Legal Ethics 1st SET

7/25/2019 Legal Ethics 1st SET

1/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETADM. CASE No. 3319 June 8, 2000

LESLIE UI,complainant, vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO,respondent.

DE LEON, JR.,J.:

Before us is an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. IrisBonifacio for allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship ith !arlos L."i, husband of complainant, Leslie "i.

The relevant facts are#

$n %anuary &', 1()1 complainant Leslie "i married !arlos L. "i at the $urLady of Lourdes !hurch in *ue+on !ity1and as a result of their maritalunion, they had four '- children, namely, Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay and !arl!avin, all surnamed "i. Sometime in ecember 1(/), hoever,complainant found out that her husband. !arlos "i, as carrying on anillicit relationship ith respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio ith hom he begot a

daughter sometime in 1(/0, and that they had been living together at o.2&) San !arlos Street, Ayala Alabang 3illage in 4untinlupa !ity.5espondent ho is a graduate of the !ollege of La of the "niversity of the6hilippines as admitted to the 6hilippine Bar in 1(/&.

!arlos "i admitted to complainant his relationship ith the respondent.!omplainant then visited respondent at her o7ce in the later part of %une1(// and introduced herself as the legal ife of !arlos "i. 8hereupon,respondent admitted to her that she has a child ith !arlos "i and alleged,hoever9 that everything as over beteen her and !arlos "i.!omplainant believed the representations of respondent and thoughtthings ould turn out ell from then on and that the illicit relationshipbeteen her husband and respondent ould come to an end.

:oever, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship beteenher husband and respondent continued, and that sometime in ecember1(//, respondent and her husband, !arlos "i, had a second child.!omplainant then met again ith respondent sometime in 4arch 1(/( andpleaded ith respondent to discontinue her illicit relationship ith !arlos "ibut to no avail. The illicit relationship persisted and complainant evencame to ;no later on that respondent had been employed by her husbandin his company.

A complaint for disbarment, doc;eted as Adm. !ase o.


2/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETdoc;eted as I.S. o. /(D2&'), but the same as dismissed for insu7ciencyof evidence to establish probable cause for the oense charged. Theresolution dismissing the criminal complaint against respondent reads#

!omplainant>s evidence hadprima facieestablished the eistenceof the illicit relationship beteen the respondents allegedlydiscovered by the complainant in ecember 1(/). The sameevidence hoever sho that respondent !arlos "i as still livingith complainant up to the latter part of 1(// andFor the early partof 1(/(.

It ould therefore be logical and safe to state that therelationship of respondents started and as discovered bycomplainant sometime in 1(/) hen she and respondent !arlosere still living at o. &0 6otsdam Street, ortheast ?reenhills, San

%uan, 4etro 4anila and they, admittedly, continued to live togetherat their conGugal home up to early sic- part of 1(/( or later 1(//,hen respondent !arlos left the same.

Crom the above, it ould not be amiss to conclude that altho sic-the relationship, illicit as complainant puts it, had beenprimafacie established by complainant>s evidence, this same evidencehad failed to evenprima facieestablish the fact of respondent>scohabitation in the concept of husband and ife at the 2&) San!arlos St., Ayala Alabang house, proof of hich is necessary andindispensable to at least create probable cause for the oensecharged. The statement alone of complainant, orse, a statementonly of a conclusion respecting the fact of cohabitation does notma;e the complainant>s evidence thereto any betterFstronger ".S.vs. !asipong and 4ongoy, &@ 6hil. 1)/-.

It is orth stating that the evidence submitted by respondents in

support of their respective positions on the matter support andbolster the foregoing conclusionFrecommendation.

8:E5EC$5E, it is most respectfully recommended that the instantcomplaint be dismissed for ant of evidence to establish probablecause for the oense charged.

5ES6E!TC"LLH S"B4ITTE./

!omplainant appealed the said 5esolution of the 6rovincial Ciscal of 5i+al tothe Secretary of %ustice, but the same as dismissed(on the ground ofinsu7ciency of evidence to prove her allegation that respondent and

!arlos "i lived together as husband and ife at 2&) San !arlos Street,Ayala Alabang, 4untinlupa, 4etro 4anila.

In the proceedings before the IB6 !ommission on Bar iscipline,complainant =led a 4otion to !ite 5espondent in !ontempt of the!ommission1@herein she charged respondent ith ma;ing falseallegations in her Anser and for submitting a supporting document hichas altered and intercalated. She alleged that in the Anser of respondent=led before the Integrated Bar, respondent averred, among others, thatshe as married to !arlos "i on $ctober &&, 1(/2 and attached a!erti=cate of 4arriage to substantiate her averment. :oever, the!erti=cate of 4arriage 11duly certi=ed by the State 5egistrar as a true copyof the record on =le in the :aaii State epartment of :ealth, and dulyauthenticated by the 6hilippine !onsulate ?eneral in :onolulu, :aaii, "SArevealed that the date of marriage beteen !arlos "i and respondent Atty.Iris Bonifacio as $ctober &&, 1(/), and not $ctober &&, 1(/2 as claimedby respondent in her Anser. According to complainant, the reason for thatfalse allegation as because respondent anted to impress upon the saidIB6 that the birth of her =rst child by !arlos "i as ithin the edloc;.1&Itis the contention of complainant that such act constitutes a violation of

Articles 1/< 1


3/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETIn her defense, respondent contends, among others, that it as she hoas the victim in this case and not Leslie "i because she did not ;no that!arlos "i as already married, and that upon learning of this fact,respondent immediately cutDo all her ties ith !arlos "i. She stated thatthere as no reason for her to doubt at that time that the civil status of!arlos "i as that of a bachelor because he spent so much time ith her,and he as so open in his courtship. 1/

$n the issue of the falsi=ed marriage certi=cate, respondent alleged that itas highly incredible for her to have ;noingly attached such marriagecerti=cate to her Anser had she ;non that the same as altered.5espondent reiterated that there as no compelling reason for her to ma;eit appear that her marriage to !arlos "i too; place either in 1(/2 or 1(/),because the fact remains that respondent and !arlos "i got married beforecomplainant confronted respondent and informed the latter of her earliermarriage to !arlos "i in %une 1(//. Curther, respondent stated that it as!arlos "i ho testi=ed and admitted that he as the person responsible forchanging the date of the marriage certi=cate from 1(/) to 1(/2, andcomplainant did not present evidence to rebut the testimony of !arlos "ion this matter.

5espondent posits that complainant>s evidence, consisting of the picturesof respondent ith a child, pictures of respondent ith !arlos "i, a pictureof a garage ith cars, a picture of a light colored car ith 6late o. 6S


4/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

Thereafter, the Board of ?overnors of the Integrated Bar of the 6hilippinesissued a otice of 5esolution dated ecember 1s personalbac;ground prior to her intimate involvement ith him.

Surely, circumstances eisted hich should have at least arousedrespondent>s suspicion that something as amiss in her relationship ith!arlos "i, and moved her to as; probing uestions. Cor instance,respondent admitted that she ;ne that !arlos "i had children ith a

!ompiled by# Angel Sy '
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/ac_3319_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/ac_3319_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/ac_3319_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/ac_3319_2000.html#fnt26


5/95

Legal Ethics 1stSEToman from Amoy, !hina, yet it appeared that she never eerted theslightest eort to =nd out if !arlos "i and this oman ere indeedunmarried. Also, despite their marriage in 1(/), !arlos "i never lived ithrespondent and their =rst child, a circumstance that is simplyincomprehensible considering respondent>s allegation that !arlos "i asvery open in courting her.

All these ta;en together leads to the inescapable conclusion thatrespondent as imprudent in managing her personal aairs. :oever, thefact remains that her relationship ith !arlos "i, clothed as it as ithhat respondent believed as a valid marriage, cannot be consideredimmoral. Cor immorality connotes conduct that shos indierence to themoral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable membersof the community. &)4oreover, for such conduct to arrant disciplinaryaction, the same must be grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corruptand false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to bereprehensible to a high degree.&/

8e have held that a member of the Bar and o7cer of the court is not onlyreuired to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but must also sobehave himself as to avoid scandali+ing the public by creating the beliefthat he is Jouting those moral standards.&(5espondent>s act ofimmediately distancing herself from !arlos "i upon discovering his truecivil status belies Gust that alleged moral indierence and proves that shehad no intention of Jaunting the la and the high moral standard of thelegal profession. !omplainant>s bare assertions to the contrary deserve nocredit. After all, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the!ourt ill eercise its disciplinary poers only if she establishes her caseby clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Act of 1(2


6/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET1('0. The 6resident reuested the vies of this court on the bill.!omplying ith that reuest, seven members of the court subscribed toand submitted ritten comments adverse thereto, and shortly thereafterthe 6resident vetoed it. !ongress did not override the veto. Instead, itapproved Senate Bill o.


7/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

1('( 1,&1/

2


8/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET$f the (,0)2 candidates ho too; the eaminations from 1('0 to 1(2&,2,&


9/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

determining hether the applicant possesses the reuisiteuali=cations to entitle him to admission.

