IN RE 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE IBP [1989] - the 3 presidential candidates admitted having formed their own
Facts:
• The IBP House of Delegates (composed of 120 chapter presidents or
alternatives), elected the national officers of the IBP on June 3,1989 at the
PICC.
• The winners1 were set to take their oaths on July 4, but widespread reports
about the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates, led by
the presidential candidates(Atty. Violeta Drilon, Atty. Nisce, Atty. Paculdo), use
of gov’t planes and intervention of public officals in influencing the voting, all of
which violated the IBP by-laws, cause the suspension of the oathtaking.
• Columnists Jurado, Mauricio and Locsin were critical of the vote buying and
pressure tactics employed by the 3 presidential candidates who reportedly
poured heart, soul, influence and money to win over the 120 IBP delegates.
• The SC resolved to conduct a formal inquiry to determine WON the prohibited
acts and activities enumerated in the By-Laws were committed before and
during the elections.
• 49 witnesses appeared including the managers of the PHIL. PLAZA, HYATT,
HOLIDAY INN, officers of the PNB and ATO, Pal officials, officials of
DOLE(Franklin Drilon was then Dep’t Sec.) and the 3 columnists.
• The allegations violated the following:
Art.1 §4 of the By-Laws emphasizes the ‘strictly non-political’ character of the IBP
Art.1 §14 of the By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to IBP elections.
a. distribution of campaign materials except on election day
b. distribution on election day campaign material other than the biodata of
candidate; or distribution of such by persons other than those authorized
c. campaigning for or against any candidate while holding an office in all
parts of gov’t
d. formation of tickets, slates or combinations of candidates
e. to induce members to withhold his vote, or to vote by 1. payment of dues
or other indebtedness, 2. giving food drink and transpo etc. 3. making
promise or causing expenditure to be made to any person
§12 of the By-Laws prescribes the sanction for violation of the rules which is
disqualification of a candidate or removal from office if elected.
• The following violations were established at the formal investigation:
1. Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the candidates for
president, exec. VP, officers of the House of Delegates and Board of
Governors.
- the 3 presidential candidates began traveling around the country to
solicit votes as early as April1989.
- Nisce admitted securing written endorsements(nomination forms that
required the signatures) and that he reserved rooms at the Hyatt
based on the 40 commitments he obtained (only 14 of 40 voted for
him)
2. Use of PNB plane in the campaign
- Factoran of DENR borrowed a plane from PNB to head to Bicol for his
CORD(cabinet members for regional development) with IBP
candidates,(read it, boils down to Atty Tria a DENR exec who wasn’t
an IBP candidate had to go with Factoran, and Atty. Tiu learned of this
when he went to the DENR. Knowing the Atty. Tria was a Sigma
Rhoan Bro. He asked that they be allowed to go with them, and yes
they did.)
- Drilon hitched a ride on a PNB plane along with her candidates in her
ticket to assess their chances in the elections
- They talked to the IBP chapter pres. And asked for their support
3. Formation of tickets and single slates
1
See case for list of winners first page. P.399
slates for the elections
4. Giving free transportation to out –of-town delegates and alternates
5. Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks, entertainment to
delegates
a. Paculdo
- alleged that he booked 24 reg. Rooms and 3 suited to be
occupied by his staff and IBP delegates and that he paid
P150,000
- Manager testified however that Paculdo booked 52 rooms
including the Pres. suite and spent P227,114.89 for the use of
rooms
b. Drilon
- Drilon’s delegates and supporters were billeted at Phil. Plaza
where her campaign manager Atty. Callanta booked 40 rooms
- 316,411.53 was paid for room, food and beverage of the group
plus an unpaid balance of 302,197.30
- Callanta explained that the 1223,000 he used as downpayment
was contributed by persons so their associates and partners
could attend the legal aid seminar and convention. (coz she was
an honorary sister of the Sigma Rhos , her husband is a bro,
firms like Quasha and some lawyers paid for most of the cost.)
- Drilon alleged she did not know Callanta billeted her candidates
there.
c. Nisce
- reserved 30 rooms in Hyatt and paid 216,127.74
6. Campaigning by labor officials for DOLe Secretary Drilon ellegdly giving
them leaves. But the officials said it’s bcoz he was a Sigma Rho brother
not because he was their boss, they campaigned for his wife.
