You are on page 1of 72

JONAR SANTIAGO, Complainant,

- versus - Complainant likewise alleged that Respondent


Atty. EDISON V. RAFANAN, Respondent. executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered the
x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- x same as evidence in the case wherein he was actively
representing his client. Finally, Complainant alleges that
DECISION on a certain date, Respondent accompanied by several
persons waited for Complainant after the hearing and after
PANGANIBAN, J.: confronting the latter disarmed him of his sidearm and
thereafter uttered insulting words and veiled threats.[6]
Notaries public are expected to exert utmost care in the performance of
their duties, which are impressed with public interest. They are enjoined
to comply faithfully with the solemnities and requirements of the Notarial
Law. This Court will not hesitate to mete out appropriate sanctions to On March 23, 2001, pursuant to the January 19, 2001 Order of the CBD,
[7]
those who violate it or neglect observance thereof. Atty. Rafanan filed his verified Answer.[8] He admitted having
administered the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits were attached to
The Case and the Facts the verified Complaint. He believed, however, that the non-notation of
their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and the Counter-affidavits
Before us is a verified Complaint[1] filed by Jonar Santiago, an was allowed.
employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), for
the disbarment of Atty. Edison V. Rafanan. The Complaint was filed with He opined that the notation of residence certificates applied only
the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the to documents acknowledged by a notary public and was not mandatory
Philippines (IBP) on January 16, 2001. It charged Atty. Rafanan with for affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other government
deceit; malpractice or other gross misconduct in office under Section 27 offices. He pointed out that in the latter, the affidavits, which were sworn
of Rule 138[2] of the Rules of Court; and violation of Canons 1.01, 1.02 to before government prosecutors, did not have to indicate the residence
and 1.03[3], Canon 5[4], and Canons 12.07[5] and 12.08 certificates of the affiants. Neither did other notaries public in Nueva
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Ecija -- some of whom were older practitioners -- indicate the affiants
residence certificates on the documents they notarized, or have entries in
In his Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland R. their notarial register for these documents.
Villadolid Jr. summarized the allegations of the complainant in this wise:
As to his alleged failure to comply with the certification required
x x x. In his Letter-Complaint, Complainant by Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, respondent
alleged, among others, that Respondent in notarizing explained that as counsel of the affiants, he had the option to comply or
several documents on different dates failed and/or refused not with the certification. To nullify the Affidavits, it was complainant
to: a)make the proper notation regarding the cedula or who was duty-bound to bring the said noncompliance to the attention of
community tax certificate of the affiants; b) enter the the prosecutor conducting the preliminary investigation.
details of the notarized documents in the notarial register;
and c) make and execute the certification and enter his
PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized, As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR, respondent
all in violation of the notarial provisions of the Revised argued that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients on substantial
Administrative Code. matters, in cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of
justice. Complainant charged respondents clients with attempted murder. On September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors issued
Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the alleged Resolution No. XVI-2003-172[19] approving and adopting the
crime occurred, his testimony is very essential to the ends of justice. Investigating Commissioners Report that respondent had violated specific
requirements of the Notarial Law on the execution of a certification, the
Respondent alleged that it was complainant who had threatened entry of such certification in the notarial register, and the indication of the
and harassed his clients after the hearing of their case by the provincial affiants residence certificate. The IBP Board of Governors found his
prosecutor on January 4, 2001. Respondent requested the assistance of excuse for the violations unacceptable. It modified, however, the
the Cabanatuan City Police the following day, January 5, 2001, which recommendation[20] of the investigating commissioner by increasing the
was the next scheduled hearing, to avoid a repetition of the incident and fine to P3,000 with a warning that any repetition of the violation will be
to allay the fears of his clients. In support of his allegations, he submitted dealt with a heavier penalty.
Certifications[10] from the Cabanatuan City Police and the Joint
Affidavit[11] of the two police officers who had assisted them. The other charges -- violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court; and Canons 1.01 to 1.03, 12.07 and 12.08 of the CPR --
Lastly, he contended that the case had been initiated for no other were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
purpose than to harass him, because he was the counsel of Barangay
Captain Ernesto Ramos in the cases filed by the latter before the The Courts Ruling
ombudsman and the BJMP against complainant.

After receipt of respondents Answer, the CBD, through


Commissioner Tyrone R. Cimafranca, set the case for hearing on June 5, We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
2001, at two oclock in the afternoon. Notices[12] of the hearing were sent
to the parties by registered mail. On the scheduled date and time of the Respondents Administrative Liability
hearing, only complainant appeared. Respondent was unable to do so,
apparently because he had received the Notice only on June 8, 2001.[13]
The hearing was reset to July 3, 2001 at two oclock in the afternoon. Violation of the Notarial Law

On the same day, June 5, 2001, complainant filed his Reply[14] to


the verified Answer of respondent. The latters Rejoinder was received by The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of
the CBD on July 13, 2001.[15] It also received complainants Letter- notaries public. They are required to certify that the party to every
Request[16] to dispense with the hearings. Accordingly, it granted that document acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence
request in its Order[17]dated July 24, 2001, issued through certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number,
Commissioner Cimafranca. It thereby directed the parties to submit their place of issue and date as part of such certification.[21] They are also
respective memoranda within fifteen days from receipt of the Order, after required to maintain and keep a notarial register; to enter therein all
which the case was to be deemed submitted for resolution. instruments notarized by them; and to give to each instrument executed,
sworn to, or acknowledged before [them] a number corresponding to the
The CBD received complainants Memorandum[18] on September 26, one in [their] register [and to state therein] the page or pages of [their]
2001. Respondent did not file any. register, on which the same is recorded.[22] Failure to perform these
duties would result in the revocation of their commission as notaries
The IBPs Recommendation public.[23]
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected, that the requirements do not apply to affidavits is patently irrelevant. No
considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to law dispenses with these formalities. Au contraire, the Notarial Law
notarized documents. Notaries public entering into their commissions are makes no qualification or exception. It is appalling and inexcusable that
presumed to be aware of these elementary requirements. he did away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly because
others were doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is not
In Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos,[24] the Court explained the value an acceptable justification for breaking the law.
and meaning of notarization as follows: We note further that the documents attached to the verified
Complaint are the Joint Counter-Affidavit of respondents clients Ernesto
The importance attached to the act of notarization Ramos and Rey Geronimo, as well as their witnesses Affidavits relative
cannot be overemphasized. Notarization is not an empty, to Criminal Case No. 69-2000 for attempted murder, filed by
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive complainants brother against the aforementioned clients. These
public interest, such that only those who are qualified or documents became the basis of the present Complaint.
authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document thus As correctly pointed out by the investigating commissioner,
making that document admissible in evidence without Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly
further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by requires respondent as notary -- in the absence of any fiscal, state
law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, prosecutor or government official authorized to administer the oath -- to
administrative agencies and the public at large must be certify that he has personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied
able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
notary public and appended to a private instrument. Respondent failed to do so with respect to the subject Affidavits and
Counter-Affidavits in the belief that -- as counsel for the affiants -- he
was not required to comply with the certification requirement.
For this reason, notaries public should not take for granted the
solemn duties pertaining to their office. Slipshod methods in their It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey
performance of the notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
expected to exert utmost care in the performance of their duties,[25] [26] They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and
which are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to
interest. be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal
developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence.[27] It is imperative
It is clear from the pleadings before us -- and respondent has that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully
readily admitted -- that he violated the Notarial Law by failing to enter in comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently
the documents notations of the residence certificate, as well as the entry and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may
number and the pages of the notarial registry. become susceptible to committing mistakes.

Respondent believes, however, that noncompliance with those Where notaries public are lawyers, a graver responsibility is
requirements is not mandatory for affidavits relative to cases pending placed upon them by reason of their solemn oath to obey the laws.[28]
before the courts and government agencies. He points to similar practices No custom or age-old practice provides sufficient excuse or justification
of older notaries in Nueva Ecija. for their failure to adhere to the provisions of the law. In this case, the
excuse given by respondent exhibited his clear ignorance of the Notarial
We cannot give credence to, much less honor, his claim. His belief Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the importance of his office as
a notary public. by the task of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from
Nonetheless, we do not agree with complainants plea to disbar that as advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall
respondent from the practice of law. The power to disbar must be them. In contradistinction, advocates are partisans -- those who actively
exercised with great caution.[29] Disbarment will be imposed as a plead and defend the cause of others. It is difficult to distinguish the
penalty only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an
standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of
member of the bar. Where any lesser penalty can accomplish the end the lawyers who testify for their clients.
desired, disbarment should not be decreed.[30]Considering the nature of Acting or appearing to act in the double capacity of lawyer and
the infraction and the absence of deceit on the part of respondent, we witness for the client will provoke unkind criticism and leave many
believe that the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors is a people to suspect the truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot
sufficient disciplinary measure in this case. believe the lawyer as disinterested. The people will have a plausible
reason for thinking, and if their sympathies are against the lawyers client,
Lawyer as Witness for Client they will have an opportunity, not likely to be neglected, for charging,
that as a witness he fortified it with his own testimony. The testimony of
Complainant further faults respondent for executing before the lawyer becomes doubted and is looked upon as partial and untruthful.
Prosecutor Leonardo Padolina an affidavit corroborating the defense of [33]
alibi proffered by respondents clients, allegedly in violation of Rule 12.08
of the CPR: A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client. Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers from being
witnesses and at the same time counsels for a cause, the preference is for
Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the CPR states: them to refrain from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have
Rule 12.08 A lawyer shall avoid testifying to; and should they do so, to withdraw from active management of the
in behalf of his client, except: case.[34]

a) on formal matters, such as the Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the Affidavit
mailing, authentication or custody of an executed by Atty. Rafanan in favor of his clients, we cannot hastily make
instrument and the like; him administratively liable for the following reasons:
First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy
b) on substantial matters, in cases and defense that is authorized by law for the benefit of the client,
where his testimony is essential to the ends especially in a criminal action in which the latters life and liberty are at
of justice, in which event he must, during stake.[35] It is the fundamental right of the accused to be afforded full
his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to opportunity to rebut the charges against them. They are entitled to
another counsel. suggest all those reasonable doubts that may arise from the evidence as to
their guilt; and to ensure that if they are convicted, such conviction is
according to law.

Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from Having undertaken the defense of the accused, respondent, as
being a witness,[31] except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged defense counsel, was thus expected to spare no effort to save his clients
communication arising from an attorney-client relationship.[32] from a wrong conviction. He had the duty to present -- by all fair and
honorable means -- every defense and mitigating circumstance that the
The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers law permitted, to the end that his clients would not be deprived of life,
liberty or property, except by due process of law.[36] Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is hereby FINED P3,000 with a warning that similar infractions in the
The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was clearly necessary for future will be dealt with more severely.
the defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged SO ORDERED.
date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and could
not have possibly committed the crime charged against them. Notably, in
his Affidavit, complainant does not dispute the statements of respondent
or suggest the falsity of its contents.

Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates a situation in


which lawyers give their testimonies during the trial. In this instance, the
Affidavit was submitted during the preliminary investigation which, as
such, was merely inquisitorial.[37] Not being a trial of the case on the
merits, a preliminary investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of
securing innocent persons against hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecutions; protecting them from open and public accusations of crime
and from the trouble as well as expense and anxiety of a public trial; and
protecting the State from useless and expensive prosecutions.[38] The
investigation is advisedly called preliminary, as it is yet to be followed by
the trial proper.

Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and remind


respondent to refrain from accepting employment in any matter in which
he knows or has reason to believe that he may be an essential witness for
the prospective client. Furthermore, in future cases in which his
testimony may become essential to serve the ends of justice, the canons
of the profession require him to withdraw from the active prosecution of
these cases.

No Proof of Harassment

The charge that respondent harassed complainant and uttered


insulting words and veiled threats is not supported by evidence.
Allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be
equated with liability.[39] It is not the self-serving claim of complainant
but the version of respondent that is more credible, considering that the
latters allegations are corroborated by the Affidavits of the police officers
and the Certifications of the Cabanatuan City Police.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the


time has come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and and solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the
Chief, Public Information Office,Complainant, absolute prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban
vs. on lawyer advertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-old
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent. prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated
from all the charges against him and that the Court promulgate a ruling
RESOLUTION that advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to
law, public policy and public order as long as it is dignified.4
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that investigation, report and recommendation.5 On June 29, 2002, the IBP
appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306,6
Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532- finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code
4333/521-2667."1 of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year with
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more
Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number severely. The IBP Resolution was noted by this Court on November 11,
and pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who 2002.7
claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, 8
six months, provided the case will not involve separation of property or which was denied by the IBP in Resolution No. XV-2002-606 dated
custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a October 19, 20029
fee of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the
case and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which was docketed as G.R.
No. 157053 entitled, "Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Asst. Court
Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were published in Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents." This
the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, petition was consolidated with A.C. No. 5299 per the Courts Resolution
2000 issue of The Philippine Star.2 dated March 4, 2003.

On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties were required to
Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, manifest whether or not they were willing to submit the case for
filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for resolution on the basis of the pleadings.10 Complainant filed his
improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Manifestation on April 25, 2003, stating that he is not submitting any
Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and additional pleading or evidence and is submitting the case for its early
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.3 resolution on the basis of pleadings and records thereof. 11 Respondent,
on the other hand, filed a Supplemental Memorandum on June 20, 2003.
In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued
that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the We agree with the IBPs Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-
606. 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;

Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read: 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
primarily to solicit legal business. with their clients.16

Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of.
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair He himself admits that he caused the publication of the advertisements.
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. While he professes repentance and begs for the Courts indulgence, his
contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he advertised his legal
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states: services again after he pleaded for compassion and after claiming that he
had no intention to violate the rules. Eight months after filing his answer,
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper.17 Ten months later, he caused the same
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, advertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy &
malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral Sell.18Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront
conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral on the Courts authority.
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising
as attorney for a party without authority to do so. himself as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he wittingly
or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. 12 sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the
It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in
primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money- assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields six months from the time of the filing of the case, 19 he in fact encourages
profits.13 The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have
consideration.14 The duty to public service and to the administration of refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. 15 The Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether
following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business: proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible
with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.20
and in which one may attain the highest eminence without making Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers,
much money; the office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as
advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable. 21
justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability; Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and
informative data is likewise allowable. As explicitly stated in Ulep v. YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise
Legal Clinic, Inc.:22 STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will
be dealt with more severely.
Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of
the lawyers name and the names of his professional associates; Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as attorney and be
addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the
practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools country for their information and guidance.
attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal SO ORDERED.
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 dignity or standing of the profession.

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. 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. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone
directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. (emphasis
and italics supplied)

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T.


SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1)
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems,
MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa.
vs. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
R E SO L U T I O N
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr.
US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; 522-
2041; 521-0767
REGALADO, J.:

Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist
from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above
annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons reproduced are champterous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession,
or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the
law profession other than those allowed by law." members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is
ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows: sought in his petition as hereinbefore quoted.

Annex A In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of
said advertisement at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the
SECRET MARRIAGE? practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through
P560.00 for a valid marriage. paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are
ANNULMENT. VISA. legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed
supposedly
THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of
INC. 8:30 am 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla. Arizona, 2 reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June
7, 1977.
Annex B
Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues
GUAM DIVORCE. raised herein, we required the (1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
(2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3) Philippine Lawyers'
DON PARKINSON Association (PLA), (4) U.P. Womens Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), (5)
Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines (WLAP), and (6)
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Federacion International de Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective
Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday position papers on the controversy and, thereafter, their memoranda. 3
during office hours. The said bar associations readily responded and extended their valuable
services and cooperation of which this Court takes note with appreciation
and gratitude. publications.

The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision
the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised of this Honorable Court to perpetually restrain respondent from
by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law
properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of. practice as aforedescribed. 4

Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case, we


deem it proper and enlightening to present hereunder excerpts from the
respective position papers adopted by the aforementioned bar xxx xxx xxx
associations and the memoranda submitted by them on the issues
involved in this bar matter. A. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the
impression that respondent corporation is being operated by
1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines: lawyers and that it renders legal services.

xxx xxx xxx While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal
services to the public, the advertisements in question give the
Notwithstanding the subtle manner by which respondent impression that respondent is offering legal services. The
endeavored to distinguish the two terms, i.e., "legal support Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so, as earlier
services" vis-a-vis "legal services", common sense would readily mentioned, apparently because this (is) the effect that the
dictate that the same are essentially without substantial advertisements have on the reading public.
distinction. For who could deny that document search, evidence
gathering, assistance to layman in need of basic institutional The impression created by the advertisements in question can be
services from government or non-government agencies like traced, first of all, to the very name being used by respondent
birth, marriage, property, or business registration, obtaining "The Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a name, it is respectfully
documents like clearance, passports, local or foreign visas, submitted connotes the rendering of legal services for legal
constitutes practice of law? problems, just like a medical clinic connotes medical services
for medical problems. More importantly, the term "Legal Clinic"
xxx xxx xxx connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes doctors.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not wish to Furthermore, the respondent's name, as published in the
make issue with respondent's foreign citations. Suffice it to state advertisements subject of the present case, appears with (the)
that the IBP has made its position manifest, to wit, that it scale(s) of justice, which all the more reinforces the impression
strongly opposes the view espoused by respondent (to the effect that it is being operated by members of the bar and that it offers
that today it is alright to advertise one's legal services). legal services. In addition, the advertisements in question appear
with a picture and name of a person being represented as a
The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its lawyer from Guam, and this practically removes whatever doubt
opposition to respondent's act of establishing a "legal clinic" and may still remain as to the nature of the service or services being
of concomitantly advertising the same through newspaper offered.
It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering marriage within the limits provided by this Code.
"legal support services" as claimed by it, or whether it offers
legal services as any lawyer actively engaged in law practice By simply reading the questioned advertisements, it is obvious
does. And it becomes unnecessary to make a distinction between that the message being conveyed is that Filipinos can avoid the
"legal services" and "legal support services," as the respondent legal consequences of a marriage celebrated in accordance with
would have it. The advertisements in question leave no room for our law, by simply going to Guam for a divorce. This is not only
doubt in the minds of the reading public that legal services are misleading, but encourages, or serves to induce, violation of
being offered by lawyers, whether true or not. Philippine law. At the very least, this can be considered "the dark
side" of legal practice, where certain defects in Philippine laws
B. The advertisements in question are meant to induce the are exploited for the sake of profit. At worst, this is outright
performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public order and malpractice.
public policy.
Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
It may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, the activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
advertisements in question are only meant to inform the general confidence in the legal system.
public of the services being offered by it. Said advertisements,
however, emphasize to Guam divorce, and any law student ought In addition, it may also be relevant to point out that
to know that under the Family Code, there is only one instance advertisements such as that shown in Annex "A" of the Petition,
when a foreign divorce is recognized, and that is: which contains a cartoon of a motor vehicle with the words "Just
Married" on its bumper and seems to address those planning a
Article 26. . . . "secret marriage," if not suggesting a "secret marriage," makes
light of the "special contract of permanent union," the inviolable
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a social institution," which is how the Family Code describes
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is marriage, obviously to emphasize its sanctity and inviolability.
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse Worse, this particular advertisement appears to encourage
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse marriages celebrated in secrecy, which is suggestive of immoral
shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine Law. publication of applications for a marriage license.

