Case 17. Aguirre v Rana B.M.

1036 (2003)

FACTS: Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. One day before the
scheduled mass oathtaking, Donna Aguirre filed a complaint against Rana charging him of unauthorized
practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. This is due to the fact
that Rana, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in May 2001 elections.

The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar, however, he was
prohibited to sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him.

ISSUE: Whether Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve admission
to the Philippine Bar.

HELD: Yes. The Court reiterated the case of Cayetano v Monsod, in which it ruled that “practice of law”
means any activity, in and out of the court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually
performed by members of legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service
which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to
persons of good moral character with special qualifications only ascertained and certified. The exercise of
this right presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public
trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even
from one who had passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practice law without
a license.

It is true that Rana passed the bar and took the lawyer’s oath but it is the signing in the Roll of
Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. He may have passed the bar and took his oath but
the signing in the Roll of Attorneys is one of the essential requisites in the admission to the bar.

Edwin Rana is denied Admission to the Philippine Bar.

Case 37. Valencia v Cabanting, Cases No. 1302, 1391 and 1543

FACTS: The Valencia spouses bought a piece of land from Serapia Reymundo but they failed to register
the sale or to secure a transfer certificate of title in their names. Atty. Jovellanos held a conference in his
residence trying to settle the dispute between the two parties. Atty. Jovellanos recommended another
attorneys for the parties because he is a distant kin and relative of the two parties.

Reymundo, assisted by Atty. Cabanting filed a complaint against the Valencias for failure to show
evidence of ownership and foer recovery of the property. Atty. Antiniw (counsel of Valencia) advised
Paulino Valencia to present a notarized deed of sale by paying 200 pesos. Atty. Antiniw forged the
signature of alleged vendor. In another case, Atty. Antiniw also forged the signature of a dead person in a
property related case.

Paulino filed a disbarment case against Atty. Cabanting and Atty. Jovellanos for purchasing a
litigated land which is considered a violation of the New Civil Code, particularly Art. 1491. A disbarment
case was also filed against Atty. Antiniw for illegal acts and bad advice (forging the signature of dead
person).

ISSUES:

1. WON Atty. Cabanting purchase the subject (property) in violation of NCC Art. 1491?
2. WON Atty. Antiniw and Jovellanos are guilty of malpractice in falsifying notarial documents?
3. WON the 3 lawyers connived in rigging the Civil Case?

HELD:

1. Yes. Atty. Cabanting violated Art. 1491 of the New Civil Code because there was still a pending
certiorari proceeding when he purchased the land.
2. There is a clear preponderance of evidence that Atty. Antiniw committed falsification of a deed of
sale and its subsequent introduction in court prejudices his prime duty in administration of
justice. Additional charge against Atty. Jovellanos was not proved at all.
3. There is no evidene showing that the three lawyers connived in executing falsified “Compraventia
Definitiva”. Atty. Jovellanos is a distant kin of Reymundos and Valencias. He just tried to settle the
differences between the parties in a meeting held in his house.

- Atty. Antiniw was disbarred and his name was stricken off from roll.
- Atty. Cabanting was suspended for six months.
- Atty. Jovellanos’s case was dismissed.

Case 62. Garcia v Francisco, Adm Case No. 3923

FACTS: On March 9, 1964, Concordia B. Garcia and her husband Godofredo, the Dionisio spouses, and
Felisa and Magdalena Baetiong leashed a parcel of land to Sotero Baluyot Lee for a period of 25 years
beginning May 1, 1964. Despite repeated verbal and written demands, Lee refused to vacate after the
expiration of the lease. Lee claimed that he had an option to extend the lease for another 5 years and the
right of pre-emption over the property. Concordia B. Garcia seeks the disbarment of Atty. Crisanto L.
Francisco for she claims that Lee's counsel, respondent Francisco, commenced various suits before
different courts to thwart Garcia's right to regain her property and that all these proceedings were
decided against Lee. The proceedings stemmed from the said lease contract and involved the same issues
and parties, thus violating the proscription against forum-shopping.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco transgressed with the Code of Professional Conduct

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Francisco’s cause was without merit. He abused his right of
recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was
disdaining the obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to
be just and such defense only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. By violating his oath
not to delay any man for money or malice, he has besmirched the name of an honorable profession and
has proved himself unworthy of trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. Atty. Crisanto
Francisco took his oath as a lawyer on March 2, 1956. Considering his age and experience in the practice
of the laws, he should have known better than to trifle with it and to use it as an instrument for
harassment of the complainant and the misuse of judicial processes.
The Court suspended him for one year from the practice of law and from the enjoyment of all the
rights and privileges appurtenant to membership in the Philippine bar.