These positions may all be conceded, ithout aecting the validityof the act. p. (


10/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETcomprehensive and conscientious study of this matter had beenunderta;en in the case of State vs. !annon 1(s at La, 0 Bingham>s e !ases &


11/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

standard and limit the class from hich the court must ma;e itsselection. Such legislative uali=cations do not constitute theultimate uali=cations beyond hich the court cannot go in =ingadditional uali=cations deemed necessary by the course of theproper administration of Gudicial functions. There is no legislativepoer to compel courts to admit to their bars persons deemed bythem un=t to eercise the prerogatives of an attorney at la. p.

'2@-

Curthermore, it is an unlaful attempt to eercise the poer ofappointment. It is uite li;ely true that the legislature may eercisethe poer of appointment hen it is in pursuance of a legislativefunctions. :oever, the authorities are ellDnigh unanimous thatthe poer to admit attorneys to the practice of la is a Gudicialfunction. In all of the states, ecept e %ersey %n re5eisch, /sclaim de )ureto have the poer eercised.

And after copying article ( of Act of %uly 1, 1(@& of the !ongress of the"nited States, articles &, 10 and 1) of Act o. 1


15/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET!ourt declared that this la as unconstitutional being, among others, aclass legislation. The !ourt said#

This is an application to this court for admission to the bar of thisstate by virtue of diplomas from la schools issued to theapplicants. The act of the general assembly passed in 1/((, underhich the application is made, is entitled An act to amend section

1 of an act entitled An act to revise the la in relation to attorneysand counselors, approved 4arch &/, 1//', in force %uly 1, 1/)'.

The amendment, so far as it appears in the enacting clause,consists in the addition to the section of the folloing# And everyapplication for a license ho shall comply ith the rules of thesupreme court in regard to admission to the bar in force at the timesuch applicant commend the study of la, either in a la or o7ceor a la school or college, shall be granted a license under this actnotithstanding any subseuent changes in said rules. K %nre ay et al, 2' .H., p. 0'0.

. . . After said provision there is a double proviso, one branch ofhich is that up to ecember


16/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

admitted ithout eamination before ecember


17/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET6ursuant to the la in uestion, those ho, ithout a grade belo 2@ percent in any subGect, have obtained a general average of 0(.2 per cent inthe bar eaminations in 1('0 to 1(21, )@.2 per cent in 1(2&, )1.2 per centin 1(2


18/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at any time for Gusti=able reasons,only this !ourt and no other may revise and alter them. In attempting to doit directly 5epublic Act o. ()& violated the !onstitution.


19/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET.R. No. L119 J#nu#$4 8, 1913

In $e #55"%#!"on o) MARIO UARI6A )o$ #+"ss"on !o !&e 7#$.

CARSON,J.#

5elying upon the provisions of section & of Act o. 12(), the applicant inthis case see;s admission to the bar, ithout ta;ing the prescribedeamination, on the ground that he holds the o7ce of provincial =scal forthe 6rovince of Batanes.

Section & of Act o. 12(), enacted Cebruary &/, 1(@), is as follos#

SE!. &. 6aragraph one of section thirteen of Act umbered $nehundred and ninety, entitled An Act providing a !ode of 6rocedurein !ivil Actions and Special 6roceedings in the 6hilippine Islands, ishereby amended to read as follos#

1. Those ho have been duly licensed under the las and orders ofthe Islands under the sovereignty of Spain or of the "nited Statesand are in good and regular standing as members of the bar of the6hilippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this!ode# Provided,That any person ho, prior to the passage of thisAct, or at any time thereafter, shall have held, under the authorityof the "nited States, the position of Gustice of the Supreme !ourt,

Gudge of the !ourt of Cirst Instance, or Gudge or associate Gudge ofthe !ourt of Land 5egistration, of the 6hilippine Islands, or theposition of AttorneyD?eneral, SolicitorD?eneral, Assistant AttorneyD?eneral, assistant attorney in the o7ce of the AttorneyD?eneral,prosecuting attorney for the city of 4anila, assistant prosecutingattorney for the city of 4anila, city attorney of 4anila, assistant cityattorney of 4anila, provincial =scal, attorney for the 4oro 6rovince,or assistant attorney for the 4oro 6rovince, may be licensed topractice la in the courts of the 6hilippine Islands ithout aneamination, upon motion before the Supreme !ourt andestablishing such fact to the satisfaction of said court.

The records of this court disclose that on a former occasion this applicanttoo;, and failed to pass the prescribed eamination. The report of theeamining board, dated 4arch &s claim de )ure to have the poereercised.

It must be confessed that ere the inuiry limited strictly to the provisionsof local la touching this matter, the contentions of the applicant ouldhave great eight . Cor it is ell settled that in statutory interpretation theord may should be read shall here such construction is necessary togive eect to the apparent intention of the legislator. In 5oc; Island !ountySupervisors vs&"nited States )1 ".S., '


20/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET8hether the ord may in a statute is to be construed as mandatory andimposing a duty, or merely as permissive and conferring discretion, is to bedetermined in each case from the apparent intention of the statute asgathered from the contet, as ell as from the language of the particularprovision. The uestion in each case is hether, ta;en as a hole andvieed in the light of surrounding circumstances, it can be said that apurpose eisted on the part of the legislator to enact a la mandatory in its

character. If it can, then it should be given a mandatory eect. !olby"niversity vs&3illage of !anandaigua ".S.-, 0( Ced., 0)1, 0)


21/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

learning and ability, is entitled to admission as a member of thebar of the Islands and to practice as such in all their courts.

SE!. 12. Certi/cate of good character required&K Every applicantfor admission as a member of the bar must produce the Supreme!ourt satisfactory testimonials of good moral character, and mustsatisfactorily pass a proper eamination upon all the codes of la

and procedure in force in the 6hilippine Islands, and upon suchother branches of legal learning as the Supreme !ourt by generalrule shall provide. . . .

SE!. 10. Place and manner of e(aminations& K Such eaminationsshall be conducted at 4anila, by the Gudges of the Supreme !ourtor by a committee of competent layers by them to be appointed,and shall be held at such times as the Gudges of the court shallprovide by general or special rules.

4anifestly, the Gurisdiction thus conferred upon this court by the!ommission and con=rmed to it by the Act of !ongress ould be limited

and restricted, and in a case such as that under consideration hollydestroyed, by giving the ord may, as used in the above citation fromAct o. 12(), a mandatory rather than a permissive eect. But any Act ofthe !ommission hich has the eect of setting at naught in hole or inpart the Act of !ongress of %uly 1, 1(@&, or of any Act of !ongressprescribing, de=ning or limiting the poer conferred upon the !ommissionis to that etent invalid and void, as transcending its rightful limits andauthority.

The Act of !ongress as the creator of the !ommission and indeed of the?overnment of these Islands, hich is the creature of its creator. Its poersare de=ned, prescribed and limited by the Act hich created it, and bysuch other laful acts of its creator as may further de=ne, prescribe, limit

or epand these poers. It cannot lafully transcend or infringe upon thelimits thus prescribed, and any Act of the !ommission repugnant to the Actof !ongress hich created it, or hich is repugnant to any other laful Actof its creator de=ning, prescribing or limiting its authority is void andinvalid. The various Acts of !ongress conferring poer upon the 6hilippineLegislature, and de=ning, prescribing and limiting this poer, especially theAct of !ongress of %uly 1, 1(@&, are to that Legislature in the nature of anorganic act ith its amendments, binding on it in li;e manner as is the!onstitution of the "nited States upon !ongress itself.

In the great case of 4arbury vs&4adison 1 !ranch, 1)2-, the Supreme!ourt of the "nited States, in a decision ritten by !hief %ustice 4arshall,laid don the doctrine in this regard hich has been folloed by that court

unhesitatingly ever since. In that case the court held that an Act of

!ongress repugnant to the !onstitution cannot become la, and that thecourts of the "nited States are bound to ta;e notice if the !onstitution.

Applying the reasoning of that case to the uestion of the validity of an Actof the 6hilippine !ommission enacted since the date of the passage of the6hilippine Bill hich is found to be in conJict ith the provisions of the Actof !ongress dealing ith the same subGect matter, and especially ith the

provisions of the 6hilippine Bill itself, e thin; there can be no doubt as tothe result. The Act of the !ommission in so far as it is in conJict ith or inany ise repugnant to the various Acts of !ongress dealing ith the samesubGect matter must be held to be void and of no eect. 6araphrasingslightly the language used in the early case of Memper vs&:a;ins 1 3a.!ases, &@D&'-, it may be said that the Acts of the !ongress of the "nitedStates are to the !ommission, or rather to all the departments of the6hilippine ?overnment, hat a la is to individuals9 nay, they constitutenot only a rule of action to the various branches of the ?overnment, but itis from them that the very eistence of the poer of the ?overnment Jos,and it is by virtue of the Acts of !ongress that the poers or portions ofthe right to govern- hich may have been committed to this ?overnmentare prescribed. The Act of !ongress as the !ommission>s commission9

nay, it as its creator.

