SPETHICS

Title - using the title to have things your ways. Use it sparingly.
Weakness vs Meekness
Treasure worked hard to be a lawyer, do not do things that will
devalue it.
Trust
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA
FACTS: The respondent Atty. Luis Tagorda, a member of the
provincial board of Isabela, admits that in the last general elections
he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which in
translation, read as follows:
LUIS B. TAGORDA Attorney; Notary Public; CANDIDATE FOR
BOARD MEMBER, Province of Isabela. (NOTE.- as notary public, he
can execute for a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required
by the cadastral office, can renew lost documents of your animals;
can make your application and final requisites for your homestead;
and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer he can help you
collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint
for or against you. Come or write to him in his town Echague,
Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve
the poor.)
The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter
addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality written in
Ilocano, which letter reads as follow:
I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that
some people are in the belief that my residence as member of the
Board will be in Iligan and that I would then be disqualified to exercise
my profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not the case
and I would make it clear that I am free to exercise my profession as
formerly and that I will have my residence here in Echague, I would
request your kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio
people in any of your meeting or social gatherings so that they may
be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in my capacity
as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your locality have not as
yet contracted the services of other lawyers in connection with the
registration of their land titles, I would be willing to handle the work in
court and would charge only three pesos for every registration.
ISSUE: Whether or not the suspension of Luis B. Tagorda is
meritorious.
HELD: Application is give to se. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
as amended by Act NO. 2828, providing The practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokets, constitutes malpractice, and to Canon 27 and 28
of the Code of Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association in
1908 and by the Philippines Bar Association in 1917, to the case of
the respondent lawyer. The law is a profession and not a
business. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground
for disbarment or suspension.
1. Respondent Tagorda is suspended from the practice of
law for 1 month.
2. For advertising his services in the Sunday Tribune
respondent attorney is reprimanded.

DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA

AC No. 99-634. June 10, 2002FACTS:
On September 1998, respondent agreed to legally represent
petitioner Dominador Burbe in a money claim and possible civil case
against certain parties for breach of contract. In consequence to such
agreement, Atty. Alberto C. Magulta prepared the demand letter and
some other legal papers, for which services he was accordingly paid
and an amount of P25, 000.00 for the required filing fee. A week later,
petitioner was informed by the respondent that the complaint had
already been filed in court, and that he should receive notice of its
progress. The petitioner waited for several months for the notice from
the court but there was no progress in the case, he was also inquired
repeatedly in the respondents Law Office, however he was told to
just wait. The petitioner decided to go to the Office of the Clerk of
Court with the draft of Atty. Magultas complaint to personally verify
the progress of the case, and there told that there was no record at
all of a case filed by Atty. Alberto C. Magulta on his behalf, copy of
the Certification dated May 27, 1999. As such, the petitioner
confronted the latter. The respondent admitted that he has not at all
filed the complaint because he had spent the money for the filing fee
for his own purpose he offered to reimburse him by issuing two (2)
checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the amounts of P12,
000.00 and P8, 000.00.The petitioner filed a case against Atty.
Magulta for misrepresentation, dishonesty and oppressive conduct.
The respondent denied the allegations and alleged that he was never
been paid by complainant for his acceptance and legal fees and that
the amount he had paid was a deposit for the acceptance fee
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Magulta is liable for
misrepresentation of funds given to him for the filing fee.
HELD: YES. Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and
properties that may come into their possession. Lawyers who convert
the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professional
ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal
profession. It may be true that they have a lien upon the clients funds,
documents and other papers that have lawfully come into their
possession; that they may retain them until their lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid; and that they may apply such funds
to the satisfaction of such fees and disbursements. However, these
considerations do not relieve them of their duty to promptly account
for the moneys they received. Their failure to do so constitutes
professional misconduct. In any event, they must still exert all effort
to protect their clients interest within the bounds of law. Respondent
fell short of this standard when he converted into his legal fees the
filing fee entrusted to him by his client and thus failed to file the
complaint promptly. The fact that the former returned the amount
does not exculpate him from his breach of duty.
C.
1.

The Practice of Law

Definition

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

B.

Pinedapcg,rn,man 2015

Introduction to the Course

This is a course that is focused more on the lawyer than the
law.
The Legal Profession

Page

A.

