EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007 ]
LANUEVO
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW,
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, PETITIONER
Facts:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960.
He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December
1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He
subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of
Canadas free medical aid program. His application was
approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225
(Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003),
petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On that day,
he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the
Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada.
Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to
resume his law practice.
Issue:
Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his
membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his
Philippine citizenship
Ruling:
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions
in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in
cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates
membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the
privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the
loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege
to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a
privilege denied to foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason
of naturalization as a citizen of another country but
subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is
because all Philippine citizens who become citizens of
another country shall be deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225].
Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225.
Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his
membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to
resume law practice accrues.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal
profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino
citizenship pursuant to its provisions (he) shall apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such
practice.
IN RE: VICTORIO D.
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 re-checking.
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 unauthorized practice of law. Such action transgresses
the surrender of his attorneys certificate and the striking out Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
of his name from the Roll of Attorneys. provides:

DECISION: Lanuevo disbarred, Galang stricken from the CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly
Roll of Attorneys. or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.

With respect to the penalty, previous violations of

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF Canon 9 have warranted the penalty of suspension from the
ATTORNEYS practice of law. However, in the instant case the Court could
not warrant the penalty of suspension from the practice of
BM No. 2540 September 24, 2013 law to Medado because he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer.
Instead, the Court see it fit to impose upon him a penalty
similar to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of
Statement of Facts:
Attorneys one ( 1) year after receipt of the Resolution and to
fine him in the amount of P32,000.
Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law
degree in the year 1979, took and passed the same years
The instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys
bar examinations and took the Attorneys Oath, failed to sign
is Affirmed. Petitioner Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED to
the Attorneys Roll. After more than 30 years of practicing the
sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of
profession of law, he filed the instant Petition on February
the Resolution. Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a
2012, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of
FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law. During
Attorneys. Medado said that he was not able to sign the Roll
the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice
of Attorneys because he misplaced the notice given to him
law, and is STERNLY WARNED that doing any act that
and he believed that since he had already taken the oath,
constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of
the signing of the Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor as
Attorneys will be dealt with severely by the Court.
crucial to his status as a lawyer.

The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after

conducting clarificatory conference on the matter
recommended to the Supreme Court that the instant petition
be denied for petitioners gross negligence, gross
misconduct and utter lack of merit.

Issue:

WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the roll of

attorneys?

Ruling:

Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the

Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment of a fine and the
imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the
practice of law.

The Court cannot forbid the petitioner from signing

the Roll of Attorneys because such action constitutes
disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the most serious
ethical transgressions of members of the Bar.

The Court cited three main points which

demonstrate Medados worth to become a full-fledged
member of the Philippine Bar. First, Medado demonstrated
good faith and good moral character when he finally filed the
instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. It was
Medado himself who admitted his own error and not any
third person. Second, petitioner has not been subject to any
action for disqualification from the practice of law. He strove
to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the
profession and that he has prima facie shown that he
possesses the character required to be a member of the
Philippine Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held various
positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil
Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the
Energy Development Corporation.

However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from

all liability for his years of inaction. His justification of his
action, that it was neither willful nor intentional but based on
a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment was
opposed by the Court.

A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful

justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law
and its consequences. Although an honest mistake of fact
could be used to excuse a person from the legal
consequences of his acts he could no longer claim it as a
valid justification by the moment he realized that what he
had signed was merely an attendance record. His action of
continuing the practice of law in spite of his knowledge of the
need to take the necessary steps to complete all
requirements for the admission to the bar constitutes