Section ( of the Act of !ongress, set out above, placed it beyond the poerof the local Legislature to deprive this court of the Gurisdiction or poertheretofore granted to it9 leaving hoever, to local legislative authority theright to confer additional Gurisdiction, or to change the practice and methodof procedure. The aboveDcited provisions of Act o. 1(@, in force at thetime hen the Act of !ongress as enacted, conferred upon this court thepoer and Gurisdiction to deny admission to candidates for the bar unless,in addition to certain other prescribed conditions, they satisfy the courtthat they possess the necessary learning in the la, by passing aneamination prescribed by general rule. It seems clear, therefore, that the!ommission, hile it as undoubtedly authori+ed to modify the provision

reuiring the holding of eaminations under general rules that beingmerely the prescribed mode of procedure hereby the court as reuiredto ascertain the uali=cations of the candidate-, had no authority todeprive this court of its poer to deny admission to any candidate hofails to satisfy it that he possesses the necessary uali=cations foradmission to the bar of the 6hilippine Islands.

In construing a statute enacted by the 6hilippine !ommission e deem itour duty not to give it a construction hich ould be repugnant to an Actof !ongress, if the language of the statute is fairly susceptible of anotherconstruction not in conJict ith the higher la. In doing so, e thin; eshould not hesitate to disregard contentions touching the apparentintention of the legislator hich ould lead to the conclusion that the

!ompiled by# Angel Sy &1


22/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET!ommission intended to enact a la in violation of the Act of !ongress.:oever specious the argument may be in favor of one of to possibleconstructions, it must be disregarded if on eamination it is found to reston the contention that the legislator designed an attempt to transcend therightful limits of his authority, and that his apparent intention as to enactan invalid la.

Blac; on Interpretation of Las at page /) says# In construing a doubtfulor ambiguous statute, the courts ill presume that it as the intention ofthe legislature to enact a valid, sensible, and Gust la, and one hichshould change the prior la no further than may be necessary toeectuate the speci=c purpose of the act in uestion. The constructionshould be in harmony ith this assumption henever possible.

The same author, at pages (< and (', says# :ence it follos that thecourts ill not so construe the la as to ma;e it conJict ith theconstitution, but ill rather put such an interpretation upon it as ill avoidconJict ith the constitution and give it full force and eect, if this can bedone ithout etravagance. If there is doubt or uncertainty as to themeaning of the legislature, if the ords of provisions of the statute are

obscure, or if the enactment is fairly susceptible of to or moreconstructions, that interpretation ill be adopted hich ill avoid the eectof unconstitutionality, even though it may be necessary, for this purpose,to disregard the more usual or apparent import of the language employed.

8ithout undue straining of the language used in the statute underconsideration, the ord may may be construed as either mandatory orpermissive in its eect. But to construe it as mandatory ould bring it indirect conJict ith the Act of !ongress, and e conclude therefore, despitethe contentions of the applicant as to the apparent intention of thelegislator, that it should be given its permissive and not its mandatoryeect, and that the true intention of the legislator as to leave it ithin thediscretion of the court to admit to the bar ithout eamination the o7cials

mentioned in the Act in any case herein the court is otherise satis=edthat they possess the necessary uali=cations.

$rdinarily, and in the absence of any shoing to the contrary, it may fairlybe assumed that an applicant ho has held one of the o7ces mentioned inthe statute, and ho, prior to his appointment, had been admitted to thepractice of la in the courts of these Islands under the former sovereign orin some other Gurisdiction is duly uali=ed for admission to the bar of theseIslands. In the case %n re u Cresne &@ 6hil. 5ep., '//, '(&-, spea;ing ofthe provisions of this Act, e said#

Appointments to the positions mentioned in Act o. 12() are made

either by the 6resident of the "nited States by and ith the advice

and consent of the Senate, or by the ?overnorD?eneral of the6hilippine Islands by and ith the advice and consent of the6hilippine !ommission, and the legislator evidently conceived thatthe fact that such an appointment is made is a su7cient guarantythat after due inuiry the appointee has been found to bepossessed of at least the necessary uali=cations for admission tothe bar.

In the various cases herein applications for admission to the bar underthe provisions of this statute have been considered heretofore, e haveaccepted the fact that such appointments had been made as satisfactoryevidence of the uali=cations of the applicant. But in all of those cases ehad reason to believe that the applicants had been practicing attorneysprior to the date of their appointment.

In the case under consideration, hoever, it a7rmatively appears that theapplicant as not and never had been a practicing attorney in this or anyother Gurisdiction prior to the date of his appointment as provincial =scal,and it further a7rmatively appears that he as de=cient in the reuireduali=cations at the time hen he last applied for admission to the bar.

In the light of this a7rmative proof of his de=ciency on that occasion, edo not thin; that his appointment to the o7ce of provincial =scal is in itselfsatisfactory proof of his possession of the necessary uali=cations oflearning and ability. 8e conclude therefore that this application for licenseto practice in the courts of the 6hilippines should be denied.

In vie, hoever, of the fact that hen he too; the eamination he fellonly four points short of the necessary grade to entitle him to a license topractice9 and in vie also of the fact that since that time he has held theresponsible o7ce of governor of the 6rovince of Sorsogon and presumablygave evidence of such mar;ed ability in the performance of the duties of

that o7ce that the !hief Eecutive, ith the consent and approval of the6hilippine !ommission, sought to retain him in the ?overnment service byappointing him to the o7ce of provincial =scal, e thin; e ould be

Gusti=ed under the aboveDcited provisions of Act o. 12() in aiving in hiscase the ordinary eamination prescribed by general rule, provided heoers satisfactory evidence of his pro=ciency in a special eaminationhich ill be given him by a committee of the court upon his applicationtherefor, ithout preGudice to his right, if he desires so to do, to presenthimself at any of the ordinary eaminations prescribed by general rule. Soordered.

!ompiled by# Angel Sy &&


23/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

B. M. No. 11'( June 8, 200(

IN TE MATTER OF TE DISUALIFICATION OF BAR E:AMINEEARON S. MELIN IN TE 2002 BAR E:AMINATIONS AND FORDISCI*LINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF TE *ILI**INE SARI;ABAR, ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDRE


24/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET6ursuant to this !ourts R ' S ! 0 2 % ! 3 &dated ecember


25/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETnot been charged ith any act or omission punishable by la, rule orregulation before a =scal, Gudge, o7cer or administrative body, or indictedfor, or accused or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any oense orcrime involving moral turpitude9 nor is there any pending case or chargeagainst himFher. espite the declaration reuired by the form, 4eling didnot reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. :is deliberate silenceconstitutes concealment, done under oath at that.

The disclosure reuirement is imposed by the !ourt to determine hetherthere is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of theapplicant.1@The nature of hatever cases are pending against theapplicant ould aid the !ourt in determining hether he is endoed iththe moral =tness demanded of a layer. By concealing the eistence ofsuch cases, the applicant then Jun;s the test of =tness even if the casesare ultimately proven to be unarranted or insu7cient to impugn or aectthe good moral character of the applicant.

4elings concealment of the fact that there are three s failure to honorS6A!>s !ommercial 3ehicle 6olicy o. ('&/0, here respondent Atty.:eherson Alnor ?. Simpliciano as the latter>s counsel. In said cases,respondent ho as not a duly commissioned otary 6ublic in &@@& per!erti=cations1 issued by the !ler; of !ourt of *ue+on !ity 4ercedes S.?atmaytan, performed acts of notari+ation, as evidenced by the folloing

documents, vi+#!ompiled by# Angel Sy &2
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/ac_6492_2004.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/ac_6492_2004.html#fnt1


26/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

1. 3eri=cation&eecuted by Aurora !. ?alve+, 6resident ofdefendant S6A!, subscribed and sorn to before Atty. :ehersonAlnor ?. Simpliciano on Cebruary 1/, &@@& as alleged notary public,in *ue+on !ity and attached to defendants> 3ery "rgent 4otion 1-

To Lift the $rder of efault9 and &- To defer 6lainti>s 6resentationof Evidence ED6arte dated Cebruary 1/, &@@&9

&. A7davits of 4erit 4otion 1- Cor 5econsideration of the$rder dated @2 4arch &@@&9 and &- To allo defendants to 6resentefensive Evidence dated &) 4arch &@@&.

2. The 3eri=cation and !erti=cation Against CorumShopping0signed this time by a certain !elso . Sarto, as a7ant,notari+ed on 10 August &@@& by Atty. :eherson Alnor ?.Simpliciano. This 3eri=cation and !erti=cation Against CorumShopping as attached to defendant>s 4otion Cor Etension of

Time To Cile 6etition "nder 5ule 02 before the !ourt of Appeals9

0. The A7davit of Service)signed by a certain %oseph B. Aganan,another Legal Assistant in Simpliciano and !apela La $7cesubscribed and sorn to before Atty. :eherson Alnor ?. Simplicianoas otary 6ublic on 10 August &@@&. This A7davit of Servicesigned by Aganan as also attached to that 4otion Cor Etensionof Time To Cile 6etition under 5ule 02 before the !ourt of Appeals9

). 3eri=cation and !erti=cation Against Corum Shopping /eecutedby one !elso . Sarto, alleged Eecutive 3ice 6resident and !laims4anager of defendant S6A! and notari+ed by Atty. :ehersonAlnor ?. Simpliciano on 1( August &@@&, attached to the 6etition

for !ertiorari and 6rohibition, etc., =led before the !ourt ofAppeals9 and

/. A7davit of Service(signed by a certain %oseph B. Aganan, LegalAssistant of Simpliciano and !apela La $7ce, subscribed andsorn to before Atty. :eherson Alnor ?. Simpliciano on 1( August&@@&, as alleged otary 6ublic for *ue+on !ity ith notari+ed

commission to epire by ecember


27/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

o7ce respondent as not duly commissioned notary public for andin *ue+on !ity for the year &@@&.

