LAURENCE M.

OBAOB
JD 1

1. Name a lawyer (non fictional, local or international, living or dead, prominent or not)
whom you believe is a shining exemplar of what a legal professional ought to be. Provide
a brief history of said lawyer, his/her legal career, advocacy or profile. Highlight his/her
attitudes that merit emulation.

Attorney Romeo Capulong

He is a famous human rights lawyer. He died on 2012, but his track record as this
countrys leading human rights advocate will remain for generations to cherish and emulate. He
had served as a counsel and leading spokesperson in almost all human rights cases for the
past decades. Among these cases include the representation of thousands of human rights
victims during Martial Law in a landmark class suit. He also served as counsel of OFW Flor
Contemplacion who was executed in Singapore, and other famous political personalities. He
founded the (PILC) or Public Interest Law Center which provides legal assistance to the poor.

The life of Atty. Capulong speaks volumes on what legal profession ought to be. While
the legal profession provides countless opportunities to seek comfortable life positions or even
enrich ones self, Atty Capulong was consistent in living his significant role as a peoples lawyer.
Instead of maintaining a comfortable life, he journeyed to the unpredictable and troublesome
road of defending the underprivileged. Legal profession as a conscience of this country should
never be afraid nor waver in pointing out and challenging the powerful who take advantage of
the underprivileged even if all others remain silent or too afraid to speak out.

2. Research and digest 5 Philippine SC cases promulgated 2014-2017 which discuss the
nature of legal profession and the expectations from a Filipino lawyer.

Perez vs. Catindig

A.C. No. 5816
March 10, 2015

Facts:
The Supreme Court (SC) disbarred on Tuesday, March 10, a lawyer found to have
maintained two marriages simultaneously. His disbarment case was filed by Dr Elmar Perez, his
partner in the second marital contract he entered into. They share a son.
Perez alleged that he made her believe that their marriage was recognized in Philippine
law given his divorce in the United States in 1984 from his first wife. This was not the case.
Having found out the truth, Perez said Catindig then promised to have his first marriage
annulled under Philippine law.
While he eventually petitioned on August 13, 2001, for the annulment of his first
marriage, he nevertheless left Perez and their son on October 31 of that year.
Complainant Perez said an anonymous letter was sent to her alleging that Catindig was
having an affair with a fellow lawyer, Karen Baydo. The letter said Catindig professed his love to
Baydo and also promised her marriage.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents committed gross immorality, which would warrant their
disbarment.

Ruling:
 In a unanimous vote, the High Court found Tristan Catindig guilty of gross immorality,
violating the Lawyers Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

The SC adopted the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline, which ruled "that contracting a marriage during the subsistence
of a previous one amounts to grossly immoral conduct."

Ecraela vs Pangalangan
A.C. No. 10676
September 8, 2015

Facts:
Complainant and respondent were best friends and both graduated from UP College of
Law.
Respondent was formerly married to Shiela P. Jardiolin with whome he has three (3)
children. Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series of
adulterous and illicit relations with married and unmarried women between years 1990 to 2007.

Issue:
Should Pangalangan be disbarred?

Ruling:
Yes, the SC disbarred Pangalangan on the grounds of grossly immoral conduct.
Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal relations.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
As well as provisions of Canon 7 and Rule 7.03

Caronan vs Caronan
A.C. 11316
July 12, 2016

Facts:

For stealing the identity of his younger brother, the Supreme Court (SC) disbarred a lawyer who
stole his brother's name "Patrick A. Caronan".

The real Patrick Caronan filed a complaint against his elder brother, Richard A. Caronan, who
posed as "Atty Patrick A. Caronan".

The case stemmed from a 2013 complaint filed by Patrick against his brother Richard before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Patrick, the complainant,
is a year younger than Richard.

Patrick obtained a Business Administration degree from the University of Makati (UM) and
worked his way up, eventually becoming store manager of a 7-11 convenience store in
Muntinlupa.
His brother Richard enrolled at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) but later
transferred to the Philippine Military Academy. He was discharged after a year, in 1993, and
focused on helping their father in the familys car rental business.

In 1997, Richard transferred to Nueva Vizcaya with his wife and 3 children, and never returned
to school to obtain a college degree.

After he was promoted store manager in 2009, Patrick was ordered to report to the head office
of Philippine Seven Corporation (PSC), the operator of 7-11 Convenience Stores, in
Mandaluyong City. There he was told that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) wanted his
physical presence in relation to its probe into a certain Atty Patrick A. Caronan for qualified
theft and estafa.