In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee,
Haron S. Meiling in the 2002 bar examinations and for
disciplinary action as member of Philippine Shari'a Bar,
Melendrez.
FACTS:
1. MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S.
Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar
Examinations and to impose on him the
appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of
the Philippine Sharia Bar.
a. Alleges that Meling did not disclose in
his Petition to take the 2002 Bar
Examinations that he has three (3)
pending criminal cases both for Grave
Oral Defamation and for Less Serious
Physical Injuries.
i. Meling allegedly uttered
defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of
media practitioners and other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly
attacked and hit the face of Melendrez wife causing the
injuries to the latter.
b. Alleges that Meling has been using the
title Attorney in his communications, as
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City,
despite the fact that he is not a member
of the Bar.
2. MELING explains that he did not disclose the
criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy
Moson, their former professor, advised him to
settle misunderstanding.
a. Believing in good faith that the case
would be settled because the said
Judge has moral ascendancy over
them, considered the three cases that
arose from a single incident as closed
and terminated.
1. Rule 7.01: A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.
a. He is aware that he is not a member of
the Bar, there was no valid reason why
he signed as attorney whoever may
have typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized use of the
appellation attorney may render a
person liable for indirect contempt of
court.
2. PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL
PRIVILEGE.
a. Limited to citizens of good moral
character, with special educational
qualifications, duly ascertained and
certified.
b. Requirement of good moral character is,
in fact, of greater importance so far as
the general public and the proper
administration of justice are concerned,
than the possession of legal learning.
3. Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations
requires the applicant that applicant to aver that he
or she has not been charged with any act or
omission punishable by law, rule or regulation
before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative
body, or indicted for, or accused or convicted by
any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime
involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending
case or charge against him/her.
a. Meling did not reveal that he has three
pending criminal cases. His deliberate
silence constitutes concealment, done
under oath at that.

i. Denies the charges and

added that the acts do not involve moral turpitude.
b. Use of the title Attorney, Meling admits
that some of his communications really
contained the word Attorney as they
were typed by the office clerk.
3. Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of
non-disclosure against Meling:

a. Meling should have known that only the

court of competent jurisdiction can
dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a
law professor. In fact, the cases filed
against Meling are still pending.

b. Even if these cases were already

dismissed, he is still required to disclose
the same for the Court to ascertain his
good moral character.

ISSUE:
WON Melings act of concealing cases constitutes
dishonesty. YES.

HELD:
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED
until further orders from the Court, the suspension to take
effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent
Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyers Oath and signing
the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the
same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic
(Meling did not pass the bar).
 Held
In Re: Argosino B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995
1. YES. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs.
Agrava: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in courtIn general, all advice to clients,
and all action taken for them in matters connected with the
FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath
law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
taking of a successful bar applicant. Argosino was previously
services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body,
involved with hazing that caused the death of Raul
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditors
Camaligan but was sentenced with homicide through
claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and
reckless imprudence after he pleaded guilty. He was
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of
sentenced with 2 years imprisonment where he applied for a
estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law
probation thereafter which was granted by the court with a 2
practice.
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
Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which
the attorneys oath of office averring that his probation was
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
already terminated. The court note that he spent only 10
training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is
months of the probation period before it was terminated.
to perform those acts which are characteristics of the
profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or
ISSUE: WON Argosino may take oath of office.
render any kind of service, which device or service requires
the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. In general,
RULING: The court upheld the principle of maintaining the
a practice of law requires a lawyer and client relationship, it
good morals of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such
is whether in or out of court.
is of greater importance so far as the general public and the
proper administration of justice are concerned, than the
A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when
possession of legal learning. Hence he was asked by the
he: . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business
court to produce evidence that would certify that he has
of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to
reformed and have become a responsible member of the
their rights under the law, or appears in a representative
community through sworn statements of individuals who
capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or
have a good reputation for truth and who have actually
prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board,
known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify
body, committee, or commission constituted by law or
he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The
authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one
court also ordered that said a copy of the proceeding be
who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of
furnished to the family/relatives of Raul Camaligan
advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so
engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside
of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar,

Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of
86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the
201 SCRA 210 Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-
73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as
G.R. No. 100113 lawyer for more than 10 years. Atty. Monsods past work
September 3, 1991 experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
Facts: contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the
poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional
Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Corazon requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of
C. Aquino as chairman of the COMELEC. Cayetano law for at least 10 years.
questioned the appointment for Monsod allegedly lacked the
necessary qualification of having been engaged in the 2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the
practice of law for at least 10 years. nomination of the Comelec Chairman by the president is
The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: mandated by the constitution. The power of appointment is
There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a essentially within the discretion of whom it is so vested
Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born subject to the only condition that the appointee should
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their possess the qualification required by law. From the
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to exercise its
college degree, and must not have been candidates for any corrective power since there is no such grave abuse of
elective position in the immediately preceding discretion on the part of the CA.
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.
It was established that after graduating from the College of
Law and hurdling the Bar, respondent worked in his fathers
law office for a short while, then worked as an Operations
Officer in the World Bank Group for about 2 years, which
involved getting acquainted with the laws of member-
countries, negotiating loans, and coordinating legal,
economic and project work of the Bank. Upon returning to
the Philippines, he worked with the Meralco Group, served
as Chief Executive Officer of an investment bank and has
subsequently worked either as Chief Executive Officer or
Consultant of various companies.

Issue

1. Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the

position of Chairman of the COMELEC.

2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments

committed grave abuse of discretion in confirming Monsods
appointment.

Victor Lingan VS. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmu
P. Baliga
A.C. No. 5377, June 15, 2006
CORONA, J.:
FACTS:
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Victor
Lingan against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga
on November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that
respondents, both notaries public, falsified certain public
documents, as follows:
1. A complaint for annulment of title with
damages filed by Isaac Villegas against
complainant with the Regional Trial Court of
Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Respondent
Calubaquib signed the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping of the
complaint as notary public and entered the same
as Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38; Book No.
CLXXII; Series of 1996, which according to the
records of the National Archives, the document
entered as Doc. No. 182; Page 38; Book No.
CLXXII; Series of 1996 in respondent
Calubaquibs notarial register was an affidavit of
one Daniel Malayao.
2. A special power of attorney dated September 10,
1996 executed by Isaac Villegas appointing
respondent Calubaquib as his attorney-in-fact to
enter into a compromise agreement under such
terms and conditions acceptable to him which
was notarized by respondent Baliga and entered
as Doc. No. 548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII;
Series of 1996, which according
respondent Baligas notarial register, Doc. No.
548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of
1996 pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro
Telan, dated August 26, 1996.
3. A petition for reappointment as notary public for
and in Tuguegarao,Cagayan by respondent
Baliga, which was notarized
respondent Calubaquib and entered
his notarial register as Doc. No. 31, Page No.
08, Book No. CXXX, Series of 1995. However,
Notarial Register Book No. CXXX was for the
year 1996 and entered there as Doc. No. 31,
Page No. 08 was a cancellation of real estate
mortgage dated January 11, 1996.
and paying the legal fees therefore. Section 246 of the same
law also provides that the notary public shall enter in such
register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person
executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the
witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of execution,
oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees
collected by him for his services as notary in connection
therewith, and, when the instrument is a contract, he shall
keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall
likewise enter in said records a brief description of the
substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive
number, beginning with number one in each calendar
year. The notary shall give to each instrument executed,
sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number
corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state
on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which
the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between
entries.
In this connection, Section 249(b)
provides that the failure of the notary to make the
proper entry or entries in his notarial register
touching his notarial acts in the manner required
by law shall, in the discretion of the proper judge
of first instance, be sufficient ground for the
revocation of his commission:
Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility
for the violation of the aforesaid sections by passing the
buck to their secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to
this day persists despite our open condemnation.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless
or routinary act but one invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized
to do so may act as notaries public. The protection of that
interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting
themselves upon the public, the courts and the
administrative offices in general.
Notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public one and makes it admissible in
to
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Notaries
public must therefore observe utmost care with respect to
the basic requirements of their duties.
FALLO:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
by
respondents Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy
in
P. Baliga are hereby found guilty of violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of
their lawyers oath. They are both
ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE
YEAR effective immediately, with a warning that another
infraction shall be dealt with more severely.

