Category: Legal and Judicial Ethics

PENTECOSTES VS MARASIGAN

SECOND DIVISION[ A.M. No. P-07-2337 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-
2060-P), August 03, 2007 ]
ROLLY PENTECOSTES, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. HERMENEGILDO MARASIGAN, CLERK OF COURT VI, OFFICE OF
THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, KABACAN, NORTH
COTABATO, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

The administrative case against respondent stemmed from a sworn affidavit-complaint

filed by Rolly Pentecostes, the owner of a Kawasaki motorcycle, which was recovered by
members of the PNP of M’lang, North Cotabato from suspected carnappers against
whom a criminal case for carnapping, was lodged at RTC.

On the order of the trial court, the chief of police of M’lang, North Cotabato turned over
the motorcycle to respondent who acknowledged receipt thereof.

After the conduct of hearings to determine the true owner of the motorcycle, the trial
court issued an Order for its release to Pentecostes.

Pentecostes immediately asked respondent to release the motorcycle to him.

Respondent, however, told him to wait and come back repeatedly from 2001 up to the
filing of the complaint.

Issue:

On the topic of good moral character

Ruling:

,Section 7 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, provides:

SEC. 7. Safekeeping of property. – The clerk shall safely keep all record, papers, files,
exhibits and public property committed to his charge, including the library of the court,
and the seals and furniture belonging to his office.

From the above provisions, it is clear that as clerk of court of the RTC, Kabacan,
respondent was charged with the custody and safekeeping of Pentecostes’ motorcycle,
and to keep it until the termination of the case, barring circumstances that would justify
its safekeeping elsewhere, and upon the prior authority of the trial court.

No explanation was offered by respondent, however, for turning over the motorcycle.
But whatever the reason was, respondent was mandated to secure prior consultations
with and approval of the trial court.

This Court has repeatedly emphasized that clerks of court are essential and ranking
officers of our judicial system who perform delicate functions vital to the prompt and
proper administration of justice. Their duties include the efficient recording, filing and
management of court records and, as previously pointed out, the safekeeping of exhibits
and public property committed to their charge.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more

particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. The misconduct is grave if it
involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or
to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence. Otherwise,
the misconduct is only simple, as in this case.

CRUZ VS CABRERA
SECOND DIVISION[ A.C. No. 5737, October 25, 2004 ]
FERDINAND A. CRUZ, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA, RESPONDENT.
Facts:
Complainant alleges that he is a fourth year law student; since the latter part of 2001, he
instituted several actions against his neighbors; he appeared for and in his behalf in his
own cases; he met respondent who acted as the counsel of his neighbors; during a
hearing on January 14, 2002, in one case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112,
Pasay City, presided by Judge Caridad Cuerdo.
Respondent’s imputations were uncalled for and the latter’s act of compelling the court
to ask complainant whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the
public, inasmuch as respondent knew that complainant is not a lawyer, having appeared
for and in his behalf as a party litigant in prior cases; respondent’s imputations of
complainant’s misrepresentation as a lawyer was patently with malice to discredit his
honor, with the intention to threaten him not to appear anymore in cases respondent was
handling; the manner, substance, tone of voice and how the words “appear ka ng
appear, pumasa ka muna!” were uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex and
humiliate, malign, ridicule, incriminate and discredit complainant before the public.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Whether or not complainant is not precluded from litigating personally his cases
Whether or not complainant is engaged in the practice of law
Ruling:
1. We hold that respondent’s outburst of “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” does
not amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such
single outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondent’s
suspension or reproof. It is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in
the course of an argument between them. It has been said that lawyers should not be
held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of
chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to condone even
contemptuous language.
2. Nonetheless, we remind respondent that complainant is not precluded from litigating
personally his cases. A party’s right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by
Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. —
In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the
aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney.
In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney,
and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
3. The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a
profession or vocation usually for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative
capacity and as counsel by rendering legal advise to others. Private practice has been
defined by this Court as follows:
x x x. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or
customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent
habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute [referring to the
prohibition for judges and other officials or employees of the superior courts or of the
Office of the Solicitor General from engaging in private practice] has been interpreted as
customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding
payment for such services. x x x.
Clearly, in appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually holding
herself out to the public as a lawyer. Neither was she demanding payment for such
services. Hence, she cannot be said to be in the practice of law.
On the other hand, all lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the
courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar
duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the
dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.
Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified
and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.