7. Paying dues or other indebtedness of any member(IBP treasurer testified
that there was upsurge of payments of 100k)
8. Distribution of materials other than biodata of not more than one page
- Paculdo distributed leaflets entitled “My Quest” that cost 15-20k
but printed in his own printing press
9. Causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than
those authorized by the officer presiding at the election
- Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute campaign materials
- ACCRA lawyers were campaigning for Drilon
10. Inducing or Influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or
against a candidate
- hotel accommodations, plane tickets and offer of judgeship
- delegates flip-flopped from one camp to the other
Over-all expenditures
Paculdo- 250k(150k contributed by the Capitol Bar Assoc a voluntary lawyers group of
which he is the charter pres.; 100k for trips to provinces)
Nisce-216,127.74 for hotel bill excluding expenses for campaign and delegate’s plane
tickets
Drilon- 600k in Phil. Plaza
Issue
WON the election activities of the candidates amounted to a misconduct based on the
findings of the investigation. YES, they broke the non-political nature of the elections
since the fundamental assumption is that officers, delegates, and governors would be
chosen on the basis of professional merit and willingness and ability to serve. Evidence
disproves these in this case.
• It is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates conducted their
campaign violated the By-Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a ‘strictly
non-political IBP.

• The candidates and many participants not only violated the By-Laws but also
the ethics of legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a
corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the
laws, the duty to promote respect for law and legal processes and to
abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system. Respect for law is gravely eroded when
the lawyers themselves engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush
aside the very rules of the IBP formulated for their observance.
• The spectacle of lawyers bribing and being bribed to vote one way or
another, did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the
public’s esteem.
• The statements of the witnesses were tainted with evasions. Denials and
outright prevarications during the initial hearing. The investigation revealed
that the parties seem to have conspired among themselves to deceive
the court or at least withhold vital information.
• The task to participate in the selection of nominees for appointment to vacant
positions in the judiciary may be the reason why the position of the IBP
president has attracted so much interest.
Thus the court orders:
1. the IBP elections held on June 3, 1989 should be as they are hereby
annulled
2. provisions of the By-Laws for the direct election by House of Delegates, for a.
for officers of HoD b. IBP pres. c. EVP be repealedformer system of having an
IBP pres and EVP, elected by Board of Governors(Governor of 9 IBP regions),
from among themselves should be restored, right of automatic succession by
the EVP to presidency upon expiration of their two-year term is restored.
3. EVP shall automatically succeed office of the Pres. upon end of president’s term,
incoming board of governors shall then elect an EVP among themselves. The
position of EVP shall be rotated among the 9 IBP regions. One who has served
as president may not run for election as EVP in succeeding elections until after
the rotation of the presidency among the 9 regions has been completed.
4. The provisions of the sgt.-at-arms, EVP, Pres. Board of Governors are also
amended. .(see orig case for specific provisions and changes)
5. Special elections for the board of governors shall held in the 9 IBP regions
within 3 months after promulgation of this resolution. Within 30 days,
thereafter, the Board of Governors shall meet and elect among themselves the
IBP national President and EVP. IN this special election, the candidates in
the election of Nat’l Officers held on June 3, 1989 as well as those
identified as connected with any irregularities are ineligible and may
not present themselves as candidate for any position.
6. A caretaker board will administer the IbP in the meantime
SANTOS v. LLAMAS [2000]
Facts
Atty. Soliman M. Santos Jr. complained to the SC about Atty. Francisco Llamas as a
lawyer.
Santos alleges Llamas the following:
1. violated Rule 139 §1 that only duly admitted Bar members “who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law”
violated Rule 139-A (effect on non-payment of dues)“default in
payment for 6 months=suspension of membership and 12
months= removal of the name from the Roll of Attorneys”
*In failing to pay IBP dues since 1991 as attested to by then IBP president Atty. Ida
Macalinao-Javier, but he still uses the official receipt(OR) number(IBP RIZAL 259060)
of his 1991 payment in his 1995-1997 pleadings. He also doesn’t include the date
and place of issuance of this.
*In failing to indicate his proper PTR number(professional tax) in these pleadings.
2. violated Rule 139 too
Rule 138 §27& 28”that suspensions of attorneys may be done by the
SC, RTC and CA ”
*In being dismissed as Pasay City Judge by the SC in Oct 28, 1981.
*In being convicted of Estafa in a crim case#11787, by the RTC Makati in June 30 1994
and the denial of his MFR to conviction under Art. 314 p. 2 RPC by the CA on Feb.
