31 IN RE GALANG
FACTS:
§ Ramon
Galang has a pending criminal case of slight physical injuries in the City
Court of Manila
§ He
took the Bar Exams 7 times and was allowed to take the lawyer’s oath in 1972. BUT,
he was allowed to do so only because he fraudulently concealed and withheld
from the Court his pending criminal case in 1962,63,64,66,67,69 and 71. And in
1966,67,69 and 71… he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had
no pending criminal case in court
ISSUE: WoN Galang should be disbarred?
HELD: YES!
RATIO:
1.
It is well-settled in a long string
of cases that concealment of an atty in his application to take the Bar of the
fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for,an alleged crime is a
ground for revocation of his license to practice law. (Guilty of Fraud upon the
Court)
2.
Galang’s persistent denial of his
involvement in any criminal case (which he later admitted) and his failure to
clear his name for 13 years indicate his lack of the requisite attributes of
honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is therefore unworthy to be a lawyer.
(he did not offer any explanation for such omission).
3.
Among other grounds for disbarment:
a.
Misrepresentations of, or false
pretenses relative to, the reqt on applicant’s educational attainment
b.
Lack of good moral character
c.
Fraudulent passing of the Bar exams
32 IN RE CUEVAS
Facts:
Petitioner Arthur Cuevas Jr., recently
passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. His
oath taking was held in abeyance in view of the Court's resolution which
permitted him to take the Bar Exams subject to the condition that should he
pass the same he shall not be allowed to take the lawyer's oath pending
approval of the court. This resolution
was due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide. The conviction stemmed from
Cuevas' participation in the initiation rites of the LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS,
a fraternity in the SAN BEDA College of Law, where Raul Camaligan, a neophyte,
died as a result of personal violence inflicted upon him.
Thereafter, petitioner applied for and was
granted probation. He was later
discharged from probation and his case considered closed and terminated.
In this petition, Cuevas prays that he be
allowed to take the lawyer's oath at the court's most convenient time.
Issue:
W/n Cuevas should be allowed to take the
lawyer’s oath...
Held:
YES.
His deliberate participation in the
senseless beatings over a helpless neophyte shich resulted to the latter's
untimely demise indicates absence of that moral fitness required for admission
to the bar. The court nonetheless is
willing to give Cuevas a chance in the same manner that it recently allowed Al
Caparros Argosino (case sa legprof), petitioner's co-accused below, to take the
lawyer's oath.
His discharge from probation without any
infraction of the attendant conditions therefor and the various certification
attesting to his righteous peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he
has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character.
33 DIAO v MARTINEZ
Facts:
- Telesfor
Diao was admitted to the Bar in 1953.
- Two
years after, Severino Martinez charged him for having falsely represented
his application: that he had the
requisite academic qualifications.
- The
Solicitor General investigated and recommended that Diao’s name be erased
from the roll of attorneys.
- Diao
has not completed BEFORE taking up law, the required pre-legal education
prescribed by the Department of Private Education:
o
Diao did not complete his HS
training; and
o
Diao never attended Quisumbing
College
- Diao
claims that he left HS in his third year, he entered the US Army, passed
the General Qualification Test, which according to him, is equivalent to a
HS diploma, and upon return to civilian life, the education authorities
considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th
year HS.
- Also,
he claims that he really got his college diploma from Arellano University
in April 1949. He says he was
erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing
Collge, in his school records.
Issue:
W/N Diao should
be removed from the roll.
Held:
- Yes. Diao’s name is removed from the roll.
- The
“error” or “confusion” was to his own making. Had his application showed that he
graduated from Arellano, it would have showed that he took up law 6 months
before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. He then would have not been permitted to
take the Bar.
- Rule: “That PREVIOUS to the study of law, he
had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal
education as prescribed by the Department of Education.”
- The
fact that he hurdled the bar is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only
qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses
of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.
34 CALUB v SULLER
Facts:
§ Atty
Suller raped the wife of his neighbor Cristino Calub.
§ A
criminal complaint for rape was filed against Suller. A complaint for
disbarment was also filed by Calub before the SC.
§ The
CFI acquitted Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Issue:
Can Atty Suller be disbarred?
Held:
Yes. Acquittal in a criminal case is not
determinative of an administrative case for disbarment. A lawyer may be
disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows that he lacks moral character to continue as officer of
the court. The rape by a lawyer of his neighbor’s wife constitutes such serious
moral depravity.
35 UI v BONIFACIO
FACTS
§ LESLIE’S
side of the story
o
LESLIE Ui married CARLOS and had 4
children with him
o
Subsquently, LESLIE found out CARLOS
was having illicit relations with Atty IRIS Bonifacio and begot a daughter
o
CARLOS admitted this relationship
with LESLIE who confronted IRIS
o
IRIS told LESLIE everything was over
between her and CARLOS
o
However, LESLIE found out later the
illicit relations continued and IRIS even had
2nd child with CARLOS
o
LESLIE filed a complaint for
disbarment against IRIS on ground of immorality
§ IRIS’
side of the story
o
Met CARLOS who represented himself
as a bachelor with children by a Chinese woman with whom he had long been
estranged
o
CARLOS and IRIS got married in
Hawaii
o
Upon return to Manila, they did not
live together because CARLOS wanted his children with the Chinese woman to
gradually know and accept his marriage with IRIS
o
When IRIS knew about the 1st
marriage, she cut all ties with him
§ In
proceedings before the IBP Commission, LESLIE filed a motion to cite IRIS in
contempt for making false allegations in her Answer to impress upon the IBP
that her 1st child by CARLOS was within wedlock
o
IRIS indicated in Answer she got
married to CARLOS in Oct 22, 1985
o
However, Certificate of Marriage
certified by State Registrar revealed that date of marriage was actually Oct
22, 1987
ISSUE W/N
IRIS SHOULD BE DISBARRED
HELD NO
RATIO
Immorality
§ Requisites
to admission to practice of law includes being a person of good moral character
and possession of such must be continuous
§ Loss
of good moral character is a ground of revocation of the privilege of the
practice of law
§ In
the case at bar, IRIS was imprudent in her personal affairs
§ Circumstances
existed which should have at least aroused her suspicion that something was
amiss (i.e. not living together as husband and wife, children by another woman,
etc) but she did not do anything about it
§ However,
the fact remains that IRIS’ relationship with CARLOS was clothed with marriage
and cannot be considered immoral
§ Moreover,
such conduct to warrant disciplinary action must be grossly immoral that is so
corrupt and false to constitute a criminal act or moral indifference to the
opinion of respectable members of the community
§ IRIS’
act of immediately distancing herself belies the alleged moral indifference and
proves she has no intention of flaunting the law
§ Hence,
IRIS should not be disbarred
False allegation
§ Any
normal bride would recall date and year of marriage
§ Difficult
to fathom how IRIS could “forget” the year of her marriage
§ Moreover,
any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an attachment to
her pleading especially in this case since IRIS had personal knowledge of facts
stated therein
Hence,
IRIS should be reprimanded for attaching marriage certificate with an altered
date
No comments:
Post a Comment