36 ROYONG v OBLENA
FACTS:
§ Royong, the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena,
filed a rape case against the latter.
§ In her complaint, Royong alleged that in 1958
Oblena forced her to have intercourse with her and that she refrained to report
the incident because Oblena threatened to kill her family.
§ As a result
if the sexual intercourse, Royong gave birth to a child
§ Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that
he and Royong had a relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse with
him.
§ The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be
permanently removed from the roll of attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong
before and after the rape incident showed that she is more of a sweetheart than
a victim because of the circumstances behind the incident
§ The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of
falsifying and deliberately alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that
he is a person of good moral character while having an illicit and adulterous
relationship with Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but also has a
legal husband in the province
§ Oblena moved
to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are different from those
originally charged in the complaint but the court overruled his petition
§ After the hearing, the investigators concluded that
A.) Oblena used his knowledge in law to commit immoral acts without incurring
any criminal liability; B.) he committed gross immorality by continuously
cohabiting with Angeles, his common-law wife, even after he became a lawyer and
C.) Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his
application to take the bar.
ISSUE:
§ W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the
open cohabitation with Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds to
cause Oblena’s disbarment
HELD:
§ YES!
§ Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime
of rape, seduction or adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for
disbarment enumerated in Sec 25, Rule
127 of the Rules of Court, the enumeration is not exclusive and the power of
the court to exclude unworthy members of the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper
administration of justice and can be exercised even without any statutory
authority, in all cases unless properly prohibited by statutes.
§ American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good moral
character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice
of law. The loss requires suspension or
disbarment eventhough the statues do not explicitly specify that as a ground of
disbarment.
§ Oblena’s argument that he believed himself to be a
person with good moral character when he filed his application to take the bar
examination is wrong. One’s own
approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral character. Moral character is not a subjective term but
one which corresponds to objective reality.
Moral character is what the person really is and not what he other
people thinks he is.
§ His pretension to wait for the 18th
birthday of Royong before having carnal knowledge with her shows the scheming
mind of Oblena and his taking advantage of his knowledge of the law.
§ Also, Royong is the niece of his common-law wife
and he enjoyed moral ascendancy over her.
Oblena took advantage of Royong’s trust on him.
§ Oblena’s contention that the Solicitor General
exceeded his authority in filing the present complain which is entirely
different from the original complaint filed is untenable. There is nothing in the law requiring the
Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offence charged in the
original complaint. What the law
provides is that if the Solicitor General finds sufficient grounds to proceed
against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint accompanied
by the evidence introduced in his investigation.
37 DE LOS REYES v AZNAR
Facts: Delos Reyes filed a complaint against Atty.
Aznar for gross immorality.
It
appears that Atty. Aznar raped Delos Reyes. From the evidence, it appears that
Aznar was the Chairman of the Board of Southwestern University.
Delos
Reyes failed her Pathology subject. As such, she approached Aznar for
reconsideration. Aznar assured her that she would pass. Despite her plea, she
failed the subject. Aznar told Delos Reyes that she should go with him to
Manila or else she will flunk. They went to Manila. After dining in a
restaurant, Aznar raped her twice in the evening and thrice the next morning
inside the Ambassador Hotel.
Aznar
denies all the allegations and says that when he went to Manila, he slept at
the house of his friends.
Issue: W/N Aznar is guilty of gross
misconduct.
Held: Aznar is
guilty of gross misconduct.
The court agrees with the Sol.
Gen.’s finding that Aznar committed gross misconduct. While Aznar denied having
taken Delos Reyes to the Ambassador Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her,
he did not present any evidence to show where he was on that date. It is the
duty of the lawyer, whenever his moral character is put into question, to
satisfy the court that he is fit and proper to enjoy continued membership in
the bar. He cannot dispense with the high exacting moral standards of the
profession. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to
entitle on to continue in the practice of law
38 SOBERANO v VILLANUEVA
Facts:
§ Soberano filed a petition for disbarment alleging
that after Atty. Villanueva had induced her to take part in a fake wedding, the
latter cohabited with her and later lived with her as husband and wife. As a consequence of this, she bore him two children,
and subsequently, Villanueva abandoned them.
§ Soon thereafter, Soberano sent a letter to the
court asking that no action be taken on her petition until her mother has
arrived and decided whether it should push though.
