IN THE MATTER OF THE IBP MEMBERSHIP DUES DELINQUENCY OF ATTY. had already been remanded to the court of origin.
y been remanded to the court of origin. Atty. Castro was not the counsel of record of
MARCIAL A. EDILLION
A.C. No. 1928 | DECEMBER 19, 1980
FERNANDO, C.J.:
FACTS:
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.
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 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.
DALLONG-GALICINAO v. CASTRO
A.C. No. 6396, 25 OCTOBER 2005
TINGA, J.:
FACTS:
Atty. Castro, a private practitioner, went to the office of Atty. Dallong-Galicinao, the clerk
of court of Bambang (Nueva Vizcaya) RTC, to inquire whether the complete records of a civil case
either party in the said civil case. When denied such request, Atty. Castro hurled invectives at
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao which caused the same to file a complaint-affidavit against the former for
unprofessional conduct. Due to Atty. Castro’s public apology, Atty. Dallong-Galicinao expressed her
desire not to appear on the next hearing.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Castro should be held administratively liable.
RULING:
Yes. Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from either the
parties to represent them, Atty. Castro has no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.
Although the penalty should be tempered since Atty. Castro apologized and Atty. Dallong-
Galicinao accepted it. This is not to say that Atty. Castro should be absolved of his actuations. Atty.
Castro is ordered fined in the amount of P10,000.00 with a warning that any similar infractions
shall be dealt with more severely.
IN RE: RAMON E. GALANG, 1971 BAR EXAMINEE,
A.C. No. 1163 AUGUST 29, 1975
MAKASIAR, J.
FACTS:
Landicho wrote a confidential letter to the court about the startling fact that the grade in
one examination (Civil Law) of at least one bar candidate was raised for one reason or another,
before the bar results were released this year and that there are grades in other examination
notebooks in other subjects that underwent alterations to raise the grades prior to release of
results.
The Court checked the records of the 1971 Bar Examinations and found that the grades in
five subjects; Political Law and Public International Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law, Criminal
Law and Remedial Law of a successful bar candidate with office code No. 954, Ramon Galang,
underwent some changes which, however, were duly initialed and authenticated by the respective
examiner concerned. Each of the five (5) examiners in his individual sworn statement admitted
having re-evaluated and/or re-checked the notebook involved pertaining to his subject upon the
representation to him by Bar Confidant Lanuevo that he has the authority to do the same and that
the examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject and/or was on the borderline of
passing.
The investigation showed that the re-evaluation of the examination papers of Ramon E.
Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, was unauthorized, and therefore he did not obtain a passing
average in the 1971 bar examinations.
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 Lanuevo’s move but the exam results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil,
Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial).
An investigation conducted by the NBI also showed that Ramon Galang, was charged with
the crime of slight physical injuries committed on certain de Vera, of the same university.
Confronted with this information, respondent Galang declared that he does not remember having
been charged with the crime of slight physical injuries in that case.
It must also be noted that immediately after the official release of the results of the 1971
Bar examinations, 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. But Lanuevo’s
statement of assets and liabilities were not taken up during the investigation but were examined
as parts of the records of the court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Galang is guilty of fraudulently concealing and withholding from the court
his pending case.
HELD:
YES. the Supreme Court disbarred him because of the highly irregular manner of his
passing the bar which was effected through an authorized re-evaluation of his examination
notebooks, and on the ground that he fraudulently concealed and withheld his pending criminal
case for slight physical injuries in all his seven applications to take the bar examinations which
indicates his lack of the requisite attributes of honesty, probity and good demeanor. Respondent
Bar Examiners were reminded to exercise the greatest or utmost care and vigilance in the
performance of their duties as such.
CASTILLO v. PADILLA JR.
A.C. No. 2339, FEBRUARY 24, 1984
PLANA, J.:
FACTS:
Atty. Jose Castillo was the counsel for the defendants in a criminal case while Atty.
Sabino Padilla was the counsel for the plaintiff. At the hearing while Castillo was offering his
evidence, he heard Padilla say "bobo". When Castillo turned to Padiila, he saw the latter looking at
him menacingly. Embarrasses, Castillo was not able to proceed.
While admitting the utterance, Padilla denied having directed the same at Castillo,
claiming that what he said was referring to the manner complainant was trying to inject wholly
irrelevant and highly offensive matters into the record.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Padilla should be suspended from the practice of law
RULING:
No. However, Atty. Padilla is hereby reprimanded for his misbehavior. He is directed to
observe proper decorum and restraint and warned that a repetition of the offense will be dealt with
more severely.
Among the duties of an attorney are to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
of justice; and to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which he
is charged. The Canons of Professional Ethics likewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities
between counsel.
Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering evidence, the
remark “bobo” was offensive and uncalled for. Padilla had no right to interrupt Castillo with such
cutting remark while the latter was addressing the court. In so doing, he exhibited lack of respect
not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court. By the use of intemperate language, Padilla failed
to measure up to the norm of conduct required of a member of the legal profession.
The Court, however, notes that in the case at bar, respondent’s actuation was triggered by
complainant’s own manifest hostility and provocative remarks. Complainant is therefore not
entirely free from blame when respondent unleashed his irritation through the use of improper
words.
IN RE: WENCESLAO LAURETA
MARCH 12, 1987
PER CURIAM:
FACTS:
Eva Maravilla Ilustre made incriminating acts which included writing threatening letters
to the Justices of the Supreme Court; filing an Affidavit-Complaint before the Tanodbayan that
completely disregarded facts, circumstances, and legal considerations; and instigated the
circulation of a false headline implying graft and corruption charges against Justices.
Atty. Wenceslao Laureta likely wrote the threatening letters sent to the Justices in
Ilustre’s name; likely encouraged Ilustre’s pursuit of her Affidavit-Complaint with the Tanodbayan
and her disparaging remarks regarding the Justices in her letters and comments to the media; and
was responsible for all the acts of his clients.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ilustre and Laureta should be held in contempt for their remarks on the
Supreme Court
RULING:
Yes. Accordingly, Eva Maravilla Ilustre is held in contempt, and is fined in the amount of
P1,000.00 only, mindful that the power of contempt should be exercised on the preservative and
not on the vindictive principle of punishment; and Atty. Wenceslao Laureta is found guilty of grave
professional misconduct, rendering him unfit to continue to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney, and is hereby suspended from the practice of
law until further Orders, the suspension to take effect immediately.
A letter individually addressed to some Justices of the SC is not covered by the
constitutional right to "privacy of communication" when the same pertain to their exercise of
judicial functions. The Supreme Court's authority and duty to act to preserve its honor from
attacks by an irate lawyer mouthed by his client is clear and non-vindictive.
As a lawyer, whatever steps his client takes should be within his knowledge and
responsibility. Indeed, Canon 16 of the Canons of Legal Ethics should have reminded him that a
lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his clients from doing those things
which the lawyer himself ought not to do, particularly with reference to their conduct towards
courts, judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in such wrongdoing the
lawyer should terminate their relation.
Laureta manifestly failed to discharge such responsibility. For all intents and purposes, he
appears to have encouraged and abetted his client in denigrating the members of the First Division
of this Court, by baselessly charging them with rendering an "unjust" resolution with "deliberate
bad faith," because of his stubborn insistence on his untenable arguments which had been rejected
as without merit by the Court's First Division, whose Resolution was upheld by the Court en banc.
Worse, the dissemination in the print and broadcast media in bold captions falsely depicting the
Justices as "Facing Graft Charges" instead of the baseless rantings of a disgruntled litigant appear
to have been timed to place them in a bad light at the height of the Christmas season.
ALCANTARA v. PEFIANCO
A.C. No. 5398, December 3, 2002
MENDOZA, J:
FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Alcantara is office head of PAO in San Jose, Antique. On his complaint,
he narrated that a woman in tears asking for help approached Atty. Salvani. At this point, Atty.
Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client, saying,
“Why do you settle that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake.”
Surprised at Pefianco’s outburst, Atty. Alcantara asked him to cool off, but the former continued to
fulminate at Atty. Salvani. Atty. Salvani tried to explain that it was the woman who was asking if
the civil aspect of the criminal case could be settled because she was no longer interested in
prosecuting the same. Respondent refused to listen and instead continued to scold Atty. Salvani
and the latter’s client.
As head of the Office, Atty. Alcantara approached Pefianco and asked him to take it easy
and leave Atty. Salvani to settle the matter. Respondent at first listened, but shortly after, he
again started shouting at and scolding Atty. Salvani. To avoid any scene, Atty. Alcantara went
inside his office.
Another instance happen wherein Atty. Alcantara went out to attend a hearing, but when
he came back he heard Pefianco saying: “Atty. Alcantara said that he would send me out of the
PAO, what an idiot.” Then, upon seeing him, Pefianco pointed his finger at Atty. Alcantara and
repeated his statement for the other people in the office to hear. At this point, Atty. Alcantara
confronted Pefianco and told him to observe civility or else to leave the office if he had no business
there. Pefianco resented this and started hurling invectives at him, he even took a menacing stance
towards him.
This caused a commotion in the office. Atty. Marfil and Mr. Minguez, the Chief of the
Probation Office, tried to pacify Pefianco. Two guards of the Hall of Justice came to take Pefianco
out of the office, but before they could do so, Pefianco tried to attack Atty. Alcantara and even
shouted at him, “Gago ka!” Fortunately, the guards were able to fend off respondent’s blow and
Atty. Alcantara was not harmed.
Atty. Pefianco on the other hand, counterclaimed the complaint by Atty. Alcantara and
filed a complaint against the latter before the Office of the Ombudsman, but denied by said office.
ISSUE:
WON, Atty. Pefianco’s behavior violated Canon 8 of Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
YES. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty
bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly
toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times.
In this case, respondent’s meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused
the untoward incident. He had no right to demand an explanation from Atty. Salvani why the case
of the woman had not or could not be settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani in fact tried to explain the
matter to respondent, but the latter insisted on his view about the case.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in
the amount of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning that similar action in the future will
be sanctioned more severely.
GUBALLA v. CAGUIOA
No. L-46537, July 29, 1977
SANTOS, J:
FACTS:
Guballa is an operator of a PUV which was involved in an accident resulting to injuries.
As a consequence thereof, a complaint for damages was filed by the victim against Guballa with
the CFI of Bulacan. An Answer was filed on behalf of Guballa by Atty. Vida, Jr.
Because Guballa and counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial conference despite due
notice, petitioner was treated as in default and the victim was allowed to present his evidence ex
parte. A decision was rendered by the court in favor of the victim.
Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Guballa seeking the reopening of the case for the
presentation of his evidence and the setting aside of the decision. Said Motion for Reconsideration
was signed by Atty. Mercado, another member of the law firm. The same was denied by the lower
Court and Guballa appealed to the CA.
The appealed case was handled by Atty. Bautista, an associate of the same law firm. The
decision appealed from was affirmed in toto by the CA. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by
Guballa, through a different counsel, Atty. Santos. However, the same was denied and the decision
became final and was then remanded to the lower Court, presided by Judge Caguioa for execution.
A Motion for Execution was thereafter filed by the victim with the lower Court which was
granted by respondent Judge. Guballa, through Atty. Santos filed a Petition for Relief from
Judgment alleging his discovery that Vida Jr., who prepared his Answer to the Complaint is not a
member of the Philippine Bar and that consequently, his rights had not been adequately protected
and his properties are in danger of being confiscated and/or levied upon without due process of law.
In an Order, Judge Caguioa denied the Petition and directed the issuance of a writ of
execution for the reasons that said Petition is “. . .a clear case of dilatory tactic on the part of
counsel for defendant-appellant. . .” herein petitioner, and, that the grounds relied upon “. . . could
have been ventilated in the appeal before the Court of Appeals. . .”
ISSUE:
WON, Judge Caguioa erred in his decision.
RULING:
 NO. Respondent Judge’s forthright denial of the Petition for Relief to frustrate a dilatory
maneuver is well-taken; and this Petition must be denied for lack of merit.
The alleged fact that the person who represented petitioner at the initial stage of the
litigation, i.e., the filing of an Answer and the pre-trial proceedings, turned out to be not a member
of the Bar did not amount to a denial of petitioner’s day in court. It should be noted that in the
subsequent stages of the proceedings, after the rendition of the judgment by default, petitioner was
duly represented by bona fide members of the Bar in seeking a reversal of the judgment for being
contrary to law and jurisprudence and the existence of valid, legal and justifiable defenses. In other
words, petitioner’s rights had been amply protected in the proceedings before the trial and
appellate courts as he was subsequently assisted by counsel. Moreover, petitioner himself was at
fault as the order of treatment as in default was predicated, not only on the alleged counsel’s
failure to attend the pre-trial conference on April 6, 1972, but likewise on his own failure to attend
the same, without justifiable reason. To allow this petition due course is to countenance further
delay in a proceeding which had already taken well over six years to resolve.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction is
hereby dismissed. The law firm “Vida, Enriquez, Mercado & Associates” of 209 Sampaguita Bldg.,
Cubao, Quezon City, is hereby ordered to explain, within ten (10) days from notice this Resolution,
why Irineo W. Vida, Jr. was permitted to sign the Answer in Civil Case No. 680-V of CFI, Bulacan,
when he is not a member of the Bar.
PEOPLE v. DE LUNA
No. L-10236-48, January 31, 1958
BAYONA, J:
FACTS:
De Luna, et al., respondents know that they did not pass the bar examinations. Although
they sought admission under the Bar Flunkers Act, they were notified of the decision of SC denying
their petitions.
Notwithstanding their disqualification to be admitted to the bar, they took their lawyer’s
oath before a notary public and formally advised the SC of such oath taking and that they will
engage in the practice of law in all courts in the Philippines.
ISSUE:
WON, the act of respondents constitutes contempt of court.
RULING:
YES. The oath as lawyer is a prerequisite to the practice of law and may be taken only
before the Supreme Court by those authorized by the latter to engage in such practice. The
resolution of the Supreme Court denying appellees' petition for admission to the Bar implied,
necessarily, a denial of the right to take said oath, as well as a prohibition of the taking thereof.
By taking oaths before a notary public, appellees expressed clearly their intent to, and did,
in fact, challenge and defy the authority of the Supreme Court to pass upon and settle, in a final
and conclusive manner, the issue whether or not they should be admitted to the bar, as well as,
embarrass, hinder and obstruct the administration of justice and impair the respect due to the
courts of justice and the Supreme Court, in particular, in violation of section 3, subdivision (b) of
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Such acts, therefore, constitute contempt of court.
PURPOSES OF IBP
The fundamental purposes of the Integrated Bar shall be to elevate the standards of the
legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.
HISTORY OF IBP
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official organization of all Philippine
lawyers whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. The IBP came into
being when the Supreme Court created on October 5, 1970 the Commission on Bar Integration
which was tasked “not only to ascertain the advisability of integration of the Bar, but even more, to
serve as a common vehicle of the Court and the Bar in fashioning a blueprint for integration and
putting the same into actual operation.” Republic Act No. 6397, which became effective September
17, 1971, confirmed the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of court to effect the integration
of the Philippine Bar. Then on January 9, 1973, the Supreme Court, by a per curiam resolution,
pursuant to its constitutional mandate, ordained the integration of the Bar in accordance with its
Rule 139-A, effective January 16, 1973. Within the next succeeding months, the IBP was
organized. On February 17, 1973, local chapters all over the country were finally formed and
elections for chapter officers were held. Then on March 17, 1973, the first batch of representatives
to the IBP House of Delegates composed of 104 delegates representing the IBP Chapters
nationwide convened in Manila and elected its first set of IBP Governors.
It is an official organization - and by “official” we mean that it is established by the State.
Republic Act No. 6397 confirmed the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of court to effect
the integration of the Philippine Bar. Presidential Decree. No. 181 was promulgated on May 4,
1973 constituting the IBP into a body corporate and providing government assistance thereto for
the accomplishment of its purposes.
EFFECT OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUES
Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six
months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such
payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from
the Roll of Attorneys.
*Sec. 12. Grievance procedures. - The Board of Governors shall provide in the By-Laws for
grievance procedures for the enforcement and maintenance of discipline among all the members of
the Integrated Bar, but no action involving the suspension or disbarment of a member or the
removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys shall be effective without the final approval of the
Supreme Court.