Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RULE 138 ATTORNEYS AND ADMISSION TO THE BAR Section 2. Listing as delinquent member. Any member who fails to satisfactorily
comply with Section 2 of Rule 12 shall be listed as a delinquent member by the IBP
Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which
WHO MAY PRACTICE LAW? case, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court shall apply.
Section 1. Who may practice law. Any person heretofore duly admitted as RULE 14
a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the REINSTATEMENT
provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled Section 1. Process. The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be
to practice law. terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE
requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the
necessary credit hours to meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance
BAR MATTER NO. 702 during the period the member is on inactive status. These credit hours may not be
In the Matter of Petition to authorize Sharia'h District Court counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. Credit hours
Judges to Appoint Shari'a Lawyers as Notaries Public attained during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number needed to
May 12, 1994 satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting the
current compliance period requirement.
Facts
Petitioner Royo M. Gampong, a Bachelor of Laws (LlB) Section 2. Termination of delinquent listing administrative process. The termination
of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature but it shall be made with
graduate of Notre Dame University who was admitted to the notice and hearing by the MCLE Committee.
Philippine Shari'a Bar filed an instant petition praying that this
Court, after due notice and hearing, issue an order authorizing
all Shari'a District Court Judges to appoint Shari'a Lawyers who REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO
possess the qualifications and none of the disqualifications as THE BAR
notaries public within their respective jurisdictions.
Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. Every
Decision applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the
Considering that a person who has passed the Shari'a Bar Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character,
Examination is only a special member of the Philippine Bar and and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme
not a full-fledged member thereof even if he holds a Bachelor of Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges
Laws Degree, he is not qualified to practice law before the against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in
regular courts. As a general rule, a Shari'a Lawyer is not any court in the Philippines.
possessed of the basic requisite of practice of law in order to
be appointed as a notary public under Section 233 of the Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United
Notarial Law in relation to Section 1, Rule 138 of the Revised States of America. Citizens of the United States of America who, before
Rules of Court. July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active
practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing
as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme
B.M. No. 850 - MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking the following oath
of office:
RULE 11
GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in
Section 1. Compliance card. Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize
a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its
card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the
must be returned to the address indicated therein not later than the day after the end doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
of the member's compliance period.
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I
Section 2. Member record keeping requirement. Each member shall maintain will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a
sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee. lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and discretion with all
The record required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon
Section 3(c) of Rule 9 should be sufficient record of attendance at a participatory myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose
activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, of evasion. So help me God.
as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
RULE 12
Section 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions.
NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES Applicants for admission who, being Filipino citizens, are enrolled
attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United States or in
Section 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute non- any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court
compliance: of any State or Territory of the United States, and who can show by
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period; satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in any
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption; of said courts, that such practice began before July 4, 1946, and that they
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of
exempt status) within the prescribed period;
have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such Court, be admitted without examination.
compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of a non-compliance notice;
(e) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
Application of this rule may be found in In Re: Petition of
Ramon Quisumbing for Admission to the Bar, Bar Matter
Section 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. No. 419 (November 1989)
A member failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific
deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to explain the
deficiency or otherwise show compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. All applicants for
contain, among other things, the following language in capital letters: admission other than those referred to in the two preceding section shall,
YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR NON- before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they
COMPLIANCE OR PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all
BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE), SHALL BE A CAUSE prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and
FOR LISTING AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER. recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate,
The Member may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit hours for
accompanied by a certificate from the university or school of law, shall be
compliance. Credit hours earned during this period may only be counted toward filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may be required by
compliance with the prior compliance period requirement unless hours in excess of the court.
the requirement are earned, in which case, the excess hours may be counted toward
meeting the current compliance period requirement.lawphil.net No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has
satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university
RULE 13 duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor
Section 1. Non-compliance fee. A member who, for whatever reason, is in non- and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.
compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
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
ISKO NOTES | Page 1
LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to
examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955, was passed
serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who
by Congress. It was known as the Bar- Flunkers Act of 1953.
shall hold office for a period of one year. The names of the members of
this committee shall be published in each volume of the official reports.