14, 1995. (although resp alleges that it’s still pending)
Llamas was ordered to comment on July 7,1997, after w/c the case was passed to the
IBP for investigation.
Llamas then on a comment-memorandum on June 3,1998 alleges:
1. The petitioner’s basis of the SC’s dismissal of him was set aside and reversed,
he was even promoted to RTC Judge of Makati.
2. The Feb. 14,1995 decision in Crim Case#11787 is still pending in the CA .
(petitioner said that this is the denial date of the MFR not the conviction, so is
not pending)
3. And if the SC decision wasn’t reversed and the Crim Case was sustained in the
CA, Santos wouldn’t need to file a complaint he would voluntarily surrender the
right/privilege to practice law.
4. As to the fact that he was delinquent in the IBP payments, in good faith he
beleived that he was exempted as he was a senior citizen in 1992 by §4 of RA
7432(exempting taxes) and by virtue of his having a limited practice of law
as indicated in his Income Tax Return(ITR-main occupation farmer of 30hecs. of
orchard and pineapple in Calauan, Laguna). Because of the exemption, he didn’t
exercise his rights to vote and being voted in the IBP.
5. And he is ready to comply with the dues if he is wrong in his assumption.
IBP Board of Governors on Dec. 4, 1998 passed and approved the report of the
Investigating Commissioner finding Llamas guilty and suspended for 3 months and until
he pays the dues fully.
Llamas asked for reconsideration, but IBP denied it a resolution on April 22,1999. Hence
under Rule 139-B §12b RoC, the case is for final action of the Dec. decision.
Issue:
WON RA 7432 was applicable in this case. NO
This grant of exemption for Senior citizens from payment of individual income taxes as
long as their annual taxable income does not exceed the poverty level set by NEDA for
that year does not include as membership and association dues.
WON Respondent’s use of the same IBP OR number for at least 6 years(even if evidenced
only in 1995-1997, counted from 1991-1997) and non-payment of dues constitute a
liability. YES
By using IBP-RIZAL 259060, he is misrepresenting the public and the courts of his chapter
membership, number and yearly payment by not properly indicating the place and date of
issuance.
Even if Llamas said that he is in a limited practice of law, it means that he accepts that he
is still practicing law. Therefore, he is not exempt from paying the dues.
Rule 139A(mentioned b4) specifies that only those who pay dues can practice.
And he can’t use the RA as an excuse, as it isn’t applicable.
So the court relying on these rules decide that Llamas committed misconducts
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Esmso
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court;
nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Decision, the court said that this warrants the severest penalty but because of his
advanced age and willingness to pay the dues. He is only suspended for a year until he
pays the full amount of dues whichever is later.
Anyway addt’l info from the case(not relevant except to justify the dues): it says in Rule
139-A§9 that the annual membership dues set by the IBP Board of Governors approved
by the SC, by each chapter, 10% of that collected will go to the welfare fund of the
disabled members of the each chapter and the compulsory heirs of the deceased
members thereof.
Atty. Ramon P. REYES, complainant vs. Atty. Victoriano T. CHIONG, JR.,
respondent [2003]
 Zonggi Xu, Chinese-Taiwanese family, invested P300k on a Cebu-based fishball,
tempura, & seafood products factory set up by Chia Hsien Pan, a Zamboanga-based
Chinese-Taiwanese. Xu learned that Pan didn’t establish a fishball factory. Xu asked
for his money back but Pan became hostile thus, Xu sought legal assistance.
 Xu, thru Atty. Reyes, filed a complaint for estafa against Pan, represented by Chiong.
Complaint was assigned to Prosecutor Salanga who issued a subpoena for Pan to
appear in a preliminary investigation on 2 dates. Since Pan failed to appear, Salanga
filed a Criminal complaint for estafa against him before the RTC Manila and a warrant
of arrest was subsequently issued.
 Chiong filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the warrant of arrest and a civil complaint for
the collection of money & damages & dissolution of business venture against Reyes,
Xu and Salanga. Chiong claims it was his client who decided to institute the action
and that he said that he’d suggest to his client to drop the case if Reyes would move
for the dismissal of the estafa case.
 Reyes filed a complaint w/the Office of the Bar Confidant of the SC seeking
disbarment of Chiong for violating his lawyer’s oath & Canon 82 of the CPR.
