For the first half of my second term, I made a reviewer/summary of case doctrines of assigned cases. The topics covered are the Code of Judicial Conduct, The Lawyer's Oath, Practice of Law & the Power to Control and Regulate the Practice of Law, Cases on Requirement of Citizenship, Cases on Requirement of Good Moral Character, The Student Practice Rule, etc. I'm sharing this because I know that other law schools have just begun with their second semester and I am hoping that this post will help.
P.S. This is best used as a reviewer on your midterm exams, after of course, reading the full text of each case.
LEGAL ETHICS:
SUMMARY OF CASE DOCTRINES
CODE OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT
Marquez
vs. Clores-Ramos, AM No. P-96-1182, July 19, 2000
It cannot be
overemphasized that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of
integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit
the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his
official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to
preserve the Court’s good name and standing. This is because the image of a court
of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of
the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of
its personnel. Thus, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and every
one in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of
justice.
The Code
of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be
free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his duties in the
judicial branch but also to his behavior outside the court as a private
individual. There is no dichotomy of morality; a court employee is also judged
by his private morals. These exacting standards of morality and decency have
been strictly adhered to and laid down by the Court to those in the service of
the judiciary. Respondent, as a court stenographer, did not live up to her
commitment to lead a moral life. Her act of maintaining relation with Atty.
Burgos speaks for itself.
Office
of the Court Administrator vs. Liangco, A.C. 5355, December
In Sps. Donato v. Atty. Asuncion, Jr. citing Yap
v. Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr., this Court explained the concept of
gross misconduct as any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on
the part of a person concerned with the administration of justice; i.e.,
conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination
of the cause. The motive behind this conduct is generally a premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose.
As a member of the bar and former judge, respondent is
expected to be well-versed in the Rules of Procedure. This expectation is
imposed upon members of the legal profession, because membership in the bar is
in the category of a mandate for public service of the highest order. Lawyers
are oath-bound servants of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by
inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement
of the quest for truth and justice, for which they have sworn to be fearless
crusaders.
As judge of a first-level court, respondent is
expected to know that he has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for
declaratory relief. Moreover, he is presumed to know that in his capacity as
judge, he cannot render a legal opinion in the absence of a justiciable
question. Displaying an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he in
effect erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts.
Moreover, he demonstrates his ignorance of the power and responsibility that
attach to the processes and issuances of a judge, and that he as a member of
the bar should know.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates
that a lawyer must uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the legal
processes.
INEXCUSABLE
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW in violation of Canons 1 and 10, Rule 10.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
RULE 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel
or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system.
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not
knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or
knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the
rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
LAWYER’S OATH
Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999
In the light of the
foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for
violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Deception and other
fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a
lawyer. They are
unacceptable practices. A
lawyer’s relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree
of good faith, fairness and candor. This
is the essence of the lawyer’s oath. The
lawyer’s oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that
must be upheld and keep inviolable. The nature of the office of an
attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character.This requisite is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also
essential for remaining in the practice of law.We have sternly warned that any gross
misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts
his moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him
unfit to continue in the practice of law.
The practice of law is
not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege.We must stress that membership in the
bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice
law only during good behavior. He
can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by
judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be heard.
Here, it is worth
noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of the
IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous
acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in
removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his
unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant.
In Re: Petition Of Al Argosino To Take The Lawyers Oath, B.M.
No. 712, March 19, 1997
De Guzman vs. De Dios, A.C. No. 4943. January 26, 2001
As a lawyer, respondent
is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission and to
conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her knowledge and
discretion. The lawyer’s
oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for
suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.
Berenguer vs. Carranza, A.C. No. 716 January 30, 1969
A lawyer's oath
is one impressed with the utmost seriousness; it must not be taken lightly.
Every lawyer must do his best to live up to it. There would be a failure of
justice if courts cannot rely on the submission as well as the representations
made by lawyers, insofar as the presentation of evidence, whether oral or
documentary, is concerned. If, as unfortunately happened in this case, even
without any intent on the part of a member of the bar to mislead the court,
such deplorable event did occur, he must not be allowed to escape the responsibility
that justly attaches to a conduct far from impeccable.