SPETHICS

Pinedapcg,rn,man 2015

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law
for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave
abuse of discretion in confirming Monsods appointment.
HELD:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or
litigation in court. It embraces the preparation of pleadings and other
papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management
of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and other works
where the work done involves the determination of the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA vs. Agrava.) The
records of the 1986 constitutional commission show that the
interpretation of the term practice of law was liberal as to consider
lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the
practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge or talent
in their respective work. The court also cited an article in the January
11, 1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers nowadays have
their own specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc.,
that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage
in other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example,
most corporation lawyers are involved in management policy
formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked
with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an
investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986,
and also became a member of the Davide Commission in 1990, can
be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as lawyereconomist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.
2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the nomination of
the Comelec Chairman by the president is mandated by the
constitution. The power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that
the appointee should possess the qualification required by law. From
the evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to exercise its corrective
power since there is no such grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the CA.
Justice Padilla dissenting:
Monsod did not practice law. Justice Padilla emphasized the
following criteria in determining what constitutes practice of law:
1. Habituality. The term practice of law implies customarily or
habitually holding ones self out to the public as a lawyer (People vs.
Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Boyen, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C.

Justice Gutierrez dissenting:

Monsod did not practice law save for the one year he spent in his
fathers law office. The Chairman of the COMELEC should have
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The deliberate
choice of words shows that the practice envisioned is active and
regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental,
seasonal, or extemporaneous. To be engaged in an activity for ten
years requires committed participation in something which is the
result of ones decisive choice. It means that one is occupied and
involved in the enterprise; one is obliged or pledged to carry it out
with intent and attention during the ten-year period.
What kind of Judges or Justices will we have if their main occupation
is selling real estate, managing a business corporation, serving in
fact-finding committee, working in media, or operating a farm with no
active involvement in the law, whether in Government or private
practice, except that in one joyful moment in the distant past, they
happened to pass the bar examinations?
There is nothing in Monsods track record which will show that he
Monsod has given the law enough attention or a certain degree of
commitment and participation as would support in all sincerity and
candor the claim of having engaged in its practice for at least ten

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

FACTS: Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman

of the Comelec. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the
appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's
alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice.
Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition. The 1987 constitution
provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on
Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall
be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college
degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position
in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

644) such as when one sends a circular announcing the

establishment of a law office for the general practice of law (U.S. v.
Ney Bosque, 8 Phil. 146), or when one takes the oath of office as a
lawyer before a notary public, and files a manifestation with the
Supreme Court informing it of his intention to practice law in all courts
in the country (People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968).
Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in
frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind.
In other words, it is a habitual exercise (People v. Villanueva, 14
SCRA 109 citing State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan, 864).
2. Compensation. Practice of law implies that one must have
presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the
legal profession and that his professional services are available to
the public for compensation, as a service of his livelihood or in
consideration of his said services. (People v. Villanueva, supra).
Hence, charging for services such as preparation of documents
involving the use of legal knowledge and skill is within the term
practice of law (Ernani Pao, Bar Reviewer in Legal and Judicial
Ethics, 1988 ed., p. 8 citing People v. Peoples Stockyards State
Bank, 176 N.B. 901) and, one who renders an opinion as to the
proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is to that
extent, practicing law (Martin, supra, p. 806 citing Mendelaun v.
Gilbert and Barket Mfg. Co., 290 N.Y.S. 462) If compensation is
expected, all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters
connected with the law; are practicing law. (Elwood Fitchette et al., v.
Arthur C. Taylor, 94A-L.R. 356-359)
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls
for legal knowledge, training and experience is within the term
practice of law. (Martin supra)
4. Attorney-client relationship. Engaging in the practice of law
presupposes the existence of lawyer-client relationship. Hence,
where a lawyer undertakes an activity which requires knowledge of
law but involves no attorney-client relationship, such as teaching law
or writing law books or articles, he cannot be said to be engaged in
the practice of his profession or a lawyer (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1989
ed., p. 30).
Monsod did not habitually practice law. It may be granted that he
performed activities which are related to the practice of law like
drafting legal documents and giving legal advice, but he only did so
as isolated incidents.