It ordered that any bar candidate who obtained a general
average of 70% in any bar examinations after July 4, 1946 up to
Section 13. Disciplinary measures. No candidate shall endeavor to
the August 1951 bar examinations; 71% in the 1952 bar
influence any member of the committee, and during examination the
examinations; 72% in the in the 1953 bar examinations; 73% in
candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or
the 1954 bar examinations; 74% in the 1955 bar examinations
receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any
without obtaining a grade below fifty per cent in any subject be
other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the
allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office
same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action,
as member of the Philippine Bar:
including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the
court.
Issue
Whether or not R.A. 972 is valid
Section 14. Passing average. In order that a candidate may be deemed
to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a
Decision
general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per
The Court ruled that the portion of Republic Act No. 972
cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the
referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952 is unconstitutional
examination shall be given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per
and, therefore, void and without force and effect. For lack of
cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per
unanimity in the eight Justices, that part of Article 1 which refers
cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per
to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law, that
cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and
is from 1953 to 1955 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be
Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
in force.
Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. Not
All petitions of the candidates who failed in the examinations of
later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon thereafter as
1946 to 1952 are denied, and all candidates who in the
may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such
examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.5 per
examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be
cent or more, without having a grade below 50 per cent in any
filed with the clerk and may there be examined by the parties in interest,
subject, are considered as having passed, whether they have
after the court has approved the report.
filed petitions for admission or not.
Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. Candidates who
have failed the bar examinations for three times shall be disqualified from ADMISSION AND OATH, CERTIFICATE, ATTYS ROLL
taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court
that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. An applicant
as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school. who has passed the required examination, or has been otherwise found to
be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe before the
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.
candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates
have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same Section 18. Certificate. The Supreme Court shall thereupon admit the
conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the applicant as a member of the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and
particular subject. shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records, and that
a certificate of such record be given to him by the clerk of court, which
ADMISSION TO THE BAR; JUDGMENT; SC EXCLUSIVE certificate shall be his authority to practice.
POWER; PRACTICE OF LAW IS A PRIVILEGE , NOT A RIGHT
Section 19. Attorney's roll. The clerk of the Supreme Court shall kept a
roll of all attorneys admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by the
A.M. NO. 1162
person admitted when he receives his certificate.
In Re: Lanuevo
August 29, 1975
AUTHORITY TO APPEAR, COMPENSATION, LIEN
Facts
The Supreme Court received a confidential letter on the alleged Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. An attorney is presumed to
raising of grade of at least one examinee in the 1971 Bar be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and
Examinations. The Court checked the records of the 1971 Bar no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court
and found that the grades in five subjects Political Law and for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on
Public International Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law, Criminal reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who
Law and Remedial Law of a successful bar candidate with assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority
office code No. 954 (Ramon E. Galang a.k.a. Roman Galang) under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any
underwent some changes. Galang passed in the 1971 bar issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon
examinations with a grade of 74.15%, which was considered by make such order as justice requires. An attorneys wilfully appear in court
the Court as 75%, the passing mark for the 1971 bar for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be
examinations. It appeared in the investigation that Bar punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in
Confidant Victorio Lanuevo asked the examiners to recheck the his official transactions.
papers of Galang and reconsider if his grade can be raised
because he allegedly got high grades in other subjects. Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent
client on appeal. An attorney who appears de parte in a case before a
Decision lower court shall be presumed to continue representing his client on
Both Lanuevo and Galang were disbarred and their names appeal, unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the
were stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. appellate court.
The Court stressed that once the bar examiner has submitted Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. Attorneys have authority
the corrected notebooks to the Bar Confidant, it cannot be to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made
withdrawn for any purpose whatsoever without prior authority in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial
from the Court. The Court also expressed its strong disapproval procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their
of the actuations of the bar examiners. client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the
full amount in cash.
Issue Facts
Whether or not the accused-appellant is bound by his counsels Alicia Palma filed a complaint for recovery of possession with
alleged negligence damages against Lino Alabanzas and Nelly Alabanzas before
the CFI. Property at issue was a lot sold by plaintiff to
Decision defendants with unpaid balance of P8,000. The complaint was
YES. In the case at bar, accused-appellant has not shown such dismissed and plaintiff was ordered to pay defendants the
carelessness or negligence in his lawyer's discharge of his court-determined sums. In the same dismissal decision,
duties, or that his counsel was singularly inept or motivated by defendants were, however, ordered to pay plaintiff the balance
bad faith or excusably misled by the facts, so as to justify us in to the lot and the plaintiff to execute thereafter the
not applying the rule that clients are bound by the acts of their corresponding deed to transfer. Palma appealed the decision.
counsel, including his mistakes. But with her failure to file her brief within the reglementary
period and after a 90-day extension, CA dismissed her appeal.
