Digested Cases in Legal Prof 6 - 10

6 In Re Cunanan

Facts:

This is the “Bar Flunkers Act of 1953” case.

As per the Rules of Court. A bar candidate must have a general average of 75% in all subjects without failing below 50% in any subject.

In spite of this, the court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of only:

·          72% in 1946

·          69% in 1947

·          70% in 1948

·          74% in 1949

·          In 1950 to 53, the 74% was raised to 75%

A few candidates who missed the above marks set by the courts approached Congress.  Congress made a bill, which was allowed by the president to become a law without his signature.  This is RA 972.

Pursuant to the law in question, those who, without a grade below 50 per cent in any subject, have obtained a general average of 69.5 per cent in the bar examinations in 1946 to 1951, 70.5 per cent in 1952, 71.5 per cent in 1953, and those will obtain 72.5 per cent in 1954, and 73.5 per cent in 1955, will be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar, notwithstanding that the rules require a minimum general average of 75 per cent, which has been invariably followed since 1950.

A breakdown of the numbers is on page 538.

The additional candidates who want to be admitted claim that they suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and of inadequacy of preparation.

Issue:

W/N RA 972 is valid.

Held:

RA 972 is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. The public interest demands of the legal profession, adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problems evolved by the times become more difficult.

In decreeing that bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to 1952, a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject, be admitted in mass to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment — a judgment revoking those promulgated by this Court during the years affecting the bar candidates concerned

Although the SC certainly can revoke these judgments even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only the SC, and not the legislative nor executive department, that may be so. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its functions, as in this case.

Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by this court, but the authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys-at-law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court.

Section 13, article VIII of the Constitution provides:

"Section 13.             The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish increase or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Courts, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines."

The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and the SC equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in the SC.

Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter, it would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it.

The Constitution does not say nor mean that Congress may admit, suspend, disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law, or a determinate group of individuals to the practice of law. Its power is limited to repeal, modify or supplement the existing rules on the matter, if according to its judgment the need for a better service of the legal profession requires it. But this power does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to admit, suspend, disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the legal profession.

There is no motive stated by the authorities for the qualification in RA 972 because of this, the classification is fatally defective.

1.             That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952, and (b) all of article 2 of said law are unconstitutional and, therefore, void and without force and effect.

2.             That, for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices, that part of article 1 which refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law, that is from 1953 to 1955 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, in conformity with section 10, article VII of the Constitution.

Consequently, (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied, and (2) all candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.5 per cent or more, without having a grade below 50 per cent in any subject, are considered as having passed, whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. After this decision has become final, they shall be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the Chief Justice may set.

7 Echegaray v Secretary of Justice

pp. 111-112

The 1973 Constitution Article X, Sec5 (5): The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission in the practice of law, and the integration of the Bar, which, however, may be repealed, altered, or supplemented by the Batasang Pambensa. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform in all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

The 1987 Constitution Article VIII, Sec5 (5): The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission in the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform in all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

The 1987 molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary. It expanded the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. For the first time, the court was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It also granted for the first time the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure. 

8 IN RE GUTIERREZ

In re Gutierrez

Facts:

        Gutierrez is a member of the Philippine Bar.  While he was the municipal mayor of Calapan, he and other co-conspirators murdered the former municipal mayor of Calapan, for which they were held guilty and sentenced to the penalty of death.  Upon review by the Supreme court the penalty was changed to reclusion perpetua. After serving a portion of the sentence, Gutierrez was granted conditional pardon by the President.  The unexecuted portion of the prison term was remitted on condition that the shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.

        The widow of the murdered victim then filed a complaint with the Supreme Court asking that Gutierrez

be removed from the rule of lawyers pursuant to Rule 127, section 5. 

Issue: W/N the conditional pardon to Gutierrez places him beyond the rule of disbarment

Held: NO.

§   Under section 5 of Rule 127, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.  Murder is, without doubt, such a crime. “Moral turpitude” includes everything contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.

§   In the Lontok case, on which Gutierrez relies, the respondent, Lontok, was granted absolute or unconditional pardon after  conviction for the crime of crime of bigamy.  It was held that such pardon releases the punishment and blots out existence of guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense.

§   In the case at bar, the pardon granted was conditional, and merely remitted the unexecuted portion of his term.  It was not a full pardon which could have blotted out the offense committed.

§   The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in band, by taking advantage of his official position, and with the use of a motor vehicle.  The degree of moral turpitude warrants disbarment.  Admission of a candidate to the bar requires academic preparation and satisfactorytestimonials of good moral character.  These standards are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must adhere to them or incur the risk of suspension or removal.

9 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 18^th 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.  

10 CORDON v BALICANTA

(complaint for disbarment against Balicanta)

Facts:

§   Cordon and her daughter inherited 21 parcels of land in Zamboanga City when Cordon’s husband died.

§   Sometime after, Balicanta enticed Cordon to organize a corporation to develop the properties. 19 parcels of land was transferred in the name of the newly formed corporation. Balicanta became the Chairman of the Board, President, General Manager and Treasurer of the corporation (kupal talaga)

§   Balicanta was able to transfer some of the land to a certain Tion Suy Ong through an SPA signed by Cordon. Balicanta was also able to obtain a loan from Land Bank using as collateral 9 parcels of land.

§   Balicanta did not even try to redeem the properties and even sold the right to redeem to another person.

§   Gago talaga to si Balicanta. Cordon’s ancestral home was demolished and Cordon was detained in a nipa shack. Buti na lang at nadiscover ni daughter kung ano nangyari. Sabi kasi ni Balicanta na he’s just going to have the house remodeled and repainted, tapos dinemolish na niya. Gago talaga.

§   Cordon and daughter demanded that Balicanta return all the properties given by them to the corporation but Balicanta is unable to do so (napunta na sa ibang tao eh)

§   IBP investigation recommended that Balicanta be disbarred. Balicanta fought back and said that the investigation is prejudiced against him and filed a complaint for disbarment against the people who investigated his case and the lawyers of Cordon. Balicanta’s complaint was dismissed.

Issue:

·          W/N Balicanta should be disbarred

Held:

·          Hello?! Siyempre he should be disbarred.

·          Balicanta cannot invoke the separate personality of the corporation (wow, piercing the corporate veil)

·          Balicanta has perpetuated massive fraud against his client.

·          Lahat ng ginawa niya against The Code of Professional Responsibility.