have not undergone the test o) an unsettled case. In a 3etter dated August ">$ %##.$ the 0istrict /ourt o) ,ua in)or ed this /ourt o) the suspension o) Atty. Leon ,. Ma1uera *Ma1uera+ )ro the practice o) la4 in ,ua )or t4o *"+ years pursuant to the Aecision rendered !y the Superior /ourt o) ,ua on May &$ %##. in Special Proceedings /ase No. SP>>&'-#6$ a disciplinary case )iled !y the ,ua (ar Ethics /o ittee against Ma1uera.
J%K J"K

The /ourt re)erred the atter o) Ma1ueraLs suspension in ,ua to the (ar /on)idant )or co ent in its esolution dated Nove !er %#$ %##.. Under Section "&$ Rule %;D o) the Revised Rules o) /ourt$ the dis!ar ent or suspension o) a e !er o) the Philippine (ar in a )oreign <urisdiction$ 4here he has also !een ad itted as an attorney$ is also a ground )or his dis!ar ent or suspension in this real $ provided the )oreign courtLs action is !y reason o) an act or o ission constituting deceit$ alpractice or other gross isconduct$ grossly i oral conduct$ or a violation o) the la4yerLs oath.
J;K

In a Memorandum dated :e!ruary ">$ %##&$ then (ar /on)idant Atty. Erlinda /. Per@osa reco ended that the /ourt o!tain copies o) the record o) Ma1ueraLs case since the docu ents trans itted !y the ,ua 0istrict /ourt do not contain the )actual and legal !ases )or Ma1ueraLs suspension and are thus insu))icient to ena!le her to deter ine 4hether Ma1ueraLs acts or o issions 4hich resulted in his suspension in ,ua are li8e4ise violative o) his oath as a e !er o) the Philippine (ar.
J6K

Pursuant to this /ourtLs directive in its esolution dated March %D$ %##&$ the (ar /on)idant sent a letter dated Nove !er %;$ %##& to the 0istrict /ourt o) ,ua re1uesting )or certi)ied copies o) the record o) the disciplinary case against Ma1uera and o) the rules violated !y hi .
J'K J.K

The /ourt received certi)ied copies o) the record o) Ma1ueraLs case )ro the 0istrict /ourt o) ,ua on 0ece !er D$ %##&.
J&K

Therea)ter$ Ma1ueraLs case 4as re)erred !y the /ourt to the Integrated (ar o) the Philippines *I(P+ )or investigation report and reco endation 4ithin si?ty *.>+ days )ro the I(PLs receipt o) the case records.
JDK

The I(P sent Ma1uera a <otice of Bearing re1uiring hi to appear !e)ore the I(PLs /o ission on (ar 0iscipline on 5uly "D$ %##D. Ao4ever$ the notice 4as returned unserved !ecause Ma1uera had already oved )ro his last 8no4n address in Agana$ ,ua and did not leave any )or4arding address.
J#K J%>K

On Octo!er #$ ">>;$ the I(P su! itted to the /ourt its eport and ecommendation and its esolution <o. C*I-DEEF-44E' inde)initely suspending Ma1uera )ro the practice o) la4 4ithin the Philippines until and unless he updates and pays his I(P e !ership dues in )ull.
J%%K

The I(P )ound that Ma1uera 4as ad itted to the Philippine (ar on :e!ruary "D$ %#'D. On Octo!er %D$ %#&6$ he 4as ad itted to the practice o) la4 in the territory o) ,ua . Ae 4as suspended )ro the practice o) la4 in ,ua )or isconduct$ as he ac1uired his clientLs property as pay ent )or his legal services$ then sold it and as a conse1uence o!tained an unreasona!ly high )ee )or handling his clientLs case.
J%"K

In its Aecision' the Superior /ourt o) ,ua stated that on August .$ %#D&$ Ed4ard (enavente$ the creditor o) a certain /astro$ o!tained a <udg ent against /astro in a civil case. Ma1uera served as /astroLs counsel in said case. /astroLs property su!<ect o) the case$ a parcel o) land$ 4as to !e sold at a pu!lic auction in satis)action o) his o!ligation to (enavente. /astro$ ho4ever$ retained the right o) rede ption over the property )or one year. The right o) rede ption could !e e?ercised !y paying the a ount o) the <udg ent de!t 4ithin the a)oresaid period.
J%;K

At the auction sale$ (enavente purchased /astroLs property )or :ive Aundred U.S. 0ollars *UST'>>.>>+$ the a ount 4hich /astro 4as ad<udged to pay hi .
J%6K

