Additional Cases:
in a local law school in the Phils. And must present certifications required
In re: Amparo
Facts:
Amparo is a bar examinee who was caught by the head watcher reading a
piece of paper during the bar examination in Criminal Law. He refuses to
surrender the paper until the head watcher threatened to report him to
the authorities. The paper contains the list of duration of penalties and
formula computing them, which Amparo justifies as just a piece of paper
that fell out of his pocket as he tried to get his handkerchief. A report was
filed and an investigation ensued.
Issue:
WON Amparo is guilty for his actions?
Ruling:
Yes. He violated Rule 133, section 10 prohibiting examinees from bringing
papers, books, or notes into the examination room. Amparo committed an
overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading notes. The report of
the bar showed that he did not passed the bar thus the court ordered he
will not be allowed to re-take the bar the following year.
In Re: Application of A.M Hernandez
Facts:
Hernandez is a Filipino citizen who have a degree of Juris Doctor from
Columbia Law School in New York and passed the bar examinations in the
same City in 1990. He is currently taking bar subjects in Ateneo Law School
and taking a 5 month bar review course there. He now asks the court to
allow him to take the bar exam in the Phils.
Issue:
WON the S.C. may allow him to take the bar exam in the Phils.
Ruling:
Yes, he may be allowed to take the bar because there were some
instances in the past where a Filipino studied law in a foreign law school
and were allowed to take the bar in the Philippines. However, the court
held this time that in the following year, applicants for the Bar must study
by Section 5 and 6 of Rule 138 to be able to take the bar. Such certification
however is not issued to foreign law school graduates therefore anyone
who wants to take the bar in the country should study in any of the law
schools in the Phils. to be able to take the bar exam.
Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. B.M. No. 1370 May 9, 2005
FACTS: Petitioners files a motion for exemption for paying his IBP dues
from 1977-2005 in the amount of P12,035.00. He contends that after
admission to the Bar he worked at the Phil. Civil Service then migrated to
the US until his retirement. His contention to be exempt is that his
employment with the CSC prohibits him to practice his law profession and
he did not practice the same while in the US. The compulsion that he pays
his IBP annual membership is oppressive since he has an inactive status as
a lawyer. His removal from the profession because of non-payment of the
same constitutes to the deprivation of his property rights bereft of due
process of the law.
ISSUE: WON inactive practice of the law profession is an exemption to
payment for IBP annual membership.
RULING: The court held that the imposition of the membership fee is a
matter of regulatory measure by the State, which is a necessary
consequence for being a member of the Philippine Bar. The compulsory
requirement to pay the fees subsists for as long as one remains to be a
member regardless whether one is a practicing lawyer or not. Thus, his
petition for exemption from paying his IBP membership fee dues is denied.
Santos Jr. v Llamas
FACTS: This is a complaint against respondent for misrepresentation and
non-payment of IBP membership dues. For years, the respondent does not
indicate proper PTR no. in his practice of the law profession. Now of old
age, he contends that he is engaged in the limited practice of his
profession and as a senior citizen, he is exempt from paying taxes and
membership dues with the IBP.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing
to limited practice of law and for being a senior citizen.
RULING:
No. He is not exempt since Rule 139-A requires all IBP members to pay the
annual fee and failure thereof for 6 months merits suspension of the
membership and for 1 year becomes a ground for removal of the
member’s name from the Rolls of Attorney regardless one is a practicing
lawyer or not. His non-renewal of his PTR is a misrepresentation to the
public and the courts that he has paid his dues violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Diao v Martinez 7 SCRA 745 3.29.63
FACTS:
2 years after passing the Bar exam, a complaint was filed against Diao on
false representation of his application to the Bar examination that he has
the requisite academic qualification. The Solicitor General made an
investigation and recommended to strike the name of Diao off the rolls of
attorney because contrary to the allegations in his petition for
examination in this Court, he had not completed, before taking up law
subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department
of Private Education.
WON Diao may continue to practice the law profession.