The record shows that accused-appellant's counsel attended But same court later revoked said dismissal. It reasoned that:
the hearings, cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, appellant Palma did not know about the dismissal until informed
presented accused-appellant to testify and introduced his own that the Alabanzas held a victory party to celebrate their
evidence which to him was sufficient and relevant, and after an winning of the case; and the failure to file brief was due to
adverse decision, appealed the case. gross misconduct of her counsel.
It ordered the Alabanzas to vacate the lot, demolish their house accepted by the SC saying that doing otherwise, all a defeated
thereon, and pay Palma the balance on the subject lot. Palma party would have to do to salvage his case is claim neglect or
turned to Supreme Court to seek relief. mistake on the part of his counsel as a ground for reversing the
adverse judgment. There would be no end to litigation if these
Decision were allowed. The SC also noted that in this case, the
Petition is meritorious. Reasons: petitioner should have noticed the succession of errors
1. Once a decision becomes final and executory, it is committed by his counsel and taken appropriate steps for his
removed from the power or jurisdiction of the Court replacement. Petitioner, however, sought the aid of another
which rendered it to further amend, much less counsel when it was already too late.
revoke, it.
2. The client is bound by his counsels conduct,
negligence and mistake in handling the case, and the G.R. No. L-79244
client cannot be heard to complain that the result Aylion v. Sevilla
might have been different had his lawyer proceeded December 10, 1987
differently. It is only in case of gross or palpable
negligence of counsel when the courts must step in Facts
and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby. A petition for probate of a holographic last will and testament of
Mateo Ayllon Sr. was filed on 7 November 1977 by Erlinda
Ayllon, the petitioner, with the Court of First Instance of Guiuan
G.R. No. L-48335 Eastern Samar. In said will, the testator made disposition of
Aguila v. CFI Batangas specific properties to the petitioner, as his surviving spouse with
April 15, 1988 whom he had no children, and to the respondents, as his sons
and daughters by a first marriage. The respondents opposed
Facts the probate, and so hearings were held until the case was
Petitioner Juan Aguila is the son of Escolastico Alabastro and submitted for decision at about the end of 1981.
Juliana Matienzo. Escolastico was Julianas second husband
whom she married after her first husband died. Juan was While the case was awaiting the court's decision the Petitioner,
claiming the property as the sole child of the second marriage. without the aid of a lawyer, entered into a verbal amicable
His claim was, however, disputed by the children of one Maria settlement with the respondents. Relying on the verbal
Alabastro, who was the only child during Julianas first settlement and believing that she will be given one-half (1/2) of
marriage. They sued for partition and damages against Juan the house and lot situated at Concepcion Street, Guiuan Easter
before the CFI Batangas. They alleged that Juliana and her Samar, in return for her abandoning the rest of the properties
second husband had not acquired anything during the second willed to her, petitioner wrote her lawyer a letter requesting the
marriage. Judgment was rendered in favor of the children of the latter to file a motion to dismiss the case. Petitioner's lawyer
first marriage and petitioner was precluded to present own complied with her request. On 14 March 1984, the case was
evidence owing to what he later called gross ineptitude of his dismissed. However, the respondents apparently did not comply
counsel, who failed to appear at two scheduled meetings. with their verbal agreement with the petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner filed an affidavit with the court on 22 March 1984,
A motion for reconsideration and a second motion for asking for the withdrawal of her motion to dismiss and for
reconsideration to present evidence were both denied by the revival of the case.
trial court. He was, however, given an extension of 20 days to
file record on appeal and another extension of 15 days. The trial On 7 September 1984, the trial court reconsidered the order of
court later denied the record on appeal because the decision dismissal, and revived the case. But, on 10 September 1985,
had become final and executory. the court issued an order recalling the order of 7 September
1984, thereby reviving the order of dismissal of 14 March 1984,
Petitioner questioned the acts of the trial court before the CA. on the grounds that (1) the case was amicably settled, and (2)
The court denied the appeal and so was the motion for the petitioner failed to present three (3) witnesses who could
reconsideration. He then appealed to the SC but the appeal and Identify the handwriting of the testator in the disputed
the motion for reconsideration were likewise denied. Two more holographic will, as provided under Article 811 of the Civil Code.
