PATRICK A. CARONAN v . RICHARD A. CARONAN a.k.a. “ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN” A.C. No.

11316, 12 July 2016, EN BANC (Sereno, CJ)

FACTS: Complainant and respondent are siblings born to Porferio R. Caronan, Jr. and Norma A. Caronan.

ISSUE: Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name “Patrick A. Caronan” be stricken on the
Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name “Richard A. Caronan” be barred from being admitted to the Bar.

HELD: No. The Court ²nds no cogent reason to disturb the ²ndings and recommendations of the IBP. As
correctly observed by the IBP, complainant has established by clear and overwhelming evidence that he is the
real "Patrick A. Caronan" and that respondent, whose real name is Richard A. Caronan, merely assumed the
latter's name, identity, and academic records to enroll at the St. Mary's University's College of Law, obtain a
law degree, and take the Bar Examinations.

Resolution Cunanan, et. al

18March1954

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino
Cunanan et. al petitioners.

In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest and concern as R.A. 972 popularly
known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a general ave
of 75% in all subjects w/o falling below 50% in any subject, although for the past few exams the passing grades
were changed depending on the strictness of the correcting of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%,
1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-1953 – 75%).

Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and
feeling that they have been discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few
percentages lower than those admitted to the bar went to congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill no. 12,
but was vetoed by the president after he was given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the senate then
approved senate bill no. 372 embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill then became law
on June 21, 1953

Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered
from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is contrary to public
interest since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession,
as evidenced by their failure in the exams.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have on the legal profession and the administration of justice,
the S.C. would seek to know if it is CONSTITUTIONAL.
 An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of the law that should be developed
constantly and maintained firmly.
 The Judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring, and
reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
 The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and the S.C. equal responsibilities concerning the admission
to the practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the constitution recognizes continue to
reside in this court.
 Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the law seeks to “cure” are not the rules set in place by the
S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the court, and this power is not included in the power
granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively w/in the judiciary.
 Reasons for Unconstitutionality:
1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in
attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution.
3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since
the rules made by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated are considered the bare
minimum.)
4. It is a class legislation
5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and being
inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.
HELD:

Under the authority of the court:

1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the said
law are unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and effect.
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is valid
and shall continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 are denied,
and all the candidates who in the examination of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of
below 50% in any subject are considered as having passed whether they have filed petitions for admissions or
not.)

CONRADO QUE VS. ANASTACIO REVILLA JR.

FACTS: Conrado Que filed a disbarment case for Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) of committing various violations on the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court as stated in the following: The respondent’s abuse courts remedies and processes by filing
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title at the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), a petition for annulment of judgment in the RTC and lastly, a petition for declaratory relief
before the RTC (collectively, subject cases) to assail and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial
Court (MeTC) and RTC in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondent clients. The respondent
continually argued and challenged the court for lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC even knowing – fully
well that the competent courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. Furthermore, the respondent
also repeatedly attacked the complainant’s and his siblings’ titles over the property subject of the unlawful
detainer case. The respondent also committed forum – shopping by filing the subject cases in order to obstruct,
impede, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the right of
the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case. Atty.
Revilla fabricated an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open court which allegedly denied the
motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case where the respondent asserted the falsehood.
The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation. Thus, the respondent
also deceived his clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood. The complainant alleged
that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation. Thus, the respondent also deceived his clients
(who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is
also alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late
Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico) who is the previous counsel of the respondent’s clients. he respondent
willfully and fraudulently appeared in the second petition for annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of
the Philippines without being authorized to do so. Atty. Revilla was accused of representing fifty-two (52)
litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority was ever given to him. The respondent answered
the complaint and mostly denied all the allegations.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional
misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.

HELD: Yes. The respondent committed violations in the code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of
Court.
Under the circumstances of abuse of court and processes, the respondent’s repeated attempts go beyond the
legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his client. The respondent
violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a
lawyer to “observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.”
The respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to
attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to degrade the
administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure and add to the congestion of the heavily
burdened dockets of the courts.
The respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to
attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to degrade the
administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure and add to the congestion of the heavily
burdened dockets of the courts.
Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer “never to mislead the judge or
any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law”.
In defending his clients’ interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which reads:

CANON 19 – A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
LAW

Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his clients x x
x

The respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court when he undertook the
unauthorized appearances. The settled rule is that a lawyer may not represent a litigant without authority from
the latter or from the latter’s representative or, in the absence thereof, without leave of court.
Due to Atty. Revilla's multiple violations on the Conduct of Professional Responsibility, and is found liable for
professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules
12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections
20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, we modify the penalty the IBP imposed, and hold
that the respondent should be DISBARRED from the practice of law.

SANTOS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts: Plaintiff Ricardo S. Santos, Jr. was the vice-president of Mover Enterprises, Inc. in-charge of marketing
and sales; and the president of the said corporation was Atty. Oscar Z. Benares. Atty. Benares, in
accommodation of his clients, the spouses Jaime and Clarita Ong, issued check against Traders Royal Bank,
payable to defendant Ernestina Crisologo-Jose. Since the check was under the account of Mover Enterprises,
Inc., the same was to be signed by its president, Atty. Oscar Z. Benares, and the treasurer of the said
corporation. However, since at that time, the treasurer of Mover Enterprises was not available, Atty. Benares
prevailed upon the plaintiff, Ricardo S. Santos, Jr., to sign the aforesaid check. The check was issued to
defendant Ernestina Crisologo-Jose in consideration of the waiver or quitclaim by said defendant over a certain
property which the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) agreed to sell to the spouses Jaime and
Clarita Ong, with the understanding that upon approval by the GSIS of the compromise agreement with the
spouses Ong, the check will be encashed accordingly. Since the compromise agreement was not approved
within the expected period of time, the aforesaid check was replaced by Atty. Benares. This replacement check
was also signed by Atty. Oscar Z. Benares and by the plaintiff Ricardo S. Santos, Jr. When defendant deposited
this replacement check with her account at Family Savings Bank, Mayon Branch, it was dishonored for
insufficiency of funds. The petitioner filed an action against the corporation for accommodation party.

Issue: WON the corporation can be held liable as accommodation party?

Held: No. Accommodation party liable on the instrument to a holder for value, although such holder at the time
of taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party, does not include nor apply to
corporations which are accommodation parties. This is because the issue or indorsement of negotiable paper by
a corporation without consideration and for the accommodation of another is ultra vires. Hence, one who has
taken the instrument with knowledge of the accommodation nature thereof cannot recover against a corporation
where it is only an accommodation party. If the form of the instrument, or the nature of the transaction, is such
as to charge the indorsee with knowledge that the issue or indorsement of the instrument by the corporation is
for the accommodation of another, he cannot recover against the corporation thereon. By way of exception, an
officer or agent of a corporation shall have the power to execute or indorse a negotiable paper in the name of the
corporation for the accommodation of a third person only if specifically authorized to do so. Corollarily,
corporate officers, such as the president and vice-president, have no power to execute for mere accommodation
a negotiable instrument of the corporation for their individual debts or transactions arising from or in relation to
matters in which the corporation has no legitimate concern. Since such accommodation paper cannot thus be
enforced against the corporation, especially since it is not involved in any aspect of the corporate business or
operations, the inescapable conclusion in law and in logic is that the signatories thereof shall be personally
liable therefor, as well as the consequences arising from their acts in connection therewith.