9.
IN RE: PETITION FOR ISSUE:
REINSTATEMENT IN THE ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS, JUAN T. PUBLICO
February 20, 1981
FACTS:
Juan T. Publico (Publico), after failing the
1959 Bar Examinations, filed a petition to
take the 1960 Bar Examinations. However,
the petition was opposed by his uncle,
Dulcisimo Tapel (Tapel), on the ground that
Publico was not of good moral character
when he MISREPRESENTED his school
records by utilizing the school records of his
cousin, Juan M. Publico, thereby allowing
him to enroll in third year high school at the
University of Manila. It was further alleged
that Publico had not finished grade 6 of
elementary education. Tapel filed an
administrative complaint for falsification of
school records and credentials against his
nephew Publico. Pending the case, Publico
passed the 1960 Bar Examinations.
The Court’s Legal Officer Investigator,
Ricardo Paras, submitted the following
Report: That Publico (Juan Tapel Publico)
studied at Buhi Elementary School in Bato,
Catanduanes, until grade 6 but only
completed grade 5; that in 1950 (before S.Y.
1949-1950), Publico left school and came to
Manila; that he enrolled in third year high
school at the University of Manila; that when
he was required to submit his documents by
the school officials, he submitted the
documents of his cousin Juan M. Publico;
that Publico falsified his school records,
making it appear that he finished grade 6,
first year and second year high school; that
Publico violated Section 5 and 6 of Rule 127
of the Rules of Court which requires
completion of prescribed courses in
elementary, high school, pre-law, and law
school prior to admission to law practice;
that it hereby recommended that Publico be
stricken from the Attorney’s Roll.
The Supreme Court, in 1962, Publico’s name
was stricken off the Roll. After 11 years,
Publico filed 5 Petitions for Reinstatement*,
including the present Petition, from 1973 to
1979. In the same manner, PUP and the San
Miguel (Catanduanes) Civic Association filed
their Petition** which were likewise denied.
Whether or not Publico’s name should be
reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys
RULING:
Yes. Publico’s name should be reinstated in
the Roll of Attorneys.
The Court held that the reinstatement in the
Roll rests in the sound discretion of the
Court. The action “will depend, generally
speaking, on whether or not it decides that
the public interest in the orderly and
impartial administration of justice will be
conserved by the applicant's participation
therein in the capacity of an attorney and
counselor at law.” The applicant must satisfy
the court that he is a person of good moral
character, a fit and proper person to practice
law. The court will take into consideration
the following: (1) applicant's character and
standing prior to the disbarment, (2) the
nature and character of the charge for which
he was disbarred, (3) his conduct
subsequent to the disbarment, and (4) the
time that has elapsed between the
disbarment and the application for
reinstatement. (citing 5 Am. Jur., Sec. 301,
p. 443)
In the case at bar, the Court held that the
power to discipline, especially if
amounting to disbarment, should be
exercised on the preservative and not on
the indicative principle. Evidence of
Publico’s fitness to be reinstated as a
member of the Bar is shown by the
testimonials and his good conduct and
honorable dealings subsequent to
disbarment, and his active involvement in
different organizations. Further, the Court
held that has been sufficiently punished and
disciplined, after being barred from the
practice of law for almost 19 years.
10. FIGUEROA v. BARRANCO
SBC Case No. 519
July 31, 1997
FACTS:
Simeon Barrancowas a bar exam passer
after trying for 4 times. Before he could take
his oath, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that
Barranco be denied his admission to the bar.
She complained that Barrancoand she had
been sweethearts, they had a child born out
of wedlock, and that Barrancodid not fulfill
his repeated promises to marry.
Furthermore, Barrancomarried and settled
with another woman.Figueroa further
claimed that Barrancoforced her into sexual
relations with him.
ISSUE:
Are the charges set against Barrancoenough
to disbar him from taking the lawyer’s oath?
RULING:
No, the charges required to constitute a
disbarment not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral. In the case at hand, the allegation
towardsBarrancomerely suggest a doubtful
moral character. Furthermore, Figueroa
continued to see Barrancofor a while, even
after giving birth to the child, thus
suggesting that the sexual relations were
consensual and not forced.
11. IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF JAMES JOSEPH HAMM
TO BE ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF
THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
No. SB-04-0079-M.
December 07, 2005
Petition: To review the recommendation
provided by Committee on Character and
Fitness (The Committee) denying the
Petitioner’s application for admission to the
State Bar of Arizona.