On 0ece !er "%$ %#D&$ /astro$ in consideration o) Ma1ueraLs legal services in the civil case involving (enavente$ entered into an oral agree ent 4ith Ma1uera and assigned his right o) rede ption in )avor o) the latter.
J%'K

On 5anuary D$ %#DD$ Ma1uera e?ercised /astroLs right o) rede ption !y paying (enavente UST'"'.>> in satis)action o) the <udg ent de!t. Therea)ter$ Ma1uera had the title to the property trans)erred in his na e.
J%.K

On 0ece !er ;%$ %#DD$ Ma1uera sold the property to /.S. /hang and /./. /hang )or Three Aundred T4enty Thousand U.S. 0ollars *UST;">$>>>.>>+.
J%&K

On 5anuary %'$ %##6$ the ,ua (ar Ethics /o ittee */o conducted hearings regarding Ma1ueraLs alleged isconduct.
J%DK

ittee+

Su!se1uently$ the /o ittee )iled a Petition in the Superior /ourt o) ,ua praying that Ma1uera !e sanctioned )or violations o) Rules %.' and %.D*a+ o) the Model Rules o) Pro)essional /onduct *Model Rules+ in )orce in ,ua . In its Petition' the /o ittee clai ed that Ma1uera o!tained an unreasona!ly high )ee )or his services. The /o ittee )urther alleged that Ma1uera hi sel) ad itted his )ailure to co ply 4ith the re1uire ent in Rule %.D *a+ o) the Model Rules that a la4yer shall not enter into a !usiness transaction 4ith a client or 8no4ingly ac1uire a pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless the transaction and the ter s governing the la4yerLs ac1uisition o) such interest are )air and reasona!le to the client$ and are )ully disclosed to$ and understood !y the client and reduced in 4riting.
J%#K J">K J"%K

The /o ittee reco ended that Ma1uera !e7 *%+ suspended )ro the practice o) la4 in ,ua )or a period o) t4o J"K years$ ho4ever$ 4ith all !ut thirty *;>+ days o) the period o) suspension de)erred9 *"+ ordered to return to /astro the di))erence !et4een the sale price o) the property to the /hangs and the a ount due hi )or legal services rendered to /astro9 *;+ re1uired to pay the costs o) the disciplinary proceedings9 and *6+ pu!licly repri anded. It also reco ended that other <urisdictions !e in)or ed that Ma1uera has !een su!<ect to disciplinary action !y the Superior /ourt o) ,ua .
J""K

Ma1uera did not deny that /astro e?ecuted a 1uitclai deed to the property in his )avor as co pensation )or past legal services and that the transaction$ e?cept )or the deed itsel)$ 4as oral and 4as not ade pursuant to a prior 4ritten agree ent. Ao4ever$ he contended that the transaction 4as ade three days )ollo4ing the alleged ter ination o) the attorney-client relationship !et4een the $ and that the property did not constitute an e?or!itant )ee )or his legal services to /astro.
J";K

On May &$ %##.$ the Superior /ourt o) ,ua rendered its Aecision suspending Ma1uera )ro the practice o) la4 in ,ua )or a period o) t4o *"+ years and ordering hi to ta8e the Multi-State Pro)essional Responsi!ility E?a ination *MPRE+ 4ithin that period. The court )ound that the attorney-client relationship !et4een Ma1uera and /astro 4as not yet co pletely ter inated 4hen they entered into the oral agree ent to trans)er /astroLs right o) rede ption to Ma1uera on 0ece !er "%$ %#D&. It also held that Ma1uera pro)ited too uch )ro the eventual trans)er o) /astroLs property
J"6K

to hi since he 4as a!le to sell the sa e to the /hangs 4ith ore than UST">>$>>>.>> in pro)it$ 4hereas his legal )ees )or services rendered to /astro a ounted only to UST6'$>>>.>>. The court also ordered hi to ta8e the MPRE upon his ad ission during the hearings o) his case that he 4as a4are o) the re1uire ents o) the Model Rules regarding !usiness transactions !et4een an attorney and his client Min a very general sort o) 4ay.N
J"'K

On the !asis o) the Aecision o) the Superior /ourt o) ,ua $ the I(P concluded that although the said court )ound Ma1uera lia!le )or isconduct$ Mthere is no evidence to esta!lish that JMa1ueraK co itted a !reach o) ethics in the Philippines.N Ao4ever$ the I(P still resolved to suspend hi inde)initely )or his )ailure to pay his annual dues as a e !er o) the I(P since %#&&$ 4hich )ailure is$ in turn$ a ground )or re oval o) the na e o) the delin1uent e !er )ro the Roll o) Attorneys under Section %>$ Rule %;#-A o) the Revised Rules o) /ourt.
J".K J"&K