THE PRACTICE OF LAW
Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991
Black defines
"practice of law" as:
The rendition
of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited
to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation,
but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions
and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of
all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all
advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the
law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where
he is held out to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an
attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing
counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services
rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.)
The provision on qualifications regarding
members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or involve actual practice of law
outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers
who are employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in
their respective work within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for
appointment as members or commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on
Audit.
ULEP vs. Legal Clinic, Inc. Bar Matter
No. 553 June 17, 1993
Public
policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive
right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited privilege subject
to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional
conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client and the
bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and
not subject to the disciplinary control of the court.
Anent the issue on the validity
of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts. He
is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding
his qualifications or legal services. Nor
shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in
anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business. Prior to the adoption of the
code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also
warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for
professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or
procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the
lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position,
and all other like self-laudation.
The standards of the legal
profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill
as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The prescription
against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests
on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession.
Exceptions to the rule against
advertising or solicitation:
1. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner
consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief
biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be misleading and
may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his
professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses;
branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar;
schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinction; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships;
legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations and
committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities;
the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of
references; and, with their written consent, the names of clients regularly
represented."
The law list must be a reputable
law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental
feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published
principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly
publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine,
trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be
published in a law list the conduct, management or contents of which are
calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower
the dignity or standing of the profession.
2. The use of an ordinary simple professional card
is also permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his name, the name
of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and
special branch of law practiced.
3. The publication of a simple announcement of the
opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name
or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not
objectionable.
4. He may likewise have his name listed in a
telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch of law.
Philippine Lawyers’ Association vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-12426,
February 16, 1959
The practice of law is
not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation
in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition,
conveying. In general, all advice
to clients, and all action taken for them in mattersconnected with the
law incorporation services,
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a
judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim
in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal
instruments, where the work
done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect
of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263).
Practice of law under
modem conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any
court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces
conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and
the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field
of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these transactions may
have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to
become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree
of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for
adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an
attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of
justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question
set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the
lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice
and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare
of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons
possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting
at all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all
attorneys. (Moran, Comments on
the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile
Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139,144).
In conclusion, we
hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by
this Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their
profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business
in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and
application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the
presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the
functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so
that appeals from his orders and decisions are, under the law, taken to the
Supreme Court.
Aguirre vs. Rana, B. M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003
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.
Burbe vs. Magulta, AC No. 99-634,June 10, 2002
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rules 16.01 and 18.03 which
state that respectively:
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of
his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the
funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He
shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he
has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
The Practice of Law – a
Profession, Not a Business
Lawyering is not primarily meant to
be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily
yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a
secondary consideration. Duty to public service and to the administration of justice
should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
personal interests or what they owe to themselves. The practice of law is a
noble calling in which emolument is a byproduct, and the highest eminence may
be attained without making much money.
Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that lawyers
shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and properties that may come
into their possession.
·
Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them
are in gross violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of
public confidence in the legal profession.
POWER TO CONTROL AND REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW
In
re: Cunanan, March 18, 1985
FACTS:
RA
972 “Bar Fluners Act of 1953”
Objectives: to admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered
from:
(a) Insufficiency of reading materials and (b) inadequate
preparation. By its declared objective, the law is contrary to public interest
because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate
preparation for the practice of the profession.
·
Admission to
practice of law is almost without exception conceded everywhere to be the
exercise of a judicial function. Admission to practice have also been held to
be the exercise of one of the inherent powers of the court.
·
If the
legislature cannot indirectly control the action of the courts by requiring of
them construction of the law according to its own views, it is very plain it
cannot do so directly, by settling aside their judgments, compelling them to
grant new trials, ordering the discharge of offenders, or directing what
particular steps shall be taken in the progress of a judicial inquiry.
HELD: In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the
bar examinations of 1946 to 1952, a general average of 70 per cent without
falling below 50 per cent in any subject, be admitted in mass to the practice
of law, the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment — a judgment
revoking those promulgated by this Court during the aforecited year affecting
the bar candidates concerned; and although this Court certainly can revoke
these judgments even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that
only this Court, and not the legislative nor executive department, that may be
so. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear
usurpation of its functions, as is the case with the law in question.