§ Soberano sent another letter saying that her mother
has arrived and that the case must case.
§ Soberano again wrote a letter saying that the
filing of the petition was not sincerely her own wish, and that she was finally
withdrawing her complaint
§ the last letter written by Soberano to the court
however, prayed that her motion to withdraw the petition be denied, since
Villanueva had procured the motion by means of threat and intimidation.
Issue: W/N
Villanueva should be disbarred
Held: NO
§ The letters of Soberano to Villanueva clearly
indicated that intimate relations had existed between them prior to the date
when the alleged fake wedding occurred.
These indicate that there was o need for Villanueva to stage a fake
wedding to induce Soberano to cohabit with him.
§ Some of the letters showed that Soberano reminded
him of his promise to marry her after he passed the bar
§ As to whether the extra-marital relations between
Soberano and Villanueva warrants disciplinary action, SC held that in light of the circumstances in
this case, these acts are neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
nor so unprincipled as to warrant a disbarment of disciplinary action.
§ Also, distinguished members of the bar had attested
to Villanueva’s good moral character.
One is no less than the Executive
Judge of the CFI of Negros Occidental, where Villanueva is practices his
profession. The other is the Dean
Montemayor of the Ateneo College of Law.
The last one is Hon. Guillermo Santos, former Chairman of Agricultural
Tenancy Commission, then Judge of CFI and Court of Agrarian Relations.
39 RAO SHENG v VELASCO
FACTS:
§ Rau Sheng Mao is a Taiwanese national who engaged
the services of Atty. Angeles Velasco as his legal consultant and counsel of
his company Foreign Investors Consultancy and Management, Inc (FICMI).
§ Haru Gen Beach Resort and Hotel Corporation
,represented by Atty, Velasco as its director and stockholder, entered into a
management agreement with FICMI
§ Atty Velasco sold to Rau Sheng his 10,000 shares in
Haru Gen for P1,000,000 but the former refused to deliver the certificates to
the Taiwanese despite complete payment made by the Taiwanese
§ Also, 3 lands of Atty. Velasco was bought by Rau
Sheng for P3.3M with a remaining balance of P300,000, but Atty. Velasco still
refused to deliver the titles
§ Rau Sheng filed an administrative case against
Atty. Velasco. Rau Sheng presented as
evidence letters made by Atty. Velasco wherein the latter was asking money from
the former to be given to judges hearing his cases
§ An additional charge for immorality because of his
illicit relationship with Lucy Matienzo who is not his legal wife was filed by
Rau Sheng wherein he presented the baptismal certificate of Jenny Velasco which
listed Atty. Velasco as its father together with the affidavits of several
people confirming Velasco’s illicit relationship with Lucy as evidence
§ Atty. Velasco denied all the allegations of Rau
Sheng with these arguments:
o
He could
not deceive Rau Sheng for the Taiwanese was always represented in all their
transactions by Atty. Purog
o
He
refused to deliver the certificate of stocks and the land titles because of the
Rau Sheng’s incomplete payment of the purchase price
o
As to the
immorality claim, Atty. Velasco presented affidavits of his wife and Lucy
Matienzo
ISSUE:
§ W/N Atty. Velasco is guilty of all the allegations
made by Rau Sheng
HELD:
§ YES! Atty. Velasco was found guilty of the having
illicit relationship with Matieza and giving Rau Sheng the impression that he
was in the position to influence the court and he was ordered suspended from
the practice of law for 2 years
§ The court found it unlikely that Rau Sheng was
deceived by Atty. Velasco in all their transactions for he was always
represented by Atty. Purog in all the dealings
§ But Atty. Velasco is guilty of having an adulterous
relationship with Matienza with whom he has 3 children all bearing his surname
as seen in all the school records of
the children.
§ Velasco violated Canon 1, Rule 1.101 by engaging in
unlawful and immoral acts. Lawyers are
burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their
personal affairs with the greatest caution.
Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the
highest degree of morality.
§ What is more, Velasco violated one of the basic
tenets of legal ethics by giving Rau Sheng the impression that he was in the
position to influence the courts.
Velasco claimed that he has connections with judges and they were
claiming money from Rau Sheng.
§ A lawyer is duty bound to avoid improprieties which
gave the appearance of influencing the courts and place the integrity of the
administration of justice in peril.