The po4er o) the /ourt to dis!ar or suspend a la4yer )or acts or o issions co itted in a )oreign <urisdiction is )ound in Section "&$ Rule %;D o) the Revised Rules o) /ourt$ as a ended !y Supre e /ourt esolution dated :e!ruary %;$ %##"$ 4hich states7 3ection (/. #isbarment or suspension of attorneys by "upreme ourt, grounds therefor.O2 mem%er of the %ar may %e dis%arred or suspended from his office as attorney %y the 3upreme #ourt for any 7+(+0., 4a*5ra(.0(+, or o.)+r /ro66 406(on7u(. 0n 6u() o--0(+, grossly immoral conduct, or %y reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any :0o*a.0on o- .)+ oa.) 8)0() )+ 06 r+;u0r+7 .o .a,+ <+-or+ a740660on .o 5ra(.0(+, or for a willful diso%edience appearing as attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or %rokers, constitutes malpractice. T)+ 706<ar4+n. or 6u65+n60on o- a 4+4<+r o- .)+ P)0*0550n+ 'ar <y a (o45+.+n. (our. or o.)+r 706(05*0na.ory a/+n(y 0n a -or+0/n =ur0670(.0on 8)+r+ )+ )a6 a*6o <++n a740..+7 a6 an a..orn+y 06 a /roun7 -or )06 706<ar4+n. or 6u65+n60on 0- .)+ <a606 o- 6u() a(.0on 0n(*u7+6 any o- .)+ a(.6 )+r+0na<o:+ +nu4+ra.+7. T)+ =u7/4+n., r+6o*u.0on or or7+r o- .)+ -or+0/n (our. or 706(05*0nary a/+n(y 6)a** <+ 5r04a -a(0+ +:07+n(+ o- .)+ /roun7 -or 706<ar4+n. or 6u65+n60onDEmphasis suppliedE. The /ourt ust there)ore deter ine 4hether Ma1ueraLs acts$ na ely7 ac1uiring !y assign ent /astroLs right o) rede ption over the property su!<ect o) the civil case 4here Ma1uera appeared as counsel )or hi 9 e?ercising the

right o) rede ption9 and$ su!se1uently selling the property )or a huge pro)it$ violate Philippine la4 or the standards o) ethical !ehavior )or e !ers o) the Philippine (ar and thus constitute grounds )or his suspension or dis!ar ent in this <urisdiction. The Superior /ourt o) ,ua )ound that Ma1uera ac1uired his clientLs property !y e?ercising the right o) rede ption previously assigned to hi !y the client in pay ent o) his legal services. Such transaction )alls s1uarely under Article %6#" in relation to Article %6#%$ paragraph ' o) the /ivil /ode o) the Philippines. Paragraph ' o) Article %6#% prohi!its the la4yerLs ac1uisition !y assign ent o) the clientLs property 4hich is the su!<ect o) the litigation handled !y the la4yer. Under Article %6#"$ the prohi!ition e?tends to sales in legal rede ption.
J"DK J"#K

The prohi!ition ordained in paragraph ' o) Article %6#% and Article %6#" is )ounded on pu!lic policy !ecause$ !y virtue o) his o))ice$ an attorney ay easily ta8e advantage o) the credulity and ignorance o) his client and unduly enrich hi sel) at the e?pense o) his client.
J;>K

The case o) In re/ uste illustrates the signi)icance o) the a)ore entioned prohi!ition. In that case$ the attorney ac1uired his clientsL property su!<ect o) a case 4here he 4as acting as counsel pursuant to a deed o) sale e?ecuted !y his clients in his )avor. Ae contended that the sale 4as ade at the instance o) his clients !ecause they had no oney to pay hi )or his services. The /ourt ruled that the la4yerLs ac1uisition o) the property o) his clients under the circu stances o!taining therein rendered hi lia!le )or alpractice. The /ourt held7
J;%K

5&hether the deed of sale in "uestion was executed at the instance of the spouses driven %y financial necessity, as contended %y the respondent, or at the latter6s %ehest, as contended %y the complainant, is of no moment. n either case an attorney occupies a vantage position to press upon or dictate his terms to a harassed client, in %reach of the 0rule so amply protective of the confidential relations, which must necessarily exist %etween attorney and client, and of the rights of %oth1.
A9(B