FACTS:
In 1974, when James Hamm was 26 years of
age, he and two accomplices planned to rob
two young men who wanted to buy 20
pounds of marijuana. Hamm claims that the
original plan was to rob the buyers and not
murder them. Hamm and an accomplice
ended up shooting the buyers and killing
them. Hamm was arrested and charged with
two counts of first degree murder and two
counts of armed robbery. A few months later,
Hamm pled guilty of one count of first degree
murder, involving the victim he killed, and
the remaining charges were dismissed. He
was sentenced to life in prison, without the
possibility of parole for 25 years.
While in prison he exhibited good
conduct and became a model prisoner which
earned him a conditioned parole. Hamm was
released after serving years in prison. From
conditioned parole, Hamm absolutely
discharged on December 2001. While on
parole, Hamm graduated from the Arizona
State University College of Law. In July
1999, Hamm passed the Arizona Bar
examination and, in 2004, filed his
Character and fitness Report with the
Committee.
In its report, the Committee stated
that, in reaching its conclusions, it
considered the following:
1) Hamm’s unlawful conduct, which
included the commission of two
violent “execution style” murders and
his testimony as to the facts
surrounding the murders.
2) Hamm’s omissions on his
Application and his testimony in
explaining his failure to disclose all
required information.
3) Hamm’s neglect of his financial
responsibilities and/or violation of a
longstanding child support court
order and his testimony as to his
failure.
4) Hamm’s mental or emotional
instability impairing his ability to
perform the functions of an attorney
including his testimony as to any
diagnosis and treatment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not James Joseph Hamm can be
admitted to the Arizona State Bar?
RULING:
No, the Supreme Court decided that
Hamm failed to prove his burden that he is
good moral character on the following
grounds:
Hamm failed to show rehabilitation
from past criminal conduct by not accepting
full responsibility for serious criminal
conduct- Staples’ murder although he
accepted responsibility for the death of
Morley.
 Hamm was not completely up front in
his testimony to the murder of which he
claims that he only intended to rob and not
to kill. This is contrary to the facts-he
accepted the gun and brings it with him in
the car, shot Morley without attempting
robbery and shot hit again to ensure he is
dead and shot Staples when he attempted to
escape. When an applicant has committed
first-degree murder, a crime that
demonstrates an extreme lack of good moral
character, that applicant must make an
extraordinary showing of present good moral
character to establish that he or she is
qualified to be admitted to the practice of
law. Even assuming that Hamm has
established rehabilitation, showing
rehabilitation from criminal conduct does
not, in itself, establish good moral character.
Rehabilitation is a necessary, but not
sufficient, ingredient of good moral
character. An applicant must establish his
current good moral character, independent
of and in addition to, evidence of
rehabilitation. We conclude that Hamm
failed to make that showing. His failure to
fulfil his long overdue obligation to support
his child who he was aware existed and his
failure to disclose the incident involving him
and his wife, Donna, when he submitted his
application to the Committee. This incident
gave rise to Hamm being questioned by the
law enforcers which should have been
reflected by Hamm in the application.
12. ZETA v. MALINAO
A.M. No. P-220 December 20, 1978
FACTS:
Mr. Malinao, an interpreter in the CFI of
Zumarraga, Western Samar, was
administratively charged for the following
reasons:
1. Illegally appearing in court – despite
not being an attorney, he appears as
one before the municipal courts
ofCatbalogan,Talarora, Daram,
Zumarraga, and Sta. Rita Samar.
2. Grave misconduct in office – He
incites individuals to commit crimes
by grabbing lands, robbing or
coercion, by telling them not to be
afraid as he is a court employee and
has influence over the judges.
3. Crime o Falsification – he falsifies his
time record by entering his
attendance as present in office
though he is out practicing in the
municipal trial courts.
4. Violation of Executive Order and Civil
Service Law – for unlawfully engaging
in private practice without
permission from the Department
Head.
Defendant denied violations of Executive
Order or Civil Service Law and said that his
participation for the causes for which he
appears as counsel are gratuitous.
The DoJ referred the complaint to Judge
Soza of CFI Catbalogan for investigaton,
report and recommendation, who had the
reported that:
1. Julio Zeta, the petitioner, appears to
be a fictitious person for failing to
appear despite subpoenas;
2. It was proven that defendant
appeared as counsel before the Trial
courts of Sta. Rita, Zumarraga and
Daram, on several dates, and;
3. It appears that comparison with his
official Daily Time Records before his
office in CFI of Zumarraga, Mr.
Malinao has provided full service or
undertime on days where he was
supposedly appeared as counsel in
other trial courts. The respondent
did not offer any plausible
explanation for such irregularity.
4. Evidence has shown that Mr.
Malinao violated the Civil Service
Law.