 Chiong’s comment:
1. No disrespect in impleading Reyes. He connived w/Xu in filing estafa case
despite knowing that it was baseless.
2. No basis to conclude that the suit was groundless & it was instituted to exact
vengeance.
3. Salanga was impleaded due to irregularities he committed in conducting
criminal investigation. Estafa case was filed despite pendency of Pan’s motion
for Opportunity to Submit Counter-Affidavits & Evidence, appeal to justice sec &
motion to defer/suspend proceedings. He likewise denied Pan due process. He
falsely made a certification under oath that the preliminary investigation was
duly conducted & that pan was duly informed of the charges. Arrest was made
w/an invalid info & warrant of arrest.
 IBP report & recommendation: Civil case instituted by Chiong was filed to obtain
leverage against the estafa case. NO need to implead Reyes & Salanga since they
never participated in the business transactions. Suit was filed to harass the lawyers.
Recommends his suspension from practice of law for 2 yrs.
Issue: WON Chiong is guilty of violating his oath & Canon 8 of CPR – YES
2 of an administrative case.
A lawyer shall conduct himself w/courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues & shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Ratio:
1. Lawyers are licensed officers of the court empowered to appear, prosecute & defend.
They have peculiar duties, responsibilities & liabilities. They have certain obligations
such as maintaining dignity of the legal profession, conducting themselves honorably
& fairly.
2. Chiong’s actions don’t measure up to Canon 8. Civil case was originally filed against
Xu spouses but was later modified to include Reyes & Salanga. Amendment of the
complaint & failure to resort to proper remedies strengthen Reyes’ allegation that the
civil action was intended to gain leverage against the estafa case. He should’ve
informed his client about other remedies. Other remedies:
a. MFR or Motion for Reinvestigation of Prosecutor Salanga’s decision to file info for
estafa w/the justice secretary.
b. Motion to Dismiss in the trial court.
c. Disbarment proceedings against the 2 lawyers.
3. Chiong took the estafa case as a personal affront & the civil case as a tool to return
the inconvenience suffered by his client. He misused the legal process. The aim of
every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties accdg to law & not to harass
them.
4. Lawyers are supposed to treat each other w/courtesy, dignity, civility, trust &
respect. Undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels. Mutual
bickering & offensive behavior among lawyers detract from the dignity of the law
profession & they constitute highly unprofessional conduct subj to disciplinary action.
5. Lawyer’s oath: lawyers should not wittingly or unwittingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. Chiong
claims his client insisted in impleading the lawyers. While he owes entire devotion to
the interest of his clients, he’s not permitted to violate the law.
*The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their professional
brethren. This can’t be purchased, created or gained b artifice or contrivance. It is born of
sharp contests & thrives despite conflicting interests. It emanates solely from integrity,
character, brains & skill in the honorable performance of professional duty. 
Holding: Chiong guilty as charged. Suspended for 2 yrs from practice of law.
CAMACHO v. PANGULAYAN [2000]
 Students of AMA & Members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE were charged of
having published some allegedly objectionable features or articles in the newspaper.
The 3-member Student Disciplinary Tribunal then convened & found the students
guilty of the use of indecent language & unauthorized use of the student publication
funds & recommended the expulsion of such students. Hence they were expelled.
 When denied appeal, these expelled students hired the services of petitioner Atty.
Manuel N. Camacho as their counsel.
 But in this case, petitioner files a complaint against lawyers of the Pangulayan and
Associates Law Office, namely, Attys. Luis Minrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D.
Balmores, Catherine V. Laurel and Herbert Joaquin Bustos.
 Camacho alleged that the respondents, without his knowledge, procured and
effected compromise agreements (Re-Admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients in
the Civil case which required them to waive all kinds of claims against AMACC, the
principal defendant and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative
proceedings filed against it.
 It was while the civil case was still pending when letters of apology and Re-
Admission Agreements were separately executed by and/or n behalf of some of the
expelled students.
 In his comment, Atty Pangulayan noted that not one of his co-defendants was
involved in the negotiations and they were no longer with the firm. But Pangulayan
also insists that the Re-admission Agreements had nothing to do with the dismissal
of the Civil Case and were executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement
  Following the execution of the letters and the agreements, a Manifestation was filed ♦ Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and Rule 5.07 of the Code
in the TC where the court was pending and the Court, after Resolution, dismissed of Judicial Conduct provides that judges are prohibited from engaging in the
the Civil Case. private practice of law.
