practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the could not muster

enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was

Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991  petition is DISMISSED. passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing
Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner.
Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President In Re Cunanan, et al. March 18, 1954  The same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter,
Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC.   supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law.
Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not FACTS: Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar
posses required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing In the Matter of Integration of the IBP, January 9, 1973 
law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955.” Section  
Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a 1 provided the following passing marks: 1946-1951………………70% FACTS: In 1970, the Supreme Court created the Commission on Bar
Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the 1952 …………………….71% 1953……………………..72% Integration (CBI) to ascertain the advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar.
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years 1954……………………..73% 1955……………………..74% Provided In 1971, the Congress passed HB 3277 (An Act Providing for the
of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%. Section Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor).
for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% President Marcos signed it and it became RA 6397.
a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least the grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general In 1972, the CBI submitted its Report with the earnest recommendation to
ten years. average in subsequent bar examinations.” ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar through the adoption and
promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. The Report, alongside the
Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional. proceedings in Administrative Case 526 and the views and sentiments of
of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. the Board of Consultants and the Philippine Bench and Bar, prayed for
RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of such integration.
Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. ISSUE/S: WON the integration of the Bar is constitutional.
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident
to actions and special proceeding, the management of such actions and Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was HELD: Yes. The integration of the Bar is constitutional.
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, also struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of
conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary. As to Section1, the RATIO: The CBI Report defines the Bar Integration as the official
matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines, requiring
condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial 1955 was declared in force and effect. membership and financial support of every lawyer as sine qua non to the
body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys. It is
bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in The portion that was stricken down was based under the following based on the recognition that a lawyer is an officer of the court. It improves
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to reasons: The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who the position of the Bar as an instrument of justice and rule of law. It fosters
constitute law practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the cohesion among lawyers and ensures the promotion of the objectives of
which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training fact that this was very close to the end of World War II; The law is, in the legal profession.
and experience. effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of
the said candidates; The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary The constitutionality of the Bar Integration hinges on the constitutional
The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice of law and, rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech. As the practice of
qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement law is a privilege vested with public interest, it can best discharge its public
is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a the Rules of Court. responsibilities through collective action. Collective action can only be
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a done through an organized body.
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum
poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the court on who can To compel a lawyer to be a member of an Integrated Bar does not violate
position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged in the practice law; and The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to his constitutional freedom to associate because integration does not make
class legislation. As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member.
Integration only provides an official national organization for the
well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer
is already a member. Also, an Integrated Bar serves to elevate the
educational and ethical standards of the Bar with the goal of improving the
quality of the State‘s legitimate interest. Even assuming that a lawyer is
compelled to join the Integrated Bar, it is still a justified compulsion as it is
an exercise of the police power of the State in regulating and controlling
the legal profession. Also, the inherent power of the Supreme Court to
regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate it.
NOTE: This case falls under Canon 7 but this Canon is not explicitly
provided for in the case. However, the relation can be seen. Canon 7
provides that ―a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.‖ In
using the word ―shall,‖ this Canon makes it mandatory for all lawyers
to: (1) uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and (2)
support the activities of the Integrated Bar. In being a member of the
Integrated Bar, a lawyer has certain responsibilities, which, if complied
with, will uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Therefore,
it is neither unlawful to have a Bar Integration nor be a member of an
Integrated Bar.
Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin Dacanay,  Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente Ching, B.M.  applied to take the bar). The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine
B.M. 1678 December 17, 2007  914 October 1, 1999  citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is
 