RULING:
It is clear to that respondent, apart from
appearing as counsel in various municipal
courts without prior permission of his
superiors in violation of civil service rules
and regulations, falsified his time record of
service by making it appear therein that he
was present in his office on occasions when
in fact he was in the municipal courts
appearing as counsel, without being a
member of the bar, which, furthermore,
constitutes illegal practice of law. The
number of times that respondent acted as
counsel under the above circumstances
would indicate that he was doing it as a
regular practice obviously for considerations
other than pure love of justice.
In the premises, it is quite obvious that the
offense committed by respondent is grave,
hence it warrants a more drastic sanction
than that of reprimand recommended by
Judge Zosa. We find no alternative than to
separate him from the service, with the
admonition that he desist from appearing in
any court or investigative body wherein Only
members of the bar are allowed to practice.
13. PEOPLE v. MACEDA & JAVELLANA
G.R. Nos. 89591-96
January 24, 2000
FACTS:
Javellana was arrested as he is one of the
accused in Crim Cases 3350-3355.Sufficient
reason was shown why he should not be
detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. As a
result, RTC Judge Sanz Maceda issued an
order giving custody over Javellana to Atty.
Deogracias del Rosario, the Clerk of Court of
RTC Br 12 during the pendency of Crim
Cases 3350-3355. RTC’s order specifically
provided for Javellana’s detention at the
residence of Atty. del Rosario. He was not to
be allowed liberty to roam around but was to
be held as detention prisoner in said
residence. However, this was not strictly
complied with. Javellana went about his
normal activities as if he were a free man,
including engaging in the practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether Javellana can continue
practicing law although he was to be held
as detention prisoner at the residence of the
RTC Clerk of Court.
HELD:
No.Javellana is not allowed to practice his
profession as a necessary consequence of his
status as a detention prisoner. The trial
courts order was clear that Javellana "is not
to be allowed liberty to roam around but is
to be held as a detention prisoner."
As a matter of law, when a person indicted
for an offense is arrested, he is deemed
placed under the custody of the law. He is
placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so
that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of the offense. He must be
detained in jail during the pendency of the
case against him, unless he is authorized by
the court to be released on bail or on
recognizance. Let it be stressed that all
prisoners whether under preventive
detention or serving final sentence can not
practice their profession nor engage in any
business or occupation, or hold office,
elective or appointive, while in detention.
This is a necessary consequence of arrest
and detention. Consequently, all the
accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355
must be confined in the Provincial Jail of
Antique.
14. SANTOS, JR v. LLAMAS
Adm. Case No. 4749
January 20, 2000
FACTS:
Soliman M. Santos, Jr filed a
complaint against fellow bar member, Atty.
Francisco Llamas for misrepresentation and
non-payment of bar membership dues . He
alleged that has not indicated the proper
PTR and IBP official receipt nos and data in
his pleadings.
His allegations were from the context
of Rule 138, Section 1 which qualifies that
only a duly admitted member of the bar "who
is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law". There is also 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.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not Llamas non-payment
is not excused by reason of being a senior
citizen in accordance with RA No. 7432.
RULING:
Llamas can engage in the practice of
law only by paying his dues, and it does not
matter that his practice is “limited.” While it
is true that R.A. No. 7432 section 4 grants
senior citizens “exemption from the payment
of individual income taxes: provided, that
their annual taxable income does not exceed
the poverty level as determined by the
National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA) for that year,” the
exemption does not include payment of
membership or association dues.
By indicating “IBP-Rizal 259060” in his
pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to
the public and the courts that he had paid
his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, he violated
several provisions from the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
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 AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall
not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any court; nor shall he
mislead or allow the court to be
misled by any artifice.
Indeed Llamas’ case merit the most
sever penalty. However, in view of
respondent's advanced age, his express
willingness to pay his dues and plea for a
more temperate application of the law, the
penalty of one year suspension from the
practice of law or until he has paid his IBP
dues, whichever is later, is appropriate.
PERTINENT PROVISIONS
Rule 139-A provides:
Sec. 9. Membership dues. — Every
member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such
annual dues as the Board of Governors shall
determine with the approval of the Supreme
Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent
(10%) of the collections from each Chapter
shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for
disabled members of the Chapter and the
compulsory heirs of deceased members
thereof.
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of
dues. — Subject to the provisions of Section
12 of this Rule, 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.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY:
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 AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do
any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any court; nor shall he mislead or allow the
court to be misled by any artifice.
15. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME
PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN M.