Patrick then disclosed that his brother Richard had been using his name, and that he was the
real Patrick A. Caronan.

Issue:
Whether or not Caronan should be disbarred

Ruling:

In its decision issued Tuesday, July 12, the Supreme Court said Richard made a
"mockery of the legal profession by pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a
lawyer. He also tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged unscrupulous activities, which
resulted in the filing of several criminal cases against him."

He certainly does not have "a place in the legal profession where one of the primary duties of its
members is to uphold its integrity and dignity," the SC added.

Good moral character is essential in those who would be lawyers. This is imperative in the
nature of the office of a lawyer, the trust relation which exists between him and his client, as well
as between him and the court, the High Court said

Madria vs. Rivera

A.C. No. 11256
March 7, 2017

Facts:

The Supreme Court (SC) disbarred a lawyer for grave misconduct and falsification of a decision
on nullity of marriage and its certificate of finality.

The disbarment stemmed from the complaint of Riveras former client Flordeliza A. Madria. She
was subject of an investigation of the National Bureau of Investigation and faced criminal
charges for violation of the Philippine Passport Act in the Regional Trial Court in Tuguegarao
City when she declared she was singled and used as supporting documents the forged decision
and certificate when she applied for renewal of passport.

Madria sought Riveras legal services for PHP25,000 when she had her marriage annulled in
2002.She claimed that the respondent advised her to just wait for resolution and assured that
she did not need to appear in court, explaining all court notices and processes would be sent to
his office, and that he would regularly apprise her of the developments. Subsequently, she
received from respondent a copy of the April 16, 2003 decision, purportedly signed by Judge
Lyliha Abella Aquino of the RTC, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, granting her petition for annulment,
as well as a copy of the certificate of finality dated Sept. 26, 2003 signed by one Jacinto C.
Danao of the RTC, Branch 4.

When she renewed her passport, her former partner filed a complaint charging that she had
fabricated the decision for the annulment of her marriage. She later learned that the decision
and certificate were indeed falsified per the letter signed by the Branch 4, Clerk of Court, RTC
Tuguegarao.

Issue:

Whether or not Rivera should be disbarred

Ruling:

The Court held that respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment
of marriage, and of the simulation of the decision and certificate of finality. His explanation of
having done so only upon the complainants persistent prodding did not exculpate him from
responsibility.

Respondent violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 mandates that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 states
that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, while
Rule 1.02 states that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Rule 15.07 states that a lawyer shall
impress upon his client compliance with the law and the principles of fairness.

The Court held that falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice
or misconduct in office, any of which was already a ground sufficient for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.

OCA vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu

A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813
Nov. 22, 2016

Facts:

The Supreme Court (SC) disbarred a Pasay judge who was earlier dismissed for
harassing a fellow judge and refusing to take night court duty.

Based on SCs findings, Yu constantly sent alarming messages with sexual undertones
via Facebook and e-mail to a fellow judge.

The high court noted that while the Facebook and Yahoo messages started in 2009
when Yu was then a public prosecutor, she could still be disciplined for such acts committed
prior to appointment to the judiciary because her Internet stalking of her fellow judge continued
after she became an MTC judge in Pasay on Jan. 12, 2010 until July 2010

Issue:

Whether or not Yu should be disbarred.

Ruling:

The Court denies the motion for reconsideration with explanation for the show cause
order with finality, disbars effectively immediately the respondent Eliza B. Yu pursuant to A.M.
No. 02-9-02-SC for violation of the Lawyers Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Canons of Professional Ethics; and orders the striking off of respondent name from the Roll
of Attorneys, the SC said.

The SC cited the same violations committed by the judge as basis for her disbarment,
saying her liabilities under the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary also
made her liable under the Code of Professional Conduct for Lawyers.

The high court held that Yu violated Canon 1 of the Code, which requires lawyers to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes, for her non-compliance with SC Administrative Order (AO) 19-2011, which
established night courts.

The SC ruled that she also violated Canon 11, which requires lawyers to maintain
respect to the courts and judicial officers, by sending inappropriate messages with sexual
undertones to a fellow judge.

It also found Yu guilty of gross misconduct, violation of the lawyers oath and willful
disobedience of any lawful order.

3. Identify at least 10 skills/competencies that a Filipino lawyer should possess to

succeed in the ASEAN and global arenas.

Ethical
Critical Thinker
Persuasive
Communicative
Excellent interpersonal skills
Adaptable
Resilient
Efficient and Effective
Life-long learner
Rational