Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Facts: The case involves two petitions. The first was filed by the surviving partners of Atty.
Alexander Sycip who died on May 5, 1975 and the other by the surviving partners of Atty.
Herminio Ozaeta who died on February 14, 1976 praying that they be allowed to continue
using in the name of their firms the names of their deceased partners who had passed away.
The petitioner anchored their petitions on the following: 1)that under the law, a partnership
is not prohibited from continuing its business under a firm name which includes the name of
a deceased partner; 2) that in regulating other professions, such as accountancy and
engineering, the legislature has authorized the adoption of firm names without any
restriction as to the use, in such firm name, of the name of a deceased partner; 3)that the
Canons of Professional Ethics are not transgressed by the continued use of the name of a
deceased partner in the firm name of a law partnership because Canon 33 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association declares that the continued use
of the name of a deceased or former partner when permissible by local custom, is not
unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this
use; 4) that there is no possibility of imposition or deception because the deaths of their
respective deceased partners were well-publicized in all newspapers of general circulation
for several days; the stationeries now being used by them carry new letterheads indicating
the years when their respective deceased partners were connected with the firm and; 5)
that no local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner's name in a
professional firm's name.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners should be allowed to use in their firm names the
names of their deceased partners
Held: The court ruled in the negative. The court cited the following reasons. First is that
Article. 1815 of the Civil Code provides that Every partnership shall operate under a firm
name, which may or may not include the name of one or more of the partners. Those who,
not being members of the partnership, include their names in the firm name, shall be
subject to the liability, of a partner thus it is clearly tacit in the above provision that names
in a firm name of a partnership must either be those of living partners and. in the case of
non-partners, should be living persons who can be subjected to liability. Second, the courts
said that a partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by
other professionals or for business. For one thing, the law on accountancy specifically allows
the use of a trade name in connection with the practice of accountancy. A partnership for the
practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere relationship or association for a particular
purpose. It is not a partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on trade or business or of
holding property. Thus, it has been stated that "the use of a nom de plume, assumed or
trade name in law practice is improper. And lastly while the court admits that it is true that
Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of a deceased or
former partner in the firm name of a law partnership when such a practice is permissible by
local custom but the Canon warns that care should be taken that no imposition or deception
is practiced through this use. It must be conceded that in the Philippines, no local custom
permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or former partner's name in the firm
names of law partnerships.
Cayetano vs Monsod
FACTS
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC on
April 25, 1991. Cayetano opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess
the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsods
nomination, petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said
confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on
Elections be declared null and void because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having
practiced law for the last ten years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the COMELEC.
HELD:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also considered to
be in the practice of law when he: . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of
advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in
a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court,
commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized
to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the
business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act
or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of
1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees
as lawyer for more than ten years. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist,
a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
In Re: Gutierrez
On April 18, 2012
Legal Ethics 5 SCRA 661 Conditional Pardon will not bar disbarment
Attorney Gutierrez was convicted for the murder of one Filemon Samaco in 1956. He was
sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In 1958, after serving a portion of the penalty, he
was granted a conditional pardon by the President. He was released on the condition that he shall
not commit any crime. Subsequently, the widow of Samaco filed a disbarment case against
Gutierrez by reason of the latters conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Murder, is
without a doubt, such a crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred considering the fact that he was granted
pardon.
HELD: Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not absolute but conditional. It merely remitted
his sentence. It does not reach the offense itself. Gutierrez must be judged upon the fact of his
conviction for murder without regard to the pardon (which he invoked in defense). The crime
was actually qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in hand, by
taking advantage of his official position (Gutierrez being municipal mayor at the time) and with
the use of motor vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to justify his being
purged from the profession.
People vs Tuanda
A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant vs.ATTY. FE T. TUANDA, respondent.
Facts;
Respondent was suspended for practicing his profession until further notice from the Supreme
Court finding her guilty of violating BP 22.
Atty. Tuanda is now appealing to the Supreme Court for her suspension to be lifted arguing that
her suspension was a penalty so harsh on top of the fines imposed to her in violation of the
aforementioned law. Arguing further that she intends no damage to the plaintiff-appellee
(Herminia A. Marquez)and she is not guilty of the offense charged.
Issue;
WON the suspension of Atty. Fe Tuanda be lifted.
Ruling;
The Supreme Court ruled to DENY the respondent of his Motion to Lift Order of Suspension
and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals regarding the suspension. The court found Atty.
Fe Tuanda guilty of an offense involving moral turpitude citing Secs 27 and 28 of the Rules of
Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Metrobank
(Lagro Branch)
Metrobank
(Lagro Branch) [1]
AMOUNT
2620115754
04/14/98
P22,347.00
2620115755
04/16/98
P22,000.00
When deposited, the checks were dishonored. Complainant immediately met with and informed
respondent about it. Respondent promised to redeem the dishonored checks in cash; he never
did.
Ultimately, complainant filed a criminal complaint for estafa against respondent with the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. On 15 August 2001, the City Prosecutor issued a
resolution holding that the necessary Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP
22) should be filed against respondent. Pursuant to the resolution, two Informations for violation
of BP 22 were filed against respondent before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. A
warrant for his arrest was issued but, somehow, respondent was able to evade arrest.
Complainant in his administrative complaint submits that respondent is a disgrace to the law
profession and unfit to be a member of the bar, and that he should be disbarred and his name
stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
Pursuant to an order, dated 31 July 2002, of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on
Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), respondent was furnished with a copy of the complaint and ordered
to submit his answer within fifteen (15) days from his receipt of a copy of the complaint.
1
Despite the receipt of the IBP-CBD order in his two given addresses, respondent failed to file his
answer to the complaint. Respondent was finally declared to be in default.
In its report and recommendation, the IBP-CBD found sufficient evidence on record to
substantiate the charges made by complainant against respondent and recommended that the
latter be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. In Resolution No.
XV-2003-177, dated 26 April 2003, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Clearly, respondents action of
issuing his personal checks in payment for his medical bills, knowing fully well that his account
with the drawee bank has by then already been closed, constitutes a gross violation of the basic
norm of integrity required of all members of the legal profession. The Code of Professional
Responsibility specifically mandates that:
Canon 1.
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01.
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.
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
The canons emphasize the high standard of honesty and fairness expected of a lawyer not only in
the practice of the legal profession but also in his personal dealings as well. A lawyer must
conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and
at all times. [2]
2
When respondent paid, with a personal check from a bank account which he knew had already
been closed, the person who attended to his medical needs and persisted in refusing to settle his
due obligation despite demand, respondent exhibited an extremely low regard to his commitment
to the oath he has taken when he joined his peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image
of the profession he should, instead, hold in high esteem. His conduct deserve nothing less than
a severe disciplinary sanction.
The law profession is a noble calling, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon
individuals who are competent and fit to exercise it. [3]
3
2
3
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso GUILTY of misconduct,
and he is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective
from receipt of this decision, with a warning that any further infraction by him shall be dealt with
most severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to all courts, as well as the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and to the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.