motions for reconsideration were filed but were also denied. SC .
warned petitioner that no further motion for reconsideration will
be entertained. On 23 September 1985, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order of the trial court dismissing the
Peititioner filed another case, this time, for the reconveyance of case, but the motion was denied. .
the properties before the CFI Batangas. Respondents argued
that petitioner was barred by res judicata. The trial court Upon petitioner's appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter court
considered the objection and dismissed the case. Petitioner required the petitioner to file a Record on Appeal within Sixty
again appealed to SC. (60) days from notice. The counsel of the petitioner received the
notice on 11 February 1987, so that the last day to file the
Issue record on appeal was on 12 April 1987. But, instead of
1. Can petitioner invoke his right to substantial justice preparing and eventually filing the Record on Appeal, the
and due process as against the res judicata rule? petitioner's counsel filed an Appeal Brief dated 28 February
2. May petitioners petition for reconveyance of the 1987, but actually filed through the mails on 17 March 1987.
property disputed be entertained in this case? Hence, in a Resolution * dated 29 May 1987, the Court of
3. Can petitioner reopen a case on the ground of Appeals dismissed the appeal on account of failure of
neglect and mistake on the part of his counsel? counsel of the petitioner to filed a record on appeal, which
is required in appeals in special proceedings.
Decision
The SC denied the petition. On the first issue, the SC did not Issue
agree with petitioners contention that he was deprived the Whether or not the accused-appellant is bound by his counsels
opportunity to submit evidence. In fact, the trial court judge alleged negligence.
meticulously examined the evidences even if he could have
simply denied the motion for reconsideration outright. On the Decision
second issue, the SC said that reconveyance may only be YES.
sought in cases, where there is a mistake or fraud, property is
registered in the name of a person not its owner. It cannot be Petitioner's counsel failed to file a record on appeal despite due
employed to negate the effects of a valid decision of a court of notice and the period of sixty (60) days given to him to file said
justice determining the conflicting claims of ownership. On the record on appeal. Instead of filing the record on appeal, as
third issue, the SC reiterated the rule that a client is bound by required, what the petitioner's counsel did was to file an
the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be Appeal Brief. And even after petitioner's counsel received a
heard to complain that the result might have been different had copy of the respondents' Motion for the Dismissal of the Appeal
he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his for failure of the petitioner to file a record on appeal, nothing
lawyer. Petitioner wanted to nullify the previous court decisions was done by petitioner's counsel to correct or amend the
on the ground that his counsel was grossly inept. This was not erroneous procedure he had taken. Thus, it is clear that the
ISKO NOTES | Page 6
LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
failure of the petitioner, through counsel, to file the record on respondent Paul Geneve Entertainment Corporation on a
appeal was not inadvertent. In other words, petitioner's counsel property located at No. 32 Jupiter St., Bel-air Village, Makati
ignored compliance with the requirement of filing a record on City in the amount of P5.5 million. Salonga did not have the
appeal, as provided for by the Rules. Hence, there is no sum of money, he proposed instead to Mrs. Izon a joint venture
reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals, in enterprise between his company, Solid Intertain Corporation
dismissing petitioner's appeal. and private respondents company, Paul Geneve Corporation.