Their present commissions as notaries public, if

Respondents Calubaquib and Baliga both
any, are hereby REVOKED, with DISQUALIFICATION from
admitted the incorrectness of the entries and simply
reappointment as notaries public for a period of two years.
attributed them to the inadvertence in good faith of their
secretary and legal assistants to whom they had left the task
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the
of entering all his notarial documents.
personal records of Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty.
Jimmy P. Baliga, and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, the Office of the Court Administrator and
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents violated the
Office of the Bar Confidant for dissemination to all courts
Notarial Practice Law
nationwide.
This Resolution is immediately executory.
RULING:

SO ORDERED.
It is abundantly clear that the notary public is
personally accountable for all entries in
his notarial register. Section 245 of the Notarial Law provides
that every notary public shall keep a register to be known as
the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his
official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of
such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it
 DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C.
MAGULTA
AC NO. 99-634. JUNE 10, 2002
Facts:
Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help
him recover a claim of money against a creditor. Respondent
prepared demand letters for the petitioner, which were not
successful and so the former intimated that a case should
already be filed. As a result, petitioner paid the lawyer his
fees and included also amounts for the filing of the case.
A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet
received any feedback as to the status of his case. Petitioner
made several follow-ups in the lawyers office but to no avail.
The lawyer, to prove that the case has already been filed
even invited petitioner to come with him to the Justice Hall to
verify the status of the case. Petitioner was made to wait for
hours in the prosecutors office while the lawyer allegedly
went to the Clerk of Court to inquire about the case. The
lawyer went back to the petitioner with the news that the
Clerk of Court was absent that day.
Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally
went to the office of the clerk of court to see for himself the
status of his case. Petitioner found out that no such case has
been filed.
Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie
to with the excuse that the delay was being caused by the
court personnel, and only when shown the certification did
he admit that he has not at all filed the complaint because he
had spent the money for the filing fee for his own purpose;
and to appease petitioners feelings, 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,
respectively.
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP as follows: It is
evident that the P25,000 deposited by complainant with the
Respicio Law Office was for the filing fees of the Regwill
complaint. With complainants deposit of the filing fees for
the Regwill complaint, a corresponding obligation on the part
of respondent was created and that was to file the Regwill
complaint within the time frame contemplated by his client.
The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his
misuse of the filing fees deposited by complainant, and his
attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which
caused complainant additional damage and prejudice,
constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part, unbecoming
a member of the law profession. The subsequent
reimbursement by the respondent of part of the money
deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate
the respondent for his misappropriation of said funds.
In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 568 (AC 1928)
22 Jul
FACTS:
Atty. Marcial Edillon was dibarred due to non-payment of his
IBP dues, hence the petitioner on this case. He claimed that
the provisions of Sec. 10 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court
is unconstitutional as he is being compelled, as a
precondition in maintaining his good standing as a lawyer, to
pay and settle his dues to the IBP. Petitioner stubbornly
insisted his take and refused to admit full competence of the
court in this matter. But after some time in realization, his
recalcitrance and defiance were gone in his subsequent
communication with the court. He appealed that his health,
advanced age, and concern to his former clients welfare be
considered in his prayer so that he can again practice law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Edillon should be reinstated as member
of the bar.
HELD:
YES.
RATIO:
Admission to the bar is a privilege burdened with condition.
Failure to abide entails loss of such privilege. Considered in
addition was the two (2) years Atty. Edillon was barred to
practice law, and the dictum of Justice Malcolm in
Villavicencio v. Lukban that the power to discipline,
especially if amounting to disbarment, should be exercised in
a preservative and not on the vindictive principle. After
contrition on the part of the petitioner, the court finds
reinstatement in order.
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of
Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION
A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978
Facts:
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed
practicing attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of
Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the
name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for
stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues to the IBP
since the latters constitution notwithstanding due notice.
Edilion contends that the provision providing for the IBP
dues constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the
sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to
maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a
member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and
that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of
the said organization to which he is admittedly personally
antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and
property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the
respondent concludes, the above provisions of the Court
Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force
and effect.
Issue:
WON the payment of IBP dues suffers constitutional
infirmity? NO
Held:
All legislation directing the integration of the Bar have been
uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of the
police power over an important profession.
The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a
privilege moreover clothed with public interest because a
lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also
to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the
nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions
of the State the administration of justice as an officer of
the court.
When the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal
profession, his practice of law and his exercise of the said
profession, which affect the society at large, were (and are)
subject to the power of the body politic to require him to
conform to such regulations as might be established by the
proper authorities for the common good, even to the extent
of interfering with some of his liberties. If he did not wish to
submit himself to such reasonable interference and
regulation, he should not have clothed the public with an
interest in his concerns.
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is
not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. 6
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his
Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its
elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is
subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme
Court, in order to further the States legitimate interest in
elevating the quality of professional legal services, may
require that the cost of improving the profession in this
fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the
regulatory program the lawyers.
Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police
power of the State. Why? The right to practise law before the
courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to
regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as
a regulatory measure is recognize, then a penalty designed
to enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided
altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or
arbitrary.
Keld Stemmerik, represented by Attys. Herminio.
Liwanag and Winston P.L. Esguerra vs. Atty. Leonuel N.
Mas, A.C. No. 8010, June 16, 2009,
Keld Stemmerik, a Danish national, expressed interest in
buying land in the Philippines and Atty. Mas advised him that
he can legally acquire and own land in the Philippines.
Keld gave Atty. Mas PhP3.8 million as purchase price of the
property and returned to Denmark. Atty. Mas then prepared
a contract to sell between Keld (with Atty. Mas as
representative) and a certain Bonifacio de Mesa, who
allegedly owns the property. Atty. Mas then prepared and
notarized a deed of sale in which de Mesa sold the property
to a certain Ailyn Gonzales for PhP3.8 million. Atty. Mas also
drafted an agreement between Keld and Gonzales stating
that it was Keld who provided the funds for the purchase of
the property.
After the various agreements were signed, Keld tried to get
in touch with Atty. Mas, who never replied to Kelds calls and
email messages. When Keld returned to the Philippines, he
learned that he could not own land in the Philippines. In
addition, a verification made at the Community Environment
& Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources in Olongapo City
revealed that the property was inalienable as it was situated
within the former US Military Reservation.
Keld tried to locate Atty. Mas but never found him. It appears
that Atty. Mas abandoned his law practice in Olongapo City.
Keld then filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Mas
with the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The CBD and the IBP Board of
Governors recommended the disbarment of Atty. Mas. The
Supreme Court agreed that Atty. Mas should be disbarred.
According to the Supreme Court:
This Court has interpreted [Article XII, Section 7], as early as
the 1947 case Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, to mean that
under the Constitution, aliens may not acquire private or
agricultural lands, including residential lands. The provision
is a declaration of imperative constitutional policy.
Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a
fundamental constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the
Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he
prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and
illegal.
By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the
property to complainant and that de Mesa thereafter sold the
property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in
behalf of complainant, he falsified public documents and
knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.
Respondents misconduct did not end there. By advising
complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire
real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant
that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately
foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not give due regard
to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant.
Instead, he deceived complainant and misled him into
parting with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and
unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and
misappropriating the P3.8 million given by complainant for
the purchase of the property, respondent committed a
fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.
The Supreme Court stated that Atty. Mas showed gross
ignorance of the law. Based solely on the facts recounted in
the ruling, it is likely that Atty. Mas knew that aliens could not
own land, and for that reason, the deed of sale he prepared
was between de Mesa and Gonzales. If Atty. Mas was not
aware of the constitutional prohibition against alien
ownership, then he would have likely placed Keld as the
purchaser in the deed of sale. In asking Gonzales to
acknowledge that the funds for the purchase of the property
came from Keld, it seems that Atty. Mas was using Gonzales
as a dummy for Keld.
(Re: Financial Audit Of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, A.M. No. P-
06-2177, April 19, 2007)
Facts: Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the RTC in
Eastern Samar. He was found guilty of gross misconduct for
his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in
his custody. She was fined P10k. Since his malfeasance
prima facie contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Supreme Court ordered him
to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer
and as an officer of the court. In his explanation, Atty. Kho
admitted that his failure to make a timely remittance of the
cash deposited with him was inexcusable. He maintained,
however, that he kept the money in the courts safety vault
and never once used it for his own benefit.
Issue:
However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for
the reason that the account was closed. Ong relayed the
matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos, and demanded
immediate payment, but the latter just ignored him. When
efforts to collect remained futile, Ong brought a criminal
complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos. Ong also brought this
disbarment complaint against Atty. Delos Santos in the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which docketed the
complaint as CBD Case No. 11-2985.
Issue:
By issuing the worthless check, did Atty. Delos Santos
violate Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01. Ruling:

Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and

Held:
Atty. Khos apparent good faith and his ready admission of
the infraction, although certainly mitigating, cannot negate
the fact that his failure to remit P65,000 in judiciary funds for
over a year was contrary to the mandatory provisions of
OCA Circular 8A-93. That omission is a breach of his oath to
obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for
legal processes
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are
required to be at the forefront of observing and maintaining
the rule of law. They are expected to make themselves
exemplars worthy of emulation.
The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to
refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct. By definition, any
act or omission contrary to law is unlawful. It does not
necessarily imply the element of criminality although it is
broad enough to include it. Thus, the presence of evil intent
on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his
act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which
specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful
conduct.
responsibility to maintain his good moral character. In this
regard, good moral character is not only a condition
precedent relating to his admission into the practice of law,
but is a continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his
membership in the Philippine Bar. The Court unwaveringly
demands of him to remain a competent, honorable, and
reliable individual in whom the public may repose
confidence. Any gross misconduct that puts his moral
character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in
the practice of law.
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends
the private interests of the parties directly involved in the
transaction and touches the interests of the community at
large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the
payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful
practice of putting valueless commercial papers in
circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute
the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking
system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the
public interest.
lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their
professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct
renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.

Atty. Khos conduct was not only far from exemplary, it

was unlawful as well. For this, he must be called to account.
Atty. Kho is ordered to pay FINE of P5,000.00. (Re:
That his act involved a private dealing with Ong did not
Financial Audit Of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, A.M. No. P-06-
2177, April 19, 2007) matter. His being a lawyer invested him whether he was
acting as such or in a non-professional capacity with the
obligation to exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in his
ONG VS DELOS SANTOS relationship with others. There is no question that a lawyer
EN BANC could be disciplined not only for a malpractice in his
profession, but also for any misconduct committed outside of
his professional capacity. His being a lawyer demanded that
Facts:
he conduct himself as a person of the highest moral and
professional integrity and probity in his dealings with others.
In January 2008, complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced
to respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos by Sheriff
Fernando Mercado of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.
After several calls and personal interactions between them,
Ong and Atty. Delos Santos became friends.

