1

REHABILITATION FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT

AND GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
In the Matter of JAMES JOSEPH HAMM
Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-04-0079-M211 Ariz 458, 123 p.3d 652, 2005

PETITION:
To review the recommendation provided by Committee on Character and Fitness (the
Committee) denying the Petitioners application for admission to the State Bar of Arizona (the Bar).
FACTS:
Hamm, the Petitioner, was sentenced to life in prison for one-count of first degree murder to
which he pled guilty. Prior to serving his sentence, Hamm had been separated from his wife with whom
he had as on and had supported himself by selling and using marijuana, other drugs and drinking
alcohol.
The crime for which Hamm was sentenced to life imprisonment is for the murder of
Morley and Staples, who were killed by Hamm along with two accomplices, Garland Wells and Bill
Reeser. The three robbed and killed Morley and Well by shooting them with a gun and leaving their
bodies lying in the dessert.
While in prison, Hamm exhibited good conduct and became a model prisoner which earned
him a conditioned parole. Hamm was released after serving nearly seventeen years in prison. From
conditioned parole, Hamm absolutely discharged on December 2001.
While on parole, Hamm graduated from the Arizona State University College of Law. In July
1999, Hamm passed the Arizona bar examination and, in 2004, filed his Character and Fitness Report
with the Committee.
In its report, the Committee stated that, in reaching its conclusions, it considered the
following:

Hamms unlawful conduct, which included the commission of two violent execution style
murders and his testimony as to the facts surrounding the murders.

Hamms omissions on his Application and his testimony in explaining his failure to disclose all
required information.

Hamms neglect of his financial responsibilities and/or violation of a longstanding child

support court order and his testimony as to his failure to comply with the court order.

Hamms mental or emotional instability impairing his ability to perform the functions of an
attorney including his testimony as to any diagnosis and treatment.

LEGAL ETHICS 2016-2017

NORLAINIE C. OMAR

ISSUE: Whether or not Joseph Hamm can be admitted to the Bar.

HELD:
No, the Supreme Court decided that Hamm failed to prove his burden that he is of good moral
character on the following grounds:

Hamm failed to show rehabilitation from past criminal conduct by not accepting full
responsibility for serious criminal misconduct - Staples murder although he accepted
responsibility for the death of Morley.

Hamm was not completely up-front in his testimony to the murder of which he claims
that he only intended to rob and not to kill. This is contrary to the facts he accepted the
gun and brings it with him in the car, shot Morley without attempting robbery and shot
hit again to ensure he is dead and shot Staples when he attempted to escape.

Hamms failure to fulfill his long overdue obligation to support his child who he was aware
existed.

Hamms failure to disclose the incident involving him and his wife, Donna, when he
submitted his application to the Committee. This incident gave rise to Hamm being
questioned by the law enforcers which should have been reflected by Hamm in the
application Question 25.

Hamms act of quoting lines from Supreme Courts decision and use the same in the
introduction for his petition

Because James Hamm has failed to meet his burden of proving that he is of good moral
character, the court denied his application for admission to the State Bar of Arizona.

IN RE: Petition to disqualify ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA, on Legal and Moral

Grounds, from being elected IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao in the IBP
Elections
A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003
PETITION:
To seek for the disqualification of respondent Atty. Leonard De Vera from being elected
Governor of Eastern Mindanao in the 16th Intergrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Regional Governors
elections; filed by Attys. Oliver Owen L. Garcia, Emmanuel Ravanera and Tony Velez.
FACTS:
In this case, Petitioners claim that respondent De Vera should be disqualified because he is
not morally fit to occupy the position of governor of Eastern Mindanao.

LEGAL ETHICS 2016-2017

NORLAINIE C. OMAR

They assailed the morality of the respondent De Vera on the basis of the alleged sanction
imposed by the SC during the deliberation on the constitutionality of the plunder law, apparently
referring to this Courts Decision dated 29 July 2002 in In Re: Published Alleged Threats Against
Members of the Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard De Vera.
Respondents utterances to the Philippine Daily Inquirer regarding a pending case of Estrada
v Sandiganbayan involving the constitutionality of the Plunder Law, belies his protestation of good
faith but were clearly made to mobilized public opinion and bring pressure on the court.
In his Explanation submitted to the Court, respondent De Vera admitted to have made said
statements but denied to have uttered the same to degrade the Court, to destroy public confidence
in it and to bring it into disrepute. He explained that he was merely exercising his constitutionally
guaranteed right to freedom of speech.
The Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and held that the statements were aimed at
influencing and threatening the Court to decide in favor of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law.
In this case De Vera was found guilty of indirect contempt of court and was imposed a fine in the
amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00)

ISSUE: Whether or not the pronouncement on Atty. De Vera can be used to disqualify him from
running for Governor in the IBP.