The idea was that Solid Intertain Corporation and Paul Geneve
Petitioner has, in effect, lost the right to establish the validity of Corporation will form a new corporation in the name Solidisque
the alleged holographic will of the late Mateo Ayllon yet, as his Inc. The documents all in seven sets were drafted by both
surviving spouse, petitioner has not lost her hereditary rights parties respective counsels. Mrs. Izon has signed the joint
which are acquired by law. And, in the interest of justice, and to venture agreement. The document with extra copies was then
avoid multiplicity of suits, the trial court in Special Proceeding delivered to Salonga for his signature and for notarization. The
No. 459 was required by the SC to determine and adjudicate document together with the extra copies remained unsigned
the respective hereditary shares of petitioner and respondents and unexecuted. With the memorandum of agreement still
in the estate of the late Mateo Ayllon in accordance with the unsigned, not notarized and in the possession of Salonga, the
rules on intestate succession. latter transferred all his equipments and properties from his
former business site, Metro Disco, to the subject premises in
The petition was DENIED, but the case was remanded to the question after informing Mrs. Izon that he did not have a place
trial court for further proceedings, specifically, to determine and where he can transfer his things and asked that he be allowed
adjudicate to the petitioner and respondents their respective to put it at No. 32 Jupiter St. Club Ibiza was thus opened and
hereditary shares in the estate left by Mateo Ayllon in made operational on the leased premises under the name Solid
accordance with the rules on intestate succession. Intertain Corporation. No corporation under the name Solidsque
Inc. was ever registered as agreed upon in the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
G.R. No. L-36666
Tesoro v. CA Paul Geneve Entertainment Corporation filed a complaint for
December 19, 1973 specific performance with temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction with prayer for damages against George
Facts Salonga and Solid Intertain Corporation to enforce a
In a mayoralty election in Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur, candidate memorandum of agreement that was supposedly perfected
Benjamin Sanidad obtained 1,692 votes and was declared between the parties. During the scheduled hearing for
winner as against his closest rival Orlino Tesoro who garnered injunction, only private respondents appeared despite notice to
1,585 votes. Alleging poll anomalies, the latter filed a protest. In petitioners. For disobeying the restraining order issued by the
the trial court, both parties agreed, after due hearing, to just court, private respondent sought to cite petitioner for indirect
submit the case for decision on the basis of the ballots and criminal contempt during the hearing on the civil case whereby
other documentary exhibits without adduction of further Atty. Garlito, Jr. presented George F. Salonga in support of the
evidence. This was exactly what was done by the trial court, opposition to the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
which, after examining the ballots involved in the protest and Petitioners and their counsel again failed to appear on the date
counter-protest, found that petitioner Tersoro was the election set for hearing the motion for issuance of the writ of preliminary
winner with 1,626 votes as against Sanidad with 1,514 votes. injunction. Despite two motions for extension of time to file an
answer, no answer was filed. Petitioners counsel later moved
Thereafter, respondent Sanidad perfected his appeal to CA. to dissolve the injunction and set the hearing on another date,
However, after CA granted the motion of the original lawyers of but on said latter date, only private respondents counsel
Sanidad to withdraw as counsel, Atty. Consatante Pimentel, the showed up.
new counsel, filed a motion to remand for a new trial to allow
him to further present additional evidence. The motion was Due to petitioners failure to file an answer, Paul Geneve
denied by CA, and so he turned to the Supreme Court.. submitted a third ex parte motion to declare Salonga and Solid
Intertain as defendant in default, which was favorably acted
Decision upon. The trial court judgment ordered defendants to sign,
Petition denied. Sanidad is now estopped from seeking a perform and execute the formalities of the Memorandum of
second chance to submit additional evidence, after he and his Agreement; and to undertake the creation and formation,
previous counsel submitted the case for decision on the basis organization and registration of a new corporation pursuant to
of evidence already before the trial court. He should not now be and in accordance with Philippine Laws before the Securities
rewarded for his miscalculations or strategic error. Moreover, and Exchange Commission, under the business name and style
the alleged newly discovered evidence was actually forgotten Solidisque Inc., among others. Salonga was also adjudged
evidence, which respondent Sanidad and his counsel already guilty of civil contempt and ordered him and Solid Intertain to
knew or should have known during the trial. Appellate courts do jointly and severally pay a fine of P2,000 a day until he
not sit to remedy the tactical mistake committed by the parties complies with the orders of the court.
or their counsel at the trial.
It has been repeatedly enunciated that a client is Salonga appealed to the CA, saying that the judgment by the
bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and trial court must be annulled on the ground of fraud on the part of
cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been their previous counsel and that the judge never acquired
different had he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Salonga in hearing the
mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to be admitted as criminal contempt proceedings, thereby depriving petitioner
reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an end to a Salonga of his basic constitutional right to due process.
suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could However, CA disagreed with these arguments and denied the
allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently petition. It reduced the fine from P2,000 to P1,000. Salonga
diligent or experienced or learned. Mistakes of attorneys as to appealed to SC.
the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy or
irrelevancy or certain evidence, the proper defense, or the Issue
burden of proof, failure to introduce certain evidence, to 1. Whether or not the alleged blatant, serious and
summon witnesses, and to argue the case are not proper culpable negligence and professional misconduct of
grounds for a new trial, unless the incompetency of counsel is petitioners previous counsel amounted to deprivation
so great that his client is prejudiced and prevented from of due process of law that will justify annulment of the
properly presenting his case. default judgment rendered by the trial court against
petitioners.
