A. Requisites for Admissions to the Bar Sec. 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.(Rule 138, RRC) B. Lawyers Oath Importance of the Lawyers Oath I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. 1. In Re: Al C. Argosino Facts: Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court however deferred his oathtaking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide. The criminal case which resulted in petitioners conviction arose from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in September 1991. After applying for probation, having it approved, and being discharged from it upon the Probation Officer's recommendation, petitioner filed before the Supreme Court a petition to be allowed to take the lawyers oath. The Court through then Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar. In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15) certifications/letters executed by among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the latters family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case. The Court also required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment on petitioners prayer to be allowed to take the lawyers oath. In his comment, he stated that he has forgiven petitioner but left the Court to decide on whether petitioner is now morally fit for admission to the bar. Issue: Whether Al Argosino should be allowed to take the lawyer's oath and practice law. Held: YES. The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. The Court stresses to Mr. Argosino that the lawyers oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyers oath. The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to weed out lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to prevent misfits from taking the lawyers oath, thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent years has undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.
2. Orbes v. Deciembre
AC-5365. April 27, 2005 Facts: Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan. After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for P50, 000 with different maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Tansingco should be suspended or disbarred. RULING: The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. He is suspended from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision. A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended.
FACTS: Officers and members of the Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association Inc. sought the services of respondent regarding a consolidated ejectment case where they were being sued as officers and members of the association. Complainants lost, however, and respondent advised them to file a supersedeas bond to stay their eviction and so they entrusted payment therfore to respondent. He receipted erroneously in the amount of P86,666.72 instead of the more than P200,000 but was corrected afterwards. Association President Minerva Genato then made a verbal demand for respondent to return the remaining balance, upon which respondent delivered a personal check for P141,904.00 in the name of Atty. Leonardo Ocampo. Check bounced for insufficency of funds so Ocampo sent a demand letter to Genato to make good the payment of the check. A number of demand letters were again sent to respondent. An Information charging respondent with estafa was liikewise filed. For his part, respondent argued that the amount if P141, 904.00 and not P206, 497.00 was meant as paymen of the subject porperty, he insisted that the instant administrative complaint must be dismissed. Issue: Did respondent violate the Code of Professional Responsiibility? Held: Yes. It is clear that respondent misappropriated the money which his clients, herein complainants, had entrusted to him for a specific purpose, and such act cannot be countenanced. Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client. A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity, because a high degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted. In Parias v. Paguinto, the Court had the occasion to state that money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the client on demand. Indeed, a lawyer has no right to unilaterally appropriate his or her clients money. 3. Roberto Soriano vs Atty. Manuel Dizon A.C No. 6792January 25, 2006
5. Villanueva v. Beradio 6. Samala v. Valencia A.C. No. 5439. January 22, 2007. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
FACTS: Before us is a complaint dated May 2, 2001 filed by Clarita J. Samala (complainant) against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for Disbarment It was shown on record that Records show that during the trial for non-payment of rentals, herein respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and Compliance before the RTC. Respondent also represented Valdez in a civil case for ejectment Upon the promulgation of the decision, Presiding Judge Reuben P. dela Cruz warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of record of both parties in a civil case. However, in another Civil Case respondent, as counsel for Valdez, filed a Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title against Alba, who is the respondents former client in previous cases. In the Civil Case No. 00-7137 for ejectment, respondent submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdezs ownership despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995. Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK for rescission of contract and cancellation of TCT No. 275500 was also filed on November 27, 2000, before RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City. It was revealed during the hearing that Civil Case Nos. 00-7137 and 2000-657-MK were filed on the same date, although in different courts and at different times. Culled from the records, Valdez entered into a retainer agreement with respondent. As payment for his services, he was allowed to occupy the property for free and utilize the same as his office pursuant to their retainer agreement. Respondent filed I.S. Nos. 00-443943 and 01-03616244 both entitled Valencia v. Samala for estafa and grave coercion, respectively, to protect his clients rights against complainant who filed I.S. No. 00-430645 for estafa against Lagmay, and I.S. No. 00-431846 against Alvin Valencia47 for trespass to dwelling. During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are all over 20 years of age, 48 while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wife died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998.49 Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his affair with Lagmay as a relationship50 and does not consider the latter as his second family. He reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.