That the Constitution has
conferred on Congress the power to repeal, alter or supplement the rule
promulgated by this Tribunal, concerning the admission to the practice of law,
is no valid argument. Section 13, article VIII of the Constitution provides:
Section 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate
rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the
admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
The existing laws on pleading, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as
statutes, and are declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of the Supreme
Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall have the power to
repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. —
Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VIII, sec. 13.
RATIONALE: The public interest demands
of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as
legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult. An adequate legal
preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should
be developed constantly and maintained firmly. To the legal profession is
entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties. To approve
officially of those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to
such a delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. Moreover, the
statement that there was an insufficiency of legal reading materials is grossly
exaggerated.
Florence
Teves Macarubbo v. Atty. Edmundo L. Mararubbo, ADM Case No. 6148, January 22,
2013
Charge: WHEREFORE, respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is found guilty
of gross immorality and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. He is
likewise ORDERED to show satisfactory evidence to the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline and to this Court that he is supporting or has made provisions for
the regular support of his two children by complainant. Let respondent's name
be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
FACTS: Respondent here has exhibited the vice of entering into
multiple marriages and then leaving them behind by the mere expedient of
resorting to legal remedies to sever them. Respondent also failed to support
his children by complainant. Such pattern of misconduct by respondent
undermines the institutions of marriage and family, institutions that this
society looks to for the rearing of our children, for the development of values
essential to the survival and well-being of our communities, and for the strengthening
of our nation as a whole. This must be checked if not stopped.
HELD: As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of
good moral character but must also be perceived to be of good moral character
and must lead a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the
bar to continue as such, including that which makes a mockery of the inviolable
social institution of marriage, outrages
the generally accepted moral standards of the community.
In sum, respondent has breached
the following precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
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 shall he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Javellana
vs. DILG, et. al., G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992
FACTS: Javellana
is an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago
City, and a lawyer by profession who has continuously engaged in the practice
of law without securing authority for that purpose from the Regional Director,
Department of Local Government, as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No.
80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58.
·
As to members of the bar the authority
given for them to practice their profession shall always be subject to the
restrictions provided for in Section 6 of Republic Act 5185. In all cases, the practice of any profession
should be favorably recommended by the Sanggunian concerned as a body and by
the provincial governors, city or municipal mayors, as the case may be.
·
c) That no conflict of interests between the
practice of profession or engagement in private employment and the official
duties of the concerned official shall arise thereby;
Five months
later or on October 10, 1991, the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) was
signed into law, Section 90 of which provides:
Sec. 90. Practice of Profession. - (a)
All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their
profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their
functions as local chief executives.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtual law library
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their
professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during
session hours: Provided,
That sanggunian members who are members of the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any
civil case wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or
instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case
wherein an officer or employee of the national or local government is accused
of an offense committed in relation to his office;
(3) Collect any fee for
their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the Government
except when the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the
Government.
HELD: Petitioner's
contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the
Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular
trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the
practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No.
90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts
of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private
practice of their profession, in those instances where the law allows it.
Frias
vs. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 6656, May 4, 2006
The court held that the defense of
prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against
lawyers. And in the 2004 case of Heck v. Santos, we declared
that an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not
prescribe.
If the rule were otherwise, members
of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as
lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private
complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being
completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to
answer for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the
practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No matter how
much time has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of
and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench
and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This
categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and
bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyer’s Oath.
·
The CBD-IBP derives its authority to
take cognizance of administrative complaints against lawyers from this
Court which has the inherent power to regulate, supervise and control
the practice of law in the Philippines. Hence, in the exercise of its delegated
power to entertain administrative complaints against lawyers, the CBD-IBP
should be guided by the doctrines and principles laid down by this Court.
In the Matter Of
The Integration Of The Bar Of The Philippines, January 9, 1973
Integration of the Philippine Bar
means the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the
Philippines. This requires membership and financial
support (in reasonable
amount) of every attorney as conditions sine
qua non to the practice of
law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme
Court.
The term "Bar" refers to
the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An
Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.