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.
Issue: Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in
the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship
Ruling: 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, conclusion, the OSG points out that Ching has not formally elected
consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other Philippine citizenship and, if ever he does, it would already be beyond the
words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to "reasonable time" allowed by present jurisprudence. However, due to the
practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to peculiar circumstances surrounding Ching's case, the OSG recommends
foreigners. the relaxation of the standing rule on the construction of the phrase
"reasonable period" and the allowance of Ching to elect Philippine
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of citizenship in accordance with C.A. No. 625 prior to taking his oath as a
naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired member of the Philippine Bar.
pursuant to RA 9225. This is because “all Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their ISSUE: Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225].” Therefore, a
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never HELD: No. In the present case, Ching was already thirty-five (35) years
to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with old when he complied with the requirements of CA No. 625 or fourteen
RA 9225. years after he had reached the age of majority. The age of majority
commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) years. The Supreme Court
Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his membership in noted that the period is originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It
the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues. seems it can’t be extended any further). Ching’s special circumstances
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the can’t be considered. It is not enough that he considered all his life that he
Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its is a Filipino; that he is a professional and a public officer (was) serving this
provisions “(he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit country. The rules for citizenship are in place. Further, Ching didn’t give
to engage in such practice. any explanation why he belatedly chose to elect Filipino citizenship (but I
guess it’s simply because he never thought he’s Chinese not until he
  required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine
FACTS: Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry.
Chinese citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia Ching’s unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election
West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his birth, Ching has cannot be simply glossed over.
resided in the Philippines. In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree
at the Saint Louis University in Baguio City. He eventually passed the bar DECISION: The Court Resolves to DENY Vicente D. Ching's application
but he was advised that he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen for admission to the Philippine Bar.
before he be allowed to take his oath. Apparently, Ching’s father was a
Chinese citizen but his mother was a Filipino citizen. His parents were In the Matter of Admission to the Bar and Oath Taking of Successful 
married before he was born in 1963. Under the 1935 Constitution, a Bar Applicant AL C. Argosino, B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995 
legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner, acquires the foreign  
citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching maintained that he has always DOCTRINES: The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to
considered himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified public accountant – a citizens of good moral character, with special education qualifications, duly
profession reserved for Filipinos; that he even served as a councilor in a ascertained and certified. Requirement of good moral character is of
municipality in La Union. The Solicitor-General commented on the case by greater importance so far as the general public and proper administration
saying that as a legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino, Ching should of justice is concerned. All aspects of moral character and behavior may
have elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Ching be inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar.
did elect Filipino citizenship, but he only did so when he was preparing for Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would
the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of majority. In seek admission to the bar must be a necessity more stringent than the
norm of conduct expected from members of the general public. manifestation, of the names of the parents or brothers and sisters of
Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings inflicted upon Camaligan from notice.  Garcia alleged that he learned that Sesbreño was convicted by the
Raul Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that moral duty and was   Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 18, for Homicide in Criminal
totally irresponsible behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyer’s Oath B.M. No. 712  Case No. CBU-31733. Garcia alleged that Sesbreño is only on parole.
participant was possessed of good moral character. Good moral March 19, 1997  Garcia alleged that homicide is a crime against moral turpitude; and thus,
character is a requirement possession of which must be demonstrated at   Sesbreño should not be allowed to continue his practice of law. In his
the time of the application for permission to take the bar examinations and FACTS​: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a answer to the complaint, Sesbreño alleged that his sentence was
more importantly at the time of application for admission to the bar and to successful bar applicant. Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino was previously commuted and the phrase “with the inherent accessory penalties provided
take the attorney's oath of office. involved with hazing which caused the death of Raul Camaligan a by law” was deleted. Sesbreño argued that even if the accessory penalty
neophyte during fraternity initiation rites but he was convicted for Reckless was not deleted, the disqualification applies only during the term of the
FACTS: On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. He was sentenced with 2 years and 4 sentence. Sesbreño further alleged that homicide does not involve moral
charged with the crime of homicide in connection with the death of one months of imprisonment where he applied a probation thereafter which turpitude. Sesbreño claimed that Garcia’s complaint was motivated by
Raul Camaligan. The death of Camaligan stemmed from the affliction of was approved and granted by the court. He took the bar exam and passed extreme malice, bad faith, and desire to retaliate against him for
severe physical injuries upon him in course of "hazing" conducted as part but was not allowed to take the oath. He filed for a petition to allow him to representing Garcia’s daughters in court.
of the university fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the take the lawyer’s oath of office and to admit him to the practice of law
accused were consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period averring that his probation was already terminated. The court note that he ISSUES: WON conviction for the crime of homicide involves moral
ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was terminated. turpitude. WON Sesbreño should be disbarred
years. HELD: YES. YES.
ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyer’s oath office and
Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed an admit him to the practice of law. RATIO: 1. This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do
application for probation with the lower court. The application was granted not involve moral turpitude. Homicide may or may not involve moral
on June 18 1993. The period of probation was set at two (2) years, RULING: Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not
counted from the probationer's initial report to the probation officer that he possessed the required good moral character as required before involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and
assigned to supervise him. Less than a month later, Argosino filed a taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction
petition to take the bar exam. Court considered the premises that he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends
In giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that on all the surrounding circumstances. While x x x generally but not always,
He was allowed and he passed the exam, but was not allowed to take the the Lawyer’s Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibitado
lawyer's oath of office. On April 15, 1994, Argosino filed a petition to allow practice of law, and that the community assistance he had started is not, it cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does
him to take the attorney's oath and be admitted to the practice of law. He expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate members of the not exist by classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum,
averred that his probation period had been terminated. It is noted that his society. since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet rarely involve moral
probation period did not last for more than 10 months.   turpitude and there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala
Garcia vs. Atty. Raul H. Sesbreno, AC No. 7973 and AC no. 10457  prohibita only.
ISSUE: Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath of attorney February 3, 2015  
and be admitted to the practice of law   It follows therefore, that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and
FACTS​: Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against Sesbreño before indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial
HELD: Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may now the Office of the Bar Confidant. Garcia alleged that in 2005 while he was in inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached. The IBP-CBD correctly
be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character Japan, Sesbreño, representing Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth, filed an stated that Amparado and Yapchangco were just at the wrong place and
imposed upon those who are seeking admission to the bar. He should action for support against him and his sister Milagros Garcia Soliman. At time. They did not do anything that justified the indiscriminate firing done
show to the Court how he has tried to make up for the senseless killing of the time of the filing of the case, Maria Margarita was already 39 years old by Sesbreño that eventually led to the death of Amparado. We cannot
a helpless student to the family of the deceased student and to the while Angie Ruth was 35 years old. The case was dismissed. In 2007, accept Sesbreño’s argument that the executive clemency restored his full
community at large. In short, he must show evidence that he is a different Garcia returned from Japan. When Sesbreño and Garcia’s children civil and political rights. Sesbreño cited In re Atty. Parcasio to bolster his
person now, that he has become morally fit for admission to the profession learned about his return, Sesbreño filed a Second Amended Complaint argument. In that case, Atty. Parcasio was granted “an absolute and
of law. He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written against him. unconditional pardon” which restored his “full civil and political rights,” a
circumstance not present in these cases. Here, the Order of Commutation
did not state that the pardon was absolute and unconditional. There are
four acts of executive clemency that the President can extend: the
President can grant reprieves, commutations, pardons, and remit fines
and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
In this case, the executive clemency merely “commuted to an
indeterminate prison term of 7 years and 6 months to 10 years
imprisonment” the penalty imposed on Sesbrefio. Commutation is a mere
reduction of penalty. Commutation only partially extinguished criminal
liability. The penalty for Sesbrefio’ s crime was never wiped out. He served
the commuted or reduced penalty, for which reason he was released from
prison. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended as attorney by this Court by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. This Court
has ruled that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final
judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes to
his fellow men or to society in general, contraryto justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals.
DISPOSITION: Respondent Raul H. Sesbreno is DISBARRED.
 