 In line with this case, the IBP Board of Governors made the recommendation to
expel these students. Penalty of Suspension from office for a period of 3 months without pay. Fine of P10,000
and a warning that the commission of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
Issue: WON Respondent Pangulayan is remiss of his duty severely.
 YES. When the individual letters and agreements were formalized, complainant was
by then already the retained counsel for plaintiff students in the civil case. PAFLU v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR CO. [1971]
 Yet respondent attorney proceeded to negotiate with students and their parents
without at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer
 This failure, whether by design oversight, is an excusable violation of the cannons of
the professional ethics and in utter disregard of duty owing to a collegue. Camacho
fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer & as member of the Bar
 That the context of the Re-Admission Agreements centers only on the
administrative aspect of the controversy is belied by the Manifestation.
 As to the other respondents the case is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Holding: respondent suspended for 3 months

LAPUT v. REMOTIQUE [1962]

TUZON v. PURUGGANAN [2001]

Facts:
♦ June 25, 1998 – Victor Tuzon filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals assailing the order of Judge Purungganan.
♦ July 2, 1998 – CA issued a resolution directing the private respondent
(Raymundo Catral) to file the comment thereon and to show cause why the
prayer for injunctive relief should not be granted.
♦ July 22, 1998 – Judge Purungganan filed he comment for Raymndo Catral and
she affixed her signature thereon.
♦ August 2, 1999 – CA dismissed the petition for certiorari
♦ February 14, 2000 – Tuzon filed with the SC an administrative complaint
against Judge Purungganan deploring the act of filing a comment in the civil
case as illegal private practice of law. Tuzon also asserted that the judge
antedated her decision in Civil Case 4625.
♦ March 23, 2000 – Judge Purungganan admitted authoring the comment filed
with the CA. She stated that she did so because Atty. Reyes (counsel for
Catral) was sick and unable to perform his work. She denied antedating her
decision.
♦ January 24, 2001 – Deputy Court Administrator recommended that judge
Purungganan be imposed a fine for filing an answer in behalf of the Catral.

WON Judge Purungganan is guilty of illegal practice of law? YES

♦ Revised Rules of Court provides that: “Unless otherwise specifically directed by

the court where the petition is pending the public respondents shall not appear
in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleadings therein. If
either party elevates the case to a higher court, the public respondent shall be
included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically
directed, they shall not appear or participate in proceedings therein”
♦ A judge shall maintain a detached attitude from the case and shall not waste
his time by taking an active part in a proceeding that relates to official
actuations in a case.
♦ In signing and filing a comment with the court on behalf of one of the parties
Judge Purungganan was engaged in the private practice of law.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. ATTY. MISAEL M.
LADAGA, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC Br. 133, Makati, respondent [2001]
 Aug. 31, 1998: Atty. Ladaga wrote a letter to the Court Administrator Justice
Benipayo, requesting for authorization to appear as a pro bono counsel of his cousin,
Narcisa Ladaga (People vs. Ladaga) for Falsification of Public Document pending
w/the Quezon City MTC Br. 40.
 While his request was still pending, Atty. Ladaga went on to appear as his cousin’s
counsel.
 Lisa Andres, complainant in the case of People vs. Ladaga sent a letter to the Court
Administrator requesting for a certification re Atty. Ladaga’s authority to appear as
counsel for his cousin.
 Atty. Ladaga’s comment: he admitted appearing in the case w/o prior authorization.
He claimed that his cousin didn’t have enough resources to hire a counsel de parte
while complainant Andres was from a powerful family who was out to get his cousin.
He further claimed that his appearance did not prejudice his office or the public since
he did not take advantage of his position & this was covered by leave applications
approved by the presiding judge.
 Dec. 8, 1998: Court denied Atty. Ladaga’s request for authorization was denied &
OCA was directed to file charges against Ladaga for violating the Code of Conduct &
Ethical Standards for Public Officials & Employees (RA 6713, Sec. 7(b)(2)) w/c
declared as unlawful the private practice of profession by public employees unless
authorized by the Consti or law & that it will not conflict/tend to conflict w/their
official functions.
 Atty. Ladaga’s comment, he claimed that:
1. He represented his cousin because they were close blood relatives & that it was
Ms. Ladaga who was consistently supported him from childhood until he finished
his law degree. He looked up to her as a mentor & adviser.