Another certi=cation issued by the !ler; of !ourt of 5T! *ue+on!ity dated April 12, &@@< shoed that as per records on =le iththeir o7ce respondent as commissioned notary public for and in*ue+on !ity from %anuary 1', &@@@ to ecember


28/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETApropos to the case at bar, it has been emphatically stressed thatnotari+ation is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested ithsubstantive public interest, such that only those ho are uali=ed orauthori+ed may act as notaries public. The protection of that interestnecessarily reuires that those not uali=ed or authori+ed to act must beprevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and theadministrative o7ces in general. It must be underscored that the

notari+ation by a notary public converts a private document into a publicdocument ma;ing that document admissible in evidence ithout furtherproof of authenticity. A notarial document is by la entitled to full faith andcredit upon its face. Cor this reason, notaries public must observe ithutmost care the basic reuirements in the performance of their duties.&'

The reuirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public mustnot be treated as a mere casual formality. The !ourt has characteri+ed alayer>s act of notari+ing documents ithout the reuisite commissiontherefore as reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice butalso the crime of falsi=cation of public documents.&2Cor suchreprehensible conduct, the !ourt has sanctioned erring layers bysuspension from the practice of la, revocation of the notarial commission

and disuali=cation from acting as such, and even disbarment.&0

In the case of 3unga v& iray,&)the !ourt had occasion to state that herethe notari+ation of a document is done by a member of the 6hilippine Barat a time hen he has no authori+ation or commission to do so, theoender may be subGected to disciplinary action. Cor one, performing anotarial ithout such commission is a violation of the layer>s oath to obeythe las, more speci=cally, the otarial La. Then, too, by ma;ing itappear that he is duly commissioned hen he is not, he is, for all legalintents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, hich the layer>soath similarly proscribes. These violations fall suarely ithin theprohibition of 5ule 1.@1 of !anon 1 of the !ode of 6rofessional5esponsibility, hich provides# A layer shall not engage in unlaful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

By such misconduct as a notary public, the layer li;eise violates !anon) of the same !ode, hich directs every layer to uphold at all times theintegrity and dignity of the legal profession.

$n dierent occasions, this !ourt had disbarred or suspended layers fornotari+ing documents ith an epired commission#

1. In 8lores v& 0o$ada,&/the court disbarred a layer ho notari+edsi documents such as the etraGudicial partition of an estate, deedof sale ith right of repurchase, and four '- deeds of absolute sale

D all involving unregistered lands, after his commission as otary6ublic epired9

&. In-oson v& Balta$ar,&(the court suspended the layer for three


29/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

A.C. No. 3910 June 28, 2001

JOSE S. DUCAT, JR., complainant, vs. ATTYS. ARSENIO C. ?ILLALON,JR. #n+ CRIS*ULO DUCUSIN,respondents.

DE LEON, JR.,J.

$n August 1', &@@@, a ecision as rendered by this !ourt in the aboveDentitled case, =nding respondent Atty. Arsenio !. 3illalon, %r. guilty of grossmisconduct. The dispositive portion of the !ourt>s ecision reads#

8:E5EC$5E, respondent ATTH. A5SEI$ !. 3ILLAL$, %5. is herebyfound guilty of gross misconduct, and he is S"S6EE from thepractice of la for a period of $E 1- HEA5 ith a arning that arepetition of the same or similar act ill be dealt ith moreseverely. 5espondent 3illalon is further directed to deliver to theregistered oner, complainant %ose ucat %r., the latter>s T!T o. 4Ds personalrecord in the $7ce of the Bar !on=dant and copies thereof befurnished the Integrated Bar of the 6hilippines.

S$ $5E5E.

Crom the aforeDuoted ecision respondent Atty. Arsenio !. 3illalon, %r.see;s this reconsideration.

The =nding of guilt for gross misconduct as based on the 5eport and5ecommendation of the Investigating !ommissioner of the Integrated Barof the 6hilippines upon hom the case as referred for investigation. 8eagain uote the said =ndings for emphasis#

!omplainant and his itness, %ose ucat, Sr., testi=ed in astraightforard, spontaneous and candid manner. The sincerity anddemeanor they displayed hile testifying before the !ommissioninspire belief as to the truth of hat they are saying. 4oreimportantly, respondent failed to impute any ill motive on the partof the complainant and his itness hich can impel them toinstitute the instant complaint and testify falsely against him. To besure, the testimony of the complainant and his itness deservesthe !ommission>s full faith and credence.

5espondent>s evidence, on the other hand, leaves much to bedesired. :is defense that he considered himself the oner of thesubGect property hich as allegedly given to him by %ose ucat,Sr.- rings hollo in the face of a elter of contravening andincontrovertible facts.

CI5ST, the registered oner of the subGect property is complainant%ose ucat, %r. Accordingly, respondent being a layer- ;ne orought to ;no that %ose ucat, Sr. could not possibly give to himthe said property unless the former is duly authori+ed by thecomplainant through a Special 6oer of Attorney. o suchauthori+ation has been given. 4oreover, %ose ucat, Sr. hasvigorously denied having given the subGect property to therespondent. This denial is not too di7cult to believe consideringthe fact that he %ose ucat, Sr.- is not the oner of said property.

SE!$, being a layer, respondent ;ne or ought to ;no thatconveyance of a real property, hether gratuitously or for aconsideration, must be in riting. Accordingly, it is unbelievablethat he ould consider himself the oner of the subGect propertyon the basis of the verbal or oral giving of the property by %oseucat, Sr. no matter ho many times the latter may have said that.

T:I5, the eed of Sale of 6arcel of Land Eh. 1 for therespondent and Eh. AD& for the complainant- allegedly eecutedby %ose ucat, Sr. in favor of respondent Atty. Arsenio 3illalonandFor Andres !anares, %r. covering the subGect parcel of land hich

!ompiled by# Angel Sy &(


30/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

respondent prepared allegedly upon instruction of %ose ucat, Sr. isof dubious character. As earlier adverted to, %ose ucat, Sr. is notthe oner of said property. 4oreover, said eed of Sale of 6arcel ofLand is a falsi=ed document as admitted by the respondent himselfhen he said that the signature over the typeritten name 4aria!abrido ife of %ose ucat, Sr.- as a7ed by %ose ucat, Sr.Being a layer, respondent ;ne or ought to ;no that the act of

%ose ucat, Sr. in a7ing his ife>s signature is tantamount to aforgery. Accordingly, he should have treated the said eed of Saleof 6arcel of Land has sic- a mere scrap of orthless paper insteadof relying on the same to substantiate his claim that the subGectproperty as given to him by %ose ucat, Sr. Again, of note is thefact that %ose ucat, Sr. has vigorously denied having eecutedsaid document hich denial is not too di7cult to believe in thelight of the circumstances already mentioned.

C$"5T:, the eed of Absolute Sale of 5eal 6roperty Eh. & forthe respondent and Eh. ADsduplicate of the subGect T!T o. 4D


31/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

A.C. No. -288 June 1-, 200-

MARILI C. RONUILLO, ALE:ANDER RONUILLO #n+ JONALE:ANDER RONUILLO, $e5$esen!e+ 74 !&e"$ A!!o$ne4"nF#%!SER?ILLANO A. CABUNCAL, !omplainants,vs. ATTY. OMOBONO T. CE


32/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETIn a letter dated 4ay &, &@@@, addressed to complainants,'respondentclaimed that he as or;ing no on a private proGect hich hopefully illbe reali+ed not long from no, and reuested for a period of tenty daysfrom 4ay 12, &@@@ ithin hich to either completely pay !ron Asia orreturn the money at your complainants- option. The period lapsed butrespondent did not ma;e good his promise to pay !ron Asia in full, orreturn the amount paid by complainants.

$n Cebruary &1, &@@&, complainants counsel sent respondent a secondletter2demanding the return of the amount of 6(


33/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

To be sure, complainants gave respondent su7cient time to ful=ll hisobligation. It as only after almost to years had passed, after respondentpromised to pay !ron Asia or return to complainants the amount theypaid him, that complainants sent respondent a second letter /demandingsolely the return of the amount of 6(


34/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

b- It can also be seen that all the orders issued prior to theretirement ere all typeDritten in the same typeDVriterW eceptthe %anuary &2, 1((2 $rder p. /)- and the ecision pp. //D(s A7davitD!omplaint alleging that a careful scrutiny of theepediente of !ivil !ase o. 3D01/0 ould reveal that respondent observeddue process hen he resolved the said case against complainant. 2It asonly hen %udge %ulius Abela, ho succeeded him in 5T!, Br. 1), 5oas!ity, annulled, through a resolution, the uestioned %anuary


35/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

from enforcing andFor implementing his uestioned order datedovember &/, 1(() in !ivil !ase o. 3D01/0, hich ordered thesuspension of Atty. 3illaru+9 and,


36/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETdocumentary evidence.1(The proceedings lasted up to 1@ in theafternoon, ith %udge Alovera ma;ing only to rulings in the coursethereof, including the one he made at the end hen he ordered theplaintis to =le their ritten oer of evidence on %anuary &@, 1(('.&@

Crom this point on, complainant ould establish ho the %anuary


37/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET6rompted by hat he considered to be anomalous proceedings, coupledith the prayer of complainant in her petition for relief that disciplinaryand contempt proceedings be ta;en against those involved in theper=dious anomaly to tamper ith the administration of Gustice, %udgeAbela conducted an investigation into the said anomaly.'&After consideringthe testimonies of 4isses Aluad, apat, Bau+on and Alca+ar during theinvestigation, together ith the documentary evidence presented, heconcluded, thus#

Crom the foregoing facts and circumstances the folloing facts areestablished that#

1- !ivil !ase o. 3D01/0 as not tried on ecember 1@, 1((s charge against respondent that, indeed,the %anuary s cause for money ormalice and ill conduct myself as a layer according to the best of my;noledge and discretion ith all good =delity as ell to the courts as tomy clients and I impose upon myself this obligation voluntary, ithout anymental reservation or purpose of evasion.