HELD: Yes, he committed grave misconduct. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He may not also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated. The bare attorney-client relationship with a client precludes an attorney from accepting professional employment from the clients adversary either in the same case or in a different but related action. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client.23 In the case of Nombrado v. Hernandez, that the termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The reason for the rule is that the clients confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional employment.25 Consequently, a lawyer should not, even after the severance of the relation with his client, do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he previously represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the clients confidences acquired in the previous relation.26 In this case, respondents averment that his relationship with Alba has long been severed by the act of the latter of not turning over the proceeds collected in connivance with the complainant, is unavailing. Alba may not be his original client but the fact that he filed a case entitled Valdez and Alba v. Bustamante and her husband, is a clear indication that respondent is protecting the interests of both Valdez and Alba in the said case. Respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer-client relationship between him and Alba has long been severed without observing Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court wherein the written consent of his client is required. In another case, Gonzales v. Cabucana, Jr., citing the case of Quiambao v. Bamba, it was held that: The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.
7. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL (SLU-LHS) FACULTY and STAFF
vs. ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ COMPLAINT: This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis University-Laboratory High School (SLULHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS, for: (a) pending criminal case for child abuse and a labor case against him in the NLRC (b) contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage (c) notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission. FACTS: Respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera in 1982 at Tuba, Benguet. He thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with Mary Jane Pascua in 1994, said second marriage was subsequently annulled for being bigamous. On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deliberately subscribed and notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 to 1997, despite expiration of respondents notarial commission on 31 December 1987. Respondent, in his comment, denied the charges of child abuse, illegal deduction of salary and others which are still pending before the St. Louis University (SLU), National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Prosecutors Office. He expressly admitted his second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage, and the subsequent nullification of the former. He also admitted having notarized certain documents during the period when his notarial commission had already expired. However, he offered some extenuating defenses such as good faith, lack of malice and noble intentions in doing the complained acts. ISSUE: WON Atty. Dela Cruz must be disbarred? HELD: The Court has laid down with a common definition of what constitutes immoral conduct, vis--vis, grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community" and what is "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree." Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes immoral conduct. But it is NOT so gross as to warrant his disbarment. However, measured against the definition, the court is not prepared to consider respondents act as grossly immoral. As to the charge of misconduct for having notarized several documents during the years 1988-1997 after his commission as notary public had expired, respondent humbly admitted having notarized certain documents despite his knowledge that he no longer had authority to do so. He, however, alleged that he received no payment in notarizing said documents, but the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. Other charges constituting respondents misconduct filed before the Prosecutors Office of Baguio City, the Investigating Board created by SLU and the pending labor case before the NLRC, need not be discussed, as they are still pending before the proper forums. At such stages, the presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the respondent. Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz IS guilty of immoral conduct, in disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, and another two (2) years for notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission or a total of four (4) years of suspension. VIOLATED RULE 1.1 PROVISION A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, HOW IT WAS VIOLATED BY ATTY. DELA CRUZ His act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place, is contrary to honesty,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
8. Advincula v.Macabata
Facts: Complainant Cynthia Advincula sought the legal services of Atty. Macabata, respondent herein regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. They met to discuss the possibility of filing a complaint because accounts remained unsettled. After their dinner, respondent sent complainant home and while she was about to step out of the car, respondent held her arm and kissed her on the cheek and embraced her very tightly. They met again to finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed. After their meeting, respondent offered again a ride. Along the way, complainant felt so sleepy and when she was almost restless, respondent stopped the car and forcefully held her face and kissed her lips while the other hand held her breast. Complainant even in a state of shock, succeeded in resisting his criminal attempt and immediately managed to get out of the car. She filed a disbarment case against respondent for gross immorality. Issue: Whether respondent is guilty of gross immorality? Held: No. In Zaguirre v. Castillo, we reiterated the definition of immoral conduct, as such conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must not simply be immoral, but grossly immoral. It must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. Complainants bare allegation that respondent made use and took advantage of his position as a lawyer to lure her to agree to have sexual relations with him, deserves no credit. The burden of proof rests on the complainant which in the case at bar, she miserably failed to comply with. Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed complainant on the lips, the same was not motivated by malice. Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there were several people in the vicinity
9. Ronquilio, et. al v. Chavez FACTS: Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension of respondent from the practice of law for unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. They allege that respondent sold them a piece of property over which he has no right nor interest, and that he refuses to return to them the amount they have paid him for it.