Page

RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD

G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.

SPETHICS

Pinedapcg,rn,man 2015

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its
aim, according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to
cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now,
Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic
because of the latters advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce
through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office
hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa
Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of
Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in
the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx
for Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales
stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can
take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even
if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion
situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors,
are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic,
Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal
problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are
backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of
the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The
State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely
making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of
law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may
be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law
however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed
mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal
problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings.
Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of
paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in
the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the
services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law
cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as

JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ET AL. vs. JUDGE ANTONIO C.

LUBAO
A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ | June 20, 2012 | Carpio, J.
FACTS: The complainants were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7819
that was appealed from MTC General Santos City to RTC, Branch
22, which was the post of the respondent Judge. Judge Lubao then
issued an Order on 12 September 2008 directing the parties to file
their memoranda within 30 days from receipt. Complainants averred
that defendants should have received the Order by 07 October
2008, giving them until 06 November 2008 to file the memoranda,
but they failed to do so. That notwithstanding, Judge Lubao still
didnt decide the case 4 months from November 6. On 20 May
2009, he even gave the defendants a last chance to file their
memoranda but the same was received by defendants only on 17
June 2009. Thus, the complainants filed the instant complaint with
the OCA against the Judge for gross ignorance of the law, rules or
procedures, gross incompetency, violation of RA 3019, violation of
Arts. 171 and 172 of the RPC and pertinent provisions of the Code
of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Lubao, in his Comment, informed the Court that one of the
complainants, Remberto C. Karaan, Sr., is engaging in the practice
of law even though he is not a lawyer. Karaan replied by saying that
Judge Lubao was only evading the topic at hand and thus violating
again basic rules of procedure and the law. The OCA dismissed the
complaint saying that there was no evidence of fraud, bad faith or
dishonesty of Judge Lubao in giving the said Orders. OCA said that
the remedy of complainants is a judicial remedy and not an
administrative case. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated 24
November 2010, dismissed the complainant against Judge Lubao

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic

223 SCRA 378

a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is

entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal
profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A
lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise
his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising
his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to
promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other
circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are
allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must
be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of
publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a
normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A
good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it
and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a
normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as
allowed forms of advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to
his specialization

Page

years. Instead of working as a lawyer, he has lawyers working for

him. Instead of giving receiving that legal advice of legal services, he
was the one adviced and those services as an executive but not as
a lawyer.

SPETHICS

Pinedapcg,rn,man 2015

2.

The Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
49 SCRA 22
FACTS: Republic Act. No. 6397 entitled An Act Providing for the
Integration of the Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds Therefore
was passed in September 1971, ordaining Within two years from the
approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to
effect the integration of the Philippine Bar. The Supreme Court
formed a Commission on Bar Integration and in December 1972, the
Commission earnestly recommended the integration of the bar. The
Court accepted all comments on the proposed integration.
ISSUES:
1. Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine
bar?
2. Would the integration of the bar be constitutional?
3. Should the Court ordain the integration of the bar at this
time?
HELD: In ruling on the issues raised, the Court first adopted the
definition given by the Commission to integration in this wise:
Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the
entire lawyer population of the Philippines. This requires membership
and financial support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as
conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his
name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. The term Bar
refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the
Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or unified Bar) perforce must
include all lawyers.
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity
with power to do so; the State. Bar integration therefore, signifies the
setting up by government authority of a national organization of the
legal profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as an officer
of the court.
Designed to improve the positions of the Bar as an instrumentality of
justice and the rule of law, integration fosters cohesion among
lawyers, and ensures, through their own organized action and
participation, the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession,
pursuant to the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum
supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court.