Posted on July 22, 2015

0
AGUIRRE VS RANA
EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003 ]
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
EDWIN L. RANA, RESPONDENT
Facts:
Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the scheduled
mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of
Admission to the Bar.
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on
the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now.
Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a
candidate in an election.
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a municipal
government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon,
Masbate. As such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any
court or administrative body.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses
respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan without the
latter engaging respondent’s services. Complainant claims that respondent filed the
pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does
not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar
Ruling:
the Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage
in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the
legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which
requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is
limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained
and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal
knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of
the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing
the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from
one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had
practiced law without a license.
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath.
However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged
lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. 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.
Posted on July 22, 2015
0
AREOLA VS MENDOZA
FIRST DIVISION [ A.C. No. 10135, January 15, 2014 ]

EDGARDO AREOLA, COMPLAINANT,

VS.
ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA, RESPONDENT
Facts:
Areola alleged that during Prisoners’ Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City Jail
and called all detainees with pending cases before the Regional Trial Court where she
was assigned, to attend her speech/lecture. Areola claimed that Atty. Mendoza stated
the following during her speech:
“O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang-areglo ay maging
praktikal sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na hindi
masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at
ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga
detenidong mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge
Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon.”
Atty. Mendoza allegedly said that as she is handling more than 100 cases, all detainees
should prepare and furnish her with their Sinumpaang Salaysay so that she may know
the facts of their cases and their defenses and also to give her the necessary payment
for their transcript of stenographic notes.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct or the code professional
responsibility

Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients to approach the judge and
plead for compassion so that their motions would be granted. This admission
corresponds to one of Areola’s charges against Atty. Mendoza—that she told her clients
“Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso
noon.” Atty. Mendoza made it appear that the judge is easily moved if a party resorts to
dramatic antics such as begging and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed.
As such, the Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Mendoza made
irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that “a lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system.” Rule 15.07 states that “a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance
with the laws and the principles of fairness.”
Posted on July 22, 2015
0
BANSIG VS CELERA
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014 ]
ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A.
CELERA, RESPONDENT
Facts:
Bansig, sister of bunagan narrated that, respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan,
entered into a contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s marriage
with Bunagan, respondent contracted another marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz
Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage Bansig
stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full
legal existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first
marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.
Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his
marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a
member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.

Issue:
whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation
of justice

Ruling:
For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the
name of respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed
bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
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 should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a
member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding
respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is
subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Posted on July 22, 2015
0
TAPUCAR VS TAPUCAR
EN BANC[ A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998 ]
REMEDIOS RAMIREZ TAPUCAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LAURO L. TAPUCAR,
RESPONDENT
Facts:
In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant Remedios Ramirez
Tapucar sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on the ground of
continuing grossly immoral conduct for cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Peña
under scandalous circumstances.
Prior to this complaint, respondent was already administratively charged four times for
conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. in Administrative Matter No. 1740, resolved
on April 11, 1980, respondent, at that time the Judge of Butuan City, was meted the
penalty of six months suspension without pay, while in Administrative Matter Nos. 1720,
1911 and 2300-CFI, which were consolidated, this Court on January 31, 1981 ordered
the separation from service of respondent.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility

Ruling:
Yes.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
his clients. Exacted from him, as a member of the profession charged with the
responsibility to stand as a shield in the defense of what is right, are such positive
qualities of decency, truthfulness and responsibility that have been compendiously
described as “moral character.” To achieve such end, every lawyer needs to strive at all
times to honor and maintain the dignity of his profession, and thus improve not only the
public regard for the Bar but also the administration of justice.
Posted on July 22, 2015
0
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW
EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007 ]
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY,
PETITIONER
Facts:
 Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he
migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He
subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical aid
program. His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-
Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On that day, he
took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General
in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to
resume his law practice.

Issue:
Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar
when he gave up his Philippine citizenship

Ruling:
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be
limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the
Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other
words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in
the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen
of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because
“all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to
have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225].” Therefore, a
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost
his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he is
also deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no
automatic right to resume law practice accrues.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines
and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions “(he) shall apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.
Posted on July 22, 2015
0
LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR.,
EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1370, May 09, 2005 ]
LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR., REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM
PAYMENT OF IBP DUES
Facts:
In his letter, dated 22 September 2004, petitioner sought exemption from payment of
IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years
1977-2005. He alleged that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he
became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986, then migrated to,
and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He
maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in
the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of one’s
profession while in government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years
when he was working in the USA.
Issue:
whether or nor petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the
time that he was inactive in the practice of law
Ruling:
The supreme court held that the payment of dues is a necessary consequence of
membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory
nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one’s membership in the IBP remains
regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.
There is nothing in the law or rules which allows exemption from payment of
membership dues. At most, as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have informed
the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his intention to stay abroad before he left. In such
case, his membership in the IBP could have been terminated and his obligation to pay
dues could have been discontinued.
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere
privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact
compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities.
Posted on July 21, 2015
0
CRUZ VS MINA
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007 ]
FERDINAND A. CRUZ, PETITIONER,
VS.
ALBERTO MINA, HON. ELEUTERIO F GUERRERO AND HON. ZENAIDA
LAGUILLES, RESPONDENTS
Facts:
Ferdinand A. Cruz filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private
prosecutor, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness.
The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies his appearance as
private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the
ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr. that a non-lawyer may
appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. The petitioner
furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior conformity of the public
prosecutor and a written authority of Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his agent in the
prosecution of the said criminal case.
However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied permission for
petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing
limited law student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law
Student Practice Rule) should take precedence over the ruling of the Court laid down in
Cantimbuhan; and set the case for continuation of trial.
Issue:
whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or
friend of a party litigant
Ruling:
The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where
the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may
appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138
provides:
Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace, a party
may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him
for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct
his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party
without the supervision of a member of the bar. (Emphasis supplied)