HELD:
NO. The ruling cannot serve as a basis to consider respondent de Vera immoral. The act for
which he was found guilty of indirect contempt does not involve moral turpitude.
In Tak Ng v. Republic of the Philippines, the Court defines moral turpitude as an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellow men,
or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man
and man, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. The determination of
whether an act involves moral turpitude is a factual issue and frequently depends on the
circumstances attending the violation of the statute.
In this case, it cannot be said that the act of expressing ones opinion on a public interest issue
can be considered as an act of baseness, vileness or depravity. Respondent De Vera did not bring
suffering nor cause undue injury or harm to the public when he voiced his views on the Plunder Law.
Consequently, there is no basis for petitioner to invoke the administrative case as evidence of
respondent De Veras alleged immorality.
As long as an aspiring member meets the basic requirements provided in the IBP By-Laws, he
cannot be barred. The basic qualifications for one who wishes to be elected governor for a particular
region are: (1) he is a member in good standing of the IBP; 2) he is included in the voters list of his
chapter or he is not disqualified by the Integration Rule, by the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, or by
the By-Laws of the Chapter to which he belongs; (3) he does not belong to a chapter from which a
regional governor has already been elected, unless the election is the start of a new season or
cycle; and (4) he is not in the government service.

LEGAL ETHICS 2016-2017

NORLAINIE C. OMAR

There is nothing in the By-Laws which explicitly provides that one must be morally fit before he can
run for IBP governorship.

ROBERTO SORIANO v. Atty. MANUEL DIZON

A.C. No. 6792. January 25, 2006
DOCTRINE:
The purpose for a proceeding of disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by
requiring that those who exercise this important function to be competent, honorable and reliable
lawyers in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.
FACTS:
Complainant was a taxi driver who overtook the accuseds car on his way home after gassing
up. Accused was drunk at that time and tailed the taxi until it rounded by the Chugum and Carino
streets. The accused stopped his car and berated Soriano. There resulted an altercation, but Soriano
merely tried to stop Dizon from attacking him, because he was the older guy and he smelled of liquor.
Dizon dropped his eyeglasses, and Soriano picked them up. However, when Soriano attempted to
return the eyeglasses, Dizon had gotten a gun and wrapped its handle with a handkerchief and fired a
shot at Soriano. The bullet got Sorianos carotid artery, but he survived due to prompt medical
treatment. Dizon was convicted of frustrated homicide and applied for probation, which was granted.
However, he obstinately refused to satisfy civil liabilities with Soriano. He also tried to settle with
Sorianos family with the vice mayors help, but that got nowhere. He also fabricated stories that
Soriano with two others beat him up. Also, he was found to be in possession of an unlicensed firearm.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Manuel Dizons disbarment was proper.

HELD:
YES. Accused displayed dishonestly and moral turpitude by his behavior. Among others, the
following facts prove that he lacks good moral character:
a. He was under the influence of liquor while driving his car;
b. He reacted violently and attempted to assault Complainant only because the latter, driving
a taxi, had overtaken him;
c. Complainant having been able to ward off his attempted assault, Respondent went back to
his car, got a gun, wrapped the same with a handkerchief and shot Complainant, who was
unarmed;
d. When Complainant fell on him, Respondent simply pushed him out and fled;
e. Despite positive identification and overwhelming evidence, Respondent denied that he had
shot Complainant;

LEGAL ETHICS 2016-2017

NORLAINIE C. OMAR

f. Apart from his denial, Respondent also lied when he claimed that he was the one mauled
by Complainant and two unidentified persons; and
g. Although he has been placed on probation, Respondent has, to date, not yet satisfied his
civil liabilities to Complainant.
Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction for a crime involving moral
turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have
become unfit to uphold the administration of justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral
character.
Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty,
or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a
man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.

LEGAL ETHICS 2016-2017

NORLAINIE C. OMAR

PASSING THE BAR AND THE PRACTICE OF LAW

DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE v. EDWIN L. RANA
B.M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003
DOCTRINE:
It is upon signing the roll of Attorneys that one becomes a full-fledged lawyer, prior to which
one has no authority to practice law.
FACTS:
The respondent Edwin Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Exams. A day before
the mass oath taking, the complainant Donna Aguirre filed against him a Petition for Denial of
Admission to the Bar, charging him with unauthorized practice of the law, grave misconduct, violation
of the law, and grave misrepresentation. Because of these, Rana was disallowed from signing his name
in the Roll of Attorneys until the said charges are resolved.
These charges stemmed from the fact that during the mayoralty elections in May 2001, Rana,
while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for candidates before the Municipal Board of Election
Canvassers of Mandaon, Masbate. Further, he even signed pleadings as counsel for George Bunan,
Undersigned Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan, and even
entered his appearance as counsel for mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao. All these were
executed prior to his taking the lawyers oath. In denial of the charges, he claims to have assisted the
candidates not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law. He also claims that the charges against
him were only brought as political vendetta by the daughter of the losing mayoralty candidate.
ISSUE: Whether or not Rana was guilty of unauthorized practice of the law.
HELD:
YES. The Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report
and recommendation. The OBC found that Rana did in fact appear as counsel for Bunan in the
mayoralty elections even before he took the lawyers oath on May 22, 2001, thus recommending that
he be denied admission to the Philippine Bar. The SC agreed with the findings and conclusions of the
OBC and denied him admission to the Bar. The Court ruled that although he passed the examinations
and took the oath, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that makes one a full-fledged lawyer. Prior
to this, he had no authority to practice the law.
The Court DENIED respondent Erwin L. Ranas admission to the Philippine Bar.