The Superior /ourt o) ,ua also hinted that Ma1ueraLs ac1uisition o) /astroLs right o) rede ption$ his su!se1uent e?ercise o) said right$ and his act o) selling the redee ed property )or huge pro)its 4ere tainted 4ith deceit and !ad )aith 4hen it concluded that Ma1uera charged /astro an e?or!itant )ee )or his legal services. The court held that since the assign ent o) the right o) rede ption to Ma1uera 4as in pay ent )or his legal services$ and since the property redee ed !y hi had a ar8et value o) UST"6D$"">.>> as o) 0ece !er "%$ %#D& *the date 4hen the right o) rede ption 4as assigned to

hi +$ he is lia!le )or isconduct )or accepting pay ent )or his legal services 4ay !eyond his actual )ees 4hich a ounted only to UST6'$>>>.>>. Ma1ueraLs acts in ,ua 4hich resulted in his t4o *"+-year suspension )ro the practice o) la4 in that <urisdiction are also valid grounds )or his suspension )ro the practice o) la4 in the Philippines. Such acts are violative o) a la4yerLs s4orn duty to act 4ith )idelity to4ard his clients. They are also violative o) the /ode o) Pro)essional Responsi!ility$ speci)ically$ /anon %& 4hich states that MJaK la4yer o4es )idelity to the cause o) his client and shall !e ind)ul the trust and con)idence reposed in hi 9N and Rule %.>% 4hich prohi!its la4yers )ro engaging in unla4)ul$ dishonest$ i oral or deceit)ul conduct. The re1uire ent o) good oral character is not only a condition precedent to ad ission to the Philippine (ar !ut is also a continuing re1uire ent to aintain oneLs goodLs standing in the legal pro)ession.
J;;K

It !ears stressing that the ,ua Superior /ourtLs <udg ent ordering Ma1ueraLs suspension )ro the practice o) la4 in ,ua does not auto atically result in his suspension or dis!ar ent in the Philippines. Under Section "&$ Rule %;D o) the Revised Rules o) /ourt$ the acts 4hich led to his suspension in ,ua are ere grounds )or dis!ar ent or suspension in this <urisdiction$ at that only i) the !asis o) the )oreign courtLs action includes any o) the grounds )or dis!ar ent or suspension in this <urisdiction. Li8e4ise$ the <udg ent o) the Superior /ourt o) ,ua only constitutes prima facie evidence o) Ma1ueraLs unethical acts as a la4yer. More )unda entally$ due process de ands that he !e given the opportunity to de)end hi sel) and to present testi onial and docu entary evidence on the atter in an investigation to !e conducted in accordance 4ith Rule %;#-( o) the Revised Rules o) /ourt. Said rule andates that a respondent la4yer ust in all cases !e noti)ied o) the charges against hi . It is only a)ter reasona!le notice and )ailure on the part o) the respondent la4yer to appear during the scheduled investigation that an investigation ay !e conducted e& parte.
J;6K J;'K J;.K J;&K

The /ourt notes that Ma1uera has not yet !een a!le to adduce evidence on his !ehal) regarding the charges o) unethical !ehavior in ,ua against hi $ as it is not certain that he did receive the <otice of Bearing earlier sent !y the I(PLs /o ission on (ar 0iscipline. Thus$ there is a need to ascertain Ma1ueraLs current and correct address in ,ua in order that another notice$ this ti e speci)ically in)or ing hi o) the charges against hi and re1uiring hi to e?plain 4hy he should not !e suspended or dis!arred on those grounds *through this esolution+$ ay !e sent to hi . Nevertheless$ the /ourt agrees 4ith the I(P that Ma1uera should !e suspended )ro the practice o) la4 )or non-pay ent o) his I(P e !ership

dues )ro %#&& up to the present. Under Section %>$ Rule %;#-A o) the Revised Rules o) /ourt$ non-pay ent o) e !ership dues )or si? *.+ onths shall 4arrant suspension o) e !ership in the I(P$ and de)ault in such pay ent )or one year shall !e ground )or re oval o) the na e o) the delin1uent e !er )ro the Roll o) Attorneys.
J;DK J;#K

B6(R(7)R($ Atty. Leon ,. Ma1uera is re1uired to SAOC /AUSE$ 4ithin )i)teen *%'+ days )ro receipt o) this esolution$ 4hy he should not !e suspended or dis!arred )or his acts 4hich gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings against hi in the Superior /ourt o) ,ua and his su!se1uent suspension in said <urisdiction. The (ar /on)idant is directed to locate the current and correct address o) Atty. Ma1uera in ,ua and to serve upon hi a copy o) this esolution. In the eanti e$ Atty. Ma1uera is SUSPEN0E0 )ro the practice o) la4 )or ONE *%+ BEAR or until he shall have paid his e !ership dues$ 4hichever co es later. Let a copy o) this esolution !e attached to Atty. Ma1ueraLs personal record in the O))ice o) the (ar /on)idant and copies !e )urnished to all chapters o) the Integrated (ar o) the Philippines and to all courts in the land. /) )R"(R(".