§ No profession offers greater opportunity for public
service than that of a lawyer. For the
privilege conferred upon him, a lawyer was tasked with the equally greater
responsibility of upholding the ideals and ethics established.
40 OLBES v DECIEMBRE
Facts:
§
Spouses Olbes (Franklin &
Lourdes) were employees of the Central Post Office in Manila. They filed this
case for disbarment against Atty. Deciembre.
§
Lourdes, with the help of Deciembre,
acquired a loan from Rodela Loans in the amount of P10K.
§
Lourdes then issued 5 PNB blank
checks to respondent to serve as collateral.
§
Subsequently, Lourdes paid Deciembre
the amount of the loan plus interest and surcharges.
§
Notwithstanding payment, Deciembre
filled up the blank checks in the amount of P50k each. Siyempre tumalbog yun
mga cheke.
§
Deciembre then filed BP22 &
estafa cases against the Olbes spouses.
§
Reklamo siyempre sila Olbes. They
are even saying that some of their officemates suffered the same fate under
Deciembre.
§
Investigating officer: Deciembre’s
version of the facts is highly doubtful. There are discrepancies between his
oral and written testimonies.
Issue:
§
W/N Deciembre should face
disciplinary sanctions
Held:
§
Siyempre! He is in violation of Rule
7.03
§
He committed falsification when he
filled up the blank checks even if this was not agreed upon and despite
knowledge that the loan had already been paid.
§
He even filed BP22 cases against the
couple. This shows the vileness and wretchedness of his soul. Franklin was even
detained for 3 months because of the cases.
§
Deciembre is found to be lacking
good moral character. Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
§
The penalty recommended by the IBP
of suspension for 2 years is too mild. Deciembre is suspended from the practice
of law indefinitely.
41 GRANDE v DA SILVA
FACTS:
§ Emilio
Grande is the private offended party (of estafa and BP 22) against a certain
Sergio Natividad, the client of Atty. De Silva
§ De
Silva tendered a check to Grande as settlement of the civil aspect of the case.
§ The
check was returned with the notation that the ACCT CLOSED
§ Grande
filed a suit against De Silva for violation of BP 22 and Estafa (sha naman ang
nakasuhan tuloy hehe)
§ De
Silva refused to comment on notices of complaints sent to her.
§ IBP
recommended that de Silva be suspended for two years.
ISSUE: WoN de Silva should be suspended?
HELD: YES
RATIO:
1.
The nature of the office of an atty
requires that a lawyer shall be a person of good moral character. Gross
misconduct which puts the lawyer’s moral character in serious doubt may render
her unfit to continue in the practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined for
evading payment of a debt validly incurred. The loss of moral character of a
lawyer for any reason whatsoever shall warrant her suspension or disbarment.
2.
Any wrongdoing which indicates moral
unfitness for the profession, whether it be professional or non-pro, justifies
disciplinary action. For a lawyer’s professional and personal conduct must at
all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion.
Her deliberate
refusal to accept the notices served on her stains the nobility of the
profession. How else would a lawyer endeavor to serve justice and uphold the
law when she disdains to follow even simple directives. Also, Canon 1 says that
a lawyer shall uphold the consti, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for the legal processes.
42 COJUANGCO v PALMA
Facts:
Complainant Cojuangco wa a client of Angara
Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law Offices and Palma was the lawyer assigned to
handle his cases. Palma's relationship
with the Cojuangcos became intimate. He
frequented theis house and even tutored Cojuangco's 22-year old daughter Maria
Luis Cojuangco.
Wihtout the knowledge of complainant Cojuangco's
family, Palma married Lisa in Hongkong.
It was only the next day that Palma informed complainant of such
fact. Complainant was shocked, knowing
fully well that Palma is a married man and has 3 children.
Complainant filed with CFI a petition for
declaration of nullity of the marriage between respondent Palma and Lisa. CFI delared that marriage null and void. Thereafter, Cojuangco fileed with the SC the
instant complaint for disbarment.
Meanwhile, the first division of SC issued
a resolution setting aside the CFI Decision declaring the marriage null and
void and remanding the case to the CFI for proper proceeding. To this date, the records fail to disclose
the outcome of this case.
Issue:
W/n Palma should be disbarred...
Held:
YES.
