1. a. Yes, Alauyas actions violate his duties as a public officer.

As a public officer and even an official in the agency which administers justice, Alauya must
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public
order, public safety and public interest and observe strict propriety and decorum. By sending
strongly-worded letters to the Villarosa & Co., and to the NHMF, detailing in acerbic
language Alawis supposed fraudulent and deceitful acts, Alauya deviated from such conduct
which a public officer must possess.

b. No, Alauyas use of the title Attorney is invalid.

The title attorney is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and
successfully taken the bar examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

In this case, Alauya has only been admitted to the Sharia Bar and not to the Integrated Bar
of Philippines. So long as he is not admitted to the Integrated Bar of Philippines, he is not
entitled to be call attorney.

c. Yes, Alauyas use of the franking privilege is valid.

Considering that Alauya gave a subordinate P20 to mail the letters and was supported by an
affidavit of one of his subordinates, it cannot be inferred that he took advantage of the
franking privilege.

2. Yes, by appearing as counsel for Diosdado in the Ejectment proceedings VGR violated his
oath as a lawyer.

To practice his profession as a lawyer and being a Punong Barangay at the same time, VGR must
secure prior authority from the head of his department. Upon his failure to do so, VGR thereby
disobeys the law which contravenes the lawyers oath.

3. Yes, Atty. FRL is guilty of misrepresentation and non-payment of membership dues.

Every member of the IBP has the responsibility to pay his membership and by paying such, he
can therefore engage in the practice of law.

In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. FRL was engaged in law practice without having paid his
IBP dues. Thus, it is immaterial whether or not respondent is only engaged in limited practice
of law. Plus, the exemptions from the payment of individual income taxes of senior citizens does
not include payment membership dues. Also, by indicating IBP-Rizal 256090 in his pleadings,
Atty FRL thereby misrepresents himself to the public and the court that he is paying his dues.

4. Yes, the act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty.

One who aspires to be admitted to the bar must show that he has all the qualifications
prescribed by law; one of which is that he must show that no charges are filed or pending in the
court against him. Such non-disclosure of his pending cases in his application for the admission
to the bar is tantamount to falsehood. Hence, KCC may be disqualified from taking the Bar
Examinations.

5. a. Yes, the disbarment case against Atty. MRG would prosper.

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and shall uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

In this case, the act of contracting a subsequent marriage, despite the subsistence of previous
marriage is an unlawful, dishonest and immoral conduct which also constitutes a criminal
offense; whether such act is committed before his admission to the bar is of no moment. Hence,
by performing such act, Atty. MRG may be disbarred.

b. Yes, the disbarment case against Atty. PBB would prosper.

As a lawyer, Atty. PBB must uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. By assenting
to such marriage despite her knowledge, being a confidante, of Atty. MRGs marriage to MSG,
Atty. PBB failed to live up to the highest standard of morality as a member of the Bar. Thus,
Atty. PBB is equally liable with Atty. MRG.

c. No, the offenses charged have not prescribed.

Whether the immoral act was done before the admission of Atty. MRG to the Bar, it does not
matter since membership in the legal profession is the same as that for continuous enjoyment of
the privilege to practice, and want of moral character is a ground for refusal to admit an
applicant to the bar just as the loss thereof is a ground for cancellation of the license to practice.
Thus, Atty. MRGs contention is untenable.

d. No, motion to dismiss will not prosper.

Considering that MSG has already presented her evidence in the disbarment proceeding and
thereafter filed her motion to dismiss, such merits of the evidence are not affected by her
desistance.

the complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party whose interest in the
outcome of the charge is wholly his or her own;1[16] effectively, his or her
participation is that of a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the
Court.