It must not be forgotten, too, that the Family Code (defines) a If the article "Rx for Legal Problems" is to be reviewed, it can
marriage as follows: readily be concluded that the above impressions one may gather
from the advertisements in question are accurate. The Sharon
Article 1. Marriage is special contract of permanent Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion example alone confirms what the
union between a man and woman entered into advertisements suggest. Here it can be seen that criminal acts are
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal being encouraged or committed
and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an (a bigamous marriage in Hong Kong or Las Vegas) with
inviolable social institution whose nature, impunity simply because the jurisdiction of Philippine courts
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and does not extend to the place where the crime is committed.
not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relation during the Even if it be assumed, arguendo, (that) the "legal support
services" respondent offers do not constitute legal services as allow or tolerate the illegal practice of law in any form, not only
commonly understood, the advertisements in question give the for the protection of members of the Bar but also, and more
impression that respondent corporation is being operated by importantly, for the protection of the public. Technological
lawyers and that it offers legal services, as earlier discussed. development in the profession may be encouraged without
Thus, the only logical consequence is that, in the eyes of an tolerating, but instead ensuring prevention of illegal practice.
ordinary newspaper reader, members of the bar themselves are
encouraging or inducing the performance of acts which are There might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to
contrary to law, morals, good customs and the public good, perform all of its services, but only if such services are made
thereby destroying and demeaning the integrity of the Bar. available exclusively to members of the Bench and Bar.
Respondent would then be offering technical assistance, not
xxx xxx xxx legal services. Alternatively, the more difficult task of carefully
distinguishing between which service may be offered to the
It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined public in general and which should be made available
from causing the publication of the advertisements in question, exclusively to members of the Bar may be undertaken. This,
or any other advertisements similar thereto. It is also submitted however, may require further proceedings because of the factual
that respondent should be prohibited from further performing or considerations involved.
offering some of the services it presently offers, or, at the very
least, from offering such services to the public in general. It must be emphasized, however, that some of respondent's
services ought to be prohibited outright, such as acts which tend
The IBP is aware of the fact that providing computerized legal to suggest or induce celebration abroad of marriages which are
research, electronic data gathering, storage and retrieval, bigamous or otherwise illegal and void under Philippine law.
standardized legal forms, investigators for gathering of evidence, While respondent may not be prohibited from simply
and like services will greatly benefit the legal profession and disseminating information regarding such matters, it must be
should not be stifled but instead encouraged. However, when the required to include, in the information given, a disclaimer that it
conduct of such business by non-members of the Bar encroaches is not authorized to practice law, that certain course of action
upon the practice of law, there can be no choice but to prohibit may be illegal under Philippine law, that it is not authorized or
such business. capable of rendering a legal opinion, that a lawyer should be
consulted before deciding on which course of action to take, and
Admittedly, many of the services involved in the case at bar can that it cannot recommend any particular lawyer without
be better performed by specialists in other fields, such as subjecting itself to possible sanctions for illegal practice of law.
computer experts, who by reason of their having devoted time
and effort exclusively to such field cannot fulfill the exacting If respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be
requirements for admission to the Bar. To prohibit them from directed exclusively at members of the Bar, with a clear and
"encroaching" upon the legal profession will deny the profession unmistakable disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law
of the great benefits and advantages of modern technology. or perform legal services.
Indeed, a lawyer using a computer will be doing better than a
lawyer using a typewriter, even if both are (equal) in skill. The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored.
But nobody should be allowed to represent himself as a
Both the Bench and the Bar, however, should be careful not to "paralegal" for profit, without such term being clearly defined by
rule or regulation, and without any adequate and effective means "The Legal Clinic, Inc." holds out itself to the public and solicits
of regulating his activities. Also, law practice in a corporate form employment of its legal services. It is an odious vehicle for
may prove to be advantageous to the legal profession, but before deception, especially so when the public cannot ventilate any
allowance of such practice may be considered, the corporation's grievance for malpractice against the business conduit.
Article of Incorporation and By-laws must conform to each and Precisely, the limitation of practice of law to persons who have
every provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and been duly admitted as members of the Bar (Sec. 1, Rule 138,
the Rules of Court. 5 Revised Rules of Court) is to subject the members to the
discipline of the Supreme Court. Although respondent uses its
business name, the persons and the lawyers who act for it are
subject to court discipline. The practice of law is not a profession
2. Philippine Bar Association: open to all who wish to engage in it nor can it be assigned to
another (See 5 Am. Jur. 270). It is a personal right limited to
xxx xxx xxx. persons who have qualified themselves under the law. It follows
that not only respondent but also all the persons who are acting
Respondent asserts that it "is not engaged in the practice of law for respondent are the persons engaged in unethical law practice.
6
but engaged in giving legal support services to lawyers and
laymen, through experienced paralegals, with the use of modern
computers and electronic machines" (pars. 2 and 3, Comment).
This is absurd. Unquestionably, respondent's acts of holding out
itself to the public under the trade name "The Legal Clinic, Inc.," 3. Philippine Lawyers' Association:
and soliciting employment for its enumerated services fall within
the realm of a practice which thus yields itself to the regulatory The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer to the
powers of the Supreme Court. For respondent to say that it is issues stated herein, are wit:
merely engaged in paralegal work is to stretch credulity.
Respondent's own commercial advertisement which announces a 1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
certain Atty. Don Parkinson to be handling the fields of law
belies its pretense. From all indications, respondent "The Legal 2. Such practice is unauthorized;
Clinic, Inc." is offering and rendering legal services through its
reserve of lawyers. It has been held that the practice of law is not 3. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical, but
limited to the conduct of cases in court, but includes drawing of also misleading and patently immoral; and
deeds, incorporation, rendering opinions, and advising clients as
to their legal right and then take them to an attorney and ask the 4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to supress and
latter to look after their case in court See Martin, Legal and punish the Legal Clinic and its corporate officers for its
Judicial Ethics, 1984 ed., p. 39). unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical, misleading
and immoral advertising.
It is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the
practice of law, and such limitation cannot be evaded by a xxx xxx xxx
corporation employing competent lawyers to practice for it.
Obviously, this is the scheme or device by which respondent Respondent posits that is it not engaged in the practice of law. It
claims that it merely renders "legal support services" to answers, an aid to the administration of justice, there are in those
litigants and the general public as enunciated in the Primary jurisdictions, courses of study and/or standards which would
Purpose Clause of its Article(s) of Incorporation. (See pages 2 to qualify these paralegals to deal with the general public as such.
5 of Respondent's Comment). But its advertised services, as While it may now be the opportune time to establish these
enumerated above, clearly and convincingly show that it is courses of study and/or standards, the fact remains that at
indeed engaged in law practice, albeit outside of court. present, these do not exist in the Philippines. In the meantime,
this Honorable Court may decide to make measures to protect
As advertised, it offers the general public its advisory services the general public from being exploited by those who may be
on Persons and Family Relations Law, particularly regarding dealing with the general public in the guise of being "paralegals"
foreign divorces, annulment of marriages, secret marriages, without being qualified to do so.
absence and adoption; Immigration Laws, particularly on visa
related problems, immigration problems; the Investments Law of In the same manner, the general public should also be protected
the Philippines and such other related laws. from the dangers which may be brought about by advertising of
legal services. While it appears that lawyers are prohibited under
Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the present Code of Professional Responsibility from
the aforesaid law, the legal principles and procedures related advertising, it appears in the instant case that legal services are
thereto, the legal advices based thereon and which activities call being advertised not by lawyers but by an entity staffed by
for legal training, knowledge and experience. "paralegals." Clearly, measures should be taken to protect the
general public from falling prey to those who advertise legal
Applying the test laid down by the Court in the aforecited services without being qualified to offer such services. 8
Agrava Case, the activities of respondent fall squarely and are
embraced in what lawyers and laymen equally term as "the A perusal of the questioned advertisements of Respondent,
practice of law." 7 however, seems to give the impression that information
regarding validity of marriages, divorce, annulment of marriage,
immigration, visa extensions, declaration of absence, adoption
and foreign investment, which are in essence, legal matters , will
4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle: be given to them if they avail of its services. The Respondent's
name The Legal Clinic, Inc. does not help matters. It gives
In resolving, the issues before this Honorable Court, paramount the impression again that Respondent will or can cure the legal
consideration should be given to the protection of the general problems brought to them. Assuming that Respondent is, as
public from the danger of being exploited by unqualified persons claimed, staffed purely by paralegals, it also gives the
or entities who may be engaged in the practice of law. misleading impression that there are lawyers involved in The
Legal Clinic, Inc., as there are doctors in any medical clinic,
At present, becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous when only "paralegals" are involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc.
four-year course of study on top of a four-year bachelor of arts
or sciences course and then to take and pass the bar Respondent's allegations are further belied by the very
examinations. Only then, is a lawyer qualified to practice law. admissions of its President and majority stockholder, Atty.
Nogales, who gave an insight on the structure and main purpose
While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdiction as of Respondent corporation in the aforementioned "Starweek"
article." 9 Personal Laws in the Philippines. It is also against good morals
and is deceitful because it falsely represents to the public to be
able to do that which by our laws cannot be done (and) by our
Code of Morals should not be done.
5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:
In the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. 37, the Supreme Court
Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements held that solicitation for clients by an attorney by circulars of
to solicit cases for the purpose of gain which, as provided for advertisements, is unprofessional, and offenses of this character
under the above cited law, (are) illegal and against the Code of justify permanent elimination from the Bar. 10
Professional Responsibility of lawyers in this country.

Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an


advertisement to solicit cases, but it is illegal in that in bold 6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados:
letters it announces that the Legal Clinic, Inc., could work
out/cause the celebration of a secret marriage which is not only xxx xxx xxx
illegal but immoral in this country. While it is advertised that one
has to go to said agency and pay P560 for a valid marriage it is 1.7 That entities admittedly not engaged in the practice of law,
certainly fooling the public for valid marriages in the Philippines such as management consultancy firms or travel agencies,
are solemnized only by officers authorized to do so under the whether run by lawyers or not, perform the services rendered by
law. And to employ an agency for said purpose of contracting Respondent does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
marriage is not necessary. Respondent is not unlawfully practicing law. In the same vein,
however, the fact that the business of respondent (assuming it
No amount of reasoning that in the USA, Canada and other can be engaged in independently of the practice of law) involves
countries the trend is towards allowing lawyers to advertise their knowledge of the law does not necessarily make respondent
special skills to enable people to obtain from qualified guilty of unlawful practice of law.
practitioners legal services for their particular needs can justify
the use of advertisements such as are the subject matter of the . . . . Of necessity, no one . . . . acting as a consultant can
petition, for one (cannot) justify an illegal act even by whatever render effective service unless he is familiar with such
merit the illegal act may serve. The law has yet to be amended so statutes and regulations. He must be careful not to
that such act could become justifiable. suggest a course of conduct which the law forbids. It
seems . . . .clear that (the consultant's) knowledge of the
We submit further that these advertisements that seem to project law, and his use of that knowledge as a factor in
that secret marriages and divorce are possible in this country for determining what measures he shall recommend, do not
a fee, when in fact it is not so, are highly reprehensible. constitute the practice of law . . . . It is not only
presumed that all men know the law, but it is a fact that
It would encourage people to consult this clinic about how they most men have considerable acquaintance with broad
could go about having a secret marriage here, when it cannot nor features of the law . . . . Our knowledge of the law
should ever be attempted, and seek advice on divorce, where in accurate or inaccurate moulds our conduct not only
this country there is none, except under the Code of Muslim when we are acting for ourselves, but when we are
serving others. Bankers, liquor dealers and laymen service that the larger employers get from their own
generally possess rather precise knowledge of the laws specialized staff.
touching their particular business or profession. A good
example is the architect, who must be familiar with The handling of industrial relations is growing into a
zoning, building and fire prevention codes, factory and recognized profession for which appropriate courses are
tenement house statutes, and who draws plans and offered by our leading universities. The court should be
specification in harmony with the law. This is not very cautious about declaring [that] a widespread, well-
practicing law. established method of conducting business is unlawful,
or that the considerable class of men who customarily
But suppose the architect, asked by his client to omit a perform a certain function have no right to do so, or that
fire tower, replies that it is required by the statute. Or the technical education given by our schools cannot be
the industrial relations expert cites, in support of some used by the graduates in their business.
measure that he recommends, a decision of the National
Labor Relations Board. Are they practicing law? In my In determining whether a man is practicing law, we
opinion, they are not, provided no separate fee is should consider his work for any particular client or
charged for the legal advice or information, and the customer, as a whole. I can imagine defendant being
legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major engaged primarily to advise as to the law defining his
non-legal problem. client's obligations to his employees, to guide his
client's obligations to his employees, to guide his client
It is largely a matter of degree and of custom. along the path charted by law. This, of course, would be
the practice of the law. But such is not the fact in the
If it were usual for one intending to erect a building on case before me. Defendant's primarily efforts are along
his land to engage a lawyer to advise him and the economic and psychological lines. The law only
architect in respect to the building code and the like, provides the frame within which he must work, just as
then an architect who performed this function would the zoning code limits the kind of building the limits the
probably be considered to be trespassing on territory kind of building the architect may plan. The incidental
reserved for licensed attorneys. Likewise, if the legal advice or information defendant may give, does
industrial relations field had been pre-empted by not transform his activities into the practice of law. Let
lawyers, or custom placed a lawyer always at the elbow me add that if, even as a minor feature of his work, he
of the lay personnel man. But this is not the case. The performed services which are customarily reserved to
most important body of the industrial relations experts members of the bar, he would be practicing law. For
are the officers and business agents of the labor unions instance, if as part of a welfare program, he drew
and few of them are lawyers. Among the larger employees' wills.
corporate employers, it has been the practice for some
years to delegate special responsibility in employee Another branch of defendant's work is the
matters to a management group chosen for their representations of the employer in the adjustment of
practical knowledge and skill in such matter, and grievances and in collective bargaining, with or without
without regard to legal thinking or lack of it. More a mediator. This is not per se the practice of law.
recently, consultants like the defendants have the same Anyone may use an agent for negotiations and may
select an agent particularly skilled in the subject under (a) The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major
discussion, and the person appointed is free to accept non-legal problem;.
the employment whether or not he is a member of the
bar. Here, however, there may be an exception where (b) The services performed are not customarily reserved to
the business turns on a question of law. Most real estate members of the bar; .
sales are negotiated by brokers who are not lawyers.
But if the value of the land depends on a disputed right- (c) No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or
of-way and the principal role of the negotiator is to information.
assess the probable outcome of the dispute and persuade
the opposite party to the same opinion, then it may be All these must be considered in relation to the work for any
that only a lawyer can accept the assignment. Or if a particular client as a whole.
controversy between an employer and his men grows
from differing interpretations of a contract, or of a 1.9. If the person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer, the
statute, it is quite likely that defendant should not Code of Professional Responsibility succintly states the rule of
handle it. But I need not reach a definite conclusion conduct:
here, since the situation is not presented by the proofs.
Rule 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or
Defendant also appears to represent the employer before occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make
administrative agencies of the federal government, clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
especially before trial examiners of the National Labor capacity.
Relations Board. An agency of the federal government,
acting by virtue of an authority granted by the 1.10. In the present case. the Legal Clinic appears to render
Congress, may regulate the representation of parties wedding services (See Annex "A" Petition). Services on routine,
before such agency. The State of New Jersey is without straightforward marriages, like securing a marriage license, and
power to interfere with such determination or to forbid making arrangements with a priest or a judge, may not constitute
representation before the agency by one whom the practice of law. However, if the problem is as complicated as
agency admits. The rules of the National Labor that described in "Rx for Legal Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta-
Relations Board give to a party the right to appear in Gabby Concepcion-Richard Gomez case, then what may be
person, or by counsel, or by other representative. Rules involved is actually the practice of law. If a non-lawyer, such as
and Regulations, September 11th, 1946, S. 203.31. the Legal Clinic, renders such services then it is engaged in the
'Counsel' here means a licensed attorney, and ther unauthorized practice of law.
representative' one not a lawyer. In this phase of his
work, defendant may lawfully do whatever the Labor 1.11. The Legal Clinic also appears to give information on
Board allows, even arguing questions purely legal. divorce, absence, annulment of marriage and visas (See Annexes
(Auerbacher v. Wood, 53 A. 2d 800, cited in Statsky, "A" and "B" Petition). Purely giving informational materials
Introduction to Paralegalism [1974], at pp. 154-156.). may not constitute of law. The business is similar to that of a
bookstore where the customer buys materials on the subject and
1.8 From the foregoing, it can be said that a person engaged in a determines on the subject and determines by himself what
lawful calling (which may involve knowledge of the law) is not courses of action to take.
engaged in the practice of law provided that:
It is not entirely improbable, however, that aside from purely publishing his manuscript on divorce and against his
giving information, the Legal Clinic's paralegals may apply the having any personal contact with any prospective
law to the particular problem of the client, and give legal advice. purchaser. The record does fully support, however, the
Such would constitute unauthorized practice of law. finding that for the change of $75 or $100 for the kit,
the defendant gave legal advice in the course of
It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text personal contacts concerning particular problems which
which publication of a legal text which purports to say might arise in the preparation and presentation of the
what the law is amount to legal practice. And the mere purchaser's asserted matrimonial cause of action or
fact that the principles or rules stated in the text may be pursuit of other legal remedies and assistance in the
accepted by a particular reader as a solution to his preparation of necessary documents (The injunction
problem does not affect this. . . . . Apparently it is urged therefore sought to) enjoin conduct constituting the
that the conjoining of these two, that is, the text and the practice of law, particularly with reference to the giving
forms, with advice as to how the forms should be filled of advice and counsel by the defendant relating to
out, constitutes the unlawful practice of law. But that is specific problems of particular individuals in
the situation with many approved and accepted texts. connection with a divorce, separation, annulment of
Dacey's book is sold to the public at large. There is no separation agreement sought and should be affirmed.
personal contact or relationship with a particular (State v. Winder, 348, NYS 2D 270 [1973], cited in
individual. Nor does there exist that relation of Statsky, supra at p. 101.).
confidence and trust so necessary to the status of
attorney and client. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL OF 1.12. Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strictly
LEGAL PRACTICE THE REPRESENTATION AND non-diagnostic, non-advisory. "It is not controverted, however,
ADVISING OF A PARTICULAR PERSON IN A that if the services "involve giving legal advice or counselling,"
PARTICULAR SITUATION. At most the book assumes such would constitute practice of law (Comment, par. 6.2). It is
to offer general advice on common problems, and does in this light that FIDA submits that a factual inquiry may be
not purport to give personal advice on a specific necessary for the judicious disposition of this case.
problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified
person. Similarly the defendant's publication does not xxx xxx xxx
purport to give personal advice on a specific problem
peculiar to a designated or readily identified person in a 2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can
particular situation in their publication and sale of give the impression (or perpetuate the wrong notion) that there is
the kits, such publication and sale did not constitutes the a secret marriage. With all the solemnities, formalities and other
unlawful practice of law . . . . There being no legal requisites of marriages (See Articles 2, et seq., Family Code), no
impediment under the statute to the sale of the kit, there Philippine marriage can be secret.
was no proper basis for the injunction against defendant
maintaining an office for the purpose of selling to 2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. The
persons seeking a divorce, separation, annulment or second paragraph thereof (which is not necessarily related to the
separation agreement any printed material or writings first paragraph) fails to state the limitation that only "paralegal
relating to matrimonial law or the prohibition in the services?" or "legal support services", and not legal services, are
memorandum of modification of the judgment against available." 11
defendant having an interest in any publishing house
A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law" several cases, we laid down the test to determine whether certain acts
becomes exigent for the proper determination of the issues raised by the constitute "practice of law," thus:
petition at bar. On this score, we note that the clause "practice of law" has
long been the subject of judicial construction and interpretation. The Black defines "practice of law" as:
courts have laid down general principles and doctrines explaining the
meaning and scope of the term, some of which we now take into account. The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the
application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but
To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident
characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all
skill. 12 legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all
actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It
includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases on court.(Land
instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although such Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken , 129 Ohio St. 23, 193N. E. 650).
matter may or may not be pending in a court. 13 A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:

In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally . . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of
engages in three principal types of professional activity: legal advice and advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their
instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations, right under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an
preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal advocate in proceedings, pending or prospective, before any
principles not possessed by ordinary layman, and appearance for clients court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or
before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine commission constituted by law or authorized to settle
rights of life, liberty, and property according to law, in order to assist in controversies and there, in such representative capacity,
proper interpretation and enforcement of law. 14 performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or
defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise
When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the
lawyer, he is in the practice of law. 15 One who confers with clients, business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or
advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or
attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in court, is also outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of
practicing law. 16 Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S. W.
status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).
constitutes a practice of law. 17 One who renders an opinion as to the
proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that extent, This Court, in the case of Philippines Lawyers Association v. Agrava
practicing law. 18 (105 Phil. 173, 176-177),stated:

In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19 after citing the doctrines in The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or
litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and [R.I.] 197 A. 139, 144).
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out
before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, of court. Applying the aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree
all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters with the perceptive findings and observations of the aforestated bar
connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and associations that the activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a "practice of law."
judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters or estate can neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is
and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been
the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work offering, to wit:
done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the
legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263). Legal support services basically consists of giving ready
information by trained paralegals to laymen and lawyers, which
Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small are strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory, through the extensive
part of work performed outside of any court and having no use of computers and modern information technology in the
immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces gathering, processing, storage, transmission and reproduction of
conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of information and communication, such as computerized legal
subjects and the preparation and execution of legal instruments research; encoding and reproduction of documents and pleadings
covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and prepared by laymen or lawyers; document search; evidence
other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct gathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case; fact finding
connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to investigations; and assistance to laymen in need of basic
become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a institutional services from government or non-government
high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and agencies, like birth, marriage, property, or business registrations;
affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex educational or employment records or certifications, obtaining
situations. These customary functions of an attorney or documentation like clearances, passports, local or foreign visas;
counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration giving information about laws of other countries that they may
of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns find useful, like foreign divorce, marriage or adoption laws that
the question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that they can avail of preparatory to emigration to the foreign
part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in country, and other matters that do not involve representation of
court and that part which involves advice and drafting of clients in court; designing and installing computer systems,
instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the programs, or software for the efficient management of law
public that these manifold customary functions be performed by offices, corporate legal departments, courts and other entities
persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral engaged in dispensing or administering legal services. 20
character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust
obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation
Comments on the Rules o Court, Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665-666, merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow, such as the
citing In Re Opinion of the Justices [Mass], 194 N. E. 313, installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient
quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc.
management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids and clients who cannot afford the services of the big law firms.
materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule.
The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. "when they
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal come, we start by analyzing the problem. That's what doctors do
information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such function is also. They ask you how you contracted what's bothering you,
non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing they take your temperature, they observe you for the symptoms
information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and and so on. That's how we operate, too. And once the problem has
adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all the respondent been categorized, then it's referred to one of our specialists.
corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to
the client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its There are cases which do not, in medical terms, require surgery
attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to or follow-up treatment. These The Legal Clinic disposes of in a
the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper matter of minutes. "Things like preparing a simple deed of sale
course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is or an affidavit of loss can be taken care of by our staff or, if this
what its advertisements represent and for the which services it will were a hospital the residents or the interns. We can take care of
consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the these matters on a while you wait basis. Again, kung baga sa
jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not hospital, out-patient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It's just like a
be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not represent common cold or diarrhea," explains Atty. Nogales.
clients in court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not
limited merely giving legal advice, contract drafting and so forth. Those cases which requires more extensive "treatment" are dealt
with accordingly. "If you had a rich relative who died and named
The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published you her sole heir, and you stand to inherit millions of pesos of
in the January 13, 1991 issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of property, we would refer you to a specialist in taxation. There
the Philippines Star, entitled "Rx for Legal Problems," where an insight would be real estate taxes and arrears which would need to be
into the structure, main purpose and operations of respondent corporation put in order, and your relative is even taxed by the state for the
was given by its own "proprietor," Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales: right to transfer her property, and only a specialist in taxation
would be properly trained to deal with the problem. Now, if
This is the kind of business that is transacted everyday at The there were other heirs contesting your rich relatives will, then
Legal Clinic, with offices on the seventh floor of the Victoria you would need a litigator, who knows how to arrange the
Building along U. N. Avenue in Manila. No matter what the problem for presentation in court, and gather evidence to support
client's problem, and even if it is as complicated as the Cuneta- the case. 21
Concepcion domestic situation, Atty. Nogales and his staff of
lawyers, who, like doctors are "specialists" in various fields can That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services
take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation is not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of
and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation, and law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings
family law. These specialist are backed up by a battery of it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the advertisements
paralegals, counsellors and attorneys. which it has caused to be published and are now assailed in this
proceeding.
Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. Inspired by the
trend in the medical field toward specialization, it caters to Further, as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U.P. WILOCI,
said reported facts sufficiently establish that the main purpose of and represented in legal matters by incompetent and unreliable persons
respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for various legal over whom the judicial department can exercise little control. 27
problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that the
these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but concept in the United States of paralegals as an occupation separate from
rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. the law profession be adopted in this jurisdiction. Whatever may be its
22
merits, respondent cannot but be aware that this should first be a matter
for judicial rules or legislative action, and not of unilateral adoption as it
It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by has done.
private respondent which constitute practice of law cannot be performed
by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As admitted by
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of the Rules respondent, there are schools and universities there which offer studies
of Court, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice and degrees in paralegal education, while there are none in the
law. 23 Philippines. 28 As the concept of the "paralegals" or "legal assistant"
evolved in the United States, standards and guidelines also evolved to
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those protect the general public. One of the major standards or guidelines was
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The developed by the American Bar Association which set up Guidelines for
permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited the Approval of Legal Assistant Education Programs (1973). Legislation
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of has even been proposed to certify legal assistants. There are also
moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the associations of paralegals in the United States with their own code of
court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those professional ethics, such as the National Association of Legal Assistants,
unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of Inc. and the American Paralegal Association. 29
the court. 24
In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept and limited
The same rule is observed in the american jurisdiction wherefrom acceptance of what may be considered as paralegal service. As pointed
respondent would wish to draw support for his thesis. The doctrines there out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have
also stress that the practice of law is limited to those who meet the been allowed limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal
requirements for, and have been admitted to, the bar, and various statutes services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by
or rules specifically so provide. 25 The practice of law is not a lawful the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefor. 30
business except for members of the bar who have complied with all the
conditions required by statute and the rules of court. Only those persons Accordingly, we have adopted the American judicial policy that, in the
are allowed to practice law who, by reason of attainments previously absence of constitutional or statutory authority, a person who has not
acquired through education and study, have been recognized by the courts been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law for the proper
as possessing profound knowledge of legal science entitling them to administration of justice cannot be hindered by the unwarranted intrusion
advise, counsel with, protect, or defend the rights claims, or liabilities of of an unauthorized and unskilled person into the practice of law. 31 That
their clients, with respect to the construction, interpretation, operation policy should continue to be one of encouraging persons who are unsure
and effect of law. 26 The justification for excluding from the practice of of their legal rights and remedies to seek legal assistance only from
law those not admitted to the bar is found, not in the protection of the bar persons licensed to practice law in the state. 32
from competition, but in the protection of the public from being advised
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the
known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice
objective information or statement of facts. 33 He is not supposed to use with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled
or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, the temple of Jehovah. "The most worthy and effective
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . . is the
qualifications or legal services. 34 Nor shall he pay or give something of establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional
value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be
for, publicity to attract legal business. 35 Prior to the adoption of the code the outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of
of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also Ethics.).
warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for
professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising
comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional
with causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to
importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. 36 the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public
attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial
of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the
profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a difference between a normal by-product of able service and the
merchant advertising his goods. 37 The prescription against advertising of unwholesome result of propaganda. 40
legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental
postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession. Thus, in the case Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The
of The Director of Religious Affairs. vs. Estanislao R. Bayot 38 an canons of the profession enumerate exceptions to the rule against
advertisement, similar to those of respondent which are involved in the advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be
present proceeding, 39 was held to constitute improper advertising or undertaken. The exceptions are of two broad categories, namely, those
solicitation. which are expressly allowed and those which are necessarily implied
from the restrictions. 41
The pertinent part of the decision therein reads:
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a
It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons,
violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it of brief biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be
being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and
25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers,
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and
personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees
malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise and other educational distinction; public or quasi-public offices; posts of
his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and
profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific
societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law Professional Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibility.
lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their written Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso
consent, the names of clients regularly represented." 42 that the exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any state unless
and until it is implemented by such authority in that state." 46 This goes to
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that show that an exception to the general rule, such as that being invoked by
purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, herein respondent, can be made only if and when the canons expressly
trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other provide for such an exception. Otherwise, the prohibition stands, as in the
purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief case at bar.
biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade
journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar
published in a law list the conduct, management or contents of which are Association after the decision in Bates, on the attitude of the public about
calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower lawyers after viewing television commercials, it was found that public
the dignity or standing of the profession. 43 opinion dropped significantly 47 with respect to these characteristics of
lawyers:
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 Trustworthy from 71% to 14%
which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special Professional from 71% to 14%
branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of the Honest from 65% to 14%
opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm Dignified from 45% to 14%
name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not
objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal
directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. 44 and judicial systems, to allow the publication of advertisements of the
kind used by respondent would only serve to aggravate what is already a
Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the deteriorating public opinion of the legal profession whose integrity has
advertisements for which respondent is being taken to task, which even consistently been under attack lately by media and the community in
includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation general. At this point in time, it is of utmost importance in the face of
for services rendered, we find and so hold that the same definitely do not such negative, even if unfair, criticisms at times, to adopt and maintain
and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-mentioned that level of professional conduct which is beyond reproach, and to exert
exceptions. all efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the legal
profession.
The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, 45 which is
repeatedly invoked and constitutes the justification relied upon by In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject
respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case at bar. Foremost is the to disciplinary action, to advertise his services except in allowable
fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows a instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. 49
lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by Considering that Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who is the prime incorporator,
lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc. is a member of
the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate the Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded, with a warning that a
of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such exception is repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this
provided for, expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons of proceeding will be dealt with more severely.
While we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or
illegality of the purpose/s for which the Legal Clinic, Inc. was created In re LUIS B. TAGORDA,
should be passed upon and determined, we are constrained to refrain
from lapsing into an obiter on that aspect since it is clearly not within the MALCOLM, J.:
adjudicative parameters of the present proceeding which is merely
administrative in nature. It is, of course, imperative that this matter be The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of
promptly determined, albeit in a different proceeding and forum, since, the provincial board of Isabela, admits that previous to the last general
under the present state of our law and jurisprudence, a corporation cannot elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which, in
be organized for or engage in the practice of law in this country. This translation, reads as follows:
interdiction, just like the rule against unethical advertising, cannot be
subverted by employing some so-called paralegals supposedly rendering LUIS B. TAGORDA
the alleged support services. Attorney
Notary Public
The remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by respondent is CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
the concern and province of the Solicitor General who can institute the Province of Isabela
corresponding quo warranto action, 50 after due ascertainment of the
factual background and basis for the grant of respondent's corporate (NOTE. As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of
charter, in light of the putative misuse thereof. That spin-off from the sale for the purchase of land as required by the cadastral office;
instant bar matter is referred to the Solicitor General for such action as can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your
may be necessary under the circumstances. application and final requisites for your homestead; and can
execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he can help you
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any
herein respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the complaint for or against you. Come or write to him in his town,
publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to
of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this help and serve the poor.)
petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity,
operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to
Ethics as indicated herein. Let copies of this resolution be furnished the a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality written in Ilocano, which
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and the letter, in translation, reads as follows:
Office of the Solicitor General for appropriate action in accordance
herewith. ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928

MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: I would like to inform you of the


approaching date for our induction into office as member of the
Provincial Board, that is on the 16th of next month. Before my
induction into office I should be very glad to hear your suggestions
or recommendations for the good of the province in general and for
your barrio in particular. You can come to my house at any time here
in Echague, to submit to me any kind of suggestion or
recommendation as you may desire. conceived related to disbarments of members of the bar. In 1919 at the
instigation of the Philippine Bar Association, said codal section was
I also inform you that despite my membership in the Board I will amended by Act No. 2828 by adding at the end thereof the following:
have my residence here in Echague. I will attend the session of the "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
Board of Ilagan, but will come back home on the following day here personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
in Echague to live and serve with you as a lawyer and notary public.
Despite my election as member of the Provincial Board, I will The statute as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of
exercise my legal profession as a lawyer and notary public. In case Professionals Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908
you cannot see me at home on any week day, I assure you that you and by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the
can always find me there on every Sunday. I also inform you that I Code of Ethics provide:
will receive any work regarding preparations of documents of
contract of sales and affidavits to be sworn to before me as notary 27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. The most worthy
public even on Sundays. and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and
especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-
I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This
some people are in the belief that my residence as member of the cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct.
Board will be in Ilagan and that I would then be disqualified to The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards,
exercise my profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of
the case and I would make it clear that I am free to exercise my convenience, is not per se improper. But solicitation of business by
profession as formerly and that I will have my residence here in circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or
Echague. interview not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is
equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through
I would request you kind favor to transmit this information to your touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust
barrio people in any of your meetings or social gatherings so that companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or
they may be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be
my capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by
locality have not as yet contracted the services of other lawyers in furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner
connection with the registration of their land titles, I would be of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the
willing to handle the work in court and would charge only three importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation,
pesos for every registration. defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are
intolerable.
Yours respectfully,
28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH
(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDA AGENTS. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to
Attorney bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship
Notary Public. or trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is
not only unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law. It is
The facts being conceded, it is next in order to write down the applicable disreputable to hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action and
legal provisions. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as originally inform thereof in order to the employed to bring suit, or to breed
litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries or duty of the court is to fix upon the action which should here be taken. The
those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as provincial fiscal of Isabela, with whom joined the representative of the
clients, or to employ agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the case, suggests that the
reward directly or indirectly, those who bring or influence the respondent be only reprimanded. We think that our action should go
bringing of such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen, further than this if only to reflect our attitude toward cases of this
court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who character of which unfortunately the respondent's is only one. The
may succeed, under the guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify permanent
in influencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or elimination from the bar. But as mitigating, circumstances working in
others, to seek his professional services. A duty to the public and to favor of the respondent there are, first, his intimation that he was unaware
the profession devolves upon every member of the bar having of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the
knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner bar, and, third, his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future.
immediately to inform thereof to the end that the offender may be A modest period of suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring
disbarred. attorney. But it should be distinctly understood that this result is reached
in view of the considerations which have influenced the court to the
Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrels relatively lenient in this particular instance and should, therefore, not be
between individuals was a crime at the common law, and one of the taken as indicating that future convictions of practice of this kind will not
penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was disbarment. be dealt with by disbarment.
Statutes intended to reach the same evil have been provided in a number
of jurisdictions usually at the instance of the bar itself, and have been In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the court is
upheld as constitutional. The reason behind statutes of this type is not that the respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby suspended from the
difficult to discover. The law is a profession and not a business. The practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month from April 1,
lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others 1929.
for to do so would be unprofessional. (State vs. Rossman [1909], 53
Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas., 625; People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A.,
231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)

It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice


of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of the honor of a great
profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against the
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. It
results in needless litigation and in incenting to strife otherwise
peacefully inclined citizens.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment


or suspension. That should be distinctly understood.

Giving application of the law and the Canons of Ethics to the admitted
facts, the respondent stands convicted of having solicited cases in
defiance of the law and those canons. Accordingly, the only remaining
foreign trade and investment" (p. 3, respondents' memo). This is unethical
ADRIANO E. DACANAY, complainant because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here. (See
vs. Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed., p. 115.)
BAKER & MCKENZIE and JUAN G. COLLAS JR., LUIS MA.
GUERRERO, VICENTE A. TORRES, RAFAEL E. EVANGELISTA, WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under
JR., ROMEO L. SALONGA, JOSE R. SANDEJAS, LUCAS M. the firm name Baker & McKenzie.
NUNAG, J. CLARO TESORO, NATIVIDAD B. KWAN and JOSE
A. CURAMMENG, JR., respondents. SO ORDERED.

AQUINO, J.:

Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980


verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other
lawyers from practising law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law
firm organized in Illinois.

In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres, using


the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten
lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay
Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client.

Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any


liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether
the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and if not, what is your
purpose in using the letterhead of another law office." Not having
received any reply, he filed the instant complaint.

We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice
law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by
the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a
professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with
members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside
from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the firm name
of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm


name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being
associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest
quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in
Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City; otherwise she will not be able to eject the
JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, complainant, defendant Dave Knope. Complainant told respondent that she could not
vs. decide because she was only representing her sister. To her consternation,
ATTY. ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of Court, the RTC Branch 220 issued an order granting the preliminary injunction
respondent. as threatened by the respondent despite the fact that the MTC, Brach 37
had issued an Order directing the execution of the Decision in Civil Case
RESOLUTION No. 37-14552.

GONZAGA-REYES, J.: Asked to comment, respondent Atty. Gatdula recited the antecedents in
the ejectment case and the issuance of the restraining order by the
The complaint filed by Julieta Borremeo Samonte charges Rolando R. Regional Trial Court, and claimed that contrary to complainant Samonte's
Gatdula, RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City with grave misconduct allegation that she was not notified of the raffle and the hearing, the
consisting in the alleged engaging in the private practice of law which is Notice of Hearing on the motion for the issuance of a Temporary
in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court. Retraining Order was duly served upon the parties, and that the
application for injunctive relief was heard before the temporary
Complainant alleges that she is the authorized representative of her sister restraining order was issued. The preliminary injunction was also set for
Flor Borromeo de Leon, the plaintiff, in Civil Case No. 37-14552 for hearing on August 7, 1996.
ejectment, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 37. A typographical error was committed in the complaint which The respondent's version of the incident is that sometime before the
stated that the address of defendant is No. 63-C instead of 63-B, P. hearing of the motion for the issuance of the temporary restraining order,
Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. The mistake was rectified by the complainant Samonte went to court "very mad" because of the issuance
filing of an amended complaint which was admitted by the Court. A of the order stopping the execution of the decision in the ejectment case.
decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff who subsequently filed a Respondent tried to calm her down, and assured her that the restraining
motion for execution. Complainant, however, was surprised to receive a order was only temporary and that the application for preliminary
temporary restraining order signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of Branch injunction would still be heard. Later the Regional Trial Court granted the
220, RTC, Quezon City, where Atty. Rolando Gatdula is the Branch Clerk application for a writ of preliminary injunction. The complainant went
Court, enjoining the execution of the decision of the Metropolitan Trial back to court "fuming mad" because of the alleged unreasonableness of
Court. Complainant alleges that the issuance of the temporary restraining the court in issuing the injunction.
order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the application
for preliminary injunction. Respondent Gatdula claims that thereafter complainant returned to his
office, and informed him that she wanted to change counsel and that a
Complainant further alleges that when she went to Branch 220, RTC, friend of hers recommended the Law Firm of "Baligod, Gatdula,
Quezon City, to inquire about the reason for the issuance of the Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera," at the same time showing a calling card,
temporary restraining order, respondent Atty. Rolando Gatdula, blamed and asking if he could handle her case. Respondent refused as he was not
her lawyer for writing the wrong address in the complaint for ejectment, connected with the law firm, although he was invited to join but he
and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she should choose to remain in the judiciary. Complainant returned to court a few
change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent, at the same days later and told him that if he cannot convince the judge to recall the
time giving his calling card with the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, writ of preliminary injunction, she will file an administrative case against
Dimailig and Celera" with office at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora respondent and the judge. The threat was repeated but the respondent
refused to be pressured. Meanwhile, the Complainant's Motion to subsequent orders of Judge Prudencio Altre Castillo, Jr. of RTC,
Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was denied. Respondent Branch 220. Complainant's lack of interest in prosecuting this
Gatdula claims that the complainant must have filed this administrative administrative case could be an indication that her filing of the
charge because of her frustration in procuring the ejectment of the charge against the respondent is only intended to harass the
defendant lessee from the premises. Respondent prays for the dismissal respondent for her failure to obtain a favorable decision from the
of the complainant against him. Court.

The case was referred to Executive Judge Estrella Estrada, RTC, Quezon However, based on the record of this administrative case, the
City, for investigation, report and recommendation. calling card attached as Annex "B" of the complainant's affidavit
dated September 25, 1996 allegedly given by respondent to
In her report, Judge Estrada states that the case was set for hearing three complainant would show that the name of herein respondent was
times, on September 7, 1997, on September 17, and on September 24, indeed include in the BALIGOD, GATDULA, TACARDON,
1997, but neither complainant nor her counsel appeared, despite due DIMAILIG & CELERA LAW OFFICES. While respondent
notice. The return of service of the Order setting the last hearing stated denied having assumed any position in said office, the fact
that complainant is still abroad. There being no definite time conveyed to remains that his name is included therein which may therefore
the court for the return of the complainant, the investigating Judge tend to show that he has dealings with said office. Thus, while he
proceeded with the investigation by "conducting searching question" may not be actually and directly employed with the firm, the fact
upon respondent based on the allegations in the complaint, and asked for that his name appears on the calling card as partner in the
the record of Civil Case No. Q-96-28187 for evaluation. The case was set Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig & Celera Law Offices
for hearing for the last time on October 22, 1997, to give complainant a give the impression that he is connected therein and may
last chance to appear, but there was again no appearance despite notice. constitute an act of solicitation and private practice which is
declared unlawful under Republic Act. No. 6713. It is to be
The respondent testified in his own behalf to affirm the statements in his noted, however, that complainant failed to establish by
Comment, and submitted documentary evidence consisting mainly of the convincing evidence that respondent actually offered to her the
pleadings in MTC Civil Case No. 37-14552, and in RTC Civil Case No. services of their law office. Thus, the violation committed by
Q-9628187 to show that the questioned orders of the court were not respondent in having his name included/retained in the calling
improperly issued. card may only be considered as a minor infraction for which he
must also be administratively sanctioned.
The investigating judge made the following findings:
and recommended that Atty. Gatdula be admonished and censured
For failure of the complainant to appear at the several hearings for the minor infraction he has committed.
despite notice, she failed to substantiate her allegations in the
complaint, particularly that herein respondent gave her his Finding: We agree with the investigating judge that the respondent is
calling card and tried to convince her to change her lawyer. This guilty of an infraction. The complainant by her failure to appear at the
being the case, it cannot be established with certainty that hearings, failed to substantiate her allegation that it was the respondent
respondent indeed gave her his calling card even convinced her who gave her calling card "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and
to change her lawyer. Moreover, as borne by the records of the Celera Law Offices" and that he tried to convince her to change counsels.
Civil Case No. Q-96-28187, complainant was duly notified of all We find however, that while the respondent vehemently denies the
the proceedings leading to the issuance of the TRO and the complainant's allegations, he does not deny that his name appears on the
calling card attached to the complaint, which admittedly came into the functions.
hands of the complainant. The respondent testified before the
Investigating Judge as follows:

Q: How about your statement that you even gave her a Time and again this Court has said that the conduct and behavior of every
calling card of the "Baligod, Gatdula, Pardo, Dimailig one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice,
and Celera law Offices at Room 220 Mariwasa from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed
building? with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times must
only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must
A: I vehemently deny the allegation of the complainant be above suspicion. 3
that I gave her a calling card. I was surprised when she
presented (it) to me during one of her follow-ups of the
case before the court. She told me that a friend of hers
recommended such firm and she found out that my WHEREFORE, respondent Rolando R. Gatdula. Branch Clerk of Court,
name is included in that firm. I told her that I have not RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City is hereby reprimanded for engaging in
assumed any position in the law firm. And I am with the the private practice of law with the warning that a repetition of the same
Judiciary since I passed the bar. It is impossible for me offense will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to cause
to enter an appearance as her counsel in the very same the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the
court where I am the Branch Clerk of Court. private practice of law.

The above explanation tendered by the Respondent is an admission SO ORDERED.


that it is his name appears on the calling card, a permissible form of
advertising or solicitation of legal services. 1 Respondent does not
claim that the calling card was printed without his knowledge or
consent, and the calling card 2 carries his name primarily and the
name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address
at 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in
the left corner. The card clearly gives the impression that he is
connected with the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his name
in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which
violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713,
otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for the
Public Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a
public official or employee to, among others:

(2) Engage in the private practice of their


profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict with official
inexcusable negligence.
FERNANDO T. COLLANTES, complainant,
vs. 7. Gross ignorance of the law and procedure. (p. 10, Rollo.)
ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON respondent.
As early as January 15, 1987, V & G had requested the respondent
Register of Deeds to register some 163 deeds of sale with assignment (in
favor of the GSIS) of lots of the V & G mortgaged to GSIS by the lot
PER CURIAM:p buyers. There was no action from the respondent.