RULING: The court held that his admission to the bar was under the
pretense that he had acquired a pre-legal education, an academic
requirement before one could take the bar exam. Such admission having
been obtained under false pretenses is thereby revoked. The fact that he
hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is
not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law, taking the
prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.
His name thus was stricken out from the Rolls of Attorneys.
Vda. De Mijares v Justice Villaluz A.C. No. 4431 6.19.97
FACTS:
Complainant files a disbarment case against the respondent on grounds of
bigamy after contracting a marriage with another woman several months
after their marriage. Respondent contends theirs was a sham marriage in
an effort to protect the complainant from the administrative case on
immorality to be charged against her by her legal researcher and that
during their marriage his marriage with his first wife was subsisting since
the declaration of its annulment was not yet final and executory pending
publication of the decision. The administrative case was referred to
Associate Justice Purisima of CA for investigation who recommended
suspension of the respondent for 2 years with a warning that similar
future misconduct shall be dealt with more severely.
ISSUE:
WON respondent be disbarred.
RULING:
Yes. The mere admission of the respondent of contracting the marriage
with the complainant while knowingly his first marriage subsists and then
married another woman after said marriage with complainant is a gross
misconduct. His claim that he married complainant to protect her from the
administrative charge against her is unfounded since one cannot correct a
wrong by doing another wrongful act. Finding the respondent morally
unfit in the practice of the law profession, the court upheld the
recommendation of Justice Purisima.
Pepsi Cola vs Court of Appeals
Facts:
The case is a petition for review and certiorari by the petitioner upon the
denial by the lower and appellate court on their motion for
reconsideration for the postponement of the hearing due to unavailability
of their witnesses and for declaring that the petitioner waived its right to
present evidence in support to its defense. The case began from the civil
action filed by private respondents who won from the Pepsi Number Fever
Promotion" sponsored by petitioner Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc.,
wherein numerous holders of the supposedly winning "349" crowns were
not honored and paid by petitioner due to an alleged mistake in the
security codes in the crowns. While the private respondents are finished
presenting their evidence, the petitioner continues to file a motion for
postponement due to unavailability of witnesses. The schedule for
presentation of evidence began on May 28, 1993 and with frequent
postponement, the court issued a warning to the petitioner’s counsel that
the scheduled hearing on January 20, 1995 shall be intransferrable in
character. Notwithstanding said warning, petitioner moved for
postponement again which motion was denied by the court for
unreasonable delay on the case. The court of appeals affirmed the said
decision hence this petition for certiorari
ISSUE:
WON the court erred in denying the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
RULING: The court held that the petitioner was given ample time to
prepare for their witnesses causing the trial to take up to 2 years due to
their motion for postponement and reminded the counsel of the
petitioner that they have the duty to give proper administration of justice
without any delay and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Yumolvs Atty. Ferrer
Facts: The petitioner, OIC of the Commission on Human Rights, files a
disbarment case against respondent, Attorney IV said commission on
ground for grave misconduct. The respondent was found to have issued 2
orders awarding custody of a child to a complainant in the Commission,
ordered a bank to reinstate the bank account of the said complainant,
engaging in private practice, notarizing public documents, and attending
court hearings while filling up his DTR at the Commission as present at the
same time. The case was referred to the IBP and the investigating
commissioner recommended suspension for 2 years which was modified
by the IBP Board to 6 months.
ISSUE: WON respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the
following alleged acts:
1. Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a
government employee;
2. Falsifying his Daily Time Records;
3. Issuing unauthorized orders; and
4. Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case
against him for engaging in private practice.
RULING:
The court held on the following:
1. CHR Resolution No. (III) A2002-133 authorizes CHR lawyers to engage in
private practice (adopting the Civil Service Commission Resolution) subject
to some conditions with indispensable requirement to secure approval
from the CHR. In the absence of such approval, the respondent is not
allowed in private practice and proved to have falsified his attendance in
the DTR while appearing in court at the same time without approved leave
of absence.
2. The respondent has been notarizing even before the CHR authorized his
practice as a notary public.
