1. LEDESMA V. CLIMACO a resolution requiring Atty. Sixto P.

Demaisip to explain, within ten (10) days why

disciplinary action should not be taken against him. What passed for an explanation for
Facts: appellant's persistent failure to file appellant's brief was submitted on November25, 1971,
Atty. Ledesma was the counsel de parte for one of the cases pending beforethe sala of Judge worded thus: "[Comes now] the accused-appellant, by and thru the undersigned counsel
Climaco. He filed a motion to withdraw from the case but the judge denied the motion and de oficio, unto this Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully manifests and explains that,
instead appointed him counsel de oficio for two more cases. Atty. Ledesma filed another in the opinion of the undersigned lawyer, grounded on settled jurisprudence, the escape of
motion to withdraw because he was appointed as election registrar, which was still denied. the prisoner automatically makes the appeal useless and unnecessary because it is
considered abandoned." It is his prayer, therefore, that the above be considered a
Issue: satisfactory explanation.
Should his motion to withdraw as counsel prosper?
Held:
Held:
No. The respondent judge’s denial was proper. It was observed that there is no real conflict Doctrine: “There is need anew in this disciplinary proceeding to lay stress on the
between his duties as election registrar and counsel de oficio. The appointment of a lawyer fundamental postulate that membership in the bar carries with it aresponsibility to live up
as counsel de oficio is a privilege which veteran lawyers in fact, readily welcome as an to its exacting standard. The law is a profession, not a trade or a craft. Those enrolled in its
opportunity to render their services for free. In the same way, all lawyers should treat it ranks are called upon to aid in the performance of one of the basic purposes of the State,
that way as an opportunity to prove to the community that the proper performance of his the administration of justice. To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an
profession is not contingent upon the payment of his fees. indigent defendant, a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio. The fact that his
services are rendered without remuneration should not occasion adiminution in his zeal.
People of the Philippines vs Roscoe Daban y Ganzon, Sixto P. Demaisip(G.R. No. L-31429, Rather the contrary. This is not, of course, to ignore that other pressing matters do compete
January 31, 1972) for his attention. After all, he has his practice to attend to. That circumstance possesses a
high degree of relevance since a lawyer has to live; certainly he cannot afford either to
Facts: neglect his paying cases. Nonetheless, what is incumbent upon him as counsel de oficio
must be fulfilled” Nothing can be clearer, therefore, than that respondent Demaisip, by
Respondent, Attorney Sixto P. Demaisip, started as counsel de parte of appellant. On such gross neglect of duty, notwithstanding the many extensions granted him, was recreant
October 24, 1970, he filed a motion for extension of time of 30days within which to file to the trust reposed in him as counsel de oficio. Respondent Demaisip ought to have known
appellant's brief. It was granted. So were subsequent motions for extension. On May 25, better. His explanation disregards the facts and betrays ignorance of the law. It is true
1971, after having obtained 13 extensions in all, he filed a motion asking that in view of the there was a notice on June23, 1971 from the then Acting Director Vicente R. Raval of the
father of appellant being unable to raise money for printing expenses, he be allowed to Bureau of Prisons that on June 15 of that year appellant Roscoe Daban y Ganzon did escape.
retire as counsel de parte and be appointed as counsel de oficio instead to enable him to As far back as May 13, 1971, however, respondent Demaisip, according to his motion of
file a typewritten brief, a draft of which, according to him, he had by then finished. This that date filed on May 25, 1971, wherein he prayed that he be appointed counsel de oficio
Court, in a resolution of June 2, 1971, granted his prayer to be appointed counsel de oficio, and permitted to submit a mimeographed brief, had assured this Court that he had already
but required him to file a mimeographed rather than a typewritten brief. In the light of his prepared a draft. If he were not careless of the truth, then there was no excuse why prior
own representation, there was reason to expect that such a brief would be duly to June 15, 1971 he was unable to submit such a brief to this Court. It is not to be ignored
forthcoming. It did not turn out to be the case at all, for respondent Demaisip, this time as either that as of that datehe had already secured thirteen extensions, ordinarily many more
counsel de oficio, kept on filing motions for postponement, four in number, likewise than any counsel is entitled to but nonetheless granted him, because the sentence imposed
granted by this Tribunal in a spirit of generosity. All in all, he had seventeen extensions. Still was one of death. The liability incurred by respondent Demaisip is thus unavoidable. He had
there was no appellant's brief. It was only then that on October 11, 1971 this Court issued failed to fulfill his responsibility as defense counsel. Whether as counsel de parte ora
counsel de oficio, he was indeed truly remiss in the discharge of a responsibility which, as a by a lawyer, there is great danger that any defense presented in her behalf will be
member of the Bar, he cannot evade. It is by such notorious conduct of neglect and inadequate considering the legal perquisites and skills needed in the court proceedings. This
indifference on the part of counsel that a court's docket becomes unnecessarily clogged. would certainly be a denial of due process.”
His transgression is indisputable; whatremains is the imposition of an appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, until further orders of this Court, respondent Sixto P. Demaisip is hereby Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law,
suspended from the practice of the law in all courts of the Philippines, except for the sole particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he may be convicted not
purpose of filing the brief for appellant Roscoe Daban y Ganzon with this Court within a because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. The right
period of twenty days from receipt of this resolution. Let a copy of this resolution be spread of an accused to counsel is guaranteed to minimize the imbalance in the adversarial system
upon his record. where the accused is pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the State. Such
some right proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which basically means
Andres vs. Cabrera that a person must be heard before being condemned. The due process requirement is a
part of a person’s basic rights; it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or
People vs. Santocildes performed perfunctorily.

Facts: In a matter of IBP

On February 17, 1992, appellant was charged with the crime of rape Republic Act. No. 6397 entitled “An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar
of a girl less than nine (9) years old, committed on December 28, 1991, in the town of and Appropriating Funds Therefore” was passed in September 1971, ordaining “Within two
Barangay San Luis, San Joaquin, Iloilo. Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect
guilty. Trial ensued and the prosecution presented as its witnesses the victim, her mother, the integration of the Philippine Bar.” The Supreme Court formed a Commission on Bar
her six (6) year-old playmate, and the medico-legal officer who examined the victim. The Integration and in December 1972, the Commission earnestly recommended the
Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentences integration of the bar. The Court accepted all comments on the proposed integration.
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua together its accessory penalty. Appellant
contends that he was represented during trial by a person named Gualberto C. Ompong, ISSUES:
who for all intents and purposes acted as his counsel and even conducted the direct
examination and cross-examinations of the witnesses. On appeal, however, appellant Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine bar?
secured the services of a new lawyer, Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr., who discovered that Would the integration of the bar be constitutional?
Gualberto C. Ompong is actually not a member of the bar. Further verification with the Should the Court ordain the integration of the bar at this time?
Office of the Bar Confidant confirmed this fact. Appellant therefore argues that his
deprivation of the right to counsel should necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime RULING:
charged.
In ruling on the issues raised, the Court first adopted the definition given by the Commission
Issue: to “integration” in this wise: “Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification
Is the petitioner entitled to a new trial? of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial
support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice
Held: of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.” The
“This is so because an accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar term “Bar” refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of
in a criminal case filed against her before the Regional Trial Court. Unless she is represented Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with power to do so; In re: Cunanan
the State. Bar integration therefore, signifies the setting up by government authority of a
national organization of the legal profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as an FACTS:
officer of the court.
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The
Designed to improve the positions of the Bar as an instrumentality of justice and the rule of title of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to
law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers, and ensures, through their own organized and including 1955.”
action and participation, the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, pursuant
to the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
the Supreme Court.
1946-1951………………70%
On the first issue, the Court held that it may integrate the Bar in the exercise of its power
“to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the 1952 …………………….71%
admission to the practice of law.” Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the
Court’s constitutional authority over the Bar. 1953……………………..72%

The second issue hinges on the following constitutional rights: freedom of association and 1954……………………..73%
of speech, as well as the nature of the dues exacted from the lawyer, i.e., whether or not
the Court thus levies a tax. The Court held: 1955……………………..74%

Integration is not violative of freedom of association because it does not compel a lawyer Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.
to become a member of any group of which he is not already a member. All that it does is
“to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any
incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member.” The lawyer too is not subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be
compelled to attend meetings, participate of activities, etc. The only compulsion is the included in the computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations.”
payment of annual dues. Assuming, however, that it does compel a lawyer to be a member
of an integrated bar, the court held that “such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the ISSUE:
police power of the state”
Integration is also not violative of the freedom of speech just because dues paid b the Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
lawyer may be used for projects or programs, which the lawyer opposes. To rule otherwise
would make every government exaction a “free speech issue.” Furthermore, the lawyer is RULING:
free to voice out his objections to positions taken by the integrated bar.
The dues exacted from lawyers is not in the nature of a levy but is purely for purposes of Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in
regulation. the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to
1955 Bar examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It
As to the third issue, the Court believes in the timeliness of the integration. Survey showed was also struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact
an overwhelming majority of lawyers who favored integration. that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
 However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied permission for petitioner
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for to appear as private prosecutor on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing limited law
1953 to 1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law Student Practice
based under the following reasons: Rule) should take precedence over the ruling of the Court laid down in Cantimbuhan; and
set the case for continuation of trial.
The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to
1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of Issue:
World War II;
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or
said candidates; friend of a party litigant
The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who may be
admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter Ruling:
and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down by Congress under this power are
only minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the court on who can The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where
practice law; and the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear
The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation. in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138 provides:
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough votes to
declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace, a party
not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of an may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for
petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter, that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his
supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law. litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal
or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
Cruz vs. Mina
Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party
Facts: without the supervision of a member of the bar.

Ferdinand A. Cruz filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private Zaldivar vs. Gonzales
prosecutor, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness.
Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for
The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies his appearance as violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan
private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the who was investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for
ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr. that a non-lawyer may appear Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to
before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. The petitioner investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting on the
furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior conformity of the public petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily
prosecutor and a written authority of Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his agent in the restrain from investigating and filing informations against Zaldivar.
prosecution of the said criminal case.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations
against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that
he scored one on the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Court’s issuance of the TRO is a
manifestation theta the “rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona
Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given fide. In the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one where he alleged that members
due course”. of the Supreme Court approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case.

Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of law.
ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the
newspapers were true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled Stemmerik vs. Mas
to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed
into error. He also said, even attaching notes, that not less than six justices of the Supreme STEMMERIK V. MAS
Court have approached him to ask him to “go slow” on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the
Supreme Court. FACTS:
Stemmerik, a Danish citizen, wanted to buy Philippine property due to its beauty. He
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt. consulted Atty Mas about his intention, to which the latter advised him that he could legally
buy such properties. Atty Mas even suggested a big piece of property that he can buy,
HELD: assuring that it is alienable. Because of this, Stemmerik entrusted all of the necessary
requirements and made Atty Mas his attorney in fact as he went back to Denmark. After
Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for some time, Atty Mas informed Stemmerik that he found the owner of the big piece of
the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His statements necessarily property and stated the price of the property is P3.8M. Stemmerik agreed, giving Atty Mas
imply that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements the money, and the latter supposedly drawing up the necessary paperwork.
constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very When Stemmerik asked when he could have the property registered in his name, Atty Mas
clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system can’t be found. He returned to the Philippines, employed another lawyer, and to his horror,
of administration of justice in the country. was informed that aliens couldn’t own Philippine Lands and that the property was also
inalienable. Stemmerik the filed a DISBARMENT case against Atty MAS in the Commission
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. The CBD ruled that Atty Mas abused the trust and
unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is confidence of Stemmerik and recommended that he be disbarred. The IBP Board of
not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and Governors adopted such recommendations.
accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these
fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of ISSUE/S:
the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free expression and the W/N Atty Mas can be disbarred.
integrity of the system of administering justice.
HELD:
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor YES! Disbarred.
who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the
embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. RATIO:
The responsibility of Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court Disobeyed the Laws and the Constitutional Prohibition
and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier than that of a private Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution prohibits foreigners from buying Philippine Lands.
practicing lawyer. Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy,
showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he Medado’s worth to become a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar. First, Medado
prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal. demonstrated

Deceitful Conduct good faith and good moral character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in the
By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Roll of Attorneys. It was Medado himself who admitted his own error and not any third
Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, respondent person. Second, petitioner has not been subject to any action or disqualification from the
deliberately deceived his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence practice of law. He strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the profession
reposed in him by complainant. and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the character required to be a member
of the Philippine Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a competent and able legal
Illegal Conduct practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil
By pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy Development
of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature. Corporation. However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all liability for his years of
inaction. His justification of his action, that it was “neither willful nor intentional
but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment” was opposed by the Court.
In re: Petition to Sign Roll of Attorneys “A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed
to know the law and its consequences.”
Facts: Although an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal
Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law degree in the year 1979,took and passed consequences of his acts he could no longer claim it as a valid justification by the moment
the same year’s bar examinations and took the Attorney’s Oath, failed to sign the Attorney’s he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance record. His action of
Roll. After more than 30 years of practicing the profession of law, he filed the instant continuing the practice of law in spite of his knowledge of the need to take the necessary
Petition on February 2012, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. steps to complete all requirements for the admission to the bar constitutes unauthorized
Medado said that he was not able to sign the Roll of Attorneys because he misplaced the practice of law. Such action transgresses Canon 9of 'the Code of Professional Responsibility,
notice given to him and he believed that since he had already taken the oath, the signing of which provides:
the Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer. The Office of the CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of
Bar Confidant (OBC) after conducting clarificatory conference on the matter recommended law. With respect to the penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted the penalty
to the Supreme Court that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, of suspension from the practice of law. However, in the instant case the Court could not
gross misconduct and utter lack of merit. warrant the penalty of suspension from the practice of law to

Issue: Medado because he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. Instead, the Court see it fit to impose
WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys? upon him a penalty similar to suspension by allowing him to sign in theRoll of Attorneys one
( 1) year after receipt of the Resolution and to fine him in the amount of P32,000.The instant
Ruling: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is Affirmed. Petitioner Michael A. Medado is
Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of the Resolution.
of a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law. Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE ofP32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law.
The Court cannot forbid the petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys because such During the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and is STERNLY
action constitutes disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the most serious ethical WARNED that doing any act that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll
transgressions of members of the Bar. The Court cited three main points whichdemonstrate of Attorneys will be dealt with severely by the Court
CALUB vs. SULLER
Held:
Facts: GUILTY. Respondents do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended the
canvassing of the Pasig City election returns. The only explanation they could offer for such
Atty Suller raped the wife of his neighbor Cristino Calub. irregularities is that the same could be due to honest mistake, human error, and/or fatigue
on the part of the members of the canvassing committees who prepared the SoVs. There is
A criminal complaint for rape was filed against Suller. A complaint for disbarment was also a limit, we believe, to what can be construed as an honest mistake or oversight due to
filed by Calub beforethe SC. fatigue, in the performance of official duty. The sheer magnitude of the error renders the
defense of honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, as incredible and simply
The CFI acquitted Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable unacceptable. Indeed, what is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the
doubt. tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the subsequent
entry of the erroneous figures in one or two SoVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes
Issue: of certain senatorial candidates at the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of
Can Atty Suller be disbarred? the tabulation in the election returns. A lawyer who holds a government position may not
be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
Held: government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of
Yes. Acquittal in a criminal case is not determinative of an administrative case for Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath or is of such character as to affect his
disbarment. A lawyer may be disbarred qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be
or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. Here, by certifying as true and
that he lacks moral character to continue as officer of the court. The rape by a lawyer of his correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code
neighbor’s wife constitutes such serious moral depravity. which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.” By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the
Pimentel vs. Llorente government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do
no falsehood.” The Court found the respondents guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP
Facts: 10,000 each and issued a stern warning that similar conduct in the future will be severely
Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election officers of the COMELEC and held punished.
the position of Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively for the Pasig City Board of
Candidates. The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 1995 elections. Then GARRIDO vs. GARRIDO
Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the respondents tampered with the
votes received by them by either adding more votes for particular candidates in their Facts:
Statement of Votes (SoV) or reducing the number of votes of particular candidates in their
SoV. Pimentel filed an administrative complaint for their disbarment. Respondents argued The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a
that the discrepancies were due to honest mistake, oversight and fatigue. Respondents also supplementalaffidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and
argued that the IBP Board of Governors had already exonerated them from any offense and Atty. Romana P.Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on
that the motion for reconsideration filed by Pimentel was not filed in time. Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind
through her daughter that her husband was having an affair with a woman other than his
wife and already had a child with her; and the same information was confirmed when on
her daughters saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other respondent, KUPERS VS HONTANOSAS
Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow. After a much further investigation into the matter,
the time and effort given yielded results telling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband Linsangan vs. Tolentino
had been married in Hong Kong. Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal
home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to LINSANGAN V. TOLENTINO
render much needed financial support. In their defense, they postulated that they were not
lawyers as of yet when they committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not Facts:
guilty of a violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.
A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan, Linsangan &
Issue: Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients &
encroachment of professional services. Linsangan alleges that Tolentino with the help of
Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s and Valencia’s actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, paralegal Labiano convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising
Rule1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being financial assistance and expeditious collection of their claims. To induce them, Tolentino
supposedly committed when they were not lawyers. allegedly texted and called them persistently. To support his allegation, Linsangan
presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail over
Held: him to sever his client-atty relationship with Linsangan. Also, he attached “respondent’s
Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through the calling card”:
Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show the
lawyer’s lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or moral. Front
In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E.
Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
1,Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall LAW OFFFICE
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, The CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got married shall not W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was already required as a
condition precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the community Fe Marie L. Labiano
looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were shouldered with the expectation that they Paralegal
would set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When
they violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, 1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01
not only did their actions discredit the legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without Tel: 362-7820
even including the fact of Garrido’s abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the 6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar
detriment of his children by the petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite Fax: (632) 362-7821
knowing of his other marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are clear Grace Park, Caloocan City
indications of a lack of moral values not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing Cel.: (0926) 2701719
lawyers within the country. As such, their disbarment is affirmed.
Back

SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserves no
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN place in the legal profession.
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS RAMOS V. IMBANG
ABROAD.
In his defense, Tolentino denies knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and FACTS
circulating of said calling card.
In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R.
Issue: Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos.
W/N Atty. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his services She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000
only.
Held: The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the
Yes. Atty. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. her to wait outside. He would then come out after several hours to inform her that the
With regard to Canon 3, the practice of law is a profession and not a business. Thus, lawyers hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and for each
should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow lawyers to “appearance” in court, respondent charged her P350.
advertise their talents/skill is a commercialization of the practice of law (degrading the After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious. She personally
profession in the public’s estimation). inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts of Biñan and San Pedro, Laguna.
With regard to Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for purpose of gain, She was shocked to learn that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and
either personally or through an agent. In relation to Rule 1.03, which proscribes “ambulance that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
chasing” (involving solicitation personally or through an agent/broker) as a measure to
protect community from barratry and champertry. HELD
As a final note regarding the calling card presented as evidence by Linsangan, a lawyer’s Attorney Imbang is disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.
best advertisement is a well-merited. reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. More specifically,
trust based on his character and conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations
announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public
cards. servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details: Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service.
(a) lawyer’s name; For this reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected; of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides:
(c) address; Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions of public
(d) telephone number and officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following
(e) special branch of law practiced. constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are
Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase “with financial assistance.” The phrase was hereby declared unlawful:
clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a xxx xxx xxx
promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees
their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional during their incumbency shall not:
xxx xxx xxx confidence of the citizenry in government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession
(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government lawyer
provided that such practice will not conflict with their official function. is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, higher
Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are than his brethren in private practice.
expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices. There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the
In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent did not hold the money for the benefit of
receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money the complainant but accepted it as his attorney's fees. He neither held the amount in trust
from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship. Respondent's admission that he for the complainant (such as an amount delivered by the sheriff in satisfaction of a judgment
accepted money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed the presence of an obligation in favor of the client) nor was it given to him for a specific purpose (such as
attorney-client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the receipt amounts given for filing fees and bail bond). Nevertheless, respondent should return the
showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still a government lawyer. P5,000 as he, a government lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees and not allowed to
Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of profession. accept them.
Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees. The PAO was
created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent litigants. Section
14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code provides: QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN SILVERIO
Sec. 14. xxx
The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free legal Facts:
assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi- Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, a former clerk of court of Branch 81 of Romblon, addressed a
judicial cases. letter-query to the Office of the Court Administrator. It was related to Section 7(b)(2) of
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the Republic Act (
complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. Respondent violated the R.A.) No. 6713 or the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
prohibition against accepting legal fees other than his salary. Employees”, which prohibits public officials and employees from engaging during their
Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking includes the observance of incumbency “in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by respondent when he accepted the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
complainant's cases and received attorney's fees in consideration of his legal services. their official functions.” Atty. Buffe questioned the provision giving preferential treatment
Consequently, respondent's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the to incumbent public officials and employees as regards private practice, while non-
Code of Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the private practice of incumbents, according to the last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 6713, cannot practice their
profession disqualified him from acting as the complainant's counsel. profession in connection with any matter before the office they used to be with for a period
Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private cases and of one year after resignation, retirement or separation from public office. Such question
accepting attorney's fees, respondent also surreptitiously deceived the complainant. Not was due to the fact that, within one year after her resignation from her position, she
only did he fail to file a complaint against the Jovellanoses (which in the first place he should engaged in the private practice of law by appearing as private counsel in several cases
not have done), respondent also led the complainant to believe that he really filed an action before RTC-Branch 81 of Romblon. After review, the Court found that Atty. Buffe
against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the cases were being tried and asked misinterpreted the law. The confusion lay in the use of the term “such practice” after the
the complainant to pay his “appearance fees” for hearings that never took place. These acts phrase "provided that" and the notion that incumbent public officials and employees are
constituted dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood. absolutely permitted to the practice of their profession. By a thorough analysis of the
Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral character provision, the Court pointed out the limitation that only those authorized by the
required of all lawyers, specially one occupying a public office. Lawyers in public office are Constitution or law and those that do not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and functions are allowed.
 the Clerk and one office staff two pages from the medical records and then handed it back
Issue: to the Clerk. The Clerk was stunned as she watched Grecia walk away. She then reported
the incident to the judge. The judge immediately took action and the torn pages were
Did Atty. Buffe, as a lawyer, violate the rules governing the practice of law by means of her eventually recovered as it turned out that Grecia handed the torn pages to someone else.
actions?
Grecia was then administratively charged by Dr. Fernandez. Apparently, Grecia has been
Held: Yes, the Court found Atty. Buffe guilty of professional misconduct and was fined. She disbarred before. However, he was able to get to the good side of the Supreme Court hence
was also sternly warned that repetition of the violation shall be dealt with more severely. he was reinstated to the profession.
As ruled by the Court, by acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 brands as "unlawful," Atty.
Buffe contravened Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In ISSUE: Whether or not Grecia should be disbarred again.
addition, by failing to live up to her lawyer’s oath, she also violated Canon 7 of the same
Code. The following are the violated rules, to wit: CANON 1 HELD:
– Yes. Grecia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, he should not
A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall at all times
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES x x x Rule 1.01 uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
– Integrated Bar. A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is “like the court itself, an instrument
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. or agency to advance the ends of justice”. Considering that this is his second offense, an
incorrigible practitioner of “dirty tricks,” like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF of “an instrument to advance the ends of justice.” By descending to the level of a common
THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Although thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has
there was the absence of any formal charge against and/or formal investigation of an errant demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of
lawyer, it did not preclude the Court from immediately exercising its disciplining authority, lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR.
as long as the errant lawyer or judge has been given the opportunity to be heard. In this
case, Atty. Buffe has been afforded the opportunity to be heard on the present matter SANTOS VS. LLAMAS
through her letter-query and Manifestation filed before this Court
Facts:
Fernandez vs. Grecia
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues filed
In 1990, Linda Aves was admitted to St. Lukes Hospital. Among the doctors who treated her against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas.
was Dr. Alberto Fernandez. She was treated well hence she was sent home but then the
next day she died together with her unborn child. Damaso Aves, husband, then filed a In a letter-complaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997, complainant Soliman M. Santos,
damage suit against the hospital and he impleaded the attending doctors which included Jr., himself a member of the bar, alleged that:
Fernandez. Aves hired Atty. Benjamin Grecia to represent him.
On my oath as an attorney, I wish to bring to your attention and appropriate sanction the
Grecia requested St. Luke to surrender before the court the medical records of Linda Aves. matter of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas who, for a number of years now, has not indicated the
St. Luke complied and the medical records were delivered to the Clerk of Court. In the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data (date & place of issuance) in his pleadings
morning of July 16, 1991, Grecia went to the office of the clerk of court to borrow the said This matter is being brought in the context of Rule 138, Section 1 which qualifies that only
medical records. While Grecia was examining the said medical records, he tore in front of a duly admitted member of the bar "who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law". There is also Rule 139-A, Section 10 which provides that "default in the age, his express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of
payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the the law, we believe the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law or until he
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate.
of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys."

Issues:
W/N counsel is guilty of misrepresentation? YES
W/N he is exempt from paying his dues? YES

Held:
Rule 139-A provides:
Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues
as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed
sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside
as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of
deceased members thereof.
Sec. 10. 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.
In accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the practice of law only by
paying his dues, and it does not matter that his practice is "limited." While it is true that
R.A. No. 7432, §4 grants senior citizens "exemption from the payment of individual income
taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does not exceed the poverty level as
determined by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for that year,"
the exemption does not include payment of membership or association dues.
Second. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to
the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is
guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE
LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Respondent’s failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed
in court indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of respondent’s advanced