2. Whether or not the CA committed grave and serious
G.R. No. 111478 reversible error in merely reducing the fine for the
Salonga v. CA indirect contempt instead of nullifying the entire
March 13, 1997 contempt proceedings as having no basis in law and
procedure.
Facts
Petitioner George Salonga proposed to buy-out all the Decision
leaseholding rights of Milagros Izon, president of private Petition was denied by the SC. On the first issue, it held that a
ISKO NOTES | Page 7
LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
judgment can be annulled only on two grounds: that the she may obtain from defendants or any of them by reason of
judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due process the complaint filed in the above title case
of law; or that it has been obtained by fraud. Absent any of
these grounds, a final and executory judgment cannot be It further appears that immediately after the promulgation of the
voided. In this case, both grounds were not sufficiently proven. Rodas order of April 8, 1941, Narcisa Mendoza surrendered to
the Register of Deeds the certificates of title covering the lands
It is well-settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. involved for annotation of the petitioners' lien; and that, pending
This is based on the rule that any act performed by a lawyer the physical division of the lands in question, she delivered to
within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded the petitioners their one-half share of the yearly produce from
as an act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence 1941 to 1958. Indeed, such actuation on her part was
of petitioners counsel may result in the rendition of an tantamount to virtual acquiesence in the order of Judge Rodas
unfavorable judgment against them. Exceptions to the foregoing and she cannot now be allowed to repudiate her
have been recognized by the Court in cases where reckless or representations or assume an inconsistent posture. It is a rule
gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process constantly adhered to "that a party who voluntarily executes,
of law, or when its application results in the outright deprivation either partially or in toto, a judgment rendered for or against
of ones property through a technicality. None of these him, or who voluntarily acquiesces in or ratifies, either partially
exceptions has been sufficiently shown in the present case. or in toto, the execution of that judgment is not permitted to
The SC also said that the counsel did not commit gross appeal from it."
negligence but only simple negligence when he arrived late in
hearings or he failed to attend at all.
G.R. No. 41607
On the second issue, the SC cited Gavieres vs. Falcis: A Nasser v. Cuevas
courts power to punish for contempt is primarily self- August 21, 1990
preservative, in the exercise of which the interest of private
parties be they litigants or not in the case in which it is The Nassers and Matutes (petitioners) availed the services of
invoked is at best only a coincidental, not a necessary or an Atty. Paterno Canlas (respondent) in the proceedings for the
indispensable, factor. A citation for indirect contempt issued by settlement of the estate of the late Amadeo Matute Molave. The
the Court itself, even if based on information only privately or petitioners and respondent had an agreement that the payment
informally communicated to the court, operates as the written of attorneys fees will be P600,000.00 (share in the property)
charge prescribed by the Rule and if duly and regularly heard, and P412,000.00 (cash). A condition, stating that the
makes a resulting contempt order no less valid than if it had corresponding liability of a party is extinguished only upon the
been rendered upon formal charges preferred by a party- full payment of the lien, is also attached to the said agreement.
litigant. Indeed, it has been held that such charges may be
made, not only by the court or the prosecuting officer, but When the proceeding for the settlement of the estate has
even by a private person. ended, Canlas moved for the execution of the agreement.
Judge Cuevas (CFI Mla.) approved Canlas motion and ordered
for its execution.
UNLAWFUL RETENTION OF FUNDS AND CHARGING
LIENS The order for the execution of the agreement was assailed by
the petitioners. They contended that the execution was
G.R. No. l-40007 improper because there is no written agreement stating the
Taada v. CA precise terms of payment of Canlas attorneys fees.
October 23, 1985
Only the Nassers complied in the undertaking to pay Canlass
Facts fees. Meanwhile, the recalcitrant heirs maintain that the
Lorenzo Tanada (Petitioner) and late Francisco Delgado and agreement pertains to the payment of fees on installment and
among others were former partners in a law firm Deldago and this has been orally agreed upon in the Chambers of Judge
Tanada. Narcisa Mendoza hired them in a suit pending in CFI Cuevas.