Another request was made on February 16, 1987 for him to approve or
deny registration of the uniform deeds of absolute sale with assignment.
This complaint for disbarment is related to the administrative case which Still no action except to require V & G to submit proof of real estate tax
complainant Attorney Fernando T. Collantes, house counsel for V & G payment and to clarify certain details about the transactions.
Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V & G for short), filed against Attorney
Vicente C. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the Although V & G complied with the desired requirements, respondent
latter's irregular actuations with regard to the application of V & G for Renomeron suspended the registration of the documents pending
registration of 163 pro forma Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of compliance by V & G with a certain "special arrangement" between
lots in its subdivision. The present complaint charges the respondent with them, which was that V & G should provide him with a weekly round trip
the following offenses: ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip,
or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent's Quezon City house and lot by
1. Neglecting or refusing inspite (sic) repeated requests and V & G or GSIS representatives.
without sufficient justification, to act within reasonable time
(sic) the registration of 163 Deeds of Absolute Sale with On May 19, 1987, respondent confided to the complainant that he would
Assignment and the eventual issuance and transfer of the act favorably on the 163 registrable documents of V & G if the latter
corresponding 163 transfer certificates of titles to the GSIS, for would execute clarificatory affidavits and send money for a round trip
the purpose of obtaining some pecuniary or material benefit plane ticket for him.
from the person or persons interested therein.
The plane fare amounting to P800 (without the pocket money of P2,000)
2. Conduct unbecoming of public official. was sent to respondent through his niece.

3. Dishonesty. Because of V & G's failure to give him pocket money in addition to plane
fare, respondent imposed additional registration requirements. Fed up
4. Extortion. with the respondent's extortionate tactics, the complainant wrote him a
letter on May 20, 1987 challenging him to act on all pending applications
5. Directly receiving pecuniary or material benefit for himself in for registration of V & G within twenty-four (24) hours.
connection with pending official transaction before him.
On May 22, 1987, respondent formally denied registration of the transfer
6. Causing undue injury to a party, the GSIS [or] Government of 163 certificates of title to the GSIS on the uniform ground that the
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross deeds of absolute sale with assignment were ambiguous as to parties and
subject matter. On May 26, 1987, Attorney Collantes moved for a The investigator, Attorney Leonardo Da Jose, recommended dropping the
reconsideration of said denial, stressing that: charges of: (1) dishonesty; (2) causing undue injury to a party through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and
... since the year 1973 continuously up to December 1986 for a (3) gross ignorance of the law and procedure. He opined that the charge
period of nearly fifteen (15) years or for a sum total of more than of neglecting or refusing, in spite repeated requests and without sufficient
2,000 same set of documents which have been repeatedly and justification, to act within a reasonable time on the registration of the
uniformly registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of documents involved, in order to extort some pecuniary or material benefit
Tacloban City under Attys. Modesto Garcia and Pablo Amascual from the interested party, absorbed the charges of conduct unbecoming of
Jr., it is only during the incumbency of Atty. Vicente C. a public official, extortion, and directly receiving some pecuniary or
Renomeron, that the very same documents of the same tenor material benefit for himself in connection with pending official
have been refused or denied registration ... (p. 15, Rollo.) transactions before him.

On May 27, 1987, respondent elevated the matter en consulta to the Brushing aside the investigator's recommendation, NLTDRA
Administrator, National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio on February 22, 1988,
Administration (NLTDRA) (now the Land Registration Authority recommended to Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A. Ordoez that the
[LRA]). In a Resolution dated July 27,1987 (Consulta No. 1579), the respondent: (1) be found guilty of simple neglect of duty: (2) be
NLTDRA ruled that the questioned documents were registrable. Heedless reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents presented to him for
of the NLTDRA's opinion, respondent continued to sit on V & Gs 163 registration; and (3) be warned that a repetition of similar infraction will
deeds of sale with assignment. be dealt with more severely.

Exasperated by respondent's conduct, the complainant filed with the After due investigation of the charges, Secretary Ordoez found
NLTDRA on June 4, 1987 administrative charges (docketed as Adm. respondent guilty of grave misconduct.
Case No. 87-15), against respondent Register of Deeds.
Our study and consideration of the records of the case indicate
Upon receipt of the charges, NLTDRA Administrator Teodoro G. that ample evidence supports the Investigating Officer's findings
Bonifacio directed respondent to explain in writing why no that the respondent committed grave misconduct.
administrative disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Respondent was further asked whether he would submit his case on the The respondent unreasonably delayed action on the documents
basis of his answer, or be heard in a formal investigation. presented to him for registration and, notwithstanding
representations by the parties interested for expeditious action on
In his answer dated July 9, 1987, respondent denied the charges of the said documents, he continued with his inaction.
extortion and of directly receiving pecuniary or material benefit for
himself in connection with the official transactions awaiting his action. The records indicate that the respondent eventually formally
denied the registration of the documents involved; that he
Although an investigator was appointed by NLTDRA Administrator himself elevated the question on the registrability of the said
Bonifacio to hear Attorney Collantes' charges against him, Attorney documents to Administrator Bonifacio after he formally denied
Renomeron waived his right to a formal investigation. Both parties the registration thereof, that the Administrator then resolved in
submitted the case for resolution based on the pleadings. favor of the registrability of the said documents in question; and
that, such resolution of the Administrator notwithstanding, the
respondent still refused the registration thereof but demanded lawyer.
from the parties interested the submission of additional
requirements not adverted to in his previous denial. The lawyer's oath (Rule 138, Section 17, Rules of Court; People vs. De
Luna, 102 Phil. 968), imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no
xxx xxx xxx man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations
and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
In relation to the alleged 'special arrangement,' although the disciplinary action (Legal Ethics, Ruben E. Agpalo, 1983 Edition, pp. 66-
respondent claims that he neither touched nor received the 67).
money sent to him, on record remains uncontroverted the
circumstance that his niece, Ms. de la Cruz, retrieved from him As the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro said:
the amount of P800.00 earlier sent to him as plane fare, not in
the original denomination of P100.00 bills but in P50.00 bills. A person takes an oath when he is admitted to the Bar which is
The respondent had ample opportunity to clarify or to designed to impress upon him his responsibilities. He thereby
countervail this related incident in his letter dated 5 September becomes an "officer of the court" on whose shoulders rests the
1987 to Administrator Bonifacio but he never did so. grave responsibility of assisting the courts in the proper. fair,
speedy, and efficient administration of justice. As an officer of
... We believe that, in this case, the respondent's being new in the court he is subject to a rigid discipline that demands that in
office cannot serve to mitigate his liability. His being so should his every exertion the only criterion he that truth and justice
have motivated him to be more aware of applicable laws, rules triumph. This discipline is what as given the law profession its
and regulations and should have prompted him to do his best in nobility, its prestige, its exalted place. From a lawyer, to
the discharge of his duties. (pp. 17-18, Rollo.) paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are expected those
qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full candor,
Secretary Ordoez recommended to President Corazon C. Aquino that intellectual honesty, and the strictest observance of fiduciary
Renomeron be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of leave credits responsibility all of which, throughout the centuries, have
and retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the been compendiously described as moral character.
government service, effective immediately.
Membership in the Bar is in the category of a mandate to public
As recommended by the Secretary of Justice, the President of the service of the highest order. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant
Philippines, by Adm. Order No. 165 dated May 3, 1990, dismissed the of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible
respondent from the government service (pp. 1419, Rollo). norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the
advancement of the quest of truth and justice, for which he has
Less than two weeks after filing his complaint against Renomeron in the sworn to be a fearless crusader. (Apostacy in the Legal
NLTDRA, Attorney Collantes also filed in this Court on June 16, 1987, a Profession, 64 SCRA 784, 789- 790; emphasis supplied.)
disbarment complaint against said respondent.
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in
The issue in this disbarment proceeding is whether the respondent government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). Just
register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by this Court for as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
his malfeasances as a public official. The answer is yes, for his requires public officials and employees to process documents and papers
misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his oath as a expeditiously (Sec. 5, subpars. [c] and [d] and prohibits them from
directly or indirectly having a financial or material interest in any
transaction requiring the approval of their office, and likewise bars them DIANA RAMOS, Complainant,
from soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in the course of any vs.
transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office (See. 7, ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG, Respondent.
subpars. [a] and [d]), the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids a
lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct RESOLUTION
(Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay any man's
cause "for any corrupt motive or interest" (Rule 103). PER CURIAM:

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on This is a complaint for disbarment or suspension 1 against Atty. Jose R.
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of Professional
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of Responsibility.
the legal profession. (Rule 7.03, Code of Professional
Responsibility.) The Complaint

This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent, honorable, In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of
and reliable" may practice the profession of law (Noriega vs. Sison, 125 respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions
SCRA 293) for every lawyer must pursue "only the highest standards in against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos.2 She gave respondent
the practice of his calling" (Court Administrator vs. Hermoso, 150 SCRA P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only.3
269, 278).
The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases
The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney Renomeron against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter the
committed as a public official have demonstrated his unfitness to practice courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then come out
the high and noble calling of the law (Bautista vs. Judge Guevarra, 142 after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and
SCRA 632; Court Administrator vs. Rodolfo G. Hermoso, 150 SCRA rescheduled.4 This happened six times and for each "appearance" in court,
269). He should therefore be disbarred. respondent charged her P350.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became
be disbarred from the practice of law in the Philippines, and that his name suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her cases in the
be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys trial courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn
that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he
SO ORDERED. was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).5

Respondent's Defense

According to respondent, the complainant knew that he was in the


government service from the very start. In fact, he first met the
complainant when he was still a district attorney in the Citizen's Legal
Assistance Office (predecessor of PAO) of Bian, Laguna and was
assigned as counsel for the complainant's daughter.6 respondent have issued one. The CBD rejected respondent's claim that he
issued the receipt to accommodate a friend's request. 19 It found
In 1992, the complainant requested him to help her file an action for respondent guilty of violating the prohibitions on government lawyers
damages against the Jovellanoses.7Because he was with the PAO and from accepting private cases and receiving lawyer's fees other than their
aware that the complainant was not an indigent, he declined. 8 salaries.20 The CBD concluded that respondent violated the following
Nevertheless, he advised the complainant to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, a provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
relative who was a private practitioner.9 Atty. Ungson, however, did not
accept the complainant's case as she was unable to come up with the Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
acceptance fee agreed upon.10 Notwithstanding Atty. Ungson's refusal, the deceitful conduct.
complainant allegedly remained adamant. She insisted on suing the
Jovellanoses. Afraid that she "might spend" the cash on hand, the Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
complainant asked respondent to keep the P5,000 while she raised the received for or from a client.
balance of Atty. Ungson's acceptance fee.11
Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he
A year later, the complainant requested respondent to issue an antedated knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may
receipt because one of her daughters asked her to account for the P5,000 render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as
she had previously given the respondent for safekeeping. 12 Because the collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
complainant was a friend, he agreed and issued a receipt dated July 15,
1992.13 Thus, it recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law
for three years and ordered him to immediately return to the complainant
On April 15, 1994, respondent resigned from the PAO.14 A few months the amount of P5,000 which was substantiated by the receipt.21
later or in September 1994, the complainant again asked respondent to
assist her in suing the Jovellanoses. Inasmuch as he was now a private The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings of the
practitioner, respondent agreed to prepare the complaint. However, he CBD that respondent violated Rules 1.01, 16.01 and 18.01 of the Code of
was unable to finalize it as he lost contact with the complainant.15 Professional Responsibility. It, however, modified the CBD's
recommendation with regard to the restitution of P5,000 by imposing
Recommendation of the IBP interest at the legal rate, reckoned from 1995 or, in case of respondent's
failure to return the total amount, an additional suspension of six
Acting on the complaint, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the months.22
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where the complaint was filed,
received evidence from the parties. On November 22, 2004, the CBD The Court's Ruling
submitted its report and recommendation to the IBP Board of
Governors.16 We adopt the findings of the IBP with modifications.

The CBD noted that the receipt17 was issued on July 15, 1992 when Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity.23
respondent was still with the PAO.18 It also noted that respondent More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more
described the complainant as a shrewd businesswoman and that conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny.
respondent was a seasoned trial lawyer. For these reasons, the They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe
complainant would not have accepted a spurious receipt nor would utmost fidelity to public service.24
Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to Revised Administrative Code provides:
public service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is
prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Sec. 14. xxx
Officials and Employees provides:
The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil,
omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.28
Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts
and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees
declared unlawful: from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. 29
Respondent violated the prohibition against accepting legal fees other
xxx xxx xxx than his salary.

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:
Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
xxx xxx xxx land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.

(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law.30 This undertaking includes
Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with the observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by
their official function.25 respondent when he accepted the complainant's cases and received
attorney's fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently,
Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they respondent's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of
are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their the Code of Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the
respective offices. private practice of profession disqualified him from acting as the
complainant's counsel.
In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and
issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private cases
PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client and accepting attorney's fees, respondent also surreptitiously deceived the
relationship.26Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint against the
complainant and the receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-client Jovellanoses (which in the first place he should not have done),
relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the receipt respondent also led the complainant to believe that he really filed an
showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still a action against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the cases
government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his "appearance fees"
private practice of profession. for hearings that never took place. These acts constituted dishonesty, a
violation of the lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood.31
Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees.
The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral
indigent litigants.27 Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the character required of all lawyers, specially one occupying a public office.
Lawyers in public office are expected not only to refrain from any act or
omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in EDILBERTO M. CUENCA, petitioner,
government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times vs.
and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of respondents.
social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private
practice.321avvphi1 RESOLUTION

There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of violating


Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent did
not hold the money for the benefit of the complainant but accepted it as
his attorney's fees. He neither held the amount in trust for the
complainant (such as an amount delivered by the sheriff in satisfaction of FRANCISCO, J.:
a judgment obligation in favor of the client) 33 nor was it given to him for
a specific purpose (such as amounts given for filing fees and bail bond). 34 After his petition for review of the Court of Appeals' judgment 1 affirming
Nevertheless, respondent should return the P5,000 as he, a government his conviction for violation of the "Trust Receipts Law" (Presidential
lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees and not allowed to accept Decree No. 115) was denied by this Court in a Resolution dated February
them.35 9, 1994, 2 petitioner filed on July 6, 1994 a pleading entitled
"SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found guilty of violating the FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL" 3 setting forth, in relation to the
lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18, Rule 18.01 of the Code motion for new trial:
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED
from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll 6. The Motion for New Trial shall be grounded on newly
of Attorneys. He is also ordered to return to complainant the amount of discovered evidence and excusible (sic) negligence, and shall be
P5,000 with interest at the legal rate, reckoned from 1995, within 10 days supported by affidavits of:
from receipt of this resolution.
(i) an officer of private complainant corporation who
Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal records of will exculpate petitioner;
respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant and notice of the same be
served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the (ii) an admission against interest by a former officer of
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. the owner of Ultra Corporation (the Corporation that
employed petitioner), which actually exercised control
over the affairs of Ultra; and

(iii) the petitioner wherein he will assert innocence for


the first time and explain why he was unable to do so
earlier.
4
The Court in its July 27, 1994 Resolution, among other things,
granted the substitution but denied the motion for leave to file and received the instructions directly from me and or Mr. Pedro
motion for new trial, "the petition having been already denied on Valdez, Chairman of CDCP.
February 9, 1994."
5. From Ultra's inception, my brother, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca
Notwithstanding, petitioner on August 8, 1994 filed a "MOTION TO was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer. On March,
ADMIT ATTACHED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL", 5 and a 1979, I instructed Ultra through my brother, Mr. Edilberto
"MANIFESTATION AND SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT" on August Cuenca to purchase for CDCP various steel materials. These
17, 1994. 6 The Court thereafter required the Solicitor General to materials were received by CDCP and are covered by the trust
comment on said motion and manifestation within ten (10) days from receipts which are the subject of this case.
notice, in a Resolution dated September 7, 1994. 7
6. In 1980, CDCP suffered cashflow problems, and consciously
omitted payment to Ultra for the delivery of the said steel
materials. As a nominee of CDCP, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca
In the Comment filed after three (3) extensions of time were given by the merely acted as agent for CDCP. As such, CDCP provided him
Court, 8 the Solicitor General himself recommends that petitioner be with the guarantees needed to persuade China Bank to issue the
entitled to a new trial, proceeding from the same impression that a certain said trust receipts. On the basis of such guarantees, along with
Rodolfo Cuenca's (petitioner's brother) sworn statement is an admission informal assurances issued by CDCP to China Bank that the
against interest which may ultimately exonerate petitioner from criminal transactions of Ultra were undertaken for and on behalf of CDCP
liability. The full text of Mr. Rodolfo Cuenca's "Affidavit" 9 reads: and CDCP Mining Corporation, Ultra was able to obtain credit
facilities, among which included the trust receipts subject of this
RODOLFO M. CUENCA, Filipino, of legal age, with the case.
residence at Urdaneta Village, Makati, Metro Manila, after being
duly sworn and (sic) state that: 7. However, Mr. Edilberto M. Cuenca had no power to cause the
payment of said trust receipts because the common Treasurer
1. During the years 1967 until February 1983, I was the and controller of both CDCP and Ultra, Ms. Nora Vinluan, acted
President and Chief Executive Officer of Construction under my control and I did not allow her to make the appropriate
Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP). payments.

2. During that period, I controlled an effective majority of the 8. To my knowledge, CDCP has not paid Ultra the amounts
voting shares of stock of CDCP. corresponding to the materials covered by the trust receipts
subject of this case.
3. Sometime in 1974, upon my initiative, CDCP together with its
affiliated companies, organized a number of wholly-owned 9. By the time final demand to pay on the trust receipts were
service corporations. One of these was Ultra International (sic) served in 1984, Mr. Edilberto Cuenca was no longer
Trading Corporation, whose purpose was to serve and supply the president of Ultra Corporation and could not have possibly cause
needs of CDCP and its other subsidiaries with lower value goods (sic) Ultra Corporation to pay.
and using Ultra's financial resources.
10. I have executed this affidavit in order to accept personal
4. The directors in Ultra Corporation were nominees of CDCP, responsibility for the trust receipts subject of this case and to
exculpate Mr. Edilberto Cuenca of the criminal charges which he concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the
has asked this Honorable Court to review. innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is
cause for disciplinary action. (Emphasis supplied.)
11. Accordingly, I also undertake to pay the civil obligations
arising from the subject trust receipts. The above duty is well founded on the instruction of the U.S.
Supreme Court in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
(Sgd.) that prosecutors represent a sovereign "whose obligation to
govern impartially is compelling as its obligation to govern at
RODOLFO M. CUENCA all; and whose interest, therefore in a criminal prosecution is not
that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done (Time to
Affiant Rein in the Prosecution, by Atty. Bruce Fein, published on p. 11,
The Lawyers Review, July 31, 1994). (Emphasis supplied.) 10
And the Solicitor General had this to say:

Ordinarily, it is too late at this stage to ask for a new trial.