2. Andres filed the case against Ms. Ladaga to seek vengeance since Ms. Andres’
husband (SP04 Andres) left her to cohabit w/Ms. Ladaga. The falsification
charges pertain to the birth certificate of the children of SP04 Andres & Ms.
Ladaga.
3. As the only lawyer in their family, he felt that it was his duty to help his cousin.
4. As a government employee, he has performed his duties w/honesty & integrity
& it was only now that administrative charges were filed against him for
extending a helping hand to a close relative by giving free legal assistance for a
humanitarian purpose.
5. He never took advantage of his position as a branch clerk of Court especially
since the case is in QC while he’s based in Makati. Besides, he was on leave
during the hearings of the criminal cases.
 Executive Judge of RTC Makati was asked to comment.
1. The Judge took note of the fact that Atty. Ladaga’s appearance was known to
his Presiding Judge and he was on leave during the hearings. It was also noted
that this is the first time he handled a case for a member of his family who is
like a big sister to him and that he did not receive any single centavo from her
during the trial. The Judge also took note of Atty. Ladaga’s integrity &
independence during all the years he has been in government service.
2. Recommendation: Reprimanded w/stern warning that any repetition will be
dealt w/more severely.
Issue: WON Atty. Ladaga’s appearance in his cousin’s criminal case is tantamount to
private practice w/c is prohibited by law. – NO. Isolated appearances by Atty. Ladaga as
pro bono counsel of his cousin does not constitute private practice of the law profession
contemplated by law.
Ratio:
1. Aside from the prohibition in RA 6713, the Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 35
also disallows employees of superior courts from engaging in private practice as a
member of the bar or giving professional advise to clients.
2. Prohibited private practice defined. It is a succession of acts of the same nature
habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer & demanding
payment for services rendered. It does not pertain to an isolated court appearance.
(People v. Villanueva)
Issue #2: WON a written permission from the head of the Department is required. – YES.
Ratio:
1. Revised Civil Service Rules, Rule XVIII, Sec. 12 requires public officers or employees
to secure a written permission from the Dept. head before engaging directly in any
private profession. This requirement is absolute for employees whose duties &
responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the government. It
further provides that the time of those allowed to engage in a private profession
should be fixed & it should not impair the employee’s efficiency. Only exemption:
those investments made by officers/employees w/o real/apparent conflict between
one’s private interests & public duties as long as such employee/officer shall not take
part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer of the board of
directors.
2. Atty. Ladaga appeared & attended the court hearings w/o obtaining a prior
permission from the Dept. Head. The permission given by his presiding judge is not
the authorization contemplated by law.
Holding: Atty. Ladaga is REPRIMANDED w/a STERN WARNING that a repetition of such
act would be dealt w/more severely.
AGUIRRE v. RANA [2003]
 Respondent Edwin L. Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examination. A day before oath taking,
complainant filed a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar for unauthorized practice
of law, grave misconduct, violation of the law, and grave misrepresentation.
 The Court allowed him to take the oath but he cannot sign the Role of Attorney’s
pending the case.
 They allege that he appeared as counsel while not yet a lawyer. He was also charged
for practicing law while being the SB pf Mandaon Masbate; It is further alleged that he
acted as counsel for George Bunan without the latter telling him.
 Respondent replies that he did everything, not in his capacity as a lawyer but as any
ordinary person and that he had already resigned as SB sec.
 The Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report and
recommendation.
 OBC believed that respondent’s misconduct casts a serious doubt on his moral fitness
and recommends denial of admission. It also held that complainant failed to cite a law
which the respondent allegedly violated when he appears as counsel for Bunan while
he was a government entry.
Issue: WON respondent should be denied admission for unauthorized practice of the law.
 YES. The court agreed with the findings and recommendations of the OBC. All of the
allegations occurred even before respondent took the lawyer’s oath. Clearly,
respondent engaged in the practice of law w/o being a member of the Bar.
 Practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases but means any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience.
 Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the
proceedings and filed various pleadings, w/o license to do so.
 The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but a privilege. It is
limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained
and certified
 It is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar exams, if
the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.
  Two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer:
o His lawyer’s oath to be administered by the SC
o His signature in the Roll of Attorneys
Other charges were found unmeritorious.

HALILI v. CIR [1985]