The Court is of
the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power,
under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission
to the practice of law." Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent
part of the Court's constitutional authority over the Bar. In providing that
"the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of
the Philippine Bar," Republic Act 6397 neither confers a new power nor
restricts the Court's inherent power, but is a mere legislative declaration
that the integration of the Bar will promote public interest or, more
specifically, will "raise the standards of the legal profession, improve
the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively."
The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:
— Courts have inherent power to
supervise and regulate the practice of law.
— The practice of law is not a
vested right but a privilege; a privilege, moreover, clothed with public
interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but also to his
brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation; and takes part in
one of the most important functions of the State, the administration of
justice, as an officer of the court.
— Because the practice of law is
privilege clothed with public interest, it is far and just that the exercise of
that privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public
responsibilities.
— These public responsibilities
can best be discharged through collective action; but there can be no
collective action without an organized body; no organized body can operate
effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair and just that all
attorneys be required to contribute to the support of such organized body; and,
given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of doing so is by
integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all lawyers to pay
annual dues to the Integrated Bar.
Freedom of Association.
Integration does not make a
lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He became a
member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that integration
actually does is to provide an official national organization for the
well-defined but unorganized and in cohesive group of which every lawyer is
already a member.
Bar integration does not compel
the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the
meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its
elections as he chooses. The body compulsion to which he is subjected is the
payment of annual dues.
Regulatory Fee.
A membership fee in the
Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation, while the purpose of a tax is
revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that
as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose.
It would not be possible to push through an Integrated Bar program without
means to defray the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of implied powers
necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.
Fair to All Lawyers.
Bar integration is not unfair to
lawyers already practising because although the requirement to pay annual dues
is a new regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a new system which
they hitherto have not had and through which, by proper work, they will receive
benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their public
responsibilities in a more effective manner than they have been able to do in
the past. Because the requirement to pay dues is a valid exercise of regulatory
power by the Court, because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young and
old, at the time Bar integration takes effect, and because it is a new
regulation in exchange for new benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not
unequal, it is not unfair.
Exception No. 1 of the Syllabus (Section 1, Rule 138-A, Rules of Court)
In Re: Need That Law Student Practicing
Under Rule 138-A Be Actually Supervised During Trial, Bar Matter No. 730, June
13, 1997
For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold
that a law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court under Rule 138-A
should at all times be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. Section 2 of Rule
138-A provides.
Section 2. Appearance. — The
appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be under the
direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions,
briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed the by
supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no less than the
physical presence of the supervising lawyer during the hearing. This is in
accordance with the threefold rationale behind the Law Student Practice Rule, to
wit:
1. to ensure that there will
be no miscarriage of justice as a result of incompetence or inexperience of law
students, who, not having as yet passed the test of professional competence,
are presumably not fully equipped to act a counsels on their own;
2. to provide a mechanism by
which the accredited law school clinic may be able to protect itself from any
potential vicarious liability arising from some culpable action by their law
students; and
3. to ensure consistency with
the fundamental principle that no person is allowed to practice a particular
profession without possessing the qualifications, particularly a license, as
required by law.
The rule clearly states that the appearance of
the law student shall be under the direct control and supervision of a member
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by law schools.
·
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that a law student
appearing before the Regional Trial Court under the authority of Rule 138-A
must be under the direct control and supervision of a member of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school and that said law
student must be accompanied by a supervising lawyer in all his appearance.
Cruz vs. Mina, G.R. No. 154207, April 27,
2007
RULE 138-A LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
Section 1. Conditions for
Student Practice. – A law student who has successfully completed his 3rd
year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by the
Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or
administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to
represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.
Sec. 2. Appearance. – The
appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be under the
direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs,
memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising
attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
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
municipality 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.
·
Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance
before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether
or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, by
virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or a
friend of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior
courts.
CASES ON REQUIREMENT OF CITIZENSHIP
Re: Application
for Admission to the Bar Vicente D. Ching, B.M. No. 914, October 1, 1999
Under Article IV, Section 1(3) of the
1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a
Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father,
unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine
citizenship. 4 This right to elect Philippine citizenship
was recognized in the 1973 Constitution when it provided that "(t)hose who
elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of
nineteen hundred and thirty-five" are citizens of the Philippines. 5 Likewise,
this recognition by the 1973 Constitution was carried over to the 1987
Constitution which states that "(t)hose born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority" are Philippine citizens.