However, the sworn statement of Rodolfo Cuenca is a


declaration against his own interests under Section 38, Rule 130, Although in "Goduco v. CA" (14 SCRA 282 [1965]) decided some
Revised Rules of Court and it casts doubt on the culpability of twenty (20) years ago, this Court ruled that it is not authorized to
his brother Edilberto Cuenca, the petitioner. Hence, the alleged entertain a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial predicated on
confession of guilt should be given a hard look by the Court. allegedly newly discovered evidence the rationale of which being:

The People is inclined to allow petitioner to establish the The judgment of the Court of Appeals is conclusive as to the
genuineness and due execution of his brother's affidavit in the facts, and cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
interest of justice and fair play. Accordingly, in an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court,
the latter has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for new trial
Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional on the ground of newly discovered evidence, for only questions
Responsibility, prosecutors who represent the People of the of fact are involved therein.
Philippines in a criminal case are not duty bound to seek
conviction of the accused but to see that justice is done. Said the rule now appears to have been relaxed, if not abandoned, in
Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 states: subsequent cases like "Helmuth, Jr. v. People" 11 and "People v.
Amparado". 12
Canon 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official
tasks.
In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside technicalities and despite
Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in the opposition of the Solicitor General, granted new trial to the convicted
public prosecution is not to convict but to see that accused concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or affidavits of
justice is done. The suppression of facts or the persons which the Court considered as newly discovered and probably
sufficient evidence to reverse the judgment of conviction. Being similarly
circumstanced, there is no nagging reason why herein petitioner should OMAR P. ALI, Complainant,
be denied the same benefit. It becomes all the more plausible under the vs.
circumstances considering that the "People" does not raise any objection ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG, respondent.
to a new trial, for which reason the Solicitor General ought to be
specially commended for displaying once again such statesmanlike DECISION
gesture of impartiality. The Solicitor General's finest hour, indeed.
PER CURIAM:
WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion For New Trial is hereby GRANTED.
Let the case be RE-OPENED and REMANDED to the court of origin for This is a verified petition for disbarment 1 filed against Atty. Mosib Ali
reception of petitioner's evidence. Bubong for having been found guilty of grave misconduct while holding
the position of Register of Deeds of Marawi City.
SO ORDERED.
It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an off-shoot of the
administrative case earlier filed by complainant against respondent. In
said case, which was initially investigated by the Land Registration
Authority (LRA), complainant charged respondent with illegal exaction;
indiscriminate issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2821
in the names of Lawan Bauduli Datu, Mona Abdullah,2 Ambobae Bauduli
Datu, Matabae Bauduli Datu, Mooamadali Bauduli Datu, and Amenola
Bauduli Datu; and manipulating the criminal complaint filed against
Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others for violation of the Anti-Squatting
Law. It appears from the records that the Baudali Datus are relatives of
respondent.3

The initial inquiry by the LRA was resolved in favor of respondent. The
investigating officer, Enrique Basa, absolved respondent of all the
charges brought against him, thus:

It is crystal clear from the foregoing that complainant not only failed
to prove his case but that he has no case at all against respondent
Mosib Ali Bubong. Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully
recommended that the complaint against respondent be dismissed for
lack of merit and evidence.4

The case was then forwarded to the Department of Justice for review and
in a report dated 08 September 1992, then Secretary of Justice Franklin
Drilon exonerated respondent of the charges of illegal exaction and
infidelity in the custody of documents. He, however, found respondent
guilty of grave misconduct for his imprudent issuance of TCT No. T-2821 Respondent also insists that he had nothing to do with the dismissal of
and manipulating the criminal case for violation of the Anti-Squatting criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law allegedly
Law instituted against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and the latter's co- committed by Hadji Serad Abdullah and the latter's co-defendants.
accused. As a result of this finding, Secretary Drilon recommended Respondent explains that his participation in said case was a result of the
respondent's dismissal from service. two subpoenas duces tecum issued by the investigating prosecutor who
required him to produce the various land titles involved in said dispute.
On 26 February 1993, former President Fidel V. Ramos issued He further claims that the dismissal of said criminal case by the Secretary
Administrative Order No. 41 adopting in toto the conclusion reached by of Justice was based solely on the evidence presented by the parties.
Secretary Drilon and ordering respondent's dismissal from government Complainant's allegation, therefore, that he influenced the outcome of the
service. Respondent subsequently questioned said administrative order case is totally unjustified.
before this Court through a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and
prohibition5 claiming that the Office of the President did not have the Through a resolution dated 26 June 1995, 11 this Court referred this matter
authority and jurisdiction to remove him from office. He also insisted that to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report,
respondents6 in that petition violated the laws on security of tenure and and recommendation. Acting on this resolution, the IBP commenced the
that respondent Reynaldo V. Maulit, then the administrator of the LRA investigation of this disbarment suit. On 23 February 1996,
committed a breach of Civil Service Rules when he abdicated his Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez issued the following order relative to
authority to resolve the administrative complaint against him (herein the transfer of venue of this case. The pertinent portion of this order
respondent). provides:

In a Resolution dated 15 September 1994, we dismissed the petition "for ORDER


failure on the part of petitioner to sufficiently show that public
respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned When this case was called for hearing, both complainant and
order."7Respondent thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration which respondent appeared.
was denied with finality in our Resolution of 15 November 1994.
The undersigned Commissioner asked them if they are willing to
On the basis of the outcome of the administrative case, complainant is have the reception of evidence vis--vis this case be done in Marawi
now before us, seeking the disbarment of respondent. Complainant City, Lanao del Sur before the president of the local IBP Chapter.
claims that it has become obvious that respondent had "proven himself Both parties agreed. Accordingly, transmit the records of this case to
unfit to be further entrusted with the duties of an attorney" 8 and that he the Director for Bar Discipline for appropriate action.12
poses a "serious threat to the integrity of the legal profession."9
On 30 March 1996, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution
In his Comment, respondent maintains that there was nothing irregular approving Commissioner Fernandez's recommendation for the transfer of
with his issuance of TCT No. T-2821 in the name of the Bauduli Datus. venue of this administrative case and directed the Western Mindanao
According to him, both law10 and jurisprudence support his stance that it Region governor to designate the local IBP chapter concerned to conduct
was his ministerial duty, as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City, to act the investigation, report, and recommendation.13 The IBP Resolution
on applications for land registration on the basis only of the documents states:
presented by the applicants. In the case of the Bauduli Datus, nothing in
the documents they presented to his office warranted suspicion, hence, he Resolution No. XII-96-153
was duty-bound to issue TCT No. T-2821 in their favor. Adm. Case No. 4018
Omar P. Ali vs. Atty. Mosib A. Bubong case to Marawi City, rather he is directed to re-evaluate the
recommendation submitted by Cotabato Chapter and report the same
RESOLVED TO APPROVE the recommendation of Commissioner to the Board of Governors.20
Victor C. Fernandez for the Transfer of Venue of the above-entitled
case and direct the Western Mindanao Region Governor George C. Prior to the issuance of Resolution No. XIII-98-268, respondent filed on
Jabido to designate the local IBP Chapter concerned to conduct the 08 October 1998 a motion praying that the recommendation of the IBP
investigation, report and recommendation. Cotabato Chapter be stricken from the records.21 Respondent insists that
the investigating panel constituted by said IBP chapter did not have the
Pursuant to this resolution, Atty. Benjamin B. Bernardino, Director for authority to conduct the investigation of this case since IBP Resolution
Bar Discipline, wrote a letter dated 23 October 1996 addressed to XII-96-153 and Commissioner Fernandez's Order of 23 February 1996
Governor George C. Jabido, President of IBP Cotabato Chapter clearly vested IBP Marawi City with the power to investigate this case.
requesting the latter to receive the evidence in this case and to submit his Moreover, he claims that he was never notified of any hearing by the
recommendation and recommendation as directed by the IBP Board of investigating panel of IBP Cotabato Chapter thereby depriving him of his
Governors.14 right to due process.

In an undated Report and Recommendation, the IBP Cotabato Chapter 15 Complainant opposed22 this motion arguing that respondent is guilty of
informed the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) that the laches. According to complainant, the report and recommendation
investigating panel16 had sent notices to both complainant and respondent submitted by IBP Cotabato Chapter expressly states that respondent was
for a series of hearings but respondent consistently ignored said notices. duly notified of the hearings conducted by the investigating panel yet
The IBP Cotabato Chapter concluded its report by recommending that despite these, respondent did nothing to defend himself. He also claims
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for five years. that respondent did not even bother to submit his position paper when he
was directed to do so. Further, as respondent is a member of IBP Marawi
On 01 July 1998, respondent filed a motion dated 30 June 1998 praying City Chapter, complainant maintains that the presence of bias in favor of
for the transmittal of the records of this case to the Marawi City-Lanao respondent is possible. Finally, complainant contends that to refer the
del Sur Chapter of the IBP pursuant to Resolution No. XII-96-153 as well matter to IBP Marawi City would only entail a duplication of the process
as Commissioner Fernandez's Order dated 23 February 1996. which had already been completed by IBP Cotabato Chapter.

Commissioner Fernandez thereafter ordered the investigating panel of In an Order dated 15 October 1999,23 Commissioner Fernandez directed
IBP Cotabato Chapter to comment on respondent's motion. 17 Complying IBP Cotabato Chapter to submit proofs that notices for the hearings
with this directive, the panel expressed no opposition to respondent's conducted by the investigating panel as well as for the submission of the
motion for the transmittal of the records of this case to IBP Marawi position paper were duly received by respondent. On 21 February 2000,
City.18 On 25 September 1998, Commissioner Fernandez ordered the Atty. Jabido, a member of the IBP Cotabato Chapter investigating panel,
referral of this case to IBP Marawi City for the reception of respondent's furnished Commissioner Fernandez with a copy of the panel's order dated
evidence.19 This order of referral, however, was set aside by the IBP 4 August 1997.24 Attached to said order was Registry Receipt No. 3663
Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XIII-98-268 issued on 4 issued by the local post office. On the lower portion of the registry receipt
December 1998. Said resolution provides: was a handwritten notation reading "Atty. Mosib A. Bubong."

RESOLVED to DENY the ORDER of Commissioner Victor C. On 20 April 2001, Commissioner Fernandez ordered Atty. Pedro S.
Fernandez for the transmittal of the case records of the above-entitled Castillo, Chairman of the Commission on Bar Discipline for Mindanao,
to reevaluate the report and recommendation submitted by IBP Cotabato the Office of the President in Administrative Case No. 41 dated
Chapter. This directive had the approval of the IBP Board of Governors February 26, 1993, wherein herein respondent was found guilty of
through its Resolution No. XIV-2001-271 issued on 30 June 2001, to wit: Grave Misconduct in:

RESOLVED to APPROVE the recommendation of Director Victor a) The imprudent issuance of T.C.T. No. T-2821; and,
C. Fernandez for the Transfer of Venue of the above-entitled case and
direct the CBD Mindanao to conduct an investigation, re-evaluation, b) Manipulating the criminal complaint for violation of the anti-
report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of squatting law.
notice.25
And penalized with dismissal from the service, as Register of Deeds
Meanwhile, Bainar A. Ali, informed the CBD Mindanao of the death of of Marawi City. In the Comment filed by respondent in the instant
her father, Omar P. Ali, complainant in this case. According to her, her Adminsitrative Case, his defense is good faith in the issuance of
father passed away on 12 June 2002 and that in interest of peace and T.C.T. No. T-2821 and a denial of the charge of manipulating the
Islamic brotherhood, she was requesting the withdrawal of this case.26 criminal complaint for violation of the anti-squatting law, which by
the way, was filed against respondent's relatives. Going over the
Subsequently, respondent filed another motion, this time, asking the IBP Decision of the Office of the President in Administrative Case No.
CBD to direct the chairman of the Commission on Bar Discipline for 41, the undersigned finds substantial evidence were taken into
Mindanao to designate and authorize the IBP Marawi City-Lanao del Sur account and fully explained, before the Decision therein was
Chapter to conduct an investigation of this case.27 This motion was rendered. In other words, the finding of Grave Misconduct on the
effectively denied by Atty. Pedro S. Castillo in an Order dated 19 July part of respondent by the Office of the President was fully supported
2002.28 According to Atty. Castillo by evidence and as such carries a very strong weight in considering
the professional misconduct of respondent in the present case.
After going over the voluminous records of the case, with special
attention made on the report of the IBP Cotabato City Chapter, the In the light of the foregoing, the undersigned sees no reason for
Complaint and the Counter-Affidavit of respondent, the undersigned amending or disturbing the Report and Recommendation of the IBP
sees no need for any further investigation, to be able to make a re- Chapter of South Cotabato.29
evaluation and recommendation on the Report of the IBP Chapter of
Cotabato City. In a resolution passed on 19 October 2002, the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved, with modification, the afore-quoted Report and
WHEREFORE, the Motion to authorize the IBP-Chpater of Marawi Recommendation of Atty. Castillo. The modification pertained solely to
City, Zamboanga del Norte is hereby denied. The undersigned will the period of suspension from the practice of law which should be
submit his Report to the Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP imposed on respondent whereas Atty. Castillo concurred in the earlier
National Office within ten (10) days from date hereof. recommendation of IBP Cotabato Chapter for a five-year suspension, the
IBP Board of Governors found a two-year suspension to be proper.
In his Report and Recommendation, Atty. Castillo adopted in toto the
findings and conclusion of IBP Cotabato Chapter ratiocinating as On 17 January 2003, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with
follows: the IBP which the latter denied as by that time, the matter had already
been endorsed to this Court.30
The Complaint for Disbarment is primarily based on the Decision by
The issue thus posed for this Court's resolution is whether respondent Services of the Commission on Higher Education. As we had explained
may be disbarred for grave misconduct committed while he was in the in that case
employ of the government. We resolve this question in the affirmative.
[A] lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from
The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and
lawyer simply because he has joined the government service. In fact, by confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold the
the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
of lawyers "shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in
of their official tasks." Thus, where a lawyer's misconduct as a government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened
government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a brethren in private practice.36 (Emphasis supplied)
member of the bar on such grounds. 31 Although the general rule is that a
lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a In the case at bar, respondent's grave misconduct, as established by the
member of the bar for infractions he committed as a government official, Office of the President and subsequently affirmed by this Court, deals
he may, however, be disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct constitutes with his qualification as a lawyer. By taking advantage of his office as the
a violation of his oath a member of the legal profession.32 Register of Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge of the
rules governing land registration for the benefit of his relatives,
Indeed, in the case of Collantes v. Atty. Vicente C. Renomeron,33 we respondent had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform the
ordered the disbarment of respondent on the ground of his dismissal from functions of a civil servant but also to retain his membership in the bar.
government service because of grave misconduct. Quoting the late Chief Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this
Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, we declared matter. It reads:

[A] person takes an oath when he is admitted to the bar which is Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
designed to impress upon him his responsibilities. He thereby public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow
becomes an "officer of the court" on whose shoulders rests the grave the latter to interfere with his public duties.
responsibility of assisting the courts in the proper, fair, speedy and
efficient administration of justice. As an officer of the court he is Respondent's conduct manifestly undermined the people's confidence in
subject to a rigid discipline that demands that in his every exertion the public office he used to occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the
the only criterion be that truth and justice triumph. This discipline is legal profession. The ill-conceived use of his knowledge of the intricacies
what has given the law profession its nobility, its prestige, its exalted of the law calls for nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to
place. From a lawyer, to paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are practice law.
expected those qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full
candor, intellectual honesty, and the strictest observance of fiduciary As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainant's daughter,
responsibility all of which, throughout the centuries, have been requesting for the withdrawal of this case, we cannot possibly favorably
compendiously described as moral character.34 act on the same as proceedings of this nature cannot be "interrupted or
terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution,
Similarly, in Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, et al. v. Atty. Felina Dasig, 35 this withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the
Court found sufficient basis to disbar respondent therein for gross same."37 As we have previously explained in the case of Irene Rayos-
misconduct perpetrated while she was the Officer-in-Charge of Legal Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos:38
A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of
interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is JOVITO S. OLAZO, Complainant,
whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge vs.
of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA (Ret.), Respondent.
rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A
proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil DECISION
action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer
is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest BRION, J.:
and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and
prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the Before us is the disbarment case against retired Supreme Court Associate
purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration Justice Dante O. Tinga (respondent) filed by Mr. Jovito S. Olazo
of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer (complainant). The respondent is charged of violating Rule 6.02, 1 Rule
to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The 6.032 and Rule 1.013 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the representing conflicting interests.
attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has
generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may Factual Background
have in the proper administrative of justice.39
In March 1990, the complainant filed a sales application covering a
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong is hereby parcel of land situated in Barangay Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of
DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Taguig. The land (subject land) was previously part of Fort Andres
Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the respondent's Bonifacio that was segregated and declared open for disposition pursuant
record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on the to Proclamation No. 2476,4 issued on January 7, 1986, and Proclamation
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court No. 172,5 issued on October 16, 1987.
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
To implement Proclamation No. 172, Memorandum No. 119 was issued
by then Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, creating a Committee on
Awards whose duty was to study, evaluate, and make a recommendation
on the applications to purchase the lands declared open for disposition.
The Committee on Awards was headed by the Director of Lands and the
respondent was one of the Committee members, in his official capacity as
the Congressman of Taguig and Pateros (from 1987 to 1998); the
respondents district includes the areas covered by the proclamations.

The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02

In the complaint,6 the complainant claimed that the respondent abused his
position as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards
when he unduly interfered with the complainants sales application
because of his personal interest over the subject land. The complainant
alleged that the respondent exerted undue pressure and influence over the proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award. Thus, the approval of
complainants father, Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter to contest the his sales application by the Committee on Awards amounted to a
complainants sales application and claim the subject land for himself. violation of the objectives of Proclamation No. 172 and Memorandum
The complainant also alleged that the respondent prevailed upon Miguel No. 119.
Olazo to accept, on various dates, sums of money as payment of the
latters alleged rights over the subject land. The complainant further The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated Section 7(b)(2)
claimed that the respondent brokered the transfer of rights of the subject of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
land between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, who is the Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the
nephew of the respondents deceased wife. practice of law, within the one-year prohibition period, when he appeared
as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the
As a result of the respondents abuse of his official functions, the Committee on Awards.
complainants sales application was denied. The conveyance of rights to
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez and his sales application were subsequently In his Comment,7 the respondent claimed that the present complaint is the
given due course by the Department of Environment and Natural third malicious charge filed against him by the complainant. The first one
Resources (DENR). was submitted before the Judicial and Bar Council when he was
nominated as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court; the second
The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03 complaint is now pending with the Office of the Ombudsman, for alleged
violation of Section 3(e) and (i) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed
areas belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainants brother. The With his own supporting documents, the respondent presented a different
complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct version of the antecedent events.
Manuel to convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
As a result of the respondents promptings, the rights to the land were The respondent asserted that Miguel Olazo owned the rights over the
transferred to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. subject land and he later conveyed these rights to Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez. Miguel Olazos rights over the subject land and the transfer of
In addition, the complainant alleged that in May 1999, the respondent his rights to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez were duly recognized by the
met with Manuel for the purpose of nullifying the conveyance of rights Secretary of the DENR before whom the conflict of rights over the
over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The complainant claimed that subject land (between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, on
the respondent wanted the rights over the land transferred to one Rolando one hand, and the complainant on the other hand) was brought. In its
Olazo, the Barangay Chairman of Hagonoy, Taguig. The respondent in decision, the DENR found Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez a qualified
this regard executed an "Assurance" where he stated that he was the applicant, and his application over the subject land was given due course.
lawyer of Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The respondent emphasized that the DENR decision is now final and
executory. It was affirmed by the Office of the President, by the Court of
The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01 Appeals and by the Supreme Court.

The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct The respondent also advanced the following defenses:
considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a
qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The complainant (1) He denied the complainants allegation that Miguel Olazo told
averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the him (complainant) that the respondent had been orchestrating to get
the subject land. The respondent argued that this allegation was subject land.
without corroboration and was debunked by the affidavits of Miguel
Olazo and Francisca Olazo, the complainants sister. The respondent additionally denied violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He alleged that during his third term as
(2) He denied the complainants allegation that he offered the Congressman from 1995 to 1997, the conflicting applications of the
complainant P50,000.00 for the subject land and that he (the complainant, Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez were not
respondent) had exerted undue pressure and influence on Miguel included in the agenda for deliberation of the Committee on Awards.
Olazo to claim the rights over the subject land. The respondent also Rather, their conflicting claims and their respective supporting documents
denied that he had an inordinate interest in the subject land. were before the Office of the Regional Director, NCR of the DENR. This
office ruled over the conflicting claims only on August 2, 2000. This
(3) He claimed that there was nothing wrong in signing as a witness ruling became the basis of the decision of the Secretary of the DENR.
in Miguel Olazos affidavit where the latter asserted his rights over
the subject land. The affidavit merely attested to the truth. Similarly, the respondent cannot be held liable under Rule 6.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility since the provision applies to
(4) He asserted that he and Miguel Olazo were cousins and that the lawyers in the government service who are allowed by law to engage in
latter decided to sell his rights over the subject land for the medical private law practice and to those who, though prohibited from engaging
treatment of his heart condition and the illness of his daughter, in the practice of law, have friends, former associates and relatives who
Francisca Olazo. The respondent insisted that the money he extended are in the active practice of law.8 In this regard, the respondent had
to them was a form of loan. already completed his third term in Congress and his stint in the
Committee on Awards when he represented Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez on
(5) The respondents participation in the transaction between Miguel May 24, 1999.
Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez involved the payment of the
loan that the respondent extended to Miguel Olazo. Lastly, the respondent claimed that he cannot be held liable under Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility since he did not intervene
(6) Manuels belated and secondhand allegation in his Sinumpaang in the disposition of the conflicting applications of the complainant and
Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, regarding what his father told him, Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez because the applications were not submitted to
cannot prevail over his earlier Sinumpaang Salaysay with Francisca the Committee on Awards when he was still a member.
Olazo, dated August 2, 1997. In the said Sinumpaang Salaysay,
Manuel categorically asserted that his father Miguel Olazo, not the The Courts Ruling
complainant, was the farmer-beneficiary. Manuel also expressed his
agreement to the transfer of rights (Pagpapatibay Sa Paglilipat Ng Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be
Karapatan) in favor of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, and the withdrawal disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his
of his fathers application to give way to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguezs duties as a government official.9 He may be disciplined by this Court as a
application. member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation
of his oath as a lawyer.10
(7) The complainants allegation that the respondent had pressured
and influenced Miguel Olazo to sell the subject land was not The issue in this case calls for a determination of whether the
sufficient as it was lacking in specificity and corroboration. The respondents actions constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct
DENR decision was clear that the complainant had no rights over the first, while the respondent was still an elective public official and a
member of the Committee on Awards; and second, when he was no In Huyssen v. Gutierrez,13 we defined promotion of private interest to
longer a public official, but a private lawyer who represented a client include soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction
before the office he was previously connected with. requiring the approval of his or her office, or may be affected by the
functions of his or her office. In Ali v. Bubong,14 we recognized that
After a careful evaluation of the pleadings filed by both parties and their private interest is not limited to direct interest, but extends to advancing
respective pieces of evidence, we resolve to dismiss the administrative the interest of relatives. We also ruled that private interest interferes with
complaint. public duty when the respondent uses the office and his or her knowledge
of the intricacies of the law to benefit relatives.15
Accountability of a government lawyer in public office
In Vitriolo v. Dasig,16 we found the act of the respondent (an official of
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility highlights the the Commission on Higher Education) of extorting money from persons
continuing standard of ethical conduct to be observed by government with applications or requests pending before her office to be a serious
lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. In addition to the standard breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.17 We
of conduct laid down under R.A. No. 6713 for government employees, a reached the same conclusion in Huyssen, where we found the respondent
lawyer in the government service is obliged to observe the standard of (an employee of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation) liable under
conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, based on the
evidence showing that he demanded money from the complainant who
Since public office is a public trust, the ethical conduct demanded upon had a pending application for visas before his office.18
lawyers in the government service is more exacting than the standards for
those in private practice. Lawyers in the government service are subject Similarly, in Igoy v. Soriano19 we found the respondent (a Court Attorney
to constant public scrutiny under norms of public accountability. They of this Court) liable for violating Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
also bear the heavy burden of having to put aside their private interest in Responsibility, after considering the evidence showing that he demanded
favor of the interest of the public; their private activities should not and received money from the complainant who had a pending case before
interfere with the discharge of their official functions.11 this Court.

