1.

LEGAL ETHICS Branch of moral science, which treats of the duties,

which an attorney owes to the courts, to his clients, to his colleagues
in the profession and to the public.
- the embodiment of all principles of morality and
refinement that should govern the conduct of every
member of the bar (Late CJ Manuel V. Moran)
2. tBASES
A. CONSTITUTION SC prerogative to promulgate rules on the
admission to the bar, integration of the Bar and legal assistance to
the underprivileged. (Article VIII. Sec 5 (5))
o Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
i. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated
bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
B. RULES OF COURT
o Rule 137 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDICIAL
OFFICERS
o RULE 138-A LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
o RULE 139-A THE IBP
o RULE 139-B DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF
ATTORNEYS
o BAR MATTER NO. 960 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 1,
RULE 139-B OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT
C. STATUTES

o
o
o

CIVIL CODE
i. 1491(5)
ii. 2208 recovery of attorneys fees
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
CANNONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Art.1491.Thefollowingpersonscannotacquireby
purchase,evenatapublicorjudicialauction,eitherinpersonor
throughthemediationofanother:
xxxx
i. (5)Justices,judges,prosecutingattorneys,clerksofsuperior
and inferior courts, and other officers and employees
connectedwiththeadministrationofjustice,thepropertyand
rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the
court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise
theirrespectivefunctions;thisprohibitionincludestheactof
acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with
respecttothepropertyandrightswhichmaybetheobjectof
anylitigationinwhichtheymaytakepartbyvirtueoftheir
profession[.][Emphasesours]

*** Lawyers cannot acquire properties and rights which may be the obljec
tof litigation in which the may take part by virtues of their profession.
FEDERICO RAMOS vs NGASEO
FACTS:
Ramos wento to Atty. Ngaseo to engage his services as counsel in a
case involving a piece of land.
After a favorable judgment was rendered by CA ordering the land to be
returned to Ramos and his siblings (decision became final and
executor), Atty. Ngaseo sent a demand-letter to Ramos asking for the
delivery of a piece of land without the complainant allegedly promised
as payment for respondents appearance fee.
As a result, ramos filed before the IBP a complaint charging Atty.
Ngaseo of violation of the CPR for demanding the delivery of a parcel
of land that was the subject of litigation.
IBP: Atty. Ngaseo is guilty.

Atty. Ngaseo: he did not violate Article 1491(5) NCC because when he
demanded the delivery of the piece of land, the case has been
terminated.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Ngaseo violated Article 1491cc? -NO
HELD:
Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited
from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or rights
involved which are the objects of the litigation in which they intervene by
virtue of their profession. The prohibition on purchase is all embracing to
include not only sales to private individuals but also public or judicial
sales. The rationale advanced for the prohibition is that public policy disallows
the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved, i.e., the relation
of trust and confidence and the peculiar control exercised by these persons ] It
is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may
easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and
unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client. However, the said
prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes
place during the pendency of the litigation involving the clients property.
Consequently, where the property is acquired after the termination of the
case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.
Invariably, in all cases where Article 1491 was violated, the illegal transaction
was consummated with the actual transfer of the litigated property either by
purchase or assignment in favor of the prohibited individual. In Biascan v.
Lopez, respondent was found guilty of serious misconduct and suspended for
6 months from the practice of law when he registered a deed of assignment in
his favor and caused the transfer of title over the part of the estate despite
pendency of Special Proceedings No. 98037 involving the subject property.[10]
In the consolidated administrative cases of Valencia v. Cabanting,[11] the Court
suspended respondent Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting for six (6) months from the
practice of law when he purchased his client's property which was still the
subject of a pending certiorari proceeding.
In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition of the property in
litigation since the respondent only made a written demand for its
delivery which the complainant refused to comply. Mere demand for
delivery of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of

ownership, hence, not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation

of Article 1491. Even assuming arguendo that such demand for delivery
is unethical, respondents act does not fall within the purview of Article
1491. The letter of demand dated January 29, 2003 was made long after
the judgment in Civil Case No. SCC-2128 became final and executory on
January 18, 2002.
We note that the report of the IBP Commissioner, as adopted by the IBP Board
of Governors in its Resolution No. XVI-2003-47, does not clearly specify which
acts of the respondent constitute gross misconduct or what provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility have been violated. We find the
recommended penalty of suspension for 6 months too harsh and not
proportionate to the offense committed by the respondent. The power to
disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as
an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be
imposed as a penalty.[12] All considered, a reprimand is deemed sufficient and
reasonable.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo is
found guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the legal profession in
violation of Rule 20.04 of Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is REPRIMANDED with a warning that repetition of the
same act will be dealt with more severely.
I.