S$ :EL6 4E ?$.

!ompiled by# Angel Sy


38/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

This oath to hich all layers have subscribed in solemn agreement todedicate themselves to the pursuit of Gustice, is not a mere ceremony orformality for practicing la''to be forgotten afterards nor is it mereords, drift and hollo, but a sacred trust that every layer must upholdand ;eep inviolable at all times.'2This oath is =rmly echoed and reJectedin the !ode of 6rofessional 5esponsibility, the particular provisions of hichare applicable to the case at bar, provide, to it#

!A$ 1 D A layer shall uphold the constitution, obey the las of the landand promote respect for la and for legal processes.

5ule 1.@1 D A layer shall not engage in unlaful, dishonest, immoral ordeceitful conduct.

5ule 1.@& D A layer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at de=anceof the la or at lessening con=dence in the legal system.

!A$ ) D A layer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of thelegal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

5ule ).@< D A layer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reJects onhis =tness to practice la, nor should he, hether in public or private life,behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

!A$ 1@ D A layer oes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

5ule 1@.@1 D A layer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing

of any in court9 nor shall he mislead or allo the court to be misled by anyarti=ce.

All of these underscore the role of the layer as the vanguard of our legalsystem.8hen respondent too; the oath as a member of the legalprofession, he made a solemn promise to so stand by his pledge. '0In thiscovenant, respondent miserably failed.

The testimonies of enita 4. Aluad, Teresita 3. Bau+on and !oncepcionAlca+ar ere all uite telling on ho respondent acted in a grosslyreprehensible manner in having the uestioned decision dated %anuary


39/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

A.C. No. 3 A5$" 29, 19--

CONCE*CION BOLI?AR,complainant, vs. ABELARDO SIMBOL YMANUEL,respondent.

SANCE


40/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETthe case for decision ithout oral argument. There as no appearance forrespondent.

1. The problem that at once proGects itself is# !an e proceed further onthe face of the facts that# =rst, there is no anser to the complaint of theSolicitor ?eneral9 and, second, at the hearing before this !ourt neitherrespondent nor counsel appearedN The controlling statute, Section s ithdraal and desistance.

That respondent did not ta;e the trouble to anser the Solicitor ?eneral>scomplaint is no unimportant. The directive for him to anser as =rstserved on his layer. Then it as sent to him personally at his address inumaguete !ity9 but the registered mail as unclaimed. either ill hepro=t by nonDappearance on the date of hearing before this !ourtCebruary spromise to marry on the ground of irreconcilable religious belief, else sheould not have complained if this ere so. Indeed, settlement of the

case and the conseuent ithdraal obviously ere part of an overall plancalculated to purge respondent from mischief and to insulate him fromdisciplinary action. To conform to this arrangement is to in; atrongdoing.

This !ourt had heretofore ruledsattention the misconduct of any layer, and action ill usually be ta;enregardless of interest or lac; of interest of the complainant, if the factsproven so arrant. The poer to discipline layers K o7cers of court Kmay not be cut short by a compound of compromise and ithdraal ofcharges.'

!ompiled by# Angel Sy '@


41/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET


42/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

A.M. No. 99 Se5!e7e$ 10, 199

*ILAR ABAIAR, complainant, vs. DA?ID D.C. *A


43/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETcomplainant con=ded her legal problems to him# that after the terminationof the divorce case, the respondent became eceedingly friendly ith thecomplainant and started to profess his love for her9 that at the start, thecomplainant as hesitant in continuing the cordial relations beteen herand the respondent but the respondent made her believe that although heas living ith another oman, his relations ith said oman ere noimpediment that the respondent convinced the complainant that he hadbeen compelled to contract a civil marriage ith the oman and that sinceit as not a marriage under the church las, it as no bar for him to getmarried under the church las ith the complainant9 that the respondentproposed marriage to the complainant9 that believing in this good faith, thecomplainant accepted the proposal of the respondent9 that sometime inthe latter part of ovember 1()@, an application for the issuance of amarriage license to the complainant and the respondent as made andeecuted# that thereafter, the respondent convinced the complainant thatsince they ere going to get married anyay, they should act as husbandand ife9 that because of the con=dence hich the complainant reposedupon the respondent, she reluctantly acceded to said demands9 that as aresult of their being together, the complainant became pregnant but due tocauses beyond her control, the pregnancy as lost9 that sometime in thethird ee; of April 1()1, one 3irginia 6a+ as introduced to the

complainant by the respondent9 that said 3irginia 6a+ as the omanpreviously referred to by the respondent as his ife ith hom he hadcontracted a forced civil marriage9 that said 3irginia 6a+, in the course ofthe meeting, informed the complainant that there had been actually tomarriages beteen 3irginia 6a+ and the respondent, one under the civil laand one under the church la9 that upon being confronted by thecomplainant, the respondent made no eplanation hatsoever and merely;ept silent9 that since that time, the respondent had done nothing to ma;eamends for having deceived the complainant and for having ta;enadvantage of her9 and that the complainant has no other recourse but toas; for the disbarment of the respondent ho is a member of the 6hilippineBar and an o7cer of the courts of Gustice. 1

In his anser =led on %une 1@, 1()1, the respondent denied having had anyillicit relations ith the complainant and alleged that hen the complainantcalled by telephone !ongressman 5amon . Bagatsing, the respondentadvised complainant to come to the o7ce9 that on the net day hen thecomplainant came to the o7ce of !ongressman Bagatsing, she as at =rstreferred to Atty. ?eronimo Clores of the Legal Assistance Service to handlethe case9 that to or three days thereafter, the complainant reuested therespondent to personally handle her case9 that on $ctober s husband, Samuel L. avales,hich letter as signed by !ongressman Bagatsing9 that sometime in thelatter part of $ctober 1()@, the complainant borroed from the respondentthe sum of 6&@@.@@ to complete the payment for the hospitali+ation andtreatment of her brother, Eric, at the 4a;ati 4edical !enter# that as a act

of pity, the respondent gave her the loan9 that after the election fordelegates to the !onstitutional !onvention in ovember 1()@, thecomplainant called at the residence of the respondent and as;ed help in=ling a case against the assailant of her brother ho as stabbed in$longapo !ity9 that the ound sustained by complainant>s brother asonly super=cial and he could not Identify his assailant, hence, no criminalcase as =led9 that after the trip to $longapo, the complainant reuestedthe help of the respondent to recommend her admission to a hospitalbecause of abdominal and chest pains9 that the respondent recommendedcomplainant to be admitted to the Singian !linic located at ?eneral SolanoStreet, San 4iguel 4anila9 that on ecember &@, 1()@, the complainantcaged up the respondent at his residence by telephone and reuested himto assist her mother, 4rs. !ecilia Abaigar to =le a criminal action againsther minor sister, 3ilma Abaigar for disobedience9 that the respondentprepares a complaint on the same night and a sorn statement of hermother, 4rs. !ecilia Abaigar that he accompanied the complainant to theCiscal>s $7ce at 6asig, 5i+al and to the 4unicipal !ourt of 4andaluyong,5i+al here !riminal !ase o. &


44/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

subsisting marriages to their respective spouses, they could legallyget married to each other and based on his promise of marriage,she consented to go to bed ith him.

!omplainant admitted that during her alleged romantic liason ithrespondent, she as married to a certain Samuel avales, also aCilipino, ho divorced her in the ".S.A. sometime in the middle of

1()@ par. &, !omplaint9 p. '0, t.s.n., ovember 1/, 1()1-. She alsoadmitted that before she submitted herself to his seual desires,she as informed by him that, he had a ife ith hom he ascivilly married but that the marriage as void because it as eitherfa;e or >forced> sic-.

