Decapia, Katrina Vianca N.

1A

I.PRACTICE OF LAW

ATTY. MANE v JUDGE BELEN

(A.M. No. RTJ 08-2119, June 30, 2008)

FACTS:

Petitioner Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane filed a letter-complaint to the Office of the Court

Administrator (OCA) charging respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of demeaning,

humiliating, and berating him during a hearing of Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samue

Malabanan, et al. where Mane was counsel for the plaintiff. During the proceedings, Belen

asked Mane about the latters law school. When Mane answered that he came from Manuel L.

Quezon University (MLQU), Belen told him: Then youre not from UP. Then you cannot

equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created

equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the

Supreme Being that we all are created equal in His form and substance

Belen further lambasted Mane and lectured him on the latters person, seemingly disregarding

the case at hand. Subsequently, the OCA, upon evaluation, found that Belens insulting remarks

were unwarranted and inexcusable and recommended a reprimand of Belen.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the statements and actions made by Judge Belen during the hearing constitute

conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct?

HELD:

The Court held that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the

law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations which the Court administers, taking of the Lawyers oath,

and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his

functions and duties as, inter alia an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his

law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on his

alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem.

A judge must address the merits of the case and not the person of the counsel. If Judge Belen

felt that his integrity and dignity were being assaulted, he acted properly when he directed

complainant to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. He went out of bounds,

however, when he engaged on a supercilious legal and personal discourse.

The Court reminded members of the bench that even on the face of boorish behavior from

those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and

high officers of the court.

Respondent having exhibited conduct unbecoming of a judge, classified as a light charge under

Section 10, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, which is penalized under Section 11(c) of the

same Rule by any of the following: (1) a fine of not less than P1,000 but not exceeding P10,000;

(2) censure; (3) reprimand; and (4) admonition with warning, the Court imposes upon him the

penalty of reprimand.
Decapia, Katrina Vianca N.

1A

XIV.CANON 13

ROYONG v OBLENA

(G.R. No. 376, April 30, 1963)

FACTS:

Complainant Josefina Royong charge the respondent Ariston Oblena, a member of the bar and

bench, with rape. The Solicitor General immediately conducted an investigation and found out

that there was no rape, the carnal knowledge between complainant and respondent seems to

be consensual sex.

In view of his own findings as a result of his investigation, that even if respondent did not

commit the alleged rape, nevertheless, he was guilty of other misconduct. The Solicitor General

made another complaint charging the respondent of falsely and deliberately alleging in his

application for admission to the bar that he is a person of good moral character, of living

adulterously with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations with the 18 year

old Josefina Royong. Thus rendering him unfit to practice law, praying that this Court render

judgment ordering the permanent removal of the respondent as lawyer and judge.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the illicit relation of the respondent with Josefina Royong and the adulterous

cohabitation of respondent with Briccia Angeles warrants disbarment?

HELD:

Ariston Oblena was disbarred.

The continued possession of a fair private and professional character or a good moral character

is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law for one who has been

admitted, and its loss requires suspension or disbarment even though the statutes do not

specify that as ground for disbarment.

Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly bearing on his

profession, has nevertheless rendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer.

Fornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as have proven in

this case, as to shock common sense of decency, certainly may justify positive action by the

Court in protecting the prestige of the noble profession of the law.

As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An applicant for license to practice law is required to

show good moral character, or what he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from

the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the

place where he is known.

Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for

admission to the bar. He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people

who knew him seemed to have acquiesced to his status, did not render him a person of good

moral character. It is of no moment that his immoral state was discovered then or now as he is

clearly not fit to remain a member of the bar.