Article 2208 CC recovery of attorneys fees.

ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of

litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
1 When exemplary damages are awarded;
2 When the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
3 In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
4 In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the
plaintiff;
5 Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing
to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
6 In actions for legal support;

In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers

and skilled workers;
8 In actions for indemnity under workmens compensation and
employers liability laws;
9 In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
o When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
o In any other case where the court deems it just and
equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation
should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorneys fees and expenses of litigation must be
reasonable.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR and TO REMAIN IN THE
PRACTICE OF LAW
ADMISSION:
1. Citizenship
2. Residence
3. Age above 21 y.o.
4. GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND NO CHARGES INVOLVING
MORAL TURPITUDE
5. Legal education (pre-law, proper)
6. Bar examinations
7. Lawyers oath
CASES:
JOSEFINA ROYONG vs ATTY. ARISTON OBLENA (1963)
o
o
o
o

Royong, the niece of the common-law wife of Oblena, filed a rape

case against the latter.
In her complaint, Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to
have intercourse with her and that she refrained to report the incident
because Oblena threatened to kill her family.
As a result of the sexual intercourse, Royong gave birth to a child
Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong
had a relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse
with him.

o
o

The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently

removed from the roll of attorney even though the acts of the
Royong before and after the rape incident showed that she is
more of a sweetheart than a victim because of the circumstances
behind the incident
The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and
deliberately alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that he is
a person of good moral character while having an illicit and
adulterous relationship with Angeles who is not only the aunt of
Royong but also has a legal husband in the province.
Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are
different from those originally charged in the complaint but the court
overruled his petition.
After the hearing, the investigators concluded that
o A.) Oblena used his knowledge in law to commit immoral acts
without incurring any criminal liability;
o B.) he committed gross immorality by continuously
cohabiting with Angeles, his common-law wife, even after
he became a lawyer and
o C.) Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral
character in his application to take the bar.

ISSUE:
W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with
Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds to cause Oblenas
disbarment
HELD:

YES!

Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape,

seduction or adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for
disbarment enumerated in Sec 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, the
enumeration is not exclusive and the power of the court to exclude
unworthy members of the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to
the proper administration of justice and can be exercised even without
any statutory authority, in all cases unless properly prohibited by
statutes.
The American jurisprudence provides that the continued
possession of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the

rightful continuance in the practice of law. loss requires suspension or

disbarment even though the statues do not explicitly specify that as a
ground of disbarment.
Oblenas argument that he believed himself to be a person with good
moral character when he filed his application to take the bar examination is
wrong. Ones own approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral
character. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what the person
really is and not what the other people thinks he is. His pretension to wait
for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal knowledge with her shows
the scheming mind of Oblena and his taking advantage of his knowledge of the
law.
Also, Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed
moral ascendancy over her. Oblena took advantage of Royongs trust on him.
Oblenas contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing
the present complain which is entirely different from the original complaint filed
is untenable. There is nothing in the law requiring the Solicitor General to
charge in his complaint the same offence charged in the original complaint.
What the law provides is that if the Solicitor General finds sufficient grounds to
proceed against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint
accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby entered striking the name of herein
respondent, Ariston J. Oblena, from the roll of attorneys.

IN RE: BASA
Carlos Basa is a young lawyer (29 years of age, admitted to the bars of
California and the Philippine Islands. ) convicted of the crime of abduction with
consent. He was sentenced to two years, eleven months, and eleven days of
imprisonment. The Solicitor General asked for Basas disbarment based on his
commission of a crime involving moral turpitude.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime abduction with consent involves moral
turpitude.