8hether there as deceit hinges on hether complainant actuallybelieved the representation of respondent that they could legallymarry. :ighly intelligent that she is and ith the educationalbac;ground that she has, it is di7cult to accept the propositionthat she salloed hoo;, line and sin;er his supposed assurancesthat notithstanding full aareness by both of the eistence ofeach other>s previous marriages, no legal impediment stood in the

ay of their getting married ecclesiastically. It is orthhilerepeating that complainant as a =fth placer in the BoardEaminations for !hemical Engineering. She as licensed as achemical engineer in 1(0' or 1(02, after hich she taught at onetime or another in dierent schools and colleges in 4anila. In 1()@or 1()1 hen she as supposedly tric;ed into surrendering herbody on a promise of marriage, she as already in her latetenties. It is improbable that at this age, she as still ignorant ofthe la regarding indissolubility of marriage. Before Gumpingheadlong into accepting respondent>s proposal that they act ashusband and ife, she should have pondered upon the seriouslegal implications and complications of a second marriage for bothof them. She could have easily as;ed a layer for advice on the

matter. !omplainant>s on neighbor in 4andaluyong, 5i+al is alayer by the name of Atty. 6aler hose ife testi=ed on herbehalf. According to 4rs. 6aler, her husband and complainant usedto converse p. 1/, t.s.n., ovember &s husband as to the legal eects of a divorceobtained abroad by a Cilipino citi+en or the eects of a marriagebrought about through the use of force and intimidation in order tosettle hatever doubts she had in her mind.

The truth hoever, of the matter is that complainant did not evenhave to consult a layer to ;no that she could not legally marryrespondent. It is of no little signi=cance that some persons utili+ed

by complainant as itnesses on her behalf because of theirsupposed ;noledge of her relations ith respondent, erethemselves aare that divorce is not recogni+ed in this country.

Thus 4rs. 6aler categorically stated that she ;ne for a fact thatdivorce obtained abroad is not recogni+ed in the 6hilippines p. 1(,t.s.n., ovember &


45/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET


46/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETcertain 5odolfo del 6rado, ho allegedly in connivance ith therespondent, avid .!. 6a+, made her sign an a7davit preGudicial to herinterest. Among other allegations, the complainant stated in her veri=edcomplaint the folloing.

0. That there never is an illicit relationship beteen Atty. 6a+ andme at present because I believed all along that he as single and

able to marry me. In fact, our relationship is aboveD board Gust li;eany engaged couple.

). That I as made to understand by the !iti+ens Legal Assistant$7ce that the tenor of the a7davit made by 4r. 5udolfo el 6radois such that the consideration for the illicit relationship aspromissory note hich to all intents and purposes is immoral andillegal.

/. That I am only after the collection of the loan hich Atty. 6a+ gotfrom me and not revenge for his deception. -

The foregoing portions of her letter militate against the credibility of thecomplainant.

In her complainant for disbarment, she pictured the respondent as morallyperverse. :oever, in the aforementioned letter, she states that therenever as an illicit relationship beteen her and the respondent, Atty.avid .!. 6a+, and that their relationship as aboveboard Gust li;e anyengaged couple. And =nally, she avers that she as only after thecollection of the loan hich the respondent got from her and not forrevenge for his deception.

It has been held that the poer of this !ourt to disbar a layer should beeercised ith caution because of its serious conseuences. The burden

of proof rests upon the complainant and the case against a respondentmust be established by convincing proof. 8

In4rboleda vs& #atchalian,this !ourt held#

The !ourt has held that in disbarment proceedings, theburden of proof rests upon the complainant and the chargeagainst the layer must be established by convincing proof?o vs. !andoy, A.!. o. )


47/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

A.C. No. 1109 A5$" 2, 200'

MARIA ELENA MORENO,!omplainant, vs. ATTY. ERNESTOARANETA,respondent.

*ER CURIAM

Before this !ourt is a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ernesto S.Araneta for deceit and nonpayment of debts.

The complaint,1dated &2 September 1()&, as =led in this !ourt by 4ariaElena 4oreno on to causes of action. The =rst cause of action involved

Treasury 8arrant o. BD@&(()


48/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETAraneta falsely =lled up the chec; in a desperate bid to turn the tables onher.s certi=cate. 8hile to admit Celipedel 5osario again to the bar eamination ould be tantamount to adeclaration of professional purity hich e are totally unable to pronounce.

The practice of the la is not an absolute right to be granted every oneho demands it, but is a privilege to be etended or ithheld in theeercise of a sound discretion. The standards of the legal profession arenot satis=ed by conduct hich merely enables one to escape the penaltiesof the criminal la. It ould be a disgrace to the %udiciary to receive onehose integrity is uestionable as an o7cer of the court, to clothe him ithall the prestige of its con=dence, and then to permit him to hold himselfout as a duly authori+ed member of the bar. In re Terrell V1(@


55/95

Legal Ethics 1stSET

A.C. No. -0' June 2, 200-

*ETER T. DONTON, !omplainant, vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL O.TANSINCO, 5espondent.

CAR*IO,J.:

T&e C#se

This is a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel $.Tansingco respondent- for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of!anon 1,15ules 1.@1&and 1.@&


56/95

Legal Ethics 1stSETthat respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something in violationof la and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme.

In his !omment dated 1( August &@@


57/95

Legal Ethics 1 SETIntegrated Bar of the 6hilippines, the epartment of %ustice, and all courtsin the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No, -8'( A5$" 2', 200HFo$e$4 CBD C#se No. 0(1380

JUAN DULALIA, JR., !omplainant, vs. ATTY. *ABLO C.CRU


58/95

Legal Ethics 1 SETmention the unbearable nuisances that it creates and its adverse eects tothe undersigned and his above referred to clients particularly the imminentdanger and damage to their properties, health and safety.

It as represented that the intended construction of the building ouldonly be a regular and ith standard height building and not a high riseone but an inspection of the same ould sho otherise. ote that itsaccessory foundation already occupies portion of the vacant airspace ofthe undersigneds residential house in particular, hich readily posesdanger to their residential house and life.

To avert the occurrence of the above danger and damage to property, lossof life and for the protection of the safety of all the people concerned, theyare immediately reuesting for your appropriate action on the matterplease at your earliest opportune time.

Being your coDmunicipal o7cial in the 4unicipal ?overnment of4eycauayan ho is the !hief Legal !ounsel of its Legal epartment, andby virtue of Sub par. '-, 6aragraph b-, Section '/1 of the Local?overnment !ode of 1((1, he is inuiring if there as already full

compliance on the part of the oner of the Building under constructionith the reuirements provided for in Sections


59/95

Legal Ethics 1 SETAnd for engaging in the practice of la hile serving as the 4unicipal Legal$7cer of 4eycauayan, complainant maintains that respondent violated5ule ).@


60/95

Legal Ethics 1 SETconduct, for hich he as suspended for to years after the mitigatingfolloing circumstances ere considered#

a. After his =rst failed marriage and prior to his second marriageor for a period of almost seven )- years, he has not beenromantically involved ith any oman9

b. :is second marriage as a sho of his noble intentions andtotal love for his ife, hom he described to be very intelligentperson9

c. :e never absconded from his obligations to support his ifeand child9

d. :e never disclaimed paternity over the child and husbandrysic- ith relation to his ife9

e. After the annulment of his second marriage, they have partedays hen the mother and child ent to Australia9

f. Since then up to no, respondent remained celibate.&)

In respondents case, he being out of the country since 1(/0, he can begiven the bene=t of the doubt on his claim that Article /< of the !ivil !odeas the applicable provision hen he contracted the second marriageabroad. Crom 1(/2 hen allegedly his =rst ife abandoned him, anallegation hich as not refuted, until his marriage in 1(/( ith ImeldaSoriano, there is no shoing that he as romantically involved ith anyoman. And, it is undisputed that his =rst ife has remained an absenteeeven during the pendency of this case.

As noted above, respondent did not deny he contracted marriage ithImelda Soriano. The community in hich they have been living in factelected him and served as 6resident of the IB6DBulacan !hapter from 1(()D1((( and has been handling free legal aid cases.

5espondents misimpression that it as the !ivil !ode provisions hichapplied at the time he contracted his second marriage and the seeminglyunmindful attitude of his residential community toards his secondmarriage notithstanding, respondent may not go scotfree.

As early as 1(2), this !ourt has froned on the act of contracting a secondmarriage hile the =rst marriage as still in place as being contrary tohonesty, Gustice, decency and morality.&/

In another vein, respondent violated !anon 2 of the !ode of 6rofessional5esponsibility hich provides#

!A$ 2 Z A layer shall ;eep abreast of legal developments, participatein continuing legal education programs, support eorts to achieve highstandards in la schools as ell as in the practical training of la studentsand assist in disseminating information regarding the la and

Gurisprudence.

5espondents claim that he as not aare that the Camily !ode alreadytoo; eect on August o$se, !&e4 #4 7e%oe sus%e5!"7e !o %o"!!"n@"s!#Kes.EREFORE,respondent Atty. 6ablo !. !ru+ is guilty of violating 5ule1.@1 and !anon 2 of the !ode of 6rofessional 5esponsibility and isS"S6EE from the practice of la for one year. :e is 8A5E that asimilar infraction ill be dealt ith more severely.

Let a copy of this ecision be furnished the $7ce of the Bar !on=dant, theIntegrated Bar of the 6hilippines, and all courts throughout the country.

S$ $5E5E.

!ompiled by# Angel Sy 0@

Legal Ethics 1st
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6854_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6854_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6854_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6854_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6854_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6854_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6854_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6854_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6854_2007.html#fnt30


61/95

Legal Ethics 1 SET

A.C. No. L111 M#$%& 20, 19((

TE DIRECTOR OF RELIIOUS AFFAIRS, %o5#"n#n!,vs.ESTANISLAO R. BAYOT,respondent.