C.A.
No. 625 which was enacted pursuant to Section
1(3), Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, prescribes the procedure
that should be followed in order to make a valid election of Philippine
citizenship. Under Section 1 thereof, legitimate children born of Filipino
mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention "in
a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer
authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil
registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath
of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines."
Cases on Requirement of Good Moral Character:
In The Matter Of The Disqualification Of Bar Examinee Haron
S. Meling In The 2002 Bar Examinations And For Disciplinary Action As Member Of
The Philippine Shari’a Bar, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez, B.M. No. 1154, June 8,
2004
In Bar Matter 1209, the Court stated, thus:
It has been held that good moral character
is what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation or from the
opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the
public in the place where he is known. Moral
character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective
reality. The standard of
personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it
merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral character includes at least
common honesty.
Narag vs. Narag, A.C. No. 3405 June 29, 1998
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.”
Thus, good moral character is not only a
condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of
the bar. Hence, when a
lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred.
Immoral
conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral,
but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
We explained in Barrientos vs. Daarol that, “as officers of the
court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also
be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the
highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar
and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those
moral standards.”
Advincula vs. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007
As may be gleaned from above, the
Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Lawyers have been repeatedly
reminded that their possession of good moral character is a continuing condition to preserve
their membership in the Bar in good
standing. The continued possession of good
moral character is a requisite
condition for remaining in the practice of law.[6] In Aldovino
v. Pujalte, Jr., we emphasized that:
This Court has been exacting in its demand for
integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all
times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain
from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by
the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. And whenever it is made to
appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the
public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court, which
made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within
its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.
It should be noted that the
requirement of good moral character has four ostensible purposes, namely:
(1) to protect the public;
(2) to protect the public image of
lawyers;
(3) to protect prospective clients;
and
(4) to protect errant lawyers from
themselves.
Immorality has not been confined to
sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative
of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant,
or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable
members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and
public welfare.
Villanueva vs. Sta. Ana, CBD CASE No. 251, July 11, 1995
Well-settled is the rule that good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the legal
profession but it must also remain extant in order to maintain one's good
standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. The Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates:
CANON
1 — . . . .
Rule
1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
CANON
16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
that may come into his possession.
Rule
16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
Cordova vs. Cordova, A.M. No. 3249, November 29, 1989
After a review of the
record, we agree with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. We also agree that
the most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent, assuming the
same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral
behavior of the respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely
reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself.
An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show that he
is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and
dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that
requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in
good standing.
Tapucar vs. Tapucar, A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998
As this Court often reminds members of the
Bar, they must live up to the standards and norms expected of the legal
profession, by upholding the ideals and tenets embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility always. Lawyers
must maintain a high standards of legal proficiency, as well as morality
including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For they are at all times subject to
the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and community approbation. Needless to state, those whose conduct
– both public and private – fails this scrutiny would have to be disciplined
and, after appropriate proceedings, penalized accordingly.
Keeping a mistress, entering into another
marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning and/or
mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family
obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyer’s oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long
period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent’s character, his
moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of
established norms. All
these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the
integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict
but appropriate disciplinary action.
Bacarro vs. Pinatacan, Adm. Case No. 559-SBC January 31, 1984
One of the indispensable requisites for
admission to the Philippine Bar is that the applicant must be of good moral
character. This requirement aims to maintain and
uphold the high moral standards and the dignity of the legal profession, and
one of the ways of achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble
profession only those persons who are known to be honest and to possess good
moral character. "As a man of law, (a lawyer) is
necessary a leader of the community, looked up to as a model citizen" He sets an example to his fellow
citizens not only for his respect for the law, but also for his clean living. Thus, becoming a lawyer is more than
just going through a law course and passing the Bar examinations. One who has
the lofty aspiration of becoming a member of the Philippine Bar must satisfy
this Court, which has the power, jurisdiction and duty to pass upon the
qualifications, ability and moral character of candidates for admission to the
Bar, that he has measured up to that rigid and Ideal standard of moral fitness
required by his chosen vocation.