Complainant Marili C. Ronquillo is a Filipino citizen currently residing in Cannes, France, together with her minor children, Alexander and Jon Alexander. In May 1999, complainant Marili Ronquillo and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment for the price of P1.5M. Respondent transferred, in favor of the complainants, his rights and interests over a townhouse unit and lot, located at 75
13. Lijauco v. Terrado A.C. No. 6317 August 31, 2006 Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
COMPLAINT: Gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing attorneys fees. FACTS: Lijauco engaged the services of Atty Terrado in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered into to end it. Respondent averred that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment for legal services for the recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include the case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna. He admitted that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a referral fee. ISSUE: WON Atty. Terrado guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice, and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered toRETURN, within thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco. RULE 1.01 PROVISION A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases. A lawyer shall handle any legal matter without adequate prepartion REASON FOR BEING GUILTY By luring complainant to participate in a compromise agreement with a false and misleading assurance that complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed property. By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as commission/referral fees. Respondents disregard for his clients interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property; that the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating ownership in the bank, and that she releases her claims against it. The Investigating Commissioner (IBP) observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable.
9.02
18.02
20.01
A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. 20.1 states the determining factors.
15. RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO, CLERK OF COURT IV, RTC, ORAS, EASTERN SAMAR Facts: In a resolution dated June 27, 2006, the Supreme Court found Atty. Raquel G. Kho, former clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar, guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody as required by OCA Circular No. 8A93. He was ordered to pay a fine of P10,000 for his transgression. The matter did not end there, however. Because his malfeasance prima facie contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.012 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court ordered him to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. In his explanation, Atty. Kho admitted that his failure to make a timely remittance of the cash deposited with him was inexcusable. He maintained, however, that he kept the money in the courts safety vault and never once used it for his own benefit. Atty. Khos apparent good faith and his ready admission of the infraction, although certainly mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his failure to remit P65,000 in judiciary funds for over a year was contrary to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93. That omission was a breach of his oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities3 and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
2. Dulalia v. Cruz Juan Dulalia, Jr., vs Atty. Pablo C. Cruz (A.C. No, 6854, April 25, 2007 [Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1380]) Facts: Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan (respondent), is charged by Juan Dulalia, Jr. (complainant) of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainants wife Susan Soriano Dulalia filed an application for building permit for the construction of a warehouse. Despite compliance with all the requirements for the purpose, she failed to secure a permit, she attributing the same to the opposition of respondents who wrote a September 13, 2004 letter to Carlos J. Abacan, Municipal Engineer and concurrent Building Official of Meycauayan saying that unbearable nuisances that the construction creates and its adverse effects particularly the imminent danger and damage to their properties, health and safety of the neighbors adjoining the site. By complainants claim, respondent opposed the application for building permit because of a personal grudge against his wife Susan who objected to respondents marrying her first cousin Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 while respondents marriage with Carolina Agaton which was solemnized on December 17, 1967, is still subsisting. Respondent married Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 at the Clark County, Nevada, USA,21 when the Family Code of the Philippines had already taken effect.22 He invokes good faith, however, he claiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code.23 For while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shallhave