There is no distinction as to whether the
transgression is committed in the lawyer's professional capacity or in his
private life. Professional competency
alone does not make a lawyer worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an
indispensabel requirement.
The truth is respondent married Lisa while
he has a subsisting marriage with Elizabeth Herosisima. Therefore he exhibited a deplorable lack of
that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar. Respondent's culpability is aggravated by the
fact that Lisa was just 22 years old and was under psychological treatment for
emotional immaturity.
The subsequent judgment of annullment of
marriage has no bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is an
investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.
43 REYES v CHIONG JR.
Facts:
- Atty.
Ramon Reyes counsel for Zonggi Xu.
- Atty.
Victoriano Chiong, Jr for Chia Hsien Pan.
- Xu,
a Chinese-Taiwanese went into a business venture with Pan. Pan was supposed to set up a Cebu-based
fishball, tempura and seafood products factory. He did not establish it, and so Xu asked
that his money be returned.
- Xu
then filed a case of estafa against Pan.
Prosecutor Salanga then issued a subpoena against Pan.
- Atty.
Chiong then filed a motion to quash, but he also filed a civil complaint
for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for the
dissolution of a business venture against Xu, Atty Reyes, and Prosecutor
Salanga.
- He
alleged that Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant because of
the irregularities the latter had committed in conducting the criminal
investigation he still filed the
complaint against Pan in spite of Pan’s motions.
- Atty.
Reyes was allegedly impleaded because he allegedly connived with Xu in
filing the estafa case which was baseless.
- IBP
recommended that Chiong be suspended for 2 years.
Issue:
W/N Chiong should
be suspended.
Held:
- Yes.
- Canon
8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
- If
Chiong believed that the two had conspired to act illegally, he could have
instituted disbarment proceedings.
- As
a lawyer, Chiong should have advised his client of the availability of
these remedies. Thus the filing of
the cases had no justification.
- Lawyers
should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy,
dignity and civility.
- Any
undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their
conduct and demeanor toward each other.
44 ALCANTARA v PEFIANCO
Facts:
§ Atty
Pefianco is counsel in a criminal case. One day the private offended party went
to the Public Attorney’s Office to have her civil claims (in the criminal case)
settled. Atty Salvani attended to her.
§ While
Atty. Salvani was talking to the woman, Atty Pefianco shouted at them and
questioned the actions of the woman (pertaining to the settlement).
§ Atty
Pefianco was asked to calm down but he did not refrain from his outburst.
District Public Attorney Alcantara, as head of the agency, talked to Pefianco.
§ But
Pefianco called Alcantara an idiot and a stupid (loud enough for other people
to hear). A commotion in the office ensued (Pefianco even tried to attack
Alcantara).
§ A
complaint was filed against Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and for
using improper and offensive language.
§ Pefianco
says that he was just moved by the sight of a crying woman whose husband had been
murdered. He also averred that it was Alcantara who punched him and called him
stupid.
Issue:
Did Pefianco violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Yes. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code
which requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward their fellow lawyers. It was Pefianco’s meddling in a matter in which he
had no right to do so that caused the untoward incident (shouting at Salvani
and the woman). Though he thought that this is righteous, his public behavior
can only bring down the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode
respect for it.
Atty Pefianco was fined and reprimanded.
45 CAMACHO v PANGULAYAN
FACTS
§ 9
students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published
objectionable features or articles in the school paper
§ Denial
of the appeal to AMA President Aguiluz gave rise to Civil Case 97-30549
§ CAMACHO
was the hired counsel of the expelled students in an action for the Issuance of
a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injuction in the said civil case
§ While
the civil case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements were separately executed by the expelled students without the
knowledge of CAMACHO
§ CAMACHO
filed a complaint against lawyers comprising the PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES Law
Firm (lawyers of AMA) because without his knowledge they procured and effected
on separate occasions compromise agreements (letters of apology and
Re-admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients which in effect required them to
waive all kinds of claims they may have with AMA
§ CAMACHO
averred that such an act was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession
warranting either disbarment or suspension
§ PANGULAYAN
in his defense claimed that the agreements were executed for the sole purpose
of effecting the settlement of an administrative case
ISSUE W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES SHOULD BE
SUSPENDED/DISBARRED
HELD YES
RATIO
§ It
would appear that when individual letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements were formalized, CAMACHO was already the retained counsel of the
expelled AMA students
§ PANGULAYAN
and associates having full knowledge of this fact still proceeded to negotiate
with the expelled AMA students and their parents without at least communicating
the matter to their lawyer CAMACHO
§ This
failure of PANGULAYAN and associates, whether by design or oversight, is an
excusable violation of the canons of profession ethics and in utter disregard
of a duty owing to a colleague
§ The
excuse that agreements were executed for settling the administrative case was
belied by the Manifestation which states “9 signatories agreed among others to
terminate ALL civil, criminal and administrative proceedings they may
have against AMA arising from their previous dismissal”
§ Hence,
PANGULAYAN should be suspended for 3 months
DOCTRINE
A lawyers should not in any way communicate
upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less
should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him but should
only deal with his counsel. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend
to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to
advise him as to law.
