1. Caronan v. Caronan, A.C. No.

11316, July 12, 2016

2. Ecraela v. Pangalanan A.C. No. 10676

3. Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc. Bar MAtter No. 553, June 17, 1993

4. Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Eliza B. Yu, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, March 14, 2017

5. In re: Atty. Marcial A. Edilion, A.M. No. 1928, August 3, 1987

6. Guevarra v Eala A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007

caronan vs. caronan, a.c. no. 11316, july 12, 2016

FACTS:

https://www.scribd.com/document/325117175/Case-digest-of-Caronan-vs-Caronan-A-C-11316.

atty. ecraela vs. atty. pangalangan, a.c. no. 10676, sept. 8, 2015
https://www.scribd.com/doc/294865508/Ecraela-vs-Pangalangan-Digest

ulep vs. legal clinic, L-553, june 17,1993

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales
was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big
law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the
latter’s advertisements which contain the following:

SECRET MARRIAGE?

P560.00 for a valid marriage.

Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041

8:30am – 6:00pm

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila

GUAM DIVORCE

DON PARKINSON

An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning
Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. &
Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment
in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.

Call Marivic.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy

Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in
Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of
specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as
complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of
lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal
Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation
and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and
attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the
US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation
to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly
beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the
practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal
Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly
admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice
law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal
profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote
divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their
experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising
possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust,
which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a
client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention.
That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and
reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily
sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of
advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Eliza B. Yu, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, March 14, 2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/376784519/OCA-v-Judge-Eliza-Yu

http://legresslounge.blogspot.com/2017/11/office-of-court-administrator-v-eliza-b.html

in re atty. marcial edillion a.m. no. 1928 aug. 3, 1977

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
assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions
of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the
organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for
failure to pay the same.

Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of

his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a
pre-condition to maintain 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 admitted personally antagonistic, he is
being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly 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: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his
membership fee to the IBP.
Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property
of the respondent.

HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every

lawyer must be a member of as distinguished from bar associations in
which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All lawyers are
subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the
Bar including payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the
requirements. The Rules of Court only compels him to pay his annual
dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional freedom to associate.
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone.
He is free to attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter
or vote or refuse to vote in its election 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 State’s legitimate interest
in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require thet
the cost of the regulatory program – the lawyers.

Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the

State. The right to practice 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 is not void as unreasonable
as arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over matters of
admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers
and their regulation as part of its inherent judicial functions and
responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of the
Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.

Held: The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from bar
associations that are organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership of
which is voluntary. The IBP however is an official national body of which all lawyers
must be a member and are subjected to the rules prescribed for the governance of the
Bar which includes payment of reasonable annual fee for the purpose of carrying out
its objectives and implementation of regulations in the practice of law. The provisions
assailed does not infringe the constitutional rights of the respondent as it is a valid
exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate its existence with regulatory
measures to implement. The name of Edillon was stricken out from the rolls of
attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar.

Guevarra vs. Eala A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007

Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala

A.C. No. 7136

August 1, 2007
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent
in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was
married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children.

After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene
had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some 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 morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parent’s house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her
work.

In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together on two occasions. On the
second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22,
2001 complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he saw her and the respondent
celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue
immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal
belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to
Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent’s car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New
Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still
later that when his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert,
she was pregnant.

Issue:

Would an illicit affair between a married lawyer and a married woman constitute gross immoral conduct?

Ruling:

Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be
characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances." The case at bar
involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial
whether the affair was carried out discreetly.

Sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard
of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
(Vitug v. Rongcal)

Respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and
indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior
renders him regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers
upon him.聽(Tucay v. Atty. Tucay)

Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law.

Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of the Constitution reading:
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected
by the State.

In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes this constitutional provision,
obligates the husband and the wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support."

Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law."
WHEREFORE, Petition is GRANTED. Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for
grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7,
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose
Emmanuel Eala.

Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he
shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be
convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage,
under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling,
or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall
cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium
period. Section 2 of ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of
the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the
constitution and the laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose
Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation
of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.