3. The authority granted with the CHR in their function is merely to
investigate all forms of human rights violation. They cannot try and decide
cases.
With the above constituting grounds for suspension of lawyers stated in
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the court ruled to modify the
suspension of 1 year as sufficient sanction.
Cruz v Atty. Cabrera
Facts:
The complainant files an administrative charge against the respondent for
misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
complainant, a fourth year law student, appears in court in his own behalf
as he instituted a case against his neighbor who is represented by the
respondent as counsel. During a hearing, the respondent uttered remarks
that the complainant finds arrogant and misconduct in the performance of
his duties as a lawyer. The complaint was referred to the IBP commissioner
who recommended suspension of respondent in the practice of law for 3
months which was annulled by a resolution of the IBP Board
recommending dismissal of the case for lack of merit.

ISSUE:
WON the manner of respondent may constitute misconduct.
RULING:
The court ruled that although the outburst of the respondent is uncalled
for, it is not to such a magnitude as to warrant his suspension in the
practice of his profession. The court thereby dismissed the case due to lack
of merit.
Aguirre v Rana
FACTS
Respondent is a successful bar passer who was allowed only to take oath
but not to sign the roll of attorneys pending the resolution of the
complaint of the petitioner who charges respondent with unauthorized
practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave
misrepresentation. Apparently, the respondent appeared as counsel to an
election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers
(“MBEC”) of Masbate before he took his oath and signed the rolls of
attorneys. In his comment, respondent alleges he only provide specific
assistance and advice not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law.
He contends that he did not sign the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office of
the Bar Confidant was tasked to investigate and its findings disclosed that
according to the minutes of the meeting of the MBEC, the respondent
actively participated in the proceeding and signed in the pleading as
counsel for the candidate.
Issue:
WON the respondent is fit for admission to the bar.
Ruling:
The court held that respondent did engaged in unauthorized practice of
law. It held that all the activities he participated during that time involves
the practice of law despite the fact that he is not yet a member of the Bar.
The right to practice law is not a right but a privilege extended to those
morally upright and with the proper knowledge and skills. It involves strict
regulation, one of which is on the moral character of its members. Passing
the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law.
Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a
lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be
administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
Because the court finds respondent not morally fit to be admitted in the
Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already took his oath, he was denied
admission to the bar.
In Re: Lanuevo 66 SCRA 254 August 29, 1975
FACTS:
This is an administrative proceeding against VictorioLanueva who was the
Bar Confidant during the 1971 Bar Examination emanating from the
revelation of one Oscar Landicho, a bar examinee of the same bar exam, in
his confidential letter that the result of the bar exam of one of the bar
examinee later identified as Ramon Galang was raised before the result
was released to make him pass the bar. Acting upon said letter, the court
called the 5 bar examiners and the Bar Confident Lanuevo to submit their
sworn statements on the matter. It appears that each of the 5 bar
examiners were approached by Lanuevo with the examination booklet
asking them to re-evaluate the grades of the bar examiner explaining that
it is a practice policy in bar exams that he will review the grades obtained
in all subjects by an examinee and when he finds a candidate to have
extraordinary high grades in other subjects and low grade in one subject
he can bring it to the examiner for reconsideration to help the candidate
pass. In good faith of trust and confidence to the authority of Lanuevo, the
examiners re-evaluated the exam of the candidate and reconsider the
grade they give for each subject matter. Further investigation also
revealed that Ramon Galang was charged with crime of slight physical
injuries in the Mla. MTC but did not revealed the information in his
application to take the bar examination.
ISSUE:
WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar examiners to re-evaluate and
re-correct the examination result of a bar candidate.