46 TORRES v JAVIER
Facts:
§ This
is an administrative case filed by Atty. Ireneo Torres against Atty. Jose
Javier for malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/or
violation of the lawyer’s oath. There
were 3 causes of action
§ First,
the allegations stem from statements/remarks made by Javier in the pleadings he
filed in a petition for audit of all funds of the University of the East
Faculty Association (UEFA) (Torres is the President). Javier implied that Torres had a motive to
burglarize the office of UEFA to get certain documents.
§ Second,
Torres alleges that Javier used language that was clearly abusive, offensive,
and improper, inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a
quasi-judicial officer. This was with
regard to Javier’s “Reply to Respondents Answer/Comment” in the “attorney’s
fees case” where Javier made a comment on the intellectual capacity of Torres.
§ Third,
Torres finds fault in Javier’s statement that implies that it is normal for
notaries public to let their relatives sign the documents for them. Torres says that this statement is demeaning
to the legal profession and the notarial service.
§ IBP
found Javier guilty and reprimanded him.
Issue:
§ W/n
Javier should be held liable for his acts.
Held:
§ SC
says only as regards the second cause of action. The court made mention that it is well
entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy,
utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of
pleadings, petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are
pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious they
may be.
§ For
the first cause of action, the SC held that such statements made by Javier were
necessary in order to resolve the petition for audit filed. These statements give a possible scenario as
to the reason for the burglary in the UEFA office. As to the third cause of action, the SC gave
Javier the benefit of the doubt that he issued these statements only in the
defense of his client.
§ As
to the second (for which the SC found Javier guilty), the Court ruled that the
statements made regarding Torres’ intellectual aptitude were not relevant to
the “attorney’s fees case”. The issue in
the said case was whether the 10% attorney’s fees “checked off” from the
initial backwages/salaries of UEFA members is legal (I don’t really understand
this pero yan lang yun nakalagay).
§ The
SC pointed out that Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
instructs that respondent’s arguments in his pleadings should be gracious to
both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly
addressed by one gentleman to another.
Javier has disobeyed such mandate and is thus suspended from the
practice of law for 1 month.
47 CAMBALIZA v CRISTOBAL-TENORIO
Facts: Cambaliza, a former employee of Atty.
Cristal-Tenorio, charged the latter with grossly immoral conduct. Cambaliza
alleged that Atty. has been falsely representing herself to be married to
Felicisimo Tenorio, when in fact Felicisimo was already married to another
woman (Atty. got a fake marriage license.). She also alleges that the Atty.
caused the dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit against a Makati
Councilor. At the helm of her complaint was the allegation that the Atty.
cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband Felicisimo, who is not
a member of the bar.
Atty.
denies all the allegations. She says that her firm is a sole-proprietorship;
hence, she had no partners in her law office.
Issue: W/N the lawyer is guilty of
cooperating in the illegal practice of law.
Held: The lawyer
is guilty.
The court agrees with the
finding of the Commissioner on Bar Discipline. According to the Commissioner,
Atty. cooperated in illegal practice, in violation of Rule 9.01 based on the
ff. evidence: (1) letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law office, with Felicisimo as
senior partner, (2) Sagip Radio Comm. Group card of “Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio”
(3) an ordered by the MTCC where Felicisimo entered his appearance as counsel.
Any lawyer who allows a
non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer is guilty of
violating rule 9.01. The lawyer’s duty to prevent or not assist in the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. The
purpose is to protect the public, the client, the bar, and the court from the
incompetence and dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice.