HELD: Yes. Crimes of this character do involve moral turpitude. The inherent
nature of the act is such that it is against good morals and the accepted rule of
right conduct. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary
to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Basa was declared to be
suspended for one year immediately after he finished serving his sentence.
we are willing to strain the limits of our compassion to the uttermost in order
that so promising a career may not be utterly ruined.
ARCIGA vs MANIWANG
FACTS:
o complainant: Magdalena Arciga
o respondent: atty. segundino maniwang
o compalaint for disbarment: 1976
o he refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to magdalena.
o they have a child Michael
o illicit relationship
history of their relationship
o magadalena was a med tech student at cebu inst. and segundino
was a law student in san jose recoletos they eventually broke up
because magdalena refused to have sexual intercourse with him
o renewed relationship the following month in a boarding house
o asked why she refused to have sex with him she said because
shes still in love with another man at that time and had a child on
it
o ignored but took note that statement
o repeated acts of cohabitation
o segundino moved to davao del sur and continued his studies in
davao city and magdalena remained in cebu. they exchange
letters.
o when discovered she was carrying child, they went to capiz,
magdalenas parent to inform that they were married but not and
defer the church wedding until he passed the bar exam.
o he secured birth certificate and applied for marriage license.
o segundino continued sending letters expressing concern over the

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

baby. saying they will be married after he passed the bar. he was
not present when she gave birth but hes there at the baptism.
segundino passed the bar exams in 1975
he stopped corresponding with Magdalena.
Fearing that there was something amiss, Magdalena went to Davao in
July, 1975 to contact her lover.
Segundino told her that they could not get married for lack of money.
She went back to Ivisan.- on december 1975
she followed him and knew he was married to another woman named
Erlinda Ang on Nov. 25, 1975.
broken hearted returned to davao- he inflicted phy inj to her because
she confronted erlinda ang. she reported the assault in a police
station - he admitted their relationship and the promise of marriage.
he breached because of magdalenas shedy past. (accused in court
for oral defamation and has illegitimate child before michael)SOLGEN: dismissal of case. cohabitation and breach of promise to
marry not warrant disbarment

ISSUE: WON breach of promise to marry warrants disbarment

HELD: NO
This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the complainant was
neither so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment.
There are cited cases similar to this
If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar,
then the continued possession of good moral character is also a
requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession.
Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to
have good moral
character (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).
A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar
should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity. It is difficult
to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is

"grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and

obliquity, which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member
of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional
behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that
warrants disbarment.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community" (7
C.J.S. 959).
There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be inconsonance
with the canons of the moral code but he is not subject to
disciplinary action because his misbehavior or deviation from the
path of rectitude is not glaringly scandalous. It is in connection with
a lawyer's behavior to the opposite sex where the question of
immorality usually arises. Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a
woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be
characterized as "grossly immoral conduct," will depend on the
surrounding circumstances.
This Court in a decision rendered in 1925, when old-fashioned morality still
prevailed, observed that "the legislator well knows the frailty of the flesh
and the ease with which a man, whose sense of dignity, honor and
morality is not well cultivated, falls into temptation when alone with one of
the fair sex toward whom he feels himself attracted. An occasion is so
inductive to sin or crime that the saying "A fair booty makes many a thief"
or "An open door may tempt a saint has become general."
LESLIE UI, complainant, vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, respondent.
FACTS: A complaint (filed by leslie the wife) for disbarment was filed
against Bonifacio on the ground of immorality for having illicit relations with
a married man which resulted in the birth of two children.
Her defense: She married complainant's husband without knowledge, in
good faith, of his true marriage status; that she parted ways upon

knowledge of such fact. She is also charged for disrespect toward the IBP
for willfully attaching to her Answer a falsified copy of the marriage
certificate.
HELD While a lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct,"
there is no fixed standard for such conduct. Although circumstances
existed which should have irked Bonifacio's suspicion, her act cannot be
considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference
to moral norms of society. Moreover, "a member of the bar must so behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards." Bonifacio's act of immediately distancing
herself from complainant's husband upon knowledge of his true civil status
avoids the alleged moral indifference--that she had no intention of flouting
the law and the high standards of the legal profession. The complaint is
dismissed but she is reprimanded for attaching to her Answer a falsified
copy of her marriage certificate.

must also behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating

the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. Her act of distancing
herself on her discovery that Carlos was married proves that she had no
intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal
profession.
On the matter of the falsified marriage certificate, it is contrary to human
experience and highly improbable that she did not know the year of her
marriage or she failed to check that the information on the document she
attached to her Answer were correct. Lawyers are called upon to
safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts of
malpractice.
CARMEN E. BACARRO, Complainant,
vs.
RUBEN M. PINATACAN, Respondent. (1984)

