Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250K during his three
weeks of campaigning;
Atty. Nisces hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216K ++, not
including previous expenses for his campaign;
Atty . Drilons campaign rang up over P600K in hotel bills (Westin).
SANTOS V LLAMAS
MENDOZA; January 20, 2000
FACTS
Petitioners Claim:
ISSUES
-Llamas has not indicated proper PTR and IBP OR No and data in
his pleadings, he merely indicates IBP Rizal 259060 as his PTS and
IBP OR No for 3 years as shown in various court pleadings.
-Llamas last payment of IBP dues, as certified by IBP pres, was
in 1991
--in the context of Rule 138 section 1 that only a duly admitted
member of the bar who is in good and regular stnding is entitled
to practice law and Rule 139-A,Section 10 which provides that
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
-respondents track record shows that he was once dismissed as
Pasay City Judge, and was convicted of estafa.
Respondents Comment:
-SC has already dismissed the case for his dismissal as well as the
criminal case, and he was in fact promoted as RTC Judge,
-Respondent is engaged only in a limited practice of law,his
principal occupation being a farmer
-Being a senior citizen he is exempt from payment of taxes,and he
honestly believes that his dues with the IBP is covered by such
exemption
-in fact he does not exercise his rights to vote as an IBP member
-he is willing to pay his dues should he be in fact not exempt from
payment thereof
RA 7432 exempts him only from payment of taxes but not from
payment of his association dues such as IBP dues.
Since he openly admitted that he was still engaged in the practice
of law eventhough his practice is already limited he is still subject
to the payment of IBP dues and failure to do so would warrant his
suspension under Sec 10 of Rule 139-A.
He can only engage in the practice of law by paying his dues and it
doesnt matter if his practice is limited.
By Indicationg IBP Rizal 259060 in his pleadings, he is guilty of
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he has paid his
dues to IBP Rizal Chapter and of violating 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 nd goodfaith to the
court.
Rule 10.01- A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,nor consent to the
doing of an court;nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be
misled by any artifice.
Disposition Because of his old age, respondent was only
suspended from practice of law for one year or until he pays his
dues.
Law and to hold another exam on the said subject against which
petitions were filed.
The petitions voiced out the support to nullifying the exam on the
said subject and not to take another exam due to the emotional,
physical and financial burdens it will cause the barristers.
Alternative proposals were submitted to the Court. The Court
moved to nullify and to spread out the weight of the Mercantile
Law among the remaining seven bar subjects.
The Court resolved also to create a Committee composed of three
retired members of the Court that would conduct a thorough
investigation of the incident subject of the September 23, 2003
resolution.
The Investigating Committee found that the leaked test questions
in Mercantile Law were the questions which the examinee, Atty.
Balgos had prepared and submitted to
Justice Jose Vitug.
His questions constituted 82% of the questions asked in the
examination in Mercantile Law in the morning of September 21,
2003, Sunday, in some cases with slight changes which were not
substantial and in other cases exactly as Atty. Balgos, 71 years
old, proposed.
The circumstances that the leaked test questions consisted
entirely of test questions prepared by Atty. Balgos proves
conclusively that the leakage originated from his office, not from
the Office of Justice Vitug.
Atty. Balgos claimed that the leaked test questions were prepared
by him on his computer. Without any doubt, the source of the
leaked test questions was Atty. Balgos computer.
The culprit who stole or downloaded them from Atty. Balgos
computer without the latters knowledge and consent, and who
faxed them to other persons, was Atty. Balgos legal assistant,
Atty. Danilo De Guzman, who voluntarily confessed the deed to the
Investigating Committee.
De Guzman revealed that he faxed the test questions, with the
help of his
secretary Villasis to his frat brods in Beta Sigma Lambda
Fraternity, namely, Garvida, Arlan, and Erwin Tan.
In turn, Garvida faxed the test questions to Iigo and Bugain. Iigo
passed a copy or copies to other Betan Guiapal who gave a copy
to the MLQU-Beta Sigmas Most Illustrious Brother, Ronald Collado
who ordered the printing and distribution of 30 copies to the
MLQUs 30 bar candidates.
NATURE: Bar Matter in the Supreme Court. Request for Exemption from
Payment of IBP Dues.
FACTS
ISSUES: WON Petitioners inactivity in the practice of law that is, when he
was in the Civil Service and when working abroad, entitles him to
exemption from payment of IBP dues.
HELD: No.
ZAGUIRRE V CASTILLO
PER CURIAM; MARCH 6, 2003
NATURE: Petition for Disbarment on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct
(Adulterous Relationship).
FACTS
It was only around the first week of May 1997 that complainant
first learned that respondent was already married when his wife
went to her office and confronted her about her relationship with
respondent.
On September 10, 1997, executed an affidavit, admitting his
relationship with the complainant and recognizing the unborn child
she was carrying as his.
On December 09, 1997, complainant gave birth to a baby girl,
Aletha Jessa.
By this time however, respondent had started to refuse
recognizing the child and giving her any form of support.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS:
ISSUES
1. WON respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct. YES
2. WON it is relevant to this case if the complainant knew he was married.
NO
3. WON the respondent should be disbarred. NO
HELD
1.
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP
The Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
3.
2.
QUE V REVILLA
FACTS:
Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or br
okers.
Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the
CPR which provides that lawyer, shall not for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans
cause.
This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of
almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or
through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to
protect the community from barratry and champerty.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Javellanas mere house detention allows him to
continue practice law, since he has not been convicted and a trial has not
begun?
Held: NO
ZETA V MALINAO
A.M. No. P-220 December 20, 1978
FACTS:
AGUIRRE V RANA
CARPIO; June 10, 2003
NATURE: Administrative matter on unauthorized practice of law, grave
misconduct, violation of law and grave misrepresentation
FACTS
PLUS
BUILDERS,
ANASACIO REVILLA
Facts:
INC.
and
EDGARDO
GARCIA
vs.
Atty.