48 TAN TEK BENG v DAVID
Facts:
§ Tan
Tek Beng is a non-lawyer while David is a lawyer. David drafted a contract signed by him and
Tan Tek Beng stating among others that “On all commissions and attorney’s fees
that we shall receive from our clients, we shall divide fifty-fifty.” In the same contract, David also agreed not
to deal directly with their clients.
§ The
business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last since there
were mutual accusations of doublecross.
§ Tan
Tek Beng accused David of not complying with the agreement and denounced the
latter to then Presidential Assistant Ronaldo Zamora, to the Office of Civil
Relations at Camp Crame, and to the Supreme Court. He did not file any action to enforce the
agreement.
§ While
the case was being investigated by the Solicitor General, Tan Tak Beng
died. This case was submitted for
decision.
Issue:
W/N the agreement was valid.
Held: NO.
§ The
agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is “the
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally
or through paid agents or brokers.” This
meaning is in consonance with the principle that the practice of law is a profession,
not a business.
§ The
commercialization of law practice is condemned in certain canons of
professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association:
“34. No division
of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon a division of service or
responsibility.”
“35. The
professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any
law agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer…”
§ David
should have known better than to enter and act upon such void and unethical
agreement.
He is reprimanded for being guilty of
malpractice.
49 PEOPLE v DE LUNA
FACTS:
§ De
Luna, ET al., respondents, know that they did not pass the bas
examination. Although they sought
admission under the Bar Flunkers Act, they were notified of the decision of the
SC denying their petitions. But
notwithstanding their disqualification to be admitted to the bar, they took
their oaths as lawyers 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
of the Philippines
§ RTC:
not guilty of contempt of court unless the respondents actually engaged in the practice of law or held out to
the public that they are lawyers by means of circulars
ISSUE:
§ W/N
the act of the respondents of taking their oath before a notary public
constitutes contempt of court
HELD:
§ YES!
§ The
oath as lawyer is a prerequisite to the practice of law and may be taken only
before the SC by those authorized by the latter to engage in such practice.
§ Respondents
clearly defied and challenged the orders of the SC by willfully taking the
lawyer’s oath before the notary public despite the resolution of the SC denying
their petition to be admitted to the bar.
§ The
ruling of the lower court is wrong for “assuming to be an attorney, x x x, and
acting as such without authority,” is only one of the grounds under Rule 64,
section 3.
§ Also,
by taking the oath of office as attorney-at-law and notifying the SC of what
they had done and their intent to practice law in all courts of the
Philippines, the respondents had, for all intent and purposes, held out to the
public as such as attorney-at-law
§ The
case is remanded to the court of origin
50 PHILIPPINE LAWYERS v AGRAVA
Facts:
§
Agrava is the Director of the
Philippines Patent Office (PPO).
§
Agrava issued a circular announcing
that there will be an examination to determine who are qualified to practice as
patent attorneys before the PPO.
§
Phil. Lawyer’s Assoc. (PLA) filed
this case for prohibition and injunction against Agrava.
§
PLA: one who passes the bar is
licensed to practice law and is qualified to practice before the PPO. Agrava is
in excess of his jurisdiction in issuing the additional qualification
§
Agrava: prosecution of patent cases
does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the
application of scientific and technical knowledge. That like his US
counterpart, he can require additional requirements to practice before the PPO.
§
Take note – Agrava has been issuing
examinations before but it was only now that this power has been contended
Issue:
§
W/N appearance before the PPO
constitutes or is included in the practice of law
Held:
§
Yes, it is still within the ambit
“practice of law”. Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction when he requires an
additional examination for lawyers.
§
The SC has the exclusive and
constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of law in the
Philippines.
§
The practice of law embraces any
activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
principle, practice or procedure and calls for legal knowledge, training and
experience.
§
Although it is admitted that there
is some technicality involved in the work for PPO, but everything still goes
back to the Patent law as well as other laws.
As
to Agrava’s contention that he has the authority just like his US counterpart,
this contention is wrong. The Phil. Patent law and the US Patent law are
different as to the sections involving the powers of the director. Nowhere in
the Philippine law is it provided for that the director has the power to
require additional examinations for attorneys.
No comments:
Post a Comment