*** another ruling

The practice of law is a privilege. The bar candidate does not have the
right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar,
he must also have a continued possession of good moral character. A
lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct , which has been
defined as the conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the good and respectable members of the
community. Lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher
degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs
with great caution.
Iris Bonifacio was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However
the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos, clothed as it was with
what she believed as a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral.
Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of
society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, it must be
grossly immoral, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
A lawyer is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships but

Facts:
This is an administrative case filed against respondent with moral turpitude
and immorality. Complainant gave birth to a baby girl named Maria Rochie
Bacarro Pinatacan; that because of respondent's betrayal, her family
suffered shame, disrepute, moral distress and anxiety; and, that
these acts of respondent render him unfit to become a member of the
Bar. On the other hand, respondent maintains that even admitting the truth
of complainant's allegations, the circumstances of their relationship
with each other, does not justify him for disqualification to the
practice of law.
Issue:
WON respondent is entitled to take the lawyers oath despite having a case
involving his good moral character
Holding:
Yes, the court allowed Ruben to take the lawyers oath. considering that
respondent has legally recognized and acknowledged complainant's child
Maria Rochie Bacarro Pinatacan as his own, and has undertaken to give
financial support to the said child, We hold that he has realized the
wrongfulness of his past conduct and is now prepared to turn over a new

leaf. But he must be admonished that his admission to and continued

membership in the Bar are dependent, among others, on his
compliance with his moral and legal obligations as the father of Maria
Rochie Bacarro Pinatacan.
Ratio:
One of the indispensable requisites for admission to the Philippine Bar is
that the applicant must be of good moral character. This requirement aims
to maintain and uphold the high moral standards and the dignity of the
legal profession, and one of the ways of achieving this end is to admit to
the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known to
be honest and to possess good moral character. "As a man of law, (a
lawyer) is necessary a leader of the community, looked up to as a model
citizen" He sets an example to his fellow citizens not only for his respect
for the law, but also for his clean living. Thus, becoming a lawyer is more
than just going through a law course and passing the Bar examinations.
VILLASANTA VS PERALTA (1957)
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL
TURPITUDE; DISQUALIFICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR.
Respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution
demanding respect and dignity and his conviction of violation of Art. 350 of
the Revised Penal Code involves moral turpitude. His act in contracting
the second marriage even his act in making love to another woman while
his first wife is still alive and their marriage still valid and existing is
contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Thus lacking the good
moral character required by the Rules of Court, the respondent is
disqualified from being admitted to the bar.
G.R. No. L-9513 has a direct bearing on the present complaint. Said case
originated from a criminal action filed in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan
by the complainant against the respondent for a violation of Article 350 of the
Revised Penal Code of which the respondent was found guilty. The verdict,
when appealed to the Court of Appeals, was affirmed. The appeal by certiorari
taken to this Court by the respondent was dismissed for lack of merit.
The complaint seeks to disqualify the respondent, a 1954 successful bar

candidate, from being admitted to the bar. The basic facts are the same as
those found by the Court of Appeals, to wit: On April 16, 1939, the
respondent was married to Rizalina E. Valdez in Rizal, Nueva Ecija. On or
before March 8, 1951, he courted the complainant who fell in love with
him. To have carnal knowledge of her, the respondent procured the
preparation of a fake marriage contract which was then a blank document.
He made her sign it on March 8, 1951. A week after, the document was
brought back by the respondent to the complainant, signed by the Justice
of the Peace and the Civil Registrar of San Manuel, Tarlac, and by two
witnesses. Since then the complainant and the respondent lived together
as husband and wife. Sometime later, the complainant insisted on a
religious ratification of their marriage and on July 7, 1951, the
corresponding ceremony was performed in Aparri by the parish priest of
said municipality. The priest no longer required the production of a
marriage license because of the civil marriage contract shown to him. After
the ceremony in Aparri, the couple returned to Manila as husband and wife
and lived with some friends. The complainant then discovered that the
respondent was previously married to someone else; whereupon, she filed
the criminal action for a violation of Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code
in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan and the present complaint for
immorality in this court.
Upon consideration of the records of G.R. No. L-9513 and the complaint,
this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is immoral. He made
mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity. His conviction in the criminal case involves moral turpitude. The act
of respondent in contracting the second marriage (even his act in making
love to another woman while his first wife is still alive and their marriage
still valid and existing) is contrary to honesty, justice, decency, and
morality.
Thus lacking the good moral character required by the Rules of Court, the
respondent is hereby declared disqualified from being admitted to the bar.
So ordered.
IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO
A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975
Facts:

This is a disbarment matter with regards to Attorney Victorio Lanuevo, the

Bar Confidant for the 1971 Bar Examinations. Supreme Court received a
confidential letter that speaks of the exam notebooks of a examinee
named Ramon Galang who has been re-evaluated and re-corrected such
that he hurdled the Bar Exams and was admitted to the Bar.
Lanuevo admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of
Ramon E. Galang back to the respective examiners for re-evalution or rechecking. The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked
the notebook to him by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority
to do the same and that the examinee concerned failed only in his
particular subject and was on the borderline of passing. Ramon Galang
was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevos move but the
exam results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil,
Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial).
Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical
Injuries on Eufrosino de Vera, a law student of MLQU.
The five examiners were led by Lanuevo to believe that it is the Bar
Committees regular activity that when an examinee has failed in one
subject alone, the rest he passed, the examiner in that subject which he
flunked will review his exam notebook.
Afterwards, Lanuevo gained possession of few properties, including that of
a house in BF Homes, which was never declared in his declaration of
assets and liabilities.
Issue:
WON Lanuevo was guilty of defrauding the examiners such that Galang
passed the Bar? YES
Held:
It was plain, simple and unmitigated deception that characterized
respondent Lanuevos well-studied and well-calculated moves in
successively representing separately to each of the five examiners
concerned to the effect that the examinee failed only in his particular
subject and/or was on the borderline of passing. To repeat, the before the
unauthorized re-evaluations were made, Galang failed in the five (5) major

subjects and in two (2) minor subjects which under no circumstances or

standard could it be honestly claimed that the examinee failed only in one,
or he was on the borderline of passing.
The Bar Confidant has absolutely nothing to do in the re-evaluation or
reconsideration of the grades of examinees who fail to make the passing
mark before or after their notebooks are submitted to it by the Examiners.
The Bar Confidant has no business evaluating the answers of the
examinees and cannot assume the functions of passing upon the appraisal
made by the Examiners concerned. He is not the over-all Examiner. He
cannot presume to know better than the examiner.
AS TO GALANGS CRIM CASE: The concealment of an attorney in his
application to take the Bar examinations of the fact that he had been
charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for revocation of
his license to practice law is well settled. The practice of the law is not
an absolute right to be granted every one who demands it, but is a
privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of sound discretion.
The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which
merely enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal law.
Under the circumstances in which respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias
Roman E. Galang, was allowed to take the Bar examinations and the
highly irregular manner in which he passed the Bar, WE have no other
alternative but to order the surrender of his attorneys certificate and the
striking out of his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
DECISION: Lanuevo disbarred, Galang stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF
TELESFORO DIAO
VS. SEVERINO MARTINEZ
FACTS:
o DIAO was admitted to the Bar.
o 2 years later, Martinez charged him with having falsely
represented in his application for the Bar examination, that he
had the requisite academic qualifications.
o Solicitor General investigated and recommended that Diao's name be

o
o

erased from the roll of attorneys

o DIAO did not complete pre-law subjects.
o Did not complete his high school training
o Never attended Quisumbing College
o Never obtained a diploma.
DIAO admitting first charge but claims that although he had left high
school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army,
passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according
to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma
Upon return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his
army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.
No certification. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the
second charge is clearly meritorious:
Never obtained his diploma. from Quisumbing
College; and yet his application for examination
represented him as an A.A. graduate.
Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the
Arellano University in April, 1949
He said erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a
graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school
records.