LEGAL ETHICS 2016-2017

NORLAINIE C. OMAR

WHAT IS PRACTICE OF LAW?

RENATO CAYETANO

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

MONSOD

FACTS:
On April 25, 1991, Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed by then Pres. Aquino as Chairman of
Comelec. Rene Cayetano opposed such appointment by filing a petition to review decision of
Commission on Appointments. He opposed as citizen and taxpayer because according to him, Monsod
allegedly does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for
at least 10 years which is required by Article IX-C Sec. 1(1) of the Philippine Constitution which states
that Commission on Elections chairman shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. Despite this, Monsod took his oath of office on
June 18,1991.
Monsods credentials:

Member of Philippine Bar since 1960

After bar, worked in law office of his father
1963-1970 in World Bank Group as operations officer in Costa Rica and Panama involves
getting acquainted with laws of member-countries, negotiating loans and coordinating legal,
economic and project work
1970 in Meralco Group as CEO of investment bank
Since 1986 Rendered service to various companies legal and economic consultant or CEO
1986-1987 Secretary-general and national chairman of NAMFREL (election law)
Co-chairman of Bishops Businessmens Conference for Human Development
1990 - Davide Commission quasi-judicial body
1986-1987 Member of Constitutional Commission as Chairman on Accountability of Public
Officers

ISSUES: Whether or not Monsod has fulfilled the 10 year practice of law requirement
HELD/ RULING:
YES. Monsod had fulfilled the 10-year practice of law requirement.
Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. Monsod as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager,
and lawyer-negotiator is proof he is engaged in practice of law for more than 10-years.
Blacks Law Dictionary

Rendition of service requiring the knowledge and application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent

LEGAL ETHICS 2016-2017

NORLAINIE C. OMAR

Not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation,
but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds,
and giving all legal advice to clients.

FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA

A.C. No. 5737. October 25, 2004
FACTS:
Complainant alleges that he is a fourth year law student; since the latter part of 2001, he
instituted several actions against his neighbors; he appeared for and in his behalf in his own cases; he
met respondent who acted as the counsel of his neighbors; during a hearing on January 14, 2002, in
one case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, Pasay City, presided by Judge Caridad Cuerdo.
Respondents imputations were uncalled for and the latters act of compelling the court to
ask complainant whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the public, inasmuch
as respondent knew that complainant is not a lawyer, having appeared for and in his behalf as a party
litigant in prior cases; respondents imputations of complainants misrepresentation as a lawyer was
patently with malice to discredit his honor, with the intention to threaten him not to appear anymore
in cases respondent was handling; the manner, substance, tone of voice and how the words appear
ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna! were uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex and
humiliate, malign, ridicule, incriminate and discredit complainant before the public.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not respondent violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR
2. Whether or not complainant is not precluded from litigating personally his cases
3. Whether or not complainant Cruz is engaged in the practice of law.
RULINGS:
1. The Court holds that respondents outburst of appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna
does not amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such single
outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondents suspension or
reproof. It is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in the course of an argument
between them. It has been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said
in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to
condone even contemptuous language.
2. Nonetheless, the court reminds respondent that complainant is not precluded from
litigating personally his cases. A partys right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by Section
34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. In the court of a justice

LEGAL ETHICS 2016-2017

NORLAINIE C. OMAR

of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed
by him for that purpose, or with the aid of 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.
3. The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a
profession or vocation usually for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative capacity and
as counsel by rendering legal advise to others. Private practice has been defined by this Court as
follows:
x x x. 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 frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to
fall within the prohibition of statute [referring to the prohibition for judges and other officials or
employees of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General from engaging in private
practice] has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding ones self out to the public, as a
lawyer and demanding payment for such services. x x x.
In Maderada vs. Mediodea, this Court expounded on the foregoing provision, thus:
Clearly, in appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually holding herself out to
the public as a lawyer. Neither was she demanding payment for such services. Hence, she cannot be
said to be in the practice of law.
On the other hand, all lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who
are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities
and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them
certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct
themselves honorably and fairly. Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.

LEGAL ETHICS 2016-2017

NORLAINIE C. OMAR