Partick A. Caronan v. Richard A. Caronan aka “Atty. Patrick A.  Issues: Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name
Caronan”AC No. 11316 July 12, 2016  "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the
 
Facts: Patrick A. Caronan, complainant and Richard A. Caronan,
respondent are siblings. Richard is older than Patrick Caronan. Patrick
Caronan graduated from University of Makati with a degree in Business
Administration. He worked as a Sales Associate for Philippine Seven
Corporation (PSC) until he was promoted as a Store Manager of the 7-11
Store in Muntinlupa. On the other hand, Richard Caronan studied at the
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), where he stayed for one 1
year before transferring to the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) in 1992.
In 1993, he was discharged from the PMA and focused on helping their
father in the family's car rental business. In 1997, he moved to Nueva
Vizcaya with his wife and three children and never went back to school to
earn a college degree.
In 1999, he told Patrick that he enrolled in a law school in Nueva Vizcaya.
In 2004, their mother informed Patrick that Richard passed the Bar
Examinations and that he used his name and college records from the
University of Makati to enrolled at St. Mary's University's College of Law.
Patrick ignored what his brother did. In May 2009, Patrick was informed
that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was requesting his Finally, Respondent made also a mockery of the legal profession by
presence for an investigation against "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan for pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. He also
qualified theft and estafa. He learned also that his brother was arrested for tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged unscrupulous activities,
gun-running activities, illegal possession of explosives, and violation of which resulted in the filing of several criminal cases against him. Certainly,
Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22. He developed a fear for his own safety respondent and his acts do not have a place in the legal profession where
and security because he became the subject of talk in his office, which he one of the primary duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and
was forced to resign from his job. Hence, he filed a complaint against his dignity.
brother to stop use of his name and identity, and illegal practice of law. In
his Answer, Richard denied all the allegations against him and invoked res WHEREFORE, respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A.
judicata as a defense. He maintained that his identity can no longer be Caronan" is found GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity, and
raised as an issue as it had already been resolved in an earlier academic records of complainant Patrick A. Caronan to obtain a law
administrative case declared closed and terminated in A.C. No. 10074. degree and take the Bar Examinations. The Court hereby resolves: the
name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 is ordered
The Investigating Commissioner issued his report and recommendation DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys; PROHIBITED from
finding respondent guilty of illegally and falsely assuming complainant's engaging in the practice of law or making any representations as a lawyer;
name, identity, and academic records. He recommended that the name BARRED from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar in the
"Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys and the name future; the Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the
"Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted as a member of the Philippines to respondent under the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" and
Bar for making a mockery of the judicial institution. On June 30, 2015, the the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Certificates issued in such
IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. adopting the Investigating name are CANCELLED and/or REVOKED; and the Office of the Court
Commissioner's recommendation. Administrator is ordered to CIRCULATE notices and POST his real name,
" Richard A. Caronan," with a warning that he is not a member of the
Philippine Bar and a statement of his false assumption of the name and
identity of "Patrick A. Caronan.
name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted to the Bar.
Held: No. The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings and
recommendations of the IBP. Since complainant -the real "Patrick A.
Caronan" - never took the Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly
recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll
of Attorneys. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant
for admission to the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had
pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law course. Clearly,
respondent has not completed the requisite pre-law degree. Respondent
also exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of moral fitness to be a
member of the Bar when he assumed the name, identity, and school
records of his own brother and dragged the latter into controversies which
eventually caused him to fear for his safety and to resign from PSC where
he had been working for years. “Good moral character is essential in those
who would be lawyers. This is imperative in the nature of the office of a
lawyer, the trust relation which exists between him and his client, as well
as between him and the court,” the court said.