IN RE CUNANAN
94 PHIL. 534
FACTS: Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the
Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, An Act to Fix the
Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including
1955.
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-195170%
1952 .71%
1953..72%
1954..73%
1955..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than
50%.
Section 2 of the Act provided that A bar candidate who obtained a
grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed
that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the
computation of the general average in subsequent bar
examinations.
ISSUE: Whether oR not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
HELD: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect
of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act
should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an
indefinite time. It was also struck down for allowing partial passing,
thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are
not stationary.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

ISSUE: WON Judge Lubao is guilty of gross ignorance of the law,

rules or procedures, gross incompetency, violation of RA 3019,
violation of Arts. 171 and 172 of the RPC and pertinent provisions of
the Code of Judicial Conduct
HELD: No. The SC held that not all administrative complainants
against judges should merit sanctions to judges especially if no bad
faith, dishonesty or corruption is present. Judge Lubao could not be
faulted for acting carefully before proceeding with the civil case and
in giving all the parties an opportunity to be heard.
Further, the SC held that Karaan was indeed engaged in
unauthorized practice of law and he was held in indirect contempt by
the SC. His act of requiring the parties to execute a Special Power of
Attorney in his favor to allow him to be a party litigant constituted such
illegal practice. He was imposed a penalty of 10,000.00 for his
actions.

On the first issue, the Court held that it may integrate the Bar in the
exercise of its power to promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the
practice of law. Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of
the Courts constitutional authority over the Bar.
The second issue hinges on the following constitutional rights:
freedom of association and of speech, as well as the nature of the
dues exacted from the lawyer, i.e., whether or not the Court thus
levies a tax. The Court held:
1. Integration is not violative of freedom of association
because it does not compel a lawyer to become a member
of any group of which he is not already a member. All that
it does is to provide an official national organization for
the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of
which every lawyer is already a member. The lawyer too
is not compelled to attend meetings, participate of
activities, etc. The only compulsion is the payment of
annual dues. Assuming, however, that it does compel a
lawyer to be a member of an integrated bar, the court held
that such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the
police power of the state
2. Integration is also not violative of the freedom of speech
just because dues paid b the lawyer may be used for
projects or programs, which the lawyer opposes. To rule
otherwise would make every government exaction a free
speech issue. Furthermore, the lawyer is free to voice out
his objections to positions taken by the integrated bar.
3. The dues exacted from lawyers is not in the nature of a
levy but is purely for purposes of regulation.
As to the third issue, the Court believes in the timeliness of the
integration. Survey showed an overwhelming majority of lawyers who
favored integration.

Page

and ordered Karaan to show cause why he should not be cited in

contempt. Thus, Karaan moved for a reconsideration of the dismissal
before the Supreme Court.

SPETHICS

Pinedapcg,rn,man 2015

FACTS: Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross

negligence, in connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal
filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). Tomas Dagohoy (Tomas),
his client and the father of complainant Rex Polinar Dagohoy, was
charged with and convicted of theft by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 34, of Panabo City, Davao del Norte. According to the
complainant, the CA dismissed the appeal for Atty. San Juans
failure to file the appellants brief. He further alleged that Atty. Sa n
Juan did not file a motion for reconsideration against the CAs order
of dismissal.
The complainant also accused Atty. San Juan of being untruthful in
dealing with him and Tomas. The complainant, in this regard, alleged
that Atty. San Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of the real status
of Tomas appeal and did not disclose to them the real reason for its
dismissal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is liable for committing gross
negligence, in connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed
before the Court of Appeals (CA)
HELD: Atty. San Juans negligence undoubtedly violates the
Lawyers Oath that requires him to conduct [himself] as a lawyer
accord ing to the best of (his) knowledge and discretion, with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to (his) clients[.] He also violated Rule
18.03 and Rule
18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, We deny
Atty. San Juan's motion to lift the order of suspension. Atty. San
Juan's self-imposed compliance with the IBP's recommended
penalty of three (3) months suspension was premature. The
wordings of the Resolution dated April 16, 2012 show that the
Court merely noted: (1) the IBP's findings and the recommended
penalty against Atty. San Juan; and (2) the IBP referral of the ca se
back to the Court for its proper disposition. The IBP findings and the