The first charge involves a violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Applying these legal precepts to the facts of the case, we find the absence
Professional Responsibility. It imposes the following restrictions in the of any concrete proof that the respondent abused his position as a
conduct of a government lawyer: Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the
manner defined under Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to Responsibility.
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere
with his public duties. First, the records do not clearly show if the complainants sales
application was ever brought before the Committee on Awards. By the
The above provision prohibits a lawyer from using his or her public complaints own account, the complainant filed a sales application in
position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or March 1990 before the Land Management Bureau. By 1996, the
(3) allow private interest to interfere with his or her public duties. We complainants sales application was pending before the Office of the
previously held that the restriction extends to all government lawyers Regional Director, NCR of the DENR due to the conflicting claims of
who use their public offices to promote their private interests.12 Miguel Olazo, and, subsequently, of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The
records show that it was only on August 2, 2000 that the Office of the
Regional Director, NCR of the DENR rendered its decision, or after the We note that Manuel had no personal knowledge, other than what Miguel
term of the respondents elective public office and membership to the Olazo told him, of the force allegedly exerted by the respondent against
Committee on Awards, which expired in 1997. Miguel Olazo.

These circumstances do not show that the respondent did in any way In turn, the respondent was able to provide a satisfactory explanation -
promote, advance or use his private interests in the discharge of his backed by corroborating evidence - of the nature of the transaction in
official duties. To repeat, since the sales application was not brought which he gave the various sums of money to Miguel Olazo and Francisca
before the Committee on Awards when the respondent was still a Olazo in the year 1995. In her affidavits dated May 25, 2003 24 and July
member, no sufficient basis exists to conclude that he used his position to 21, 2010,25 Francisca Olazo corroborated the respondents claim that the
obtain personal benefits. We note in this regard that the denial of the sums of money he extended to her and Miguel Olazo were loans used for
complainants sales application over the subject land was made by the their medical treatment. Miguel Olazo, in his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
DENR, not by the Committee on Awards. May 25, 2003, asserted that some of the money borrowed from the
respondent was used for his medical treatment and hospitalization
Second, the complainants allegation that the respondent "orchestrated" expenses.
the efforts to get the subject land does not specify how the orchestration
was undertaken. What appears clear in the records is the uncorroborated The affidavit of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez further corroborated the
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Miguel Olazo, dated May 25, 2003,20 respondents claim that the latters involvement was limited to being paid
categorically stating that the respondent had no interest in the subject the loans he gave to Miguel Olazo and Francisca Olazo. According to
land, and neither was he a contracting party in the transfer of his rights Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, he and Miguel Olazo agreed that a portion of
over the subject land. In the absence of any specific charge, Olazos the loan would be directly paid by Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez to the
disclaimer is the nearest relevant statement on the respondents alleged respondent and the amount paid would be considered as part of the
participation, and we find it to be in the respondents favor. purchase price of the subject land.26

Third, the other documents executed by Miguel Olazo, that the It also bears stressing that a facial comparison of the documentary
complainant presented to support his claim that the respondent exerted evidence, specifically the dates when the sums of money were extended
undue pressure and influence over his father (namely: the letter, dated by the respondent on February 21, 1995, September 2, 1995 and
June 22, 1996, to the DENR Regional Director-NCR;21 the Sinumpaang October 17, 1995, and the date when the Deed of Conveyance 27 over the
Salaysay dated July 12, 1996;22 and the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July subject land was executed or on October 25, 1995, showed that the sums
17, 199623), do not contain any reference to the alleged pressure or force of money were extended prior to the transfer of rights over the subject
exerted by the respondent over Miguel Olazo. The documents merely land. These pieces of evidence are consistent with the respondents
showed that the respondent helped Miguel Olazo in having his farm lots allegation that Miguel Olazo decided to sell his rights over the subject
(covered by the proclaimed areas) surveyed. They also showed that the land to pay the loans he obtained from the respondent and, also, to
respondent merely acted as a witness in the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated finance his continuing medical treatment.
July 17, 1996. To our mind, there are neutral acts that may be rendered by
one relative to another, and do not show how the respondent could have Private practice of law after separation from public office
influenced the decision of Miguel Olazo to contest the complainants
sales application. At the same time, we cannot give any credit to the As proof that the respondent was engaged in an unauthorized practice of
Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, of Manuel. They are not law after his separation from the government service, the complainant
only hearsay but are contrary to what Miguel Olazo states on the record. presented the Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, of Manuel
and the document entitled "Assurance" where the respondent legally after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in
represented Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. Nevertheless, the the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned
foregoing pieces of evidence fail to persuade us to conclude that there cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the
was a violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall
likewise apply.
In Cayetano v. Monsod,28 we defined the practice of law as any activity,
in and out of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure, As a rule, government lawyers are not allowed to engage in the private
knowledge, training and experience. Moreover, we ruled that to engage in practice of their profession during their incumbency.29 By way of
the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of exception, a government lawyer can engage in the practice of his or her
the profession; to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of profession under the following conditions: first, the private practice is
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and second, the practice will
knowledge or skill. not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions. 30 The last
paragraph of Section 7 provides an exception to the exception. In case of
Under the circumstances, the foregoing definition should be correlated lawyers separated from the government service who are covered under
with R.A. No. 6713 and Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional subparagraph (b) (2) of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a one-year
Responsibility which impose certain restrictions on government lawyers prohibition is imposed to practice law in connection with any matter
to engage in private practice after their separation from the service. before the office he used to be with.

Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 reads: Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility echoes this
restriction and prohibits lawyers, after leaving the government service, to
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. In addition to acts and accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in the said service. The keyword in Rule
omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is the term "intervene"
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited which we previously interpreted to include an act of a person who has the
acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby power to influence the proceedings.31 Otherwise stated, to fall within the
declared to be unlawful: ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
respondent must have accepted engagement or employment in a matter
xxxx which, by virtue of his public office, he had previously exercised power
to influence the outcome of the proceedings.1avvphi1
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Public
officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the respondent
previously interfered with the sales application covering Manuels land
xxxx when the former was still a member of the Committee on Awards. The
complainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish that the respondent was
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by engaged in the practice of law. At face value, the legal service rendered
the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or by the respondent was limited only in the preparation of a single
tend to conflict with their official functions; x x x document. In Borja, Sr. v. Sulyap, Inc.,32 we specifically described private
practice of law as one that contemplates a succession of acts of the same
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a
lawyer. under no obligation to prove his/her defense,38until the burden shifts to
him/her because of what the complainant has proven. Where no case has
In any event, even granting that respondents act fell within the definition in the first place been proven, nothing has to be rebutted in defense.39
of practice of law, the available pieces of evidence are insufficient to
show that the legal representation was made before the Committee on With this in mind, we resolve to dismiss the administrative case against
Awards, or that the Assurance was intended to be presented before it. the respondent for the complainants failure to prove by clear and
These are matters for the complainant to prove and we cannot consider convincing evidence that the former committed unethical infractions
any uncertainty in this regard against the respondents favor. warranting the exercise of the Courts disciplinary power.

Violation of Rule 1.01 WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the administrative


case for violation of Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Rule 1.01 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, immoral or Professional Responsibility, filed against retired Supreme Court Associate
deceitful conduct. From the above discussion, we already struck down Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.
the complainants allegation that respondent engaged in an unauthorized
practice of law when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph SO ORDERED.
Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.

We find that a similar treatment should be given to the complainants


claim that the respondent violated paragraph 4(1)33 of Memorandum No.
119 when he encouraged the sales application of Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez despite his knowledge that his nephew was not a qualified
applicant. The matter of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguezs qualifications to
apply for a sales application over lots covered by the proclaimed areas
has been resolved in the affirmative by the Secretary of the DENR in the
decision dated April 3, 2004,34 when the DENR gave due course to his
sales application over the subject land. We are, at this point, bound by
this finding.

As pointed out by the respondent, the DENR decision was affirmed by


the Office of the President, the Court of Appeals 35 and, finally, the Court,
per our Minute Resolution, dated October 11, 2006, in G.R. No. 173453.
In our Resolution, we dismissed the petition for review on certiorari filed
by the complainant after finding, among others, that no reversible error
was committed by the Court of Appeals in its decision.36

All told, considering the serious consequences of the penalty of


disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the burden rests on the
complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the
Court to exercise its disciplinary powers.37 The respondent generally is
Marcos, his family and his cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG,
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT on July 17, 1987, filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for
(PCGG), Petitioners, "reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages"
vs. against respondents Lucio Tan, Carmen Khao Tan, Florencio T. Santos,
SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division), Respondents. Natividad P. Santos, Domingo Chua, Tan Hui Nee, Mariano Tan Eng
Lian, Estate of Benito Tan Kee Hiong, Florencio N. Santos, Jr., Harry C.
DECISION Tan, Tan Eng Chan, Chung Poe Kee, Mariano Khoo, Manuel Khoo,
Miguel Khoo, Jaime Khoo, Elizabeth Khoo, Celso Ranola, William T.
PUNO, J.: Wong, Ernesto B. Lim, Benjamin T. Albacita, Willy Co, Allied Banking
Corporation (Allied Bank), Allied Leasing and Finance Corporation, Asia
This case is prima impressiones and it is weighted with significance for it Brewery, Inc., Basic Holdings Corp., Foremost Farms, Inc., Fortune
concerns on one hand, the efforts of the Bar to upgrade the ethics of Tobacco Corporation, Grandspan Development Corp., Himmel
lawyers in government service and on the other, its effect on the right of Industries, Iris Holdings and Development Corp., Jewel Holdings, Inc.,
government to recruit competent counsel to defend its interests. Manufacturing Services and Trade Corp., Maranaw Hotels and Resort
Corp., Northern Tobacco Redrying Plant, Progressive Farms, Inc.,
In 1976, General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered Shareholdings, Inc., Sipalay Trading Corp., Virgo Holdings &
financial difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial Development Corp., (collectively referred to herein as respondents Tan,
support to Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur daily et al.), then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Panfilo O.
overdrawings on its current account with the Central Bank. 1 It was later Domingo, Cesar Zalamea, Don Ferry and Gregorio Licaros. The case
found by the Central Bank that GENBANK had approved various loans was docketed as Civil Case No. 0005 of the Second Division of the
to directors, officers, stockholders and related interests totaling P172.3 Sandiganbayan.6 In connection therewith, the PCGG issued several
million, of which 59% was classified as doubtful and P0.505 million as writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the above-
uncollectible.2 As a bailout, the Central Bank extended emergency named persons by taking advantage of their close relationship and
loans to GENBANK which reached a total of P310 million.3 Despite influence with former President Marcos.
the mega loans, GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. On
March 25, 1977, the Central Bank issued a resolution declaring Respondents Tan, et al. repaired to this Court and filed petitions for
GENBANK insolvent and unable to resume business with safety to its certiorari, prohibition and injunction to nullify, among others, the writs
depositors, creditors and the general public, and ordering its of sequestration issued by the PCGG.7 After the filing of the parties
liquidation.4 A public bidding of GENBANKs assets was held from comments, this Court referred the cases to the Sandiganbayan for proper
March 26 to 28, 1977, wherein the Lucio Tan group submitted the disposition. These cases were docketed as Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099. In
winning bid.5 Subsequently, former Solicitor General Estelito P. all these cases, respondents Tan, et al. were represented by their counsel,
Mendoza filed a petition with the then Court of First Instance praying former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, who has then resumed his
for the assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANKs private practice of law.
liquidation as mandated by Section 29 of Republic Act No. 265.
On February 5, 1991, the PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent
In February 1986, the EDSA I revolution toppled the Marcos Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. with the Second Division
government. One of the first acts of President Corazon C. Aquino was to of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case Nos. 00058 and 0096-0099.9 The
establish the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to motions alleged that respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor General10 and
recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand counsel to Central Bank, "actively intervened" in the liquidation of
GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan, et al.
and became Allied Banking Corporation. Respondent Mendoza allegedly Hence, the recourse to this Court by the PCGG assailing the resolutions
"intervened" in the acquisition of GENBANK by respondents Tan, et al. dated July 11, 2001 and December 5, 2001 of the Fifth Division of the
when, in his capacity as then Solicitor General, he advised the Central Sandiganbayan via a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule
Banks officials on the procedure to bring about GENBANKs 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 18 The PCGG alleged that the
liquidation and appeared as counsel for the Central Bank in connection Fifth Division acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
with its petition for assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK which he excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolutions contending that:
filed with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of 1) Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a
Manila and was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 107812. The former government lawyer from accepting employment in connection
motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional with any matter in which he intervened; 2) the prohibition in the Rule is
Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from not time-bound; 3) that Central Bank could not waive the objection to
accepting "engagement or employment in connection with any matter in respondent Mendozas appearance on behalf of the PCGG; and 4) the
which he had intervened while in said service." resolution in Civil Case No. 0005 was interlocutory, thus res judicata
does not apply.19
On April 22, 1991 the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan issued a
resolution denying PCGGs motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza in The petition at bar raises procedural and substantive issues of law. In
Civil Case No. 0005.11 It found that the PCGG failed to prove the view, however, of the import and impact of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
existence of an inconsistency between respondent Mendozas former Professional Responsibility to the legal profession and the government,
function as Solicitor General and his present employment as counsel of we shall cut our way and forthwith resolve the substantive issue.
the Lucio Tan group. It noted that respondent Mendoza did not take a
position adverse to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank during his I
term as Solicitor General.12 It further ruled that respondent Mendozas
appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one- Substantive Issue
year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since
he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986. The said section The key issue is whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
prohibits a former public official or employee from practicing his Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza. Again, the prohibition
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be states: "A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
with within one year from his resignation, retirement or separation from engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
public office.13The PCGG did not seek any reconsideration of the ruling.14 had intervened while in the said service."

It appears that Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 were transferred from the I.A. The history of Rule 6.03
Sandiganbayans Second Division to the Fifth Division. 15 In its
resolution dated July 11, 2001, the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan A proper resolution of this case necessitates that we trace the historical
denied the other PCGGs motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza. 16 It lineage of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
adopted the resolution of its Second Division dated April 22, 1991, and
observed that the arguments were the same in substance as the motion to In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, ethical standards for
disqualify filed in Civil Case No. 0005. The PCGG sought lawyers were pervasive in England and other parts of Europe. The early
reconsideration of the ruling but its motion was denied in its resolution statements of standards did not resemble modern codes of conduct. They
dated December 5, 2001.17 were not detailed or collected in one source but surprisingly were
comprehensive for their time. The principal thrust of the standards was
directed towards the litigation conduct of lawyers. It underscored the loyalty and safeguarding of client property. Evidence law started to
central duty of truth and fairness in litigation as superior to any obligation recognize with less equivocation the attorney-client privilege and its
to the client. The formulations of the litigation duties were at times underlying theory of confidentiality. Thus, all of the core duties, with the
intricate, including specific pleading standards, an obligation to inform likely exception of service to the poor, had some basis in formal law. Yet,
the court of falsehoods and a duty to explore settlement alternatives. as in the colonial and early post-revolutionary periods, these standards
Most of the lawyer's other basic duties -- competency, diligence, loyalty, were isolated and did not provide a comprehensive statement of a
confidentiality, reasonable fees and service to the poor -- originated in the lawyer's duties. The reformers, by contrast, were more comprehensive in
litigation context, but ultimately had broader application to all aspects of their discussion of a lawyer's duties, and they actually ushered a new era
a lawyer's practice. in American legal ethics.21

The forms of lawyer regulation in colonial and early post-revolutionary Toward the end of the nineteenth century, a new form of ethical
America did not differ markedly from those in England. The colonies standards began to guide lawyers in their practice the bar association
and early states used oaths, statutes, judicial oversight, and procedural code of legal ethics. The bar codes were detailed ethical standards
rules to govern attorney behavior. The difference from England was in formulated by lawyers for lawyers. They combined the two primary
the pervasiveness and continuity of such regulation. The standards set in sources of ethical guidance from the nineteenth century. Like the
England varied over time, but the variation in early America was far academic discourses, the bar association codes gave detail to the statutory
greater. The American regulation fluctuated within a single colony and statements of duty and the oaths of office. Unlike the academic lectures,
differed from colony to colony. Many regulations had the effect of setting however, the bar association codes retained some of the official
some standards of conduct, but the regulation was sporadic, leaving gaps imprimatur of the statutes and oaths. Over time, the bar association codes
in the substantive standards. Only three of the traditional core duties can became extremely popular that states adopted them as binding rules of
be fairly characterized as pervasive in the formal, positive law of the law. Critical to the development of the new codes was the re-emergence
colonial and post-revolutionary period: the duties of litigation fairness, of bar associations themselves. Local bar associations formed
competency and reasonable fees.20 sporadically during the colonial period, but they disbanded by the early
nineteenth century. In the late nineteenth century, bar associations began
The nineteenth century has been termed the "dark ages" of legal ethics to form again, picking up where their colonial predecessors had left off.
in the United States. By mid-century, American legal reformers were Many of the new bar associations, most notably the Alabama State Bar
filling the void in two ways. First, David Dudley Field, the drafter of the Association and the American Bar Association, assumed on the task of
highly influential New York "Field Code," introduced a new set of drafting substantive standards of conduct for their members.22
uniform standards of conduct for lawyers. This concise statement of eight
statutory duties became law in several states in the second half of the In 1887, Alabama became the first state with a comprehensive bar
nineteenth century. At the same time, legal educators, such as David association code of ethics. The 1887 Alabama Code of Ethics was the
Hoffman and George Sharswood, and many other lawyers were working model for several states codes, and it was the foundation for the
to flesh out the broad outline of a lawyer's duties. These reformers wrote American Bar Association's (ABA) 1908 Canons of Ethics.23
about legal ethics in unprecedented detail and thus brought a new level of
understanding to a lawyer's duties. A number of mid-nineteenth century In 1917, the Philippine Bar found that the oath and duties of a lawyer
laws and statutes, other than the Field Code, governed lawyer behavior. A were insufficient to attain the full measure of public respect to which the
few forms of colonial regulations e.g., the "do no falsehood" oath and legal profession was entitled. In that year, the Philippine Bar Association
the deceit prohibitions -- persisted in some states. Procedural law adopted as its own, Canons 1 to 32 of the ABA Canons of Professional
continued to directly, or indirectly, limit an attorney's litigation behavior. Ethics.24
The developing law of agency recognized basic duties of competence,
As early as 1924, some ABA members have questioned the form and Canons 33 to 47 of the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics.32
function of the canons. Among their concerns was the "revolving door"
or "the process by which lawyers and others temporarily enter By the middle of the twentieth century, there was growing consensus
government service from private life and then leave it for large fees in that the ABA Canons needed more meaningful revision. In 1964, the
private practice, where they can exploit information, contacts, and ABA President-elect Lewis Powell asked for the creation of a committee
influence garnered in government service."25 These concerns were to study the "adequacy and effectiveness" of the ABA Canons. The
classified as adverse-interest conflicts" and "congruent-interest committee recommended that the canons needed substantial revision, in
conflicts." "Adverse-interest conflicts" exist where the matter in which part because the ABA Canons failed to distinguish between "the
the former government lawyer represents a client in private practice is inspirational and the proscriptive" and were thus unsuccessful in
substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while enforcement. The legal profession in the United States likewise observed
employed by the government and the interests of the current and former that Canon 36 of the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics resulted in
are adverse.26On the other hand, "congruent-interest representation unnecessary disqualification of lawyers for negligible participation in
conflicts" are unique to government lawyers and apply primarily to matters during their employment with the government.
former government lawyers.27 For several years, the ABA attempted to
correct and update the canons through new canons, individual The unfairness of Canon 36 compelled ABA to replace it in the 1969
amendments and interpretative opinions. In 1928, the ABA amended one ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.33 The basic ethical
canon and added thirteen new canons.28 To deal with problems peculiar to principles in the Code of Professional Responsibility were supplemented
former government lawyers, Canon 36 was minted which disqualified by Disciplinary Rules that defined minimum rules of conduct to which
them both for "adverse-interest conflicts" and "congruent-interest the lawyer must adhere.34 In the case of Canon 9, DR 9-101(b)35 became
representation conflicts."29 The rationale for disqualification is rooted in a the applicable supplementary norm. The drafting committee reformulated
concern that the government lawyers largely discretionary actions would the canons into the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, and, in
be influenced by the temptation to take action on behalf of the August of 1969, the ABA House of Delegates approved the Model
government client that later could be to the advantage of parties who Code.36
might later become private practice clients.30 Canon 36 provides, viz.:
Despite these amendments, legal practitioners remained unsatisfied with
36. Retirement from judicial position or public employment the results and indefinite standards set forth by DR 9-101(b) and the
Model Code of Professional Responsibility as a whole. Thus, in August
A lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter 1983, the ABA adopted new Model Rules of Professional
upon the merits of which he has previously acted in a judicial capacity. Responsibility. The Model Rules used the "restatement format," where
the conduct standards were set-out in rules, with comments following
A lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public each rule. The new format was intended to give better guidance and
employ should not, after his retirement, accept employment in clarity for enforcement "because the only enforceable standards were the
connection with any matter he has investigated or passed upon while black letter Rules." The Model Rules eliminated the broad canons
in such office or employ. altogether and reduced the emphasis on narrative discussion, by placing
comments after the rules and limiting comment discussion to the content
Over the next thirty years, the ABA continued to amend many of the of the black letter rules. The Model Rules made a number of substantive
canons and added Canons 46 and 47 in 1933 and 1937, respectively.31 improvements particularly with regard to conflicts of interests.37 In
particular, the ABA did away with Canon 9, citing the hopeless
In 1946, the Philippine Bar Association again adopted as its own dependence of the concept of impropriety on the subjective views of
anxious clients as well as the norms indefinite nature.38 procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law.