O


62/95

gSET

A.C. No. --2 Se5!e7e$ (, 2009

*EDRO L. LINSANAN,!omplainant, vs. ATTY. NICOMEDESTOLENTINO,5espondent.

CORONA,J.:

This is a complaint for disbarment1=led by 6edro Linsangan of the

Linsangan Linsangan R Linsangan La $7ce against Atty. icomedesTolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professionalservices.

!omplainant alleged that respondent, ith the help of paralegal Ce 4arieLabiano, convinced his clients&to transfer legal representation. 5espondentpromised them =nancial assistance


63/95

gSET

1avvphi1

emphasis supplied-

:ence, this complaint.

5espondent, in his defense, denied ;noing Labiano and authori+ing theprinting and circulation of the said calling card.)

The complaint as referred to the !ommission on Bar iscipline !B- ofthe Integrated Bar of the 6hilippines IB6- for investigation, report andrecommendation./

Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the !B, in its report andrecommendation,(found that respondent had encroached on the

professional practice of complainant, violating 5ule /.@&1@

and othercanons11of the !ode of 6rofessional 5esponsibility !65-. 4oreover, hecontravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or throughpaid agents or bro;ers as stated in Section &), 5ule 1


64/95

gSEThaving these seafarers in his client list nor receiving bene=ts fromLabianos referrals. Curthermore, he never denied Labianos connectionto his o7ce.&15espondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep intoanothers legal practice. :e cannot escape liability under 5ule /.@& of the!65.

4oreover, by engaging in a moneyDlending venture ith his clients asborroers, respondent violated 5ule 10.@'#

5ule 10.@' Z A layer shall not borro money from his client unless theclients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or byindependent advice. either shall a layer lend money to a client ecept,hen in the interest of Gustice, he has to advance necessary epenses in alegal matter he is handling for the client.

The rule is that a layer shall not lend money to his client. The onlyeception is, hen in the interest of Gustice, he has to advance necessaryepenses such as =ling fees, stenographers fees for transcript ofstenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.- for amatter that he is handling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the layers independence of mind sothat the free eercise of his Gudgment may not be adversely aected. &&Itsee;s to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as ellas his entire devotion and =delity to the clients cause. If the layer lendsmoney to the client in connection ith the clients case, the layer ineect acuires an interest in the subGect matter of the case or an additionalsta;e in its outcome.&


65/95

SET

A.C. No. 82(3 Ju4 2(, 2009

ROLANDO B. *ACANA, JR.,!omplainant, vs. ATTY. MARICEL *ASCUAL

LO*E


66/95

SETtelecommunications company based in Cinland. !omplainant found theproposed fees to be prohibitive and not ithin his means.0:ence, theretainer agreement remained unsigned.)

After a fe ee;s, complainant as surprised to receive a demand letterfrom respondent/as;ing for the return and immediate settlement of thefunds invested by respondents clients in 4ultitel. 8hen complainantconfronted respondent about the demand letter, the latter eplained thatshe had to send it so that her clients Z defrauded investors of 4ultitel Zould ;no that she as doing something for them and assuredcomplainant that there as nothing to orry about.(

Both parties continued to communicate and echange informationregarding the persistent demands made by 4ultitel investors againstcomplainant. $n these occasions, respondent impressed upon complainantthat she can closely or; ith o7cials of the AntiD4oney Laundering!ouncil A4L!-, the epartment of %ustice $%-, the ational Bureau ofInvestigation BI-, the Bureau of Immigration and eportationsBI-,1@and the Securities and Echange !ommission SE!-11to resolvecomplainants problems. 5espondent also convinced complainant that inorder to be absolved from any liability ith respect to the investmentscam, he must be able to sho to the $% that he as illing to divest anyand all of his interests in 6recedent including the funds assigned to him by4ultitel.1&

5espondent also as;ed money from complainant allegedly for safe;eepingto be used only for his case henever necessary. !omplainant agreed andgave her an initial amount of 6(@@,@@@.@@ hich as received byrespondent herself.1


67/95

SETstate prosecutor for =nancial fraud. Basically e have it covered in allaspects and all departments. I am Gust trying to liuidate the phones I haveallotted for you s ana sic- for your trooper ;asi hether e li;e it or not,e have to give this agencies sic- to ma;e our or; easier according to3al. The funds ith 4ic;ey are already accounted in the uit claims sic- asattorneys sic- fees. I hope he ill be able to send it so e have funds toor; ith.

As for your ;ids, legally they can stay here but recently, it is the childrenho sic- the irate clients and government o7cials harass and ;idnap toma;e the individuals they ant to come out from hiding sic-. I do not antthat to happen. Things ill be really easier on my side.

6lease do not orry. ?ive me < months to ma;e it all disappear. But if youhire !oco, I ill give him the free hand to or; ith your case. 6lease trustme. I have never let you don, have IN I told you this ill happen but eare ready and prepared. The clients ho received the phones ill stand byyou and ma;e you the hero in this scandal. I ill stand by you alays. Thisis my epertise. T5"ST me\ That is all. Hou have an angel on your side.Alays pray though to the best legal mind up there. Hou ill be o;\

!andy&&

$n %uly ', &@@


68/95

SETevidence.


69/95

SETbeen con=ded, but also those in hich no con=dence has been bestoedor ill be used. Also, there is conJict of interests if the acceptance of thene retainer ill reuire the attorney to perform an act hich illinGuriously aect his =rst client in any matter in hich he represents himand also hether he ill be called upon in his ne relation to use againsthis =rst client any ;noledge acuired through their connection. Anothertest of the inconsistency of interests is hether the acceptance of a nerelation ill prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of

undivided =delity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion ofunfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.2&

Indubitably, respondent too; advantage of complainants hapless situation,initially, by giving him legal advice and, later on, by soliciting money andproperties from him. Thereafter, respondent impressed upon complainantthat she had acted ith utmost sincerity in helping him divest all theproperties entrusted to him in order to absolve him from any liability. Butsimultaneously, she as also doing the same thing to impress upon herclients, the party claimants against 4ultitel, that she as doing everythingto reclaim the money they invested ith 4ultitel. 5espondent herselfadmitted to complainant that ithout the latters help, she ould not havebeen able to earn as much and that, as a to;en of her appreciation, she

as illing to share some of her earnings ith complainant.2


70/95

SET

A.C. No. '299 Au@us! 19, 2003

ATTY. ISMAEL . /AN, JR., Ass"s!#n! Cou$! A+"n"s!$#!o$ #n+C&"e), *u7"% In)o$#!"on O%e,!omplainant,vs.ATTY. RI


71/95

SET:ence, the instant petition for certiorari, hich as doc;eted as ?.5. o.12)@2< entitled, 4tty& Ri$alino 2& Simbillo, Petitioner versus %BPCommission on Bar *iscipline, 4tty& %smael #& han, -r&, 4sst& Court4dministrator and Chief, Public %nformation !"ce, Respondents. Thispetition as consolidated ith A.!. o. 2&(( per the !ourts 5esolutiondated 4arch ', &@@


72/95

SETonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed.:oever, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible ith thedignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorousmanner, it ould bring no inGury to the layer and to the bar. &@Thus, theuse of simple signs stating the name or names of the layers, the o7ceand residence address and =elds of practice, as ell as advertisement inlegal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the useof calling cards is no acceptable.&16ublication in reputable la lists, in a

manner consistent ith the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, ofbrief biographical and informative data is li;eise alloable. As eplicitlystated in "lep v. Legal !linic, Inc.#&&

Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of thelayers name and the names of his professional associates9 addresses,telephone numbers, cable addresses9 branches of la practiced9 date andplace of birth and admission to the bar9 schools attended ith dates ofgraduation, degrees and other educational distinctions9 public or uasiDpublic o7ces9 posts of honor9 legal authorships9 legal teaching positions9membership and o7ces in bar associations and committees thereof, inlegal and scienti=c societies and legal fraternities9 the fact of listings inother reputable la lists9 the names and addresses of references9 and, ith

their ritten consent, the names of clients regularly represented.

The la list must be a reputable la list published primarily for thatpurpose9 it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, maga$ine,trade )ournal or periodical hich is published principally for other purposes&8or that reason, a layer may not properly publish his brief biographicaland informative data in a daily paper, maga$ine, trade )ournal or societyprogram& 3or may a layer permit his name to be published in a la listthe conduct, management, or contents of hich are calculated or li5ely todeceive or in)ure the public or the bar, or to loer dignity or standing of theprofession.

The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The cardmay contain only a statement of his name, the name of the la =rm hichhe is connected ith, address, telephone number and special branch of lapracticed. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of ala =rm or of changes in the partnership, associates, =rm name or o7ceaddress, being for the convenience of the profession, is not obGectionable.:e may li;eise have his name listed in a telephone directory but notunder a designation of special branch of la. emphasis and italicssupplied-

>EREFORE, in vie of the foregoing, respondent 5IUALI$ T. SI4BILL$is found ?"ILTH of violation of 5ules &.@< and


73/95

SETthe =rm they could render legal services of the highest uality tomultinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade andinvestment p. memo-. This is unethical because Ba;er R4cMen+ie is not authori+ed to practise la here. See 5uben E. Agpalo,Legal Ethics, 1(/< Ed., p. 112.-

8:E5EC$5E, the respondents are enGoined from practising la under the=rm name Ba;er R 4cMen+ie.