Nueva Ecija and agreed to pay a contingent equivalent to of
whatever amount she might recover. SC- RULED IN FAVOR OF CANLAS. NASSERS PETITION
DENIED.
The parties in the case ended up in a compromise agreement.
In a decision rendered on April 8, 1941, Mendoza was declared The clause cannot be construed as granting to any obligors, by
the owner of 9 parcels of land. Due to difficulty in segregating implication, the option to pay in installments
the share pertaining to the law firm, the petitioners offered to Legal principle: the creditor cannot be compelled partially to
sell their share to Mendoza. Mendoza, however, does not have receive the prestations in w/c the obligation consists unless
the money by that time. The parties ended up with an there is an express stipulation to that effect
agreement that Mendoza will manage and administer the
property. It was 8mons. or so before the agreement was approved and
none of the petitioner drew attention to this matter (fees).
From 1941-1958 Mendoza delivered the petitioners share with Petitioners havent paid their due to Canlas nt even a single
the fruits of the property. Stating 1959, however, she stopped centavos for 16 years.
delivering the law firms share. This made the petitioners to file
a suit for the partition of the properties before the CFI. It is noteworthy that the agreement of compromise and of
partition in question was signed by the obligors with the
In her answer, Mendoza contended that since the case was assistance of their respective counsel, and was not approved
terminated through a compromise agreement, of the by the Probate Court until after eight months or so. At no time
properties she obtained from winning the suit is not did they then draw attention to the absence in the agreement,
proportionate to the services rendered by the petitioners. or in the Court order approving it, of any option on their part to
pay their share in the attorney's fees by parts or In installments.
CFI (1967) ruled in favor of petitioners (Tanada), half of Equally noteworthy, as reflective of the heirs' intention, or lack
the lands acquired by Mendoza was granted to the of it, to comply with their obligation to pay Canlas' fees, is that
petitioners from the time of the execution of the compromise agreement,
up to date hereof, sixteen years altogether, they have not paid a
CA modified the CFI decision. Petitioners share was single centavo to Mr. Canlas.
reduced to of the parcel of land.
Neither does the Court find in the record any proof worthy of the
SC (1985) RULED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS. CFI name to substantiate the supposed agreement verbally made
DECISION REINSTATED before Justice Barredo. The self-serving affidavits of the heirs
do not, all circumstances considered, qualify as such proof.
CFI had given its stamp of approval to petitioners lien any
judgment or decree in favor of their client to the payment of the AUTHORITY TO APPEAR FOR GOVERNMENT
said lien consisting of the of whatever amount or property
G.R. No. 92561 He cannot be disqualified from appearing for the petitioner even
Orbos v. CSC if in so doing his representation runs against the interests of the
September 12, 1990 CSC.
client seeks legal assistance. 1. Calixta Yap was married to Joaquin Ortega in 1927
before Justice of Peace Silverio Zamora
NOTE: The case of the prosecution must be built upon 2. Calixtas children were legitimate or legitimated
evidence gathered by them from their own sources, not from 3. that Emilias children were illegitimate
compelled testimony requiring them to reveal information 4. that approval by probate court of the inventories
prejudicial to their client. The confidentiality privilege extends submitted in the intestate proceedings had no basis
even after the termination of the lawyer-client relationship. 5. that declaration by the probate court of Emilia Ybanez
and her children as legal heirs was an error.
Separate Opinions
Nevertheless, despite the vehement objections of the
Vitug, J., concurring: petitioners, Judge Estenzo allowed the amendments. Part of
It is unreasonable for the Sandiganbayan to compel petitioners the decision of Judge estenzo shows that all parcels of lands
to breach the trust reposed on the lawyers by their clients. The which are found by his court be the conjugal partnership
Republic is attempting to establish a case not on what it properties of Calixta Yap and Joaquin Ortega.
perceives to be the strength of its own evidence but on what it
could elicit from a counsel against his client. For this reason, Emilia filed her petition for certiorari in the
Court of appeals on the ground that respondent Judge Estenzo
Davide Jr., J., dissenting: converted private respondentss action for quieting of
The prerogative to determine who shall be made defendants in title,declaration of nullity of sale, and annulment of tax
a civil case is initially vested in the plaintiff, or the PCGG in this declaration. However, CA DISMISSED the petition on February
case. Thus, the Sandiganbayan did not commit any abuse of 14, 1976.
discretion when it denied petitioners prayer for their exclusion
as party-defendants because they did not want to abide with Issue
any of the conditions set by the PCGG. Whether or not the declaration of heirs made by Judge Estenzo
is valid.
Even if the court would accommodate the issue of
confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship, the same privilege Decision
cannot be accorded to petitioners because they were sued as The Supreme Court held that the declaration of the heirs made
principal defendants in Civil Case No. 0033. Conspiracy is by Judge Estenzo is void because such matter was already
imputed to the parties therein. Their inclusion as defendants is resolved with finality by the probate court. In addition to this, the
justified. The lawyer-client privilege is not a shield for the court finds it with finality because there was no appeal from
commission of a crime or against the prosecution of the lawyer respondent. Conversely, the probate court has no right to
therefor. determine with finality the ownership thereof. It was held also
that the issue of ownership of specific property be raised in a
Puno, J., dissenting: separate ordinary action.
I join the majority in holding that the Sandiganbayan committed
grave abuse of discretion when it misdelineated the metes and Further, the SC REMANDED to the trial court full hearing of the
bounds of the attorney-client privilege by failing to recognize its case only on question of ownership of the 174,496 square
exceptions However, I part ways with the majority when it ruled meters of land in Sta. Cruz, Leyte.
that petitioners need not prove they fall within the exceptions to
the general rule. I respectfully submit that the attorney-client
privilege is not a magic mantra whose invocation will ipso facto
and ipso jure drape he who invokes it with its protection. Plainly A.C. No. 7136
put, it is not enough to assert the privilege. The person claiming Guevarra v. Eala
the privilege or its exceptions has the obligation to present the August 1, 2007
underlying facts demonstrating the existence of the privilege.
Facts
It ought to be obvious that petitioners right to claim the Joselano Guevarra (complainant) first met Atty. Jose Emanuel
attorney-client privilege is resolutory of the Complaint against Eala, the respondent ,in January 2000 when his (complainant's)
them, and hence should be decided ahead and independently then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him as
of their claim to equal protection of the law. Pursuant to the rule her friend who was married to Marianne (sometimes spelled
in legal hermeneutics that courts should not decide "Mary Ann") Tantoco with whom he had three children.
constitutional issues unless unavoidable, I also respectfully
submit that there is no immediate necessity to resolve After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant
petitioners' claim to equal protection of the law at this stage of noticed that Irene had been receiving from respondent
the proceedings. cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love
you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall." He also noticed
that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the
G.R. No. L-43155 morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home
Ortega v. CA from work. Complainant even saw Irene and respondent
August 14, 1987 together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he
confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal
Facts house.
On May 22, 1948, Joaquin Ortega died intestate. He was
survived by his wife, Emilia Ybanez who initiated intestate On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's
proceedings for the settlement of the estate. On the other hand, birthday celebration at which he saw her and respondent
the common law wife, Calixta Yap filed a motion for celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment,
reconsideration of the order appointing Emilia as administratix. anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following
that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all
Corollary, Emilia presented a verified inventory and appraisal of her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of
the estate of the deceased and it was approved by a probate the household appliances.
court. Upon knowing this, the children of Calixta Yap filed in the
probate court a motion for intervention in the intestate Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded
proceedings, alleging that they were the acknowledged natural social card bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which
children. card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated
October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene.
In view of this, Judge Amador Gomez issued an order on
November 24, 1962 declaring Emilia Ybanez and her daughters Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene
by Joaquin Ortega as the legal heirs. In this regard, since there constantly parked at No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila where, as
is no money claims filed against the estate, probate court he was to later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already
declared that proceedings closed and terminated. residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw
Irene on or about January 18, 2002 together with respondent
On February 12, 1973, Calixta Yap Civil Case No.1184-0 was during a concert, she was pregnant.
amended showing:
ISKO NOTES | Page 10
LEGAL PROFESSION
ISKO NOTES | Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
Decision
The SC upheld the recommendation of the IBP Investigating
Commissioner.