ISSUE:
WON DIAO still continues admission to the Bar, for passing the Bar
despite not completing pre-law requirements? NO.
HELD:
o
o

STRIKE OUT NAME OF DIAO IN ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. DIAO

REQUIRED TO RETURN HIS LAWYERS DIPLOMA WITHIN 30
DAYS.
Explanation of error or confusion is not acceptable.
1 Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from
Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that he got it
in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law studies
(2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his
Associate in Arts degree.
2 He would not have been permitted to take the bar tests:
o Bar applicant must affirm under oath, "That previous to the

study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily

completed the required pre-legal education (A.A.).
o Therefore, Diao was not qualified to take the bar
examinations.
o Such admission having been obtained under false
pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked
Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an
attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the
regular manner is equally essential.

LEDA v. ATTY. TABANG

(A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992)
FACTS:
o Evangeline Leda (complainant) challenges Atty. Trebonian
Tabangs (respondent) good moral character in two complaints she
filed against him, one docketed as Bar Matter No. 78 instituted on
January 6, 1982 and the case at hand.
o It appears that complainant and respondent contracted a marriage
in Tigbauan, Iloilo on October 3, 1976 under as one of the
exceptional character under Article 76 of the Civil Code. The
parties agreed to keep their marriage a secret until respondent
had finished his law studies and had taken the Bar examinations.
Complainant admits that they have not lived together as husband
and wife.
o After respondents law studies and bar examinations,
complainant blocked his oath-taking (by instituting Bar Matter
No. 78) claiming that respondent had acted fraudulently when
he filled out his application declaring he was single and is
thus unworthy to take the lawyers Oath for lack of good
moral character.
o Respondent filed his explanation claiming that he was legally
married to complainant but the marriage was not yet made and
declared public so that he may finish his studies as well as take
the bar exams and he therefore believed that he was still single.
Respondent also alleged that he and the complainant has
reconciled and prayed that the case be dismissed (on the ground

that complainant confirmed with his explanation as evidence by

the affidavit of desistance made by complainant) which was
granted by the Court on August 20, 1982.
However, on February 14, 983, complainant filed an Administrative
case and prayed for respondents disbarment on the grounds that:
Respondent used his legal knowledge to contract an invalid
marriage; he misrepresented himself in his application to take
the bar exam; lack of good moral character; and that
complainant was deceived into signing the affidavit of
desistance and that the only reason why he reconciled with
her is so that she would withdraw the complaint against him.
Complainant also claimed that respondent sent her a letter
which proves all of her allegations where the respondent
states that their marriage was actually void form the
beginning.
Respondent denied that he had sent such letter. On March 26,
1984, the Bar Confidants report recommended indefinite
suspension of respondent until the status of his marriage is
settled.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Trebonian Tabang violated Rule 7.01 of Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. YES
HELD:
The court held that Atty. TrebonianTabangis guilty of violating Rule 7.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and is thus suspended from the
practice of law until further notice. The Court held that respondents
declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar
Examinations that he was "single" was a gross misrepresentation of
a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should be made
answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional
Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a material fact
in connection with his application for admission to the bar." That false
statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified him outright from
taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good
moral character.

Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. He has

resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit himself. He has
also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order to serve his
purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the court" as well as Rule 1001 thereof which
states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty
from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Respondent,
through his actuations, has been lacking in the candor required of him not
only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court.

IN RE AL ARGOSINO
FACTS:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

o
o

1991- a neophyte died from a hazing incident at san beda col.

Al caparros argosino was one of the 8 persons charged with the
murder of the neophyte.
He pleaded not guilty to the offense and was later charged with
the lesser offense of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
1993 argosino was granted probation.
1994 he was discharged from probation
thereafter, he petitioned the court that he be allowed to take the
lawyers oath.
1995 the court issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al C.
argosino to submit to the court evidence that he may now be
regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral
character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar.
In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no
less than 15 certifications/letters executed by among others 2
senators, 5 TC judges, and 6 members of religious orders.
Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship
foundation had been established in honor of raul camaligan, the
hazing victim, through a joint efforts of the latters family and the

eight accused in the criminal case.

Before acting on petitioners application, the court resolved to
require the father of the deceased to comment on petiitoners
prayer.

ISSUE:
WON ARGOSINO may be allowed to take the lawyers oath.
HELD:
YES, he is allowed.

in allowing mr. argosino to take the lawyers oath, the court recognizes that
mr. argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various
certification show that he is a devout catholic with genuine concern for civic
duties and public service.
the lawyers oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law.
EVERY LAWYER SHOULD AT ALL TIMES WEIGH HIS ACTIONS
according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyers oath.