S$ $5E5E.

M#$%& 23, 1929

In $e LUIS B. TAORDA,

MALCOLM,J.:

The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member ofthe provincial board of Isabela, admits that previous to the last generalelections he made use of a card ritten in Spanish and Ilocano, hich, intranslation, reads as follos#

L"IS B. TA?$5A4ttorney3otary Public!AIATE C$5 T:I5 4E4BE56rovince of Isabela

$TE. K As notary public, he can eecute for you a deed of salefor the purchase of land as reuired by the cadastral o7ce9 can

rene lost documents of your animals9 can ma;e your applicationand =nal reuisites for your homestead9 and can eecute any ;indof a7davit. As a layer, he can help you collect your loansalthough long overdue, as ell as any complaint for or against you.!ome or rite to him in his ton, Echague, Isabela. :e oers freeconsultation, and is illing to help and serve the poor.-

The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed toa lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality ritten in Ilocano, hichletter, in translation, reads as follos#

E!:A?"E, ISABELA, September 1D, 1;ED

!ompiled by# Angel Sy )s position,and all other li;e selfDlaudation, defy the traditions and loer thetone of our high calling, and are intolerable.

&/. STI55I? "6 LITI?ATI$, I5E!TLH $5 T:5$"?: A?ETS. K Itis unprofessional for a layer to volunteer advice to bring alasuit, ecept in rare cases here ties of blood, relationship ortrust ma;e it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is notonly unprofessional, but it is indictable at common la. It isdisreputable to hunt up defects in titles or other causes of actionand inform thereof in order to the employed to bring suit, or tobreed litigation by see;ing out those ith claims for personalinGuries or those having any other grounds of action in order tosecure them as clients, or to employ agents or runners for li;epurposes, or to pay or reard directly or indirectly, those ho bringor inJuence the bringing of such cases to his o7ce, or to

!ompiled by# Angel Sy )'

Legal Ethics 1stSET


75/95

SETremunerate policemen, court or prison o7cials, physicians, hospitalattaches or others ho may succeed, under the guise of givingdisinterested friendly advice, in inJuencing the criminal, the sic;and the inGured, the ignorant or others, to see; his professionalservices. A duty to the public and to the profession devolves uponevery member of the bar having ;noledge of such practices uponthe part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof to theend that the oender may be disbarred.

!ommon barratry consisting of freuently stirring up suits and uarrelsbeteen individuals as a crime at the common la, and one of thepenalties for this oense hen committed by an attorney as disbarment.Statutes intended to reach the same evil have been provided in a numberof Gurisdictions usually at the instance of the bar itself, and have beenupheld as constitutional. The reason behind statutes of this type is notdi7cult to discover. The la is a profession and not a business. The layermay not see; or obtain employment by himself or through others for to doso ould be unprofessional. State vs&5ossman V1(@(W, 2< 8ash., 19 1)Ann. !as., 0&29 6eople vs&4ac !abe V1/(


76/95

SET6etitioner prays this !ourt to order the respondent to cease and desistfrom issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that ofannees A and B of said petition- and to perpetually prohibit personsor entities from ma;ing advertisements pertaining to the eercise of thela profession other than those alloed by la.

The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follos#

4nne( 4

SE!5ET 4A55IA?EN620@.@@ for a valid marriage.Info on I3$5!E. ABSE!E.A"L4ET. 3ISA.

T:E 6lease call# 2&1D@)0) LE?AL 2&1)&


77/95

SETli;e clearance, passports, local or foreign visas, constitutes practiceof laN

The Integrated Bar of the 6hilippines IB6- does not ish to ma;eissue ith respondent>s foreign citations. Su7ce it to state that theIB6 has made its position manifest, to it, that it strongly opposesthe vie espoused by respondent to the eect that today it isalright to advertise one>s legal services-.

The IB6 accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition torespondent>s act of establishing a legal clinic and ofconcomitantly advertising the same through nespaperpublications.

The IB6 ould therefore invo;e the administrative supervision ofthis :onorable !ourt to perpetually restrain respondent fromunderta;ing highly unethical activities in the =eld of la practice asaforedescribed.(

A. The use of the name The Legal !linic, Inc. gives the impressionthat respondent corporation is being operated by layers and thatit renders legal services.

8hile the respondent repeatedly denies that it oers legal servicesto the public, the advertisements in uestion give the impressionthat respondent is oering legal services. The 6etition in factsimply assumes this to be so, as earlier mentioned, apparentlybecause this is- the eect that the advertisements have on the

reading public.

The impression created by the advertisements in uestion can betraced, =rst of all, to the very name being used by respondent KThe Legal !linic, Inc. Such a name, it is respectfully submittedconnotes the rendering of legal services for legal problems, Gust li;ea medical clinic connotes medical services for medical problems.4ore importantly, the term Legal !linic connotes layers, as theterm medical clinic connotes doctors.

Curthermore, the respondent>s name, as published in theadvertisements subGect of the present case, appears ith the-

scales- of Gustice, hich all the more reinforces the impression thatit is being operated by members of the bar and that it oers legalservices. In addition, the advertisements in uestion appear ith apicture and name of a person being represented as a layer from?uam, and this practically removes hatever doubt may stillremain as to the nature of the service or services being oered.

It thus becomes irrelevant hether respondent is merely oering

legal support services as claimed by it, or hether it oers legalservices as any layer actively engaged in la practice does. Andit becomes unnecessary to ma;e a distinction beteen legalservices and legal support services, as the respondent ouldhave it. The advertisements in uestion leave no room for doubt inthe minds of the reading public that legal services are beingoered by layers, hether true or not.

B. The advertisements in uestion are meant to induce theperformance of acts contrary to la, morals, public order andpublic policy.

It may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, theadvertisements in uestion are only meant to inform the generalpublic of the services being oered by it. Said advertisements,hoever, emphasi+e to ?uam divorce, and any la student oughtto ;no that under the Camily !ode, there is only one instancehen a foreign divorce is recogni+ed, and that is#

Article &0. . . .

8here a marriage beteen a Cilipino citi+en and a foreigneris validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validlyobtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him orher to remarry, the Cilipino spouse shall have capacity to

remarry under 6hilippine La.

It must not be forgotten, too, that the Camily !ode de=nes- amarriage as follos#

!ompiled by# Angel Sy ))

Legal Ethics 1stSET


78/95

SETArticle 1. 4arriage is special contract of permanentunionbeteen a man and oman entered into accordanceith la for the establishment of conGugal and family life.%tis the foundation of the family and an inviolable socialinstitution hose nature, conseuences, and incidents aregoverned by la and not subGect to stipulation, ecept thatmarriage settlements may = the property relation duringthe marriage ithin the limits provided by this !ode.

By simply reading the uestioned advertisements, it is obvious thatthe message being conveyed is that Cilipinos can avoid the legalconseuences of a marriage celebrated in accordance ith our la,by simply going to ?uam for a divorce. This is not only misleading,but encourages, or serves to induce, violation of 6hilippine la. Atthe very least, this can be considered the dar; side of legalpractice, here certain defects in 6hilippine las are eploited forthe sa;e of pro=t. At orst, this is outright malpractice.

5ule 1.@&. K A layer shall not counsel or abet activitiesaimed at de=ance of the la or at lessening con=dence inthe legal system.

In addition, it may also be relevant to point out thatadvertisements such as that shon in Anne A of the 6etition,hich contains a cartoon of a motor vehicle ith the ords %ust4arried on its bumper and seems to address those planning asecret marriage, if not suggesting a secret marriage, ma;eslight of the special contract of permanent union, the inviolablesocial institution, hich is ho the Camily !ode describesmarriage, obviously to emphasi+e its sanctity and inviolability.8orse, this particular advertisement appears to encouragemarriages celebrated in secrecy, hich is suggestive of immoralpublication of applications for a marriage license.

If the article 5 for Legal 6roblems is to be revieed, it canreadily be concluded that the above impressions one may gatherfrom the advertisements in uestion are accurate. The Sharon!unetaD?abby !oncepcion eample alone con=rms hat theadvertisements suggest. :ere it can be seen that criminal acts arebeing encouraged or committeda bigamous marriage in :ong Mong or Las 3egas- ith impunitysimply because the Gurisdiction of 6hilippine courts does not etendto the place here the crime is committed.

Even if it be assumed, arguendo, that- the legal support servicesrespondent oers do not constitute legal services as commonly

understood, the advertisements in uestion give the impressionthat respondent corporation is being operated by layers and thatit oers legal services, as earlier discussed. Thus, the only logicalconseuence is that, in the eyes of an ordinary nespaper reader,members of the bar themselves are encouraging or inducing theperformance of acts hich are contrary to la, morals, goodcustoms and the public good, thereby destroying and demeaningthe integrity of the Bar.

It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enGoinedfrom causing the publication of the advertisements in uestion, orany other advertisements similar thereto. It is also submitted thatrespondent should be prohibited from further performing oroering some of the services it presently oers, or, at the veryleast, from oering such services to the public in general.

The IB6 is aare of the fact that providing computeri+ed legalresearch, electronic data gathering, storage and retrieval,

standardi+ed legal forms, investigators for gathering of evidence,and li;e

Documents

Legal Ethics 1st SET