RULING:
The court ruled that it is evident that Lanuevo has deceptively staged a
plot to convince each examiner individually to re-evaluate the grades of
Galang in order to help him pass the bar without prior authorization of the
Court. His duty as a Bar Confident is limited only as a custodian of the
examination notebooks after they are corrected by the examiners where
he is tasked to tally the general average of the bar candidate. All requests
for re-evaluation of grades from the bar exam shall be made by the
candidate themselves. With the facts fully established that Lanuevo
initiated the re-evaluation of the exam answers of Galang without the
authority of the Court, he has breached the trust and confidence given to
him by the court and was disbarred with his name stricken out from the
rolls of attorneys. Galang was likewise disbarred for fraudulently
concealing the criminal charges against him in his application for the bar
exam while under oath constituting perjury. The court believed that the 5
bar examiners acted in good faith and thereby absolved from the case but
reminded to perform their duties with due care.
TapucarvsTapucar A.C. No. 4148
FACTS:
Disbarment was filed against Atty. LauroTapucar by his wife on grounds for
gross immoral conduct for cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Peña
under scandalous circumstances. Prior to the disbarment case, an
administrative case was filed against Atty. Tapucar in connection with his
co-habitation in which he was penalized with 6 months suspension
without pay. He continued the illicit affair that gave rise to another charge
against him on grounds for conduct unbecoming for a court officer and
gross immoral conduct which caused his dismissal and separation from the
service as a judge. He continued his cohabitation that born 2 children and
he eventually marry the paramour in the subsistence of his previous
marriage and completely abandoned his real family. The wife migrated in
the States but was receiving complaints from their children left in the
Philippines who are humiliated with said act of Atty, Tapucar. This caused
the wife to institute a disbarment case to shield their daughter with her
daughter-lawyer representing her case. The IBP commissioner
recommended the disbarment of Atty. Tapucar.
RULING:
The court held that it is a settled rule that good moral character is a
precedent condition for admission in the legal profession and must be
remain intact to maintain one’s good standing as member in the Bar. The
facts showed that despite previous sanction to Atty. Tapucar, he continued
his illicit affair and he even showed arrogance in the face of charges
against him in the presence of the IBP commission. Thus, he was disbarred
and his name was stricken out from the rolls of attorneys.
In Re: Argosino B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995
FACTS:
This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar
applicant. Argosino was previously involved with hazing that caused the
death of Raul Camaligan but was sentenced with homicide through
reckless imprudence after he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced with 2
years imprisonment where he applied for a probation thereafter which
was granted by the court with a 2yr probation. He took the bar exam and
passed but was not allowed to take oath. He filed a petition to allow him
to take the attorney’s oath of office averring that his probation was
already terminated. The court note that he spent only 10 months of the
probation period before it was terminated.
ISSUE:
WON Argosino may take oath of office.
RULING:
The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good morals of all Bar
members, keeping in mind that such is of greater importance so far as the
general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned,
than the possession of legal learning. Hence he was asked by the court to
produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed and have
become a responsible member of the community through sworn
statements of individuals who have a good reputation for truth and who
have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify
he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The court also
ordered that said a copy of the proceeding be furnished to the
family/relatives of Raul Camaligan.
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente Ching B.M
No. 914, October 1, 1999.
Facts:
Vicente Ching is born from a Filipino mother and a father of Chinese
national on April 11, 1964. He took the bar exam subject upon submission
of proof of his Phil. Citizenship. He passed the bar at the age of 35 years
old. There was a question regarding his citizenship therefore he was not
allowed to take oath. The Solicitor General was asked to give comment on
the case at bar.

ISSUE:
WON Ching can be admitted to take oath in consideration of the status of
his citizenship.

RULING:
The court ruled that Ching, being the "legitimate child of a Chinese father
and a Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constitution was a Chinese
citizen and continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority
he elected Philippine citizenship" 1 in strict compliance with the provisions
of Commonwealth Act No. 625 entitled "An Act Providing for the Manner
in which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a
Person Whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen." He should elect his Phil.
Citizenship within a reasonable period of time upon reaching the age of
majority which is 21 years old at that time. With almost 14 years that
elapsed upon reaching his age of majority, Ching failed to exercise such
right of citizenship election beyond a reasonable period of time therefore
he cannot be admitted in the Phil. Rolls of atty. for being a Chinese citizen.