As in the Tan cases, We hold
that herein respondent Pinatacan had failed to live up to the high moral
standard demanded for membership in the Bar. He had seduced complainant into
physically submitting herself to him by promises of marriage. He even eloped
with her and brought her to another place. He got her pregnant and then told
her to have an abortion When complainant refused, he deserted her. Complainant
had to track him down to ask him to help support their child born out of
wedlock, and during the few times that she was able to see him, respondent
merely made promises which he apparently did not intend to keep. On top of all
these, respondent had the audacity and impudence to deny before this Court in a
sworn Affidavit the paternity of his child by complaint.
Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012
From the undisputed facts gathered from
the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, we find that
respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his
former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction.
Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but
also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong
because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of
having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect
for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity.
Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very young woman with
money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the
human person and the ethics of his profession.
Respondent has violated the trust and
confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who for a
time was under respondent’s care. Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent
and complainant was or was not with the latter’s consent is of no moment.
Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly
reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of morality
required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly.
Leda
vs. Tabang, A.C. No. 2505 February 21, 1992
Firstly, his
declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that
he was "single" was a gross
misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith,
for which he should be made answerable. Rule
7.01, Canon
7, Chapter II of the Code of
Professional Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly
making a false statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with
his application for admission to the bar." That false statement, if it had
been known, would have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar
Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral character.
Respondent's lack
of good moral character is only too evident. He
has resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit himself. He has also engaged in devious
tactics with Complainant in order to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that
"a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court" as well
as Rule 1001 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
court to be misled by any artifice." Courts
are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers
appearing and pleading before them. Respondent, through his actuations, has
been lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but
also as an officer of the Court.
Laguitan
vs. Tinio, A.M. No. 3049 December 4, 1989
The Court agrees that respondent
Tinio deserves to be suspended from the practice of law but not merely because
he has failed in his obligation to support the children complainant bore him
but also because for a prolonged period of time, he lived in concubinage with
complainant, a course of conduct inconsistent with the requirement of good
moral character that is required for the continued right to practice law as a
member of the Philippine Bar,
Concubinage imports moral turpitude and entails a public assault upon the basic
social institution of marriage.
Guevarra
vs. Atty. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007
While
it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations
between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant
administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.
Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal
law, sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and
immoral as it manifests deliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws.
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel
M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation
of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In
Re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975; In Re: Ramon E. Galang,
A.C. No. 1163 August 29, 1975; In Re: HON. BERNARDO PARDO, HON. RAMON PAMATIAN,
ATTY. MANUEL TOMACRUZ, ATTY. FIDEL MANALO And ATTY. GUILLERMO PABLO, JR.,
Members, 1971 Bar Examining Committee, A.M. No. 1162
It is
patent likewise from the records that respondent Lanuevo too undue advantage of
the trust and confidence reposed in him by the Court and the Examiners implicit
in his position as Bar Confidant as well as the trust and confidence that
prevailed in and characterized his relationship with the five members of the
1971 Bar Examination Committee, who were thus deceived and induced into
re-evaluating the answers of only
respondent Galang in five subjects that resulted in the increase
of his grades therein, ultimately enabling him to be admitted a member of the
Philippine Bar.
Section
2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court of 1964, in connection, among others, with the character requirement of
candidates for admission to the Bar, provides that "every applicant for
admission as a member of the Bar must be ... of good moral
character ... and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines."
·
Respondent Galang when he took the Bar for the first time in
1962 did not expressly require the disclosure of the applicant's criminal
records, if any.
·
Galang continued to intentionally withhold or conceal from
the Court his criminal case of slight physical injuries which was then and
until now is pending in the City Court of Manila; and thereafter repeatedly
omitted to make mention of the same in his applications to take the Bar
examinations in 1967, 1969 and 1971.
Being a lawyer should not be a money-making profession but should be a profession that is driven by the desire to show the truth. By the way, thank you very much for the ideas you've shared here. For other useful infos, you can visit: www.ndvlaw.com.
ReplyDelete