DACANAY
B.M. No. 1678,
December 17, 2007
FACTS:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar
in March 1960. He practiced law until he
migrated to Canada in December 1998 to
seek medical attention for his ailments. He
subsequently applied for Canadian
citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical
aid program. His application was approved
and he became a Canadian citizen in May
2004.On July 14, 2006, pursuant to
Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003),
petitioner reacquired his Philippine
citizenship. On that day, he took his oath of
allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the
Philippine Consulate General in Toronto,
Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the
Philippines and now intends to resume his
law practice. There is a question, however,
whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay
lost his membership in the Philippine bar
when he gave up his Philippine citizenship
in May 2004. Thus, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay
lost his membership in the Philippine bar
when he gave up his Philippine citizenship?
HELD:
In a report dated October 16, 2007, the
Office of the Bar Confidant cites Section 2,
Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar)
of the Rules of Court:
SECTION 2. Requirements for all
applicants for admission to the
bar. – Every applicant for
admission as a member of the
bar must be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-one
years of age, of good moral
character, and a resident of the
Philippines; and must produce
before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good
moral character, and that no
charges against him, involving
moral turpitude, have been filed
or are pending in any court in the
Philippines.
Hence, the Office of the Bar Confidant opines
that, by virtue of his reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship, petitioner has again
met all the qualifications and has none of the
disqualifications for membership in the bar
and recommends that he be allowed to
resume the practice of law in the Philippines,
conditioned on his retaking the lawyer’s oath
to remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a member of the
Philippine bar.
The Supreme Court approved the said
recommendation of the Office of the Bar
Confidant with certain modifications.
As a general rule, the Constitution provides
that the practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens save in cases prescribed by
law. Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss
thereof terminates membership in the
Philippine bar and, consequently, the
privilege to engage in the practice of law.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is
lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen
of another country but subsequently
reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is
because "all Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be deemed
not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of [RA
9225]."Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who
becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship if he reacquires it in
accordance with RA 9225. Although he is
also deemed never to have terminated his
membership in the Philippine bar, no
automatic right to resume law practice
accrues.
Under RA 9225, before a lawyer who
reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to
RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he
must first secure from this Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:
(a) the updating and payment in
full of the annual membership
dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional
tax;
 (c) the completion of at least 36
credit hours of mandatory
continuing legal education; this is
specially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner’s knowledge
of Philippine laws and update him
of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s
oath which will not only remind
him of his duties and
responsibilities as a lawyer and as
an officer of the Court, but also
renew his pledge to maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
The Supreme Court granted the Petition
subject to compliance with the conditions
above mentioned.
RATIO:
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney
Benjamin M. Dacanay is hereby GRANTED,
subject to compliance with the conditions
stated above and submission of proof of such
compliance to the Bar Confidant, after which
he may retake his oath as a member of the
Philippine bar.
SO ORDERED.
15. IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE
THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE THE LAW
IN THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO B.
MUNESES
B.M. No. 112
July 24, 2012
Case: This is a petition filed by Muneses
before the Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) praying that he be granted the
privilege to resume the practice law in the
Philippines (PH).
FACTS:
Muneses alleged that he became a member
of the IBP on March 21, 1996 and lost the
privelge to practice law when he became a
US Citizen on August 28, 1981. However, by
virtue of RA9225 of 2003 he was able to re-
acquired his Filipino citizenship before
Consul General Domingo P. Nolasco in
Washington and peitioned that he be
granted to resume the practice of law upon
retirement in the PH. Attached to the petition
were his Oath of Allegiance (dated Sept.
15.2006), petition and order of re-
acquisition of the PH Citizenship (same
dates), Letter evidencing payment of IBP
dues (dated March 13, 2008), and
Attendance Forms from MCLE.
The Court reiterates that Filipino Citizenship
is a continuing requirement for the
admission to the bar and for the practice of
law. The loss thereof means termination of
the Muneses'membership in the bar and to
engage in the practice of law.
ISSUE:
W/N Muneses can be granted to resume the
practice of the law upon re-acquisition of his
Filipino citizenship
RULING:
A Filipino lawyer who becomes a cirizen of
another country and late re -acquires his PH
citizenship under RA 9225, remains to be a
member of the PH Bar. However, the right to
resume the practice of law in the PH is not
automatic. RA 9225 provides that a person
who intends to practice his profession in the
PH must apply with the proper authority for
a license or permit to engage in such
practice. Thus, there are conditions required
for enjoying the privilege to practice law such
as, adherence to the rigid standards of
mental fitness, maintenance of the highest
degree of morality, faithful observance of the
legal profession, compliance with MCLE and
payment of IBP dues. Any breach by a lawyer
of any of these conditions makes him
unworthy of the trust and confidence which
the courts and clients repose in him for the
continued exercise of his professional
privilege.
Wherefore, after the petitioner has met all
the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications for membership in the bar
and had satisfactorily complied it, the
petition is hereby GRANTED, subject to the
condition that he shall re-take the Lawyer's
Oath and payment of appropriate fees.