In time, according to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to

encash his postdated check inasmuch as he was in dire
need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be
funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about his
lucrative practice and his good paying clients. Convinced of
Atty. Delos Santos financial stability, Ong handed to Atty.
Delos Santos on January 29, 2008 the amount of
P100,000.00 in exchange for the latters Metrobank Check
No. 0110268 postdated February 29, 2008.
 Cojuangco vs Palma
Facts:
A.C. No. 2474 June 30, 2005Facts: On June 22, 1982,
respondent Atty. Leo J. Palma, despite his subsisting
marriage, wed Maria Luisa Cojuangco, the daughter of
complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. Thus, the latter filed
on November 1982, a complaint disbarment against
respondent. Palma moved to dismiss the complaint. On
March 2, 1983, the court referred the case to OSG for
investigation and recommendation. The Assistant Solicitor
General heard the testimonies of the complainant and his
witness in the presence of respondents counsel. On March
19, 1984 respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to
suspend proceedings on the ground that the final actions of
his civil case for the declaration of nullity of marriage
between him and his wife Lisa, poses a prejudicial question
to the disbarment proceeding, but it was denied. The OSG
transferred the disbarment case to the IBP, the latter found
respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and violation of
his oath as a lawyer, hence, was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of three years. In his motion for
reconsideration, respondent alleged that he acted under a
firm factual and legal conviction in declaring before the
Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he is a bachelor because
his first marriage is void even if there is judicial declaration of
nullity.
Issue:
Whether or not a subsequent void marriage still needs a
judicial declaration of nullity for the purpose of remarriage.
Held:
Respondents arguments that he was of the firm factual and
legal conviction when he declared before the HIC authorities
that he was a bachelor since his first marriage is void and
does not need judicial declaration of nullity cannot
exonerate him. In Terre vs. Terre, the same defense was
raised by respondent lawyer whose disbarment was also
sought. We held: xxx respondent Jordan Terre, being a
lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument
ran counter to the prevailing case law of this court which
holds that purposes of determining whether a person is
legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial
declaration that the first marriage was null and void an initio
is essential. Even if we were to assume, arguendo merely,
that Jordan Terre held that mistaken belief in good faith, the
same result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to
his own argument, his first marriage to complainant Dorothy
Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second
marriage must be regarded as bigamous and criminal.
Verzonilla vs Atty. Victoriano Pascua
Facts:
Pacita Verzonilla filed a complaint seeking the
disbarment of Atty. Victoriano Pascua for falsifying a public
document and evading the payment of correct taxes through
the use of falsified documents. It was alleged that
respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of Extra-
Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Lope Caalim
with Sale. The first deed was for a consideration of
P1,000,000 and appears to have been executed and signed
by Lopes surviving spouse, Caridad Tabarrejos, and her
children (complainant, Virginia Caalim-Inong and Marivinia
Caalim) in favor of spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. The
second deed was for a consideration of P250,000 and
appears to have been executed by and for the benefit of the
same parties as the first deed. The two deeds have identical
registration numbers, page numbers and book numbers in
the notarial portion. Complainant avers that both deeds are
spurious because all the heirs signatures were falsified.
In his comment, respondent admits having
prepared and notarized the two disputed Deeds of Extra-
Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Sale, but denies any
irregularity in their execution. He narrates that the vendors,
Caridad, Virginia, Pacita (complainant) and Marivinia as well
as the vendee, Shirley Mpanga were there as well as the two
attesting witnesses when he notarized the said documents.
The first document was a sale of subject property for a
consideration of P1,000,000. Respondent adds that they had
disagreement as to who will shoulder the payment of taxes
over the property. Later, the parties visited respondent at his
house and pleaded with him to prepare the second deed
with the reduced selling price. Moved by his humane and
compassionate disposition, respondent gave in to the
parties plea. In the presence of all the heirs, the vendees
and the instrumental witnesses, respondent prepared and
notarized the second deed providing for the lower
consideration of only P250,000.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pascua committed acts of
dishonesty thus violating his duties as a lawyer and a Notary
Public.
Ruling:
Yes. By respondents own account of the
circumstances surrounding the execution and notarization of
the subject deeds of sale, there is a clear basis for
disciplining him as a member of the bar and as notary public.
Respondent did not deny preparing and notarizing the
subject deeds. He avers that the true consideration for the
transaction is P1,000,000 as allegedly agreed upon by the
parties when they appeared before him for the preparation of
the first document as well as the notarization thereof. He
then claimed to have been moved by his humane and
compassionate disposition when he acceded to the parties
plea that he prepare and notarize the second deed with a
lower consideration of P250,000 in order to reduce the
corresponding tax liability. With his admission that he
drafted and notarized another instrument that did not state
the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital
gains and other taxes due on the transaction, respondent
cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in
a public document for an unlawful purpose. Respondent
violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 Code of
Professional responsibility.
CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
Xxxx
 Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.

Moreover, while respondents duty as a notary

public is principally to ascertain the identity of the affiant and
the voluntariness of the declaration, it is nevertheless
incumbent upon him to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its
consummation. Rule IV, Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice in fact proscribes notaries public from
performing any notarial act for transactions similar to the
herein document of sale, to wit:

SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. A notary public

shall not perform any notarial act described in these
Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he
tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:

(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe

that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or
immoral;

In this case, respondent proceeded to notarize the

second deed despite knowledge of its illegal purpose. His
purported desire to accommodate the request of his client
will not absolve respondent who, as a member of the legal
profession, should have stood his ground and not yielded to
the importunings of his clients. Respondent should have
been more prudent and remained steadfast in his solemn
oath not to commit falsehood nor consent to the doing of
any.

Atty. Victoriano Pascua is suspended from the

practice of law for a period of two (2) years. In addition, his
present notarial commission, if any, is hereby revoked, and
he is disqualified from reappointment as a notary public for a
period of two (2) years. He is further warned that any similar
act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.