3.
A.

Admission to the Practice of Law

Citizenship

BAR MATTER 914

FACTS: In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint
Louis University in Baguio City. He eventually passed the bar but he
was advised that he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen
before he be allowed to take his oath. Apparently, Chings father was
a Chinese citizen but his mother was a Filipino citizen. His parents
were married before he was born in 1963. Under the 1935
Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner,
acquires the foreign citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching
maintained that he has always considered himself as a Filipino; that
he is a certified public accountant a profession reserved for
Filipinos; that he even served as a councilor in a municipality in La
Union.
The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a
legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino, Ching should have
elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; that
under prevailing jurisprudence, upon reaching the age of majority is
construed as within 7 years after reaching the age of majority (in his
case 21 years old because he was born in 1964 while the 1935
Constitution was in place).
Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when he was
preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of
majority. Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General recommended that the
rule be relaxed due to the special circumstance of Ching.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyers
oath.
HELD: No. Unfortunately, he belatedly elected Filipino citizenship.
The Supreme Court cannot agree with the recommendation of the
Solicitor-General. Fourteen years had lapsed and its way beyond the
allowable 7 year period. The Supreme Court even noted that the
period is originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It seems
it cant be extended any further). Chings special circumstances cant
be considered. It is not enough that he considered all his life that he
is a Filipino; that he is a professional and a public officer (was) serving
this country. The rules for citizenship are in place. Further, Ching
didnt give any explanation why he belatedly chose to elect Filipino

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

REX POLINAR DAGOHOY VS ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN JUAN

A.C. No. 7944

stated penalty thereon are merely recommendatory; only the

Supreme Court has the power to discipline erring lawyers and to
impose against them penalties for unethical conduct. 23 Until finally
acted upon by the Supreme Court, the IBP findings and the
recommended penalty imposed cannot attain finality until adopted by
the Court as its own. Thus, the IBP findings,
by themselves, cannot be a proper subject of implementation or
compliance.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:
1. NOTE the Report and Recommendation dated January 14, 2013
of the Office of the Bar Confidant;
2. SUSPEND from the practice of law for a period of one ( 1) year
Atty. Artemio V. San Juan for violating his Lawyer's Oath and Rules
18.03
and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
with a WARNING that the commission of the same or similar act or
acts shall be dealt with more severely; and
3. DENY the motion filed by Atty. Artemio V. San Juan in the letter
dated August 28, 2012 that he be allowed to return to the practice of
law.

Page

As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared

unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force
and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the
following reasons:
1. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission
who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate
preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the
end of World War II;
2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of
the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Courts primary
prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice
of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to
repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules
laid down by Congress under this power are only
minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment
of the court on who can practice law; and
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to
class legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not
muster enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was
passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke
existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of
an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power to
Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission to the
practice of law.

SPETHICS

Pinedapcg,rn,man 2015

citizenship (but I guess its simply because he never thought hes

Chinese not until he applied to take the bar). The prescribed
procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious
and painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to
execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and,
thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Chings
unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot
be simply glossed over.

The Qualifications to the Practice of Law (Rule 138, Sec2, 5, 6 Rules of

Court)

In Re: Argosino B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995

FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of
a successful bar applicant. Argosino was previously involved with
hazing that caused the death of Raul Camaligan but was sentenced
with homicide through reckless imprudence after he pleaded guilty.
He was sentenced with 2 year imprisonment where he applied for a
probation thereafter which was granted by the court with a 2
yr probation. He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed
to take oath. He filed a petition to allow him to take the attorneys oath
of office averring that his probation was already terminated. The court
note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it
was terminated.
ISSUE: WON Argosino may take oath of office.
HELD: The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good morals
of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such is of greater
importance so far as the general public and the proper administration
of justice are concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would
certify that he has reformed and have become a responsible member
of the community through sworn statements of individuals who have
a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino
for a significant period of time to certify he is morally fit to the
admission of the law profession. The court also ordered that said a
copy of the proceeding be furnished to the family/relatives of Raul
Camaligan.
D.
Re:

Academics
Application

of

A.M.

Hernandez

July

27,

1993

FACTS: Hernandez is a Filipino citizen who have a degree of Juris

Doctor from Columbia Law School in New York and passed the bar
examinations in the same City in 1990. He is currently taking bar
subjects in Ateneo Law School and taking a 5 month bar review
course there. He now asks the court to allow him to take the bar exam
in
the
Phils.
ISSUE: WON the S.C. may allow him to take the bar exam in the
Phils.
HELD: Yes, he may be allowed to take the bar because there were
some instances in the past where a Filipino studied law in a foreign

Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar.

Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen
of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral
character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the
Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that
no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines.
Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. All applicants
for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding section
shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that
they have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully
completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially
approved and recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of
the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or school
of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may
be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has
satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or
university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law,
remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political
law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and
legal ethics.
Section 6. Pre-Law. No applicant for admission to the bar
examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he
has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study
of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the
completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study
prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of
the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science,
logic, english, spanish, history and economics.
4.

Law Practice of Non-Lawyers

a. RULE 138-A: Law Student Practice Rule
Section 1. Conditions for student practice. A law student
who has successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular
four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school's clinical legal education program
approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

Residency
Character

Page

B.
C.

law school and were allowed to take the bar in the Philippines.
However, the court held this time that in the following year, applicants
for the Bar must study in a local law school in the Phils. And must
present certifications required by Section 5 and 6 of Rule 138 to be
able to take the bar. Such certification however is not issued to
foreign law school graduates therefore anyone who wants to take the
bar in the country should study in any of the law schools in the Phils.
to be able to take the bar exam.

SPETHICS

Pinedapcg,rn,man 2015

compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case

before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent
indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.

Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. The law

student shall comply with the standards of professional
conduct governing members of the Bar. Failure of an attorney
to provide adequate supervision of student practice may be a
ground for disciplinary action. (Circular No. 19, dated
December 19, 1986).

Rule 138 Section 34. By whom litigation conducted. In the court of a

justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the
aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for the purpose, or with the aid
an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation
personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
D.

Legal Ethics
1. Definition

Legal ethics: branch of moral science which treats of the duties which
an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the
profession and to the public.
- It is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that
should govern the conduct of every member of the bar.
2.

Lawyers Oath
I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey
the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same; I will delay no man for money
or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts

SPOUSES VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA vs. ATTY.

EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA
A.C. No. 7907
December 15, 2010
FACTS: In 2006, Atty. Emmanuel Elayda was hired by Spouses
Virgilio and Angelina Aranda to be their counsel in a civil case.
However, to their surprise in July 2006, an adverse judgment was
issued against them, thus they lost possession of their car.
Apparently, their counsel never appeared in court for them. Atty.
Elayda failed to inform the spouses of the date of hearing as well as
the order of judgment. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was
interposed by the lawyer as well.
In his defense, Atty. Elayda said that it was the spouses who never
went to court; that the spouses neglected to check on their case in
court; that one time when their case was scheduled, he even notified
the court stenographer to notify him if the spouses are in court so that
he could be there for them as he was in another court branch for
another case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. It was established that Atty. Elayda was remiss and
negligent in handling the Aranda case. Although it is true that the
client and their counsel must equally share the burden of
communication, it is the primary duty of the counsel to inform the
client of the status of their case in court and the orders which have
been issued by the court. He cannot simply wait for his clients to
make an inquiry about the developments in their case. Close
coordination between counsel and client is necessary for them to
adequately prepare for the case, as well as to effectively monitor the
progress of the case. Also, his excuse that he did not appear in court
because the spouses failed to appear in court is not tenable. His

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea

Section 3. Privileged communications. The Rules

safeguarding privileged communications between attorney
and client shall apply to similar communications made to or
received by the law student, acting for the legal clinic.

3.

Page

Section 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student

authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision
and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all
pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be
filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in
behalf of the legal clinic.

as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this

voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God.
Four Fold Duties of a Lawyer
A. Duty to the society: A lawyer should not
violate his responsibility to society,
exemplar for righteousness, ready to
render to legal aid, foster social
reforms, guardian of due process,
aware of special role in the solution of
special problems and be always ready
to lend assistance to the study and
solution of social problems.
B. Duty to the legal profession: A lawyer
must show candor, fairness, courtesy
and truthfulness, avoid encroachment
in the business of other lawyers and
uphold the honor of legal profession
C. Duty to the courts: A lawyer must
defend against criticism, uphold
authority and dignity, obey order and
processes, and assist in the
administration of justice.
D. Duty to the client: A lawyer must give
his entire devotion to his clients
interest.

SPETHICS

Pinedapcg,rn,man 2015

Page

attendance at the hearing should not be made to depend on the

whether the spouses Aranda will come or not.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended a 6 month suspension.
This was adopted by the court.

Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea