21 Dir of Legal affairs v
BAYOT
FACTS:
§ Bayot was charged with
malpractice by publishing “Marriagelicense promptly secured thru our assistance
& the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage
arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor.
Everything confidential.” In the Sunday Tribune
§ Bayot first denied the
publication but later on admitted, and asked for mitigation saying:
o I only did it once. I
won’t repeat it again!
o I never had any case
by reason of the publication
ISSUE: WoN Bayot can
be charged with malpractice?HELD: YES.
1.
The publication is tantamount to a solicitation of business
from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things
that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his
talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and
not a trade.
2.
In In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., the respondent attorney
was suspended from the practice of law for the period of one month for
advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by writing
circular letters. That case, however, was more serious than this because there
the solicitations were repeatedly made and were more elaborate and
insistent..Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the
misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so decided that the respondent
should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.
3.
"The most worth
and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character
and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
22 ulep v legal clinic
FACTS:
§ Ulep
prays the Supreme Court to order the Legal Clinic to cease, issuing
advertisement similar to or of the same tenor as that of annexes A and B
(p381). Legal Clinic admits the facts of
publication of said advertisement that claims that it is not engage in the
practice of law but in the rendering of legal support services through paralegals
with the use of modern computers and electronic machine.
ISSUE:
§ W/N
the services offered by Legal Clinic as advertised by it constitutes practice
of law
§ Whether
the same can properly be the subject of the advertisement complained of
HELD:
§ According
to the IBP, notwithstanding the manner by which respondent endeavored to
distinguish the 2 terms, legal support services and legal services, common
sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially without substantial
distinction. The use of the name the
Legal Clinic gives the impression that the respondent corporation is being
managed by lawyers and that it renders legal services. The advertisement in question is meant to
induce the performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public order and public
policy. This is in violation of Canon 1
Rule 1.02 that is counseling illegal activities.
§ Practice
of law means any activity, in or out of court which requires that application
of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. Applying the case Cayetano vs. Monsod, the
court agrees that the activities of the respondent Legal Clinic constitute the
practice of law. Such a conclusion will
not be altered by the fact that respondent does not represent clients in court
since law practice is not limited merely to court appearances.
§ Regarding
the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of
Profession Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, and objective information or
statement of facts. The proscription
against advertising of legal services rests on the fundamental postulate that
the practice of law is a profession.
§ Exceptions:
o
Publication in reputable law lists,
in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon
o
Ordinary, simple professional
card. The card may contain only the
statement of his name, the law firm, address and branch of law practiced.
§ Considering
that Atty. Nogales who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and
proprietor of the legal clinic is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby
reprimanded with a warning that the repetition of the same or similar acts
which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely.
23 san jose homeowners v
romanillos
Facts:
- This
is a disbarment case against Atty. Roberto Romanillos, for representing
conflicting interests and for using the title “Judge” despite having been
found guilty of grave and serious misconduct (in Zarate v Romanillos).
- Apparently,
Romanillos was previously an active board member as corporate secretary of
Durano Corp. Inc. (DCI). But it
allowed itself to represent San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc (SJHAI)
before the human Settlements Regulation Commission in a case against the
same DCI.
- Irrelevant
info: the case above was an alleged
violation of DCI of the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protection
Act. DCI sold a land designated as
a school site, without disclosing it as such. (page 106)
- When
SJHAI’s petition over the land was denied, the SJHAI’s Board terminated
Romanillos’ services.
- Also,
Romanillos acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who substituted for
DCI.
- Thus,
a disbarment case was filed for conflicting interests.
- The
IBP handled the case, but he was merely reprimanded.
- In
spite of this, he still continued to serve as counsel for
Durano-Rodriguez. Thus, a second
disbarment case was filed. It also
included his use of “judge” although he was found guilty of grave and
serious misconduct.
Issue:
W/N Romanillos
should be disbarred
Held:
- Yes.
- It
is inconsequential that SJHAI never questioned the propriety of
respondent’s continued representation of Durano-Rodriguez. The lack of opposition does not mean
consent. As long as the lawyer
represents 2 or more opposing clients, he is guilty of violating his oath.
- His
continued use of “judge” violated
Rules 1.01 and 3.01. The penalty
imposed on him in the Zarate case forfeiture of all leave and retirement
benefits and privileges: including
the title judge. (he was a judge
before, but he resigned instead of being booted out)
- The
title “judge” should be reserved only to judges, incumbent and retired, an
not to those who were dishonorably discharged from the service.
24 DIMATULAC
v VILLON
Facts:
§ In
the prosecution of the Yabuts for the murder of Dimatulac, the Office of the
Public Prosecutor (particularly the Asst Prosecutor) and two Judges (who
handled the case) committed serious procedural flaws resulting in the
impairment of due process (prejudicial to both the offended party and the
accused).
§ Procedural
irregularities in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor:
o
Warrants of arrest were issued by
the MCTC, with no bail recommended, but the Yabuts were not arrested or were
never brought unto the custody of the law. Yet, Asst Fiscal Alfonso-Reyes
conducted a reinvestigation. Though a prosecutor may disagree with the findings
of the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation (and conduct his own),
the circumstance that the accused waived the filing of their counter-affidavits
left Alfonso-Reyes no other choice but to sustain the MCTC findings—which she
did not do. And later on, Alfonso-Reyes allowed the Yabuts to file their
counter-affidavits without first demanding that they surrender by virtue of the
standing warrants of arrest.
o
Alfonso-Reyes recommended a bond of
20k for the Yabuts despite the fact that they were charged of homicide and that
they were fugitives from justice (having avoided service of warrant of arrest).
o
Alfonso-Reyes was aware of the
private prosecution’s appeal to the DOJ from her resolution. (The subsequent
resolution of the DOJ Secretary exposed her blatant errors.) And despite the
pending appeal, she filed the Information. It would be more prudent to wait for
the DOJ resolution.
o
Office of the Prosecutor did not even inform
the trial court of the pending appeal to the DOJ Secretary.
§ Judge
Roura’s procedural lapses:
o
Deferred resolution on the motion
for a hold departure order until “such time that all the accused who are out on
bail are arraigned”
o
Denied the motion to defer
proceedings for the reason that “private prosecution has not shown any
indication that the appeal was given due course by DOJ”
§ Judge
Villon’s procedural lapses:
o
Ordered arraignment despite: a
motion to defer proceedings; a ten-day period with which the complainants can
file petition with the CA; resolution of the CA ordering the Yabuts to comment
on the complainants’ action; pending appeal with the DOJ.
Issue:
Can the orders of Judge Roura and Judge
Villon be sustained despite procedural defects?
Held:
No. The orders of Judge Roura denying
Motion to Defer proceedings are void and set aside. The order of Judge Villon
on the arraignment, and the subsequent arraignment of the Yabuts are void and
set aside. Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is ordered to comply with the
DOJ Secretary’s resolution.
Prosecutors are the representatives not of
an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to
govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and
whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win every case
but that justice be done. They are
servants of the law whose two-fold aim is that guilt shall not escape and
innocence shall not suffer.
The judge “should always be imbued with a
high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to
promptly and properly administer justice”. The judge’s action must not impair
the substantial rights of the accused, nor the right of the State and offended
party.
When the State is deprived of due process
in a criminal case by reason of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
trial court, the acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the case is void.
25
TRIESTE v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
§ TRIESTE
was charged with 23 separate violations of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act* because while being the Municipal Mayor and member of the Committee on
Award of the Municipality of Numancia in Aklan and having financial or
pecuniary interest in TRIGEN Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, he awarded
purchases of construction materials by the said municipality from the said
corporation and signing the vouchers as evidence of said purchase
§ The
Sandiganbayan found TRIESTE guilty and
sentenced him to suffer indeterminate penalty of imprisonment and perpetual
disqualification
§ TRIESTE,
in his defense, alleges that he signed the vouchers only after all the
purchases had already been made, delivered and paid for by the Municipal
Treasurer hence he cannot be guilty under the provisions of the Anti Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act
ISSUE
W/N TRIESTE IS GUILTY UNDER THE ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
HELD NO
RATIO
§ TRIESTE
already sold his shares to a certain MRS TUASON before he assumed office and
despite the absence of it in the SEC records, the court finds this fact
immaterial as there is no law requiring submission of reports regarding sales
and disposal of stocks (what is required is only submission of annual financial
reports)
§ The
Municipal Treasurer testified that there was never a public bidding hence if
there is no bidding then there could be no awarding by TRIESTE
§ Testimonial
and documentary evidence both confirm that TRIESTE signed vouchers after
payment and since what is contemplated in the Anti-Graft Law is the actual
intervention in the transaction which one has financial or pecuniary
interest in, TRIESTE cannot be held liable under such Law
§ TRIGEN
did not gain any undue advantage in the transaction such that there is no
complaint for non-delivery, underdelivery or overpricing in the transactions
§ Hence,
TRIESTE should be acquitted
NOTE
*Section 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers
(h) Directly or
indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any
law from having any interest
No comments:
Post a Comment