In cadence with these changes, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Firstly, it is critical that we pinpoint the "matter" which was the subject
(IBP) adopted a proposed Code of Professional Responsibility in of intervention by respondent Mendoza while he was the Solicitor
1980 which it submitted to this Court for approval. The Code was General. The PCGG relates the following acts of respondent Mendoza as
drafted to reflect the local customs, traditions, and practices of the bar constituting the "matter" where he intervened as a Solicitor General,
and to conform with new realities. On June 21, 1988, this Court viz:40
promulgated the Code of Professional Responsibility.39 Rule 6.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility deals particularly with former The PCGGs Case for Atty. Mendozas Disqualification
government lawyers, and provides, viz.:
The PCGG imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) in issuing the assailed Resolutions dated
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he July 11, 2001 and December 5, 2001 denying the motion to disqualify
had intervened while in said service. Atty. Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. The PCGG insists
that Atty. Mendoza, as then Solicitor General, actively intervened in the
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility retained the general closure of GENBANK by advising the Central Bank on how to proceed
structure of paragraph 2, Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics with the said banks liquidation and even filing the petition for its
but replaced the expansive phrase "investigated and passed upon" liquidation with the CFI of Manila.
with the word "intervened." It is, therefore, properly applicable to both
"adverse-interest conflicts" and "congruent-interest conflicts." As proof thereof, the PCGG cites the Memorandum dated March 29,
1977 prepared by certain key officials of the Central Bank, namely, then
The case at bar does not involve the "adverse interest" aspect of Rule Senior Deputy Governor Amado R. Brinas, then Deputy Governor Jaime
6.03. Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest C. Laya, then Deputy Governor and General Counsel Gabriel C. Singson,
problem when he acted as Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 and then Special Assistant to the Governor Carlota P. Valenzuela, then
later as counsel of respondents Tan, et al. in Civil Case No. 0005 and Asistant to the Governor Arnulfo B. Aurellano and then Director of
Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 before the Sandiganbayan. Nonetheless, Department of Commercial and Savings Bank Antonio T. Castro, Jr.,
there remains the issue of whether there exists a "congruent-interest where they averred that on March 28, 1977, they had a conference with
conflict" sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing the Solicitor General (Atty. Mendoza), who advised them on how to
respondents Tan, et al. proceed with the liquidation of GENBANK. The pertinent portion of the
said memorandum states:
I.B. The "congruent interest" aspect of Rule 6.03
Immediately after said meeting, we had a conference with the Solicitor
The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending first, the meaning of General and he advised that the following procedure should be taken:
"matter" referred to in the rule and, second, the metes and bounds of the
"intervention" made by the former government lawyer on the "matter." 1. Management should submit a memorandum to the Monetary Board
The American Bar Association in its Formal Opinion 342, defined reporting that studies and evaluation had been made since the last
"matter" as any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction examination of the bank as of August 31, 1976 and it is believed that the
or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not bank can not be reorganized or placed in a condition so that it may be
merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency permitted to resume business with safety to its depositors and creditors
and the general public. attachments; and

2. If the said report is confirmed by the Monetary Board, it shall order the 4. Such other documents as may be necessary or needed by the Solicitor
liquidation of the bank and indicate the manner of its liquidation and General for his use in then CFI-praying the assistance of the Court in the
approve a liquidation plan. liquidation of Genbank.

3. The Central Bank shall inform the principal stockholders of Genbank Beyond doubt, therefore, the "matter" or the act of respondent Mendoza
of the foregoing decision to liquidate the bank and the liquidation plan as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is "advising the Central
approved by the Monetary Board. Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks liquidation and even filing
the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila." In fine, the Court
4. The Solicitor General shall then file a petition in the Court of First should resolve whether his act of advising the Central Bank on the legal
Instance reciting the proceedings which had been taken and praying the procedure to liquidate GENBANK is included within the concept of
assistance of the Court in the liquidation of Genbank. "matter" under Rule 6.03. The procedure of liquidation is given in
black and white in Republic Act No. 265, section 29, viz:
The PCGG further cites the Minutes No. 13 dated March 29, 1977 of the
Monetary Board where it was shown that Atty. Mendoza was furnished The provision reads in part:
copies of pertinent documents relating to GENBANK in order to aid him
in filing with the court the petition for assistance in the banks SEC. 29. Proceedings upon insolvency. Whenever, upon examination
liquidation. The pertinent portion of the said minutes reads: by the head of the appropriate supervising or examining department or
his examiners or agents into the condition of any bank or non-bank
The Board decided as follows: financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions, it shall be
disclosed that the condition of the same is one of insolvency, or that its
... continuance in business would involve probable loss to its depositors or
creditors, it shall be the duty of the department head concerned forthwith,
E. To authorize Management to furnish the Solicitor General with a copy in writing, to inform the Monetary Board of the facts, and the Board may,
of the subject memorandum of the Director, Department of Commercial upon finding the statements of the department head to be true, forbid the
and Savings Bank dated March 29, 1977, together with copies of: institution to do business in the Philippines and shall designate an official
of the Central Bank or a person of recognized competence in banking or
1. Memorandum of the Deputy Governor, Supervision and Examination finance, as receiver to immediately take charge of its assets and
Sector, to the Monetary Board, dated March 25, 1977, containing a report liabilities, as expeditiously as possible collect and gather all the assets
on the current situation of Genbank; and administer the same for the benefit of its creditors, exercising all the
powers necessary for these purposes including, but not limited to,
2. Aide Memoire on the Antecedent Facts Re: General Bank and Trust bringing suits and foreclosing mortgages in the name of the bank or non-
Co., dated March 23, 1977; bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions.

3. Memorandum of the Director, Department of Commercial and Savings ...


Bank, to the Monetary Board, dated March 24, 1977, submitting,
pursuant to Section 29 of R.A. No. 265, as amended by P.D. No. 1007, a If the Monetary Board shall determine and confirm within the said period
repot on the state of insolvency of Genbank, together with its that the bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-
banking functions is insolvent or cannot resume business with safety to conditioned that it will pay the damages which the petitioner or plaintiff
its depositors, creditors and the general public, it shall, if the public may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction. The
interest requires, order its liquidation, indicate the manner of its provisions of Rule 58 of the New Rules of Court insofar as they are
liquidation and approve a liquidation plan. The Central Bank shall, by the applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Section shall
Solicitor General, file a petition in the Court of First Instance reciting the govern the issuance and dissolution of the restraining order or injunction
proceedings which have been taken and praying the assistance of the contemplated in this Section.
court in the liquidation of such institution. The court shall have
jurisdiction in the same proceedings to adjudicate disputed claims against Insolvency, under this Act, shall be understood to mean the inability of a
the bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking
functions and enforce individual liabilities of the stockholders and do all functions to pay its liabilities as they fall due in the usual and ordinary
that is necessary to preserve the assets of such institution and to course of business. Provided, however, That this shall not include the
implement the liquidation plan approved by the Monetary Board. The inability to pay of an otherwise non-insolvent bank or non-bank financial
Monetary Board shall designate an official of the Central Bank, or a intermediary performing quasi-banking functions caused by
person of recognized competence in banking or finance, as liquidator extraordinary demands induced by financial panic commonly evidenced
who shall take over the functions of the receiver previously appointed by by a run on the bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing
the Monetary Board under this Section. The liquidator shall, with all quasi-banking functions in the banking or financial community.
convenient speed, convert the assets of the banking institution or non-
bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions to The appointment of a conservator under Section 28-A of this Act or the
money or sell, assign or otherwise dispose of the same to creditors and appointment of a receiver under this Section shall be vested exclusively
other parties for the purpose of paying the debts of such institution and he with the Monetary Board, the provision of any law, general or special, to
may, in the name of the bank or non-bank financial intermediary the contrary notwithstanding. (As amended by PD Nos. 72, 1007, 1771 &
performing quasi-banking functions, institute such actions as may be 1827, Jan. 16, 1981)
necessary in the appropriate court to collect and recover accounts and
assets of such institution. We hold that this advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure
to liquidate GENBANK is not the "matter" contemplated by Rule 6.03
The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, the actions of of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No.
the Monetary Board under this Section and the second paragraph of 342 is clear as daylight in stressing that the "drafting, enforcing or
Section 34 of this Act shall be final and executory, and can be set aside by interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or
the court only if there is convincing proof that the action is plainly briefing abstract principles of law" are acts which do not fall within the
arbitrary and made in bad faith. No restraining order or injunction shall scope of the term "matter" and cannot disqualify.
be issued by the court enjoining the Central Bank from implementing its
actions under this Section and the second paragraph of Section 34 of this Secondly, it can even be conceded for the sake of argument that the
Act, unless there is convincing proof that the action of the Monetary above act of respondent Mendoza falls within the definition of matter per
Board is plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith and the petitioner or ABA Formal Opinion No. 342. Be that as it may, the said act of
plaintiff files with the clerk or judge of the court in which the action is respondent Mendoza which is the "matter" involved in Sp. Proc. No.
pending a bond executed in favor of the Central Bank, in an amount to be 107812 is entirely different from the "matter" involved in Civil Case
fixed by the court. The restraining order or injunction shall be refused or, No. 0096. Again, the plain facts speak for themselves. It is given that
if granted, shall be dissolved upon filing by the Central Bank of a bond, respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the Central
which shall be in the form of cash or Central Bank cashier(s) check, in an Bank to liquidate GENBANK. It is also given that he did not participate
amount twice the amount of the bond of the petitioner or plaintiff
in the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The "matter" where he got proceeding even if the intervention is irrelevant or has no effect or little
himself involved was in informing Central Bank on the procedure influence.43 Under the second interpretation, "intervene" only includes
provided by law to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject
necessary petition in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 in the then Court of First proceedings.44 We hold that this second meaning is more appropriate to
Instance. The subject "matter" of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is give to the word "intervention" under Rule 6.03 of the Code of
not the same nor is related to but is different from the subject Professional Responsibility in light of its history. The evils sought to be
"matter" in Civil Case No. 0096. Civil Case No. 0096 involves the remedied by the Rule do not exist where the government lawyer does an
sequestration of the stocks owned by respondents Tan, et al., in Allied act which can be considered as innocuous such as "x x x drafting,
Bank on the alleged ground that they are ill-gotten. The case does not enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations
involve the liquidation of GENBANK. Nor does it involve the sale of or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law."
GENBANK to Allied Bank. Whether the shares of stock of the
reorganized Allied Bank are ill-gotten is far removed from the issue of In fine, the intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant.
the dissolution and liquidation of GENBANK. GENBANK was Originally, Canon 36 provided that a former government lawyer "should
liquidated by the Central Bank due, among others, to the alleged banking not, after his retirement, accept employment in connection with any
malpractices of its owners and officers. In other words, the legality of the matter which he has investigated or passed upon while in such office or
liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration cases. employ." As aforediscussed, the broad sweep of the phrase "which he has
Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and investigated or passed upon" resulted in unjust disqualification of former
liquidation of banks. It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of government lawyers. The 1969 Code restricted its latitude, hence, in DR
Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza 9-101(b), the prohibition extended only to a matter in which the lawyer,
because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. while in the government service, had "substantial responsibility." The
No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from the matter 1983 Model Rules further constricted the reach of the rule. MR 1.11(a)
involved in Civil Case No. 0096. provides that "a lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection
with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and
Thirdly, we now slide to the metes and bounds of the "intervention" substantially as a public officer or employee."
contemplated by Rule 6.03. "Intervene" means, viz.:
It is, however, alleged that the intervention of respondent Mendoza in Sp.
1: to enter or appear as an irrelevant or extraneous feature or Proc. No. 107812 is significant and substantial. We disagree. For one, the
circumstance . . . 2: to occur, fall, or come in between points of time or petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory pleading, hence, it has
events . . . 3: to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification: to be signed by respondent Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General.
INTERPOSE . . . 4: to occur or lie between two things (Paris, where the For another, the record is arid as to the actual participation of
same city lay on both sides of an intervening river . . .)41 respondent Mendoza in the subsequent proceedings. Indeed, the case was
in slumberville for a long number of years. None of the parties pushed for
On the other hand, "intervention" is defined as: its early termination. Moreover, we note that the petition filed merely
seeks the assistance of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The
1: the act or fact of intervening: INTERPOSITION; 2: interference that principal role of the court in this type of proceedings is to assist the
may affect the interests of others.42 Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the GENBANK.
The role of the court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to
There are, therefore, two possible interpretations of the word "intervene." assist the Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. In such a
Under the first interpretation, "intervene" includes participation in a proceeding, the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General is not
that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of government.
II commentary."48 Even the United States Supreme Court found no quarrel
with the Court of Appeals description of disqualification motions as "a
Balancing Policy Considerations dangerous game."49 In the case at bar, the new attempt to disqualify
respondent Mendoza is difficult to divine. The disqualification of
To be sure, Rule 6.03 of our Code of Professional Responsibility respondent Mendoza has long been a dead issue. It was resuscitated after
represents a commendable effort on the part of the IBP to upgrade the the lapse of many years and only after PCGG has lost many legal
ethics of lawyers in the government service. As aforestressed, it is a take- incidents in the hands of respondent Mendoza. For a fact, the recycled
off from similar efforts especially by the ABA which have not been motion for disqualification in the case at bar was filed more than four
without difficulties. To date, the legal profession in the United States is years after the filing of the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
still fine tuning its DR 9-101(b) rule. injunction with the Supreme Court which were subsequently remanded to
the Sandiganbayan and docketed as Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099.50 At the
In fathoming the depth and breadth of Rule 6.03 of our Code of very least, the circumstances under which the motion to disqualify in the
Professional Responsibility, the Court took account of various policy case at bar were refiled put petitioners motive as highly suspect.
considerations to assure that its interpretation and application to the case
at bar will achieve its end without necessarily prejudicing other values of Similarly, the Court in interpreting Rule 6.03 was not unconcerned
equal importance. Thus, the rule was not interpreted to cause a chilling with the prejudice to the client which will be caused by its
effect on government recruitment of able legal talent. At present, it is misapplication. It cannot be doubted that granting a disqualification
already difficult for government to match compensation offered by the motion causes the client to lose not only the law firm of choice, but
private sector and it is unlikely that government will be able to reverse probably an individual lawyer in whom the client has confidence.51 The
that situation. The observation is not inaccurate that the only card that the client with a disqualified lawyer must start again often without the benefit
government may play to recruit lawyers is have them defer present of the work done by the latter.52 The effects of this prejudice to the right
income in return for the experience and contacts that can later be to choose an effective counsel cannot be overstated for it can result in
exchanged for higher income in private practice. 45 Rightly, Judge denial of due process.
Kaufman warned that the sacrifice of entering government service would
be too great for most men to endure should ethical rules prevent them The Court has to consider also the possible adverse effect of a
from engaging in the practice of a technical specialty which they devoted truncated reading of the rule on the official independence of lawyers
years in acquiring and cause the firm with which they become associated in the government service. According to Prof. Morgan: "An individual
to be disqualified.46 Indeed, "to make government service more difficult who has the security of knowing he or she can find private employment
to exit can only make it less appealing to enter."47 upon leaving the government is free to work vigorously, challenge
official positions when he or she believes them to be in error, and resist
In interpreting Rule 6.03, the Court also cast a harsh eye on its use as a illegal demands by superiors. An employee who lacks this assurance of
litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel as well as deprive his client private employment does not enjoy such freedom."53 He adds: "Any
of competent legal representation. The danger that the rule will be system that affects the right to take a new job affects the ability to quit the
misused to bludgeon an opposing counsel is not a mere guesswork. The old job and any limit on the ability to quit inhibits official
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has noted "the tactical use independence."54 The case at bar involves the position of Solicitor
of motions to disqualify counsel in order to delay proceedings, deprive General, the office once occupied by respondent Mendoza. It cannot be
the opposing party of counsel of its choice, and harass and embarrass the overly stressed that the position of Solicitor General should be
opponent," and observed that the tactic was "so prevalent in large civil endowed with a great degree of independence. It is this independence
cases in recent years as to prompt frequent judicial and academic that allows the Solicitor General to recommend acquittal of the innocent;
it is this independence that gives him the right to refuse to defend
officials who violate the trust of their office. Any undue dimunition of the working against the interest of Central Bank. On the contrary, he is
independence of the Solicitor General will have a corrosive effect on the indirectly defending the validity of the action of Central Bank in
rule of law. liquidating GENBANK and selling it later to Allied Bank. Their
interests coincide instead of colliding. It is for this reason that Central
No less significant a consideration is the deprivation of the former Bank offered no objection to the lawyering of respondent Mendoza in
government lawyer of the freedom to exercise his profession. Given Civil Case No. 0005 in defense of respondents Tan, et al. There is no
the current state of our law, the disqualification of a former government switching of sides for no two sides are involved.
lawyer may extend to all members of his law firm.55 Former government
lawyers stand in danger of becoming the lepers of the legal profession. It is also urged that the Court should consider that Rule 6.03 is intended
to avoid conflict of loyalties, i.e., that a government employee might be
It is, however, proffered that the mischief sought to be remedied by Rule subject to a conflict of loyalties while still in government service. 61 The
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is the possible example given by the proponents of this argument is that a lawyer who
appearance of impropriety and loss of public confidence in plans to work for the company that he or she is currently charged with
government. But as well observed, the accuracy of gauging public prosecuting might be tempted to prosecute less vigorously.62 In the
perceptions is a highly speculative exercise at best56 which can lead to cautionary words of the Association of the Bar Committee in 1960: "The
untoward results.57 No less than Judge Kaufman doubts that the lessening greatest public risks arising from post employment conduct may well
of restrictions as to former government attorneys will have any occur during the period of employment through the dampening of
detrimental effect on that free flow of information between the aggressive administration of government policies."63 Prof. Morgan,
government-client and its attorneys which the canons seek to protect. 58 however, considers this concern as "probably excessive."64 He opines "x x
Notably, the appearance of impropriety theory has been rejected in x it is hard to imagine that a private firm would feel secure hiding
the 1983 ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 59 and some courts someone who had just been disloyal to his or her last client the
have abandoned per se disqualification based on Canons 4 and 9 when an government. Interviews with lawyers consistently confirm that law firms
actual conflict of interest exists, and demand an evaluation of the want the best government lawyers the ones who were hardest to beat
interests of the defendant, government, the witnesses in the case, and the not the least qualified or least vigorous advocates."65But again, this
public.60 particular concern is a non factor in the case at bar. There is no
charge against respondent Mendoza that he advised Central Bank on how
It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its to liquidate GENBANK with an eye in later defending respondents Tan,
strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who "switch sides." It is et al. of Allied Bank. Indeed, he continues defending both the interests of
claimed that "switching sides" carries the danger that former government Central Bank and respondents Tan, et al. in the above cases.
employee may compromise confidential official information in the
process. But this concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As Likewise, the Court is nudged to consider the need to curtail what is
afore-discussed, the act of respondent Mendoza in informing the Central perceived as the "excessive influence of former officials" or their
Bank on the procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a different "clout."66 Prof. Morgan again warns against extending this concern too
matter from the subject matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the far. He explains the rationale for his warning, viz: "Much of what appears
sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank. to be an employees influence may actually be the power or authority of
Consequently, the danger that confidential official information might be his or her position, power that evaporates quickly upon departure from
divulged is nil, if not inexistent. To be sure, there are no inconsistent government x x x."67 More, he contends that the concern can be
"sides" to be bothered about in the case at bar. For there is no question demeaning to those sitting in government. To quote him further: "x x x
that in lawyering for respondents Tan, et al., respondent Mendoza is not The idea that, present officials make significant decisions based on
friendship rather than on the merit says more about the present officials
than about their former co-worker friends. It implies a lack of will or
talent, or both, in federal officials that does not seem justified or GISELA HUYSSEN, Complainant,
intended, and it ignores the possibility that the officials will tend to vs.
disfavor their friends in order to avoid even the appearance of ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ, Respondent.
favoritism."68
DECISION
III
PER CURIAM:
The question of fairness
This treats of a Complaint1 for Disbarment filed by Gisela Huyssen
Mr. Justices Panganiban and Carpio are of the view, among others, that against respondent Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez.
the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility should be subject to a prescriptive period. Mr. Justice Complainant alleged that in 1995, while respondent was still connected
Tinga opines that the rule cannot apply retroactively to respondent with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), she and her three
Mendoza. Obviously, and rightly so, they are disquieted by the fact that sons, who are all American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas under
(1) when respondent Mendoza was the Solicitor General, Rule 6.03 has Section 13[g] of the Immigration Law. Respondent told complainant that
not yet adopted by the IBP and approved by this Court, and (2) the bid to in order that their visa applications will be favorably acted upon by the
disqualify respondent Mendoza was made after the lapse of time whose BID they needed to deposit a certain sum of money for a period of one
length cannot, by any standard, qualify as reasonable. At bottom, the year which could be withdrawn after one year. Believing that the deposit
point they make relates to the unfairness of the rule if applied without any was indeed required by law, complainant deposited with respondent on
prescriptive period and retroactively, at that. Their concern is legitimate six different occasions from April 1995 to April 1996 the total amount of
and deserves to be initially addressed by the IBP and our Committee on US$20,000. Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs that he
Revision of the Rules of Court. received the amounts deposited by the complainant but refused to give
her copies of official receipts despite her demands. After one year,
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition assailing the resolutions dated July complainant demanded from respondent the return of US$20,000 who
11, 2001 and December 5, 2001 of the Fifth Division of the assured her that said amount would be returned. When respondent failed
Sandiganbayan in Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 is denied. to return the sum deposited, the World Mission for Jesus (of which
complainant was a member) sent a demand letter to respondent for the
No cost. immediate return of the money. In a letter dated 1 March 1999,
respondent promised to release the amount not later than 9 March 1999.
SO ORDERED. Failing to comply with his promise, the World Mission for Jesus sent
another demand letter. In response thereto, respondent sent complainant a
letter dated 19 March 1999 explaining the alleged reasons for the delay in
the release of deposited amount. He enclosed two blank checks postdated
to 6 April and 20 April 1999 and authorized complainant to fill in the
amounts. When complainant deposited the postdated checks on their due
dates, the same were dishonored because respondent had stopped
payment on the same. Thereafter, respondent, in his letter to complainant
dated 25 April 1999, explained the reasons for stopping payment on the
checks, and gave complainant five postdated checks with the assurance thereafter, provided them with list of the requirements in obtaining
that said checks would be honored. Complainant deposited the five the said visa, one of which is that the applicant must have a $40,000
postdated checks on their due dates but they were all dishonored for deposited in the bank. I also inform that her son Marcus Huyssen,
having been drawn against insufficient funds or payment thereon was who was already of major age, has to have the same amount of show
ordered stopped by respondent. After respondent made several unfulfilled money separate of her money as he would be issued separate visa,
promises to return the deposited amount, complainant referred the matter while her two minor children would be included as her dependents in
to a lawyer who sent two demand letters to respondent. The demand her said visa application. I advised them to get a lawyer (sic),
letters remained unheeded. complainant further requested me to refer to her to a lawyer to work
for their application, which I did and contacted the late Atty.
Thus, a complaint2 for disbarment was filed by complainant in the Mendoza, an Immigration lawyer, to do the job for the complainant
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and her family.
(IBP).
c) The application was filed, processed and followed-up by the said
On 15 November 2000, Victor C. Fernandez, Director for Bar Discipline, Atty. Mendoza until the same was finished and the corresponding
required3 respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt permanent visa were obtained by the complainant and her family.
thereof. Her son Marcus Huyssen was given an independent permanent visa
while the other two were made as dependents of the complainant. In
In his Counter-Affidavit dated 2 July 2001,4 respondent denied the between the processing of the papers and becoming very close to the
allegations in the complaint claiming that having never physically complainant, I became the intermediary between complainant and
received the money mentioned in the complaint, he could not have their counsel so much that every amount that the latter would request
appropriated or pocketed the same. He said the amount was used as for whatever purpose was coursed through me which request were
payment for services rendered for obtaining the permanent visas in the then transmitted to the complainant and every amount of money
Philippines. Respondent explained thus: given by the complainant to their counsel were coursed thru me
which is the very reason why my signature appears in the vouchers
a) Through a close-friend, Jovie Galaraga, a Pastor and likewise a attached in the complaint-affidavit;
friend of the complainant, the latter was introduced to me at my
office at the Bureau of Immigration with a big problem concerning d) That as time goes by, I noticed that the amount appeared to be
their stay in the Philippines, herself and three sons, one of which is huge for services of a lawyer that I myself began to wonder why and,
already of major age while the two others were still minors then. to satisfy my curiosity, I met Atty. Mendoza and inquired from him
Their problem was the fact that since they have been staying in the regarding the matter and the following facts were revealed to me:
Philippines for almost ten (10) years as holders of missionary visas
(9G) they could no longer extend their said status as under the law 1) That what was used by the complainant as her show money
and related polic[i]es of the government, missionary visa holders from the bank is not really her money but money of World
could only remain as such for ten (10) years after which they could Mission for Jesus, which therefore is a serious violation of the
no longer extend their said status and have to leave the country. Immigration Law as there was a misrepresentation. This fact was
confirmed later when the said entity sent their demand letter to
b) Studying their case and being U.S. Citizen (sic), I advised them the undersigned affiant and which is attached to the complaint-
that they better secure a permanent visa under Section 3 of the affidavit;
Philippine Immigration Law otherwise known as Quota Visa and
2) That worst, the same amount used by the complainant, was for the last time on 28 September 2004 and again respondent failed to
the very same amount used by her son Marcus Huyssen, in appear, despite due notice and without just cause.
obtaining his separate permanent visa. These acts of the
complainant and her son could have been a ground for On 5 November 2004, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan
deportation and likewise constitute criminal offense under the submitted her report5 recommending the disbarment of respondent. She
Immigration Law and the Revised Penal Code. These could have justified her recommendation in this manner:
been the possible reason why complainant was made to pay for
quite huge amount. At the outset it should be noted that there is no question that respondent
received the amount of US$20,000 from complainant, as respondent
e) That after they have secured their visas, complainant and her himself admitted that he signed the vouchers (Annexes A to F of
family became very close to undersigned and my family that I was complainant) showing his receipt of said amount from complainant.
even invited to their residence several times; Respondent however claims that he did not appropriate the same for
himself but that he delivered the said amount to a certain Atty. Mendoza.
f) However after three years, complainant demanded the return of This defense raised by respondent is untenable considering the
their money given and surprisingly they want to recover the same documentary evidence submitted by complainant. On record is the 1
from me. By twist of fate, Atty. Mendoza is no longer around, he March 1999 letter of respondent addressed to the World Mission for Jesus
died sometime 1997; (Annex H of Complaint) where he stated thus:

g) That it is unfortunate that the real facts of the matter is now being "I really understand your feelings on the delay of the release of the
hidden and that the amount of money is now being sought to be deposit but I repeat, nobody really intended that the thing would happen
recovered from me; that way. Many events were the causes of the said delay particularly the
death of then Commissioner L. Verceles, whose sudden death prevented
h) That the fact is I signed the vouchers and being a lawyer I know us the needed papers for the immediate release. It was only from
the consequences of having signed the same and therefore I had to compiling all on the first week of January this year, that all the said
answer for it and pay. I tried to raised the fund needed but up to the papers were recovered, hence, the process of the release just started
present my standby loan application has not been released and was though some important papers were already finished as early as the last
informed that the same would only be forthcoming second week of quarter of last year. We are just going through the normal standard
August. The same should have been released last March but was operating procedure and there is no day since January that I do not make
aborted due to prevalent condition. The amount to be paid, according any follow ups on the progress of the same."
to the complainant has now become doubled plus attorneys fees of
P200,000.00. and his letter dated 19 March 1999 (Annex L of Complaint) where he
stated thus:
Complainant submitted her evidence on 4 September 2002 and April
2003, and filed her Formal Offer of Evidence on 25 August 2003. "I am sending you my personal checks to cover the refund of the amount
deposited by your good self in connection with the procurement of your
On several occasions, the complaint was set for reception of respondents permanent visa and that of your family. It might take some more time
evidence but the scheduled hearings (11 settings) were all reset at the before the Bureau could release the refund as some other pertinent papers
instance of the respondent who was allegedly out of the country to attend are being still compiled are being looked at the files of the late
to his clients needs. Reception of respondents evidence was scheduled Commissioner Verceles, who approved your visa and who died of heart
attack. Anyway, I am sure that everything would be fine later as all the of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is hereby
documents needed are already intact. This is just a bureaucratic delay." DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount
with legal interest from receipt of the money until payment. This case
From the above letters, respondent makes it appear that the US$20,000 shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for prosecution for
was officially deposited with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts and to the Department
However, if this is true, how come only Petty Cash Vouchers were issued of Justice for appropriate administrative action.
by respondent to complainant to prove his receipt of the said sum and
official receipts therefore were never issued by the said Bureau? Also, We agree with the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be
why would respondent issue his personal checks to cover the return of the severely sanctioned.
money to complainant if said amount was really officially deposited with
the Bureau of Immigration? All these actions of respondent point to the We begin with the veritable fact that lawyers in government service in the
inescapable conclusion that respondent received the money from discharge of their official task have more restrictions than lawyers in
complainant and appropriated the same for his personal use. It should private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely
also be noted that respondent has failed to establish that the "late Atty. condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.7
Mendoza" referred to in his Counter-Affidavit really exists. There is not
one correspondence from Atty. Mendoza regarding the visa application of It is undisputed that respondent admitted8 having received the US$20,000
complainant and his family, and complainant has also testified that she from complainant as shown by his signatures in the petty cash vouchers 9
never met this Atty. Mendoza referred to by respondent. and receipts10 he prepared, on the false representation that that it was
needed in complainants application for visa with the BID. Respondent
Considering that respondent was able to perpetrate the fraud by taking denied he misappropriated the said amount and interposed the defense
advantage of his position with the Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau that he delivered it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who assisted complainant
of Immigration and Deportation, makes it more reprehensible as it has and children in their application for visa in the BID. 11 Such defense
caused damage to the reputation and integrity of said office. It is remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit evidence on the matter.
submitted that respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code While he claims that Atty. Mendoza already died, he did not present the
of Professional Responsibility which reads: death certificate of said Atty. Mendoza. Worse, the action of respondent
in shifting the blame to someone who has been naturally silenced by fate,
"A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to is not only impudent but downright ignominious. When the integrity of a
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he deny the charges
with his public duties." against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against
him.12 He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality
On 4 November 2004, the IBP Board of Governors approved6 the and integrity which at all times is expected of him. In the case at bar,
Investigating Commissioners report with modification, thus: respondent clearly fell short of his duty. Records show that even though
he was given the opportunity to answer the charges and controvert the
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it hereby ADOPTED and evidence against him in a formal investigation, he failed, without any
APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the plausible reason, to appear several times whenever the case was set for
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part reception of his evidence despite due notice.
of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and rules, and The defense of denial proferred by respondent is, thus, not convincing. It
considering respondents violation of Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code is settled that denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must
be buttressed by a strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such 3) Letter15 dated 25 April 1999 provides:
denial is purely self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value.
Anyway, let me apologize for all these troubles. You are aware that I have
When respondent issued the postdated checks as his moral obligation, he done my very best for the early return of your money but the return is
indirectly admitted the charge. Such admissions were also apparent in the becoming bleak as I was informed that there are still papers lacking.
following letters of respondent to complainant: When I stopped the payment of the checks I issued, I was of the
impression that everything is fine, but it is not. I guess it is time for me to
1) Letter13 dated 01 March 1992, pertinent portion of which reads: accept the fact that I really have to personally return the money out of my
own. The issue should stop at my end. This is the truth that I must face. It
Be that as it may, may I assure you for the last time that the said deposit may hurt me financially but it would set me free from worries and
is forthcoming, the latest of which is 09 March 1999. Should it not be anxieties.
released on said date, I understand to pay the same to you out of my
personal money on said date. No more reasons and no more alibis. Send I have arranged for a loan from money lenders and was able to secure one
somebody here at the office on that day and the amount would be given last Saturday the releases of which are on the following:
to you wether (sic) from the Bureau or from my own personal money.
May 4, 1999- 200,000
2) Letter14 dated 19 March 1999, reads in part:
May 11, 1999 -200,000
I am sending you my personal checks to cover the refund of the amount
deposited by your goodself in connection with the procurement of your May 20, 1999-200,000
permanent visa and that of your family.
June 4, 1999-200,000
It might take some more time before the Bureau could release the refund
as some other pertinent papers are still being compiled and are being I have given my property (lot situated in the province) as my collateral.
looked at the files of the late Commissioner Verceles, who approved your
visa and who died of heart attack. Anyway, I am sure that everything I am therefore putting an end to this trouble. I am issuing four checks
would be fine later as all the documents needed are already intact. This is which I assure you will be sufficiently funded on their due dates by
just a bureaucratic delay. reason of my aforestated loans. Just bear with me for the last time, if any
of these checks, is returned, dont call me anymore. Just file the
xxxx necessary action against me, I just had to put an end to this matter and
look forward. x x x
As you would see, I have to pay you in peso. I have issued you 2 checks,
one dated April 6, 1999 and the other one dated April 20, 1999. I leave 4) Letter16 dated 12 May 1999, which reads:
the amount vacant because I would want you to fill them up on their due
dates the peso equivalent to $10,000 respectively. This is to be sure that The other day I deposited the amount of P289,000 to the bank to cover
the peso equivalent of your P20,000 would be well exchanged. I have the first check I issued. In fact I stopped all payments to all other checks
postdated them to enable me to raise some more pesos to cover the whole that are becoming due to some of my creditors to give preference to the
amount but dont worry as the Lord had already provided me the means. check I issued to you.
This morning when I went to the Bank, I learned that the bank instead of thereby compounding his case.
returning the other checks I requested for stop payment - instead honored
them and mistakenly returned your check. This was a very big surprise to In a recent case, we have held that the issuance of worthless checks
me and discouragement for I know it would really upset you. constitutes gross misconduct,20 as the effect "transcends the private
interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the
In view of this I thought of sending you the amount of P200,000 in cash interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a
which I initially plan to withdraw from the Bank. However, I could not wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public since the
entrust the same amount to the bearer nor can I bring the same to your circulation of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute the
place considering that its quite a big amount. I am just sending a check channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
for you to immediately deposit today and I was assured by the bank that eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus,
it would be honored this time. paraphrasing Blacks definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check
deliberately reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or
Normally, this is not the actuation of one who is falsely accused of society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and
appropriating the money of another. As correctly observed by the duty, justice, honesty or good morals."21
Investigating Commissioner, respondent would not have issued his
personal checks if said amount were officially deposited with the BID. Consequently, we have held that the act of a person in issuing a check
This is an admission of misconduct. knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient
funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in
Respondents act of asking money from complainant in consideration of full upon its presentment, is also a manifestation of moral turpitude.22
the latters pending application for visas is violative of Rule 1.01 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar Respondents acts are more despicable. Not only did he misappropriate
from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful the money of complainant; worse, he had the gall to prepare receipts with
acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 18 of the Code the letterhead of the BID and issued checks to cover up his misdeeds.
which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private Clearly, he does not deserve to continue, being a member of the bar.
interest. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything
of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble
or which may be affected by the functions of his office. 19 Respondents profession. It is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are
conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral character required competent intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must at all
from all lawyers, especially from one occupying a high public office. A times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the
lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts
citizenry in government; he must also uphold the dignity of the legal and to his clients. A violation of the high standards of the legal profession
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes suspension
dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the and disbarment.23 More importantly, possession of good moral character
public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of
perhaps higher than his brethren in private practice. law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of
such privilege.24
In a desperate attempt to put up a smoke or to camouflage his misdeed,
he went on committing another by issuing several worthless checks, Indeed, the primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is
not only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers but also to practice of law and ordered to return the amount he received from the
safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the complainant with legal interest from his receipt of the money until
public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal payment. This case shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for
profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyers oath have criminal prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as Acts and to the Department of Justice for appropriate administrative
members of the bar.25These pronouncement gain practical significance in action. Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant to be
the case at bar considering that respondent was a former member of the spread on the records of the respondent; the Integrated Bar of the
Board of Special Inquiry of the BID. It bears stressing also that Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court
government lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity to the public Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country.
service, a public trust. As such, government lawyers should be more
sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is SO ORDERED.
more likely to be magnified in the public eye.26

As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to


cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal profession.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the
following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office;
(4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude ; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party without authority to do so.27

In Atty. Vitriolo v. Atty. Dasig,28 we ordered the disbarment of a lawyer


who, during her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, Commission on Higher
Education, demanded sums of money as consideration for the approval of
applications and requests awaiting action by her office. In Lim v.
Barcelona,29 we also disbarred a senior lawyer of the National Labor
Relations Commission, who was caught by the National Bureau of
Investigation in the act of receiving and counting money extorted from a
certain person.

Respondents acts constitute gross misconduct; and consistent with the


need to maintain the high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith
of the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the ultimate
penalty of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers.30

WHEREFORE, Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED from the


Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, complainant, complainants Asset Management Group, he intervened in the handling of
vs. the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with
ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO, respondent. complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil
action ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a
RESOLUTION result of this loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm
"Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" of which respondent is one of the
BIDIN, J.: Senior Partners.

In a verified letter-complaint dated August 15, 1991, complainant In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted that he appeared
Philippine National Bank charged respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution
former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset Management Group of pending appeal of the RTC decision. He alleged that he did not
complainant bank with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of participate in the litigation of the case before the trial court. With respect
Professional Responsibility, thus: to the case of the Almeda spouses, respondent alleged that he never
appeared as counsel for them. He contended that while the law firm
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept "Cedo Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is designated as counsel of record,
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in the case is actually handled only by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. Respondent
which he had intervened while in said service. averred that he did not enter into a general partnership with Atty. Pedro
Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named therein. They are only using the
by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with aforesaid name to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers, who
complainant bank in which respondent during his employment with although not partners, maintain one office as well as one clerical and
aforesaid bank, had intervened. supporting staff. Each one of them handles their own cases independently
and individually receives the revenues therefrom which are not shared
Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its employ, he among them.
participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets (denominated as Lots 54-
M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. He even In the resolution of this Court dated January 27, 1992, this case was
"noted" the gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for investigation,
in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from report and recommendation.
the DMC Man Division Compound. When a civil action arose out of this
transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant bank before the During the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who had since respondent was previously fined by this Court in the amount of P1,000.00
left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the counsels of in connection with G.R. No. 94456 entitled "Milagros Ong Siy vs. Hon.
Mrs. Ong Siy. Salvador Tensuan, et al." for forum shopping, where respondent appeared
as counsel for petitioner Milagros Ong Siy "through the law firm of Cedo
Similarly, when the same transaction became the subject of an Ferrer Maynigo and Associates."
administrative case filed by complainant bank against his former
subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave misconduct and dishonesty, The IBP further found that the charges herein against respondent were
respondent appeared as counsel for Elefan only to be later disqualified by fully substantiated. Respondent's averment that the law firm handling the
the Civil Service Commission. case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant
consideration in the light of the attestation of complainant's counsel, Atty. and Conscience Union, Inc. vs. Paz, (95 SCRA 24 [1980]) where a
Pedro Singson, that in one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses' case, former Legal Officer and Legal Prosecutor of PARGO who participated
respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and although in the investigation of the Anti-Graft case against Mayor Pablo Cuneta
he did not enter his appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty. later on acted as counsel for the said Mayor in the same anti-graft case,
Ferrer what to say and argue before the court. Furthermore, during the this Court, citing Nombrado vs. Hernandez (26 SCRA 13 119681) ruled:
hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the same case,
respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it The Solicitor General is of the opinion, and we find no reason to
was made of record that respondent was working in the same office as disagree with him, that even if respondent did not use against his
Atty. Ferrer. client any information or evidence acquired by him as counsel it
cannot be denied that he did become privy to information
Moreover, the IBP noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm is regarding the ownership of the parcel of land which was later
true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility litigated in the forcible entry case, for it was the dispute over the
(Rule 15.02) since the clients secrets and confidential records and land that triggered the mauling incident which gave rise to the
information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all criminal action for physical injuries. This Court's remarks in
times. Hilado vs. David, 84 Phil. 571, are apropos:

From the foregoing, the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of "Communications between attorney and client are, in a great
respondent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of
borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best position to see entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-known facts.
the legal weaknesses of his former employer, a convincing factor for the In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings
said clients to seek his professional service. In sum, the IBP saw a between an attorney and client, inquiry of the nature suggested
deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other
money he expected to earn. matters that might only further prejudice the complainant's
cause."
The IBP thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the
practice of law for 3 years. Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized
against his former client information given to him in a
The records show that after the Board of Governors of the IBP had, on professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous relationship
October 4, 1994, submitted to this Court its Report and recommendation should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the
in this case, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated October other side in the forcible entry case. In the case of Hilado vs.
25, 1994 of the recommendation contained in the said Report with the David, supra, this Tribunal further said:
IBP Board of Governors. On December 12, 1994, respondent also filed
another "Motion to Set Hearing" before this Court, the aforesaid Motion Hence the necessity of setting the existence of the bare
for Reconsideration. In resolving this case, the Court took into relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick for testing
consideration the aforesaid pleadings. incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is designed not alone
to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct,
In addition to the findings of the IBP, this Court finds this occasion but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded
appropriate to emphasize the paramount importance of avoiding the suspicion of unprofessional practice. . . . It is founded on
representation of conflicting interests. In the similar case of Pasay Law principles of public policy, of good taste. As has been said in
another case, the question is not necessarily one of the rights of
the parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper
professional standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves
attorney, like Caesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double dealing. Only thus can litigants. be encouraged to entrust
their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance
in the administration of justice.

The foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with equal force


and effect to respondent in the case at bar. Having been an executive of
complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the
opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction
which he formerly handled while still an employee of complainant, in
violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse
influence and conflicting interests, to wit:

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by


express conflicting consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a
lawyer represents conflicting interest when, in behalf on one
client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another
client requires him to oppose.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY.


TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS,
effective immediately.

Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the


Philippines and all courts in Metro Manila.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like