1. In re Luis B.

Tagorda (1929)

Doctrine: • The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.

Facts: Luis B. Tagorda was an attorney who was elected as the third member of the
provincial board of Isabela. He admits that prior to his election, he made use of a
card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which contains a list of tasks he may
undertake as a notary public, and a lawyer, as well as a general invitation to consult
with him for free. Tagorda also admits that after he was elected into office, he
wrote a letter to one of his hometown’s barrio lieutenants. The letter basically
informed the recipient of Tagorda’s intention to continue residing in Echague,
despite having to attend board sessions in Ilagan, in order that he may continue to
serve his hometown as a notary public and lawyer. The letter subtly offered
information regarding Tagorda’s office hours, together with an express request that
the recipient spread the word as to his willingness to accept land registration cases
for a fee of P3.00 per title. The government, through the provincial fiscal of
Isabela, together with the Attorney-General, brought this matter to the attention of
the Court.

Issue: W/N Tagorda”s actions constitute malpractice

Held/Ratio: YES. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No.
2828 expressly provides that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally, or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice. This is in accord with the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by
the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canon 27 of the said document provides
that a well-merited reputation serves as a lawyer”s most effective form of
advertisement.
2. In Re: Edillon 84 SCRA 554 (1978)

Facts: This is an administrative case against Edillon who refuses to pay his IBP
membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the
provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the
organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay
the same. He contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his
constitutional rights of being compelled to be a member of the IBP in order to
practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty and property and
thereby null and void.

Issue: Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and

property of the respondent.

Held: The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from
bar associations that are organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership
of which is voluntary. The IBP however is an official national body of which all
lawyers must be a member and are subjected to the rules prescribed for the
governance of the Bar which includes payment of reasonable annual fee for the
purpose of carrying out its objectives and implementation of regulations in the
practice of law. The provisions assailed does not infringe the constitutional rights
of the respondent as it is a valid exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate
its existence with regulatory measures to implement. The name of Edillon was
stricken out from the rolls of attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar.
3. IN RE CUNANAN
94 PHIL. 534

FACTS:
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in
1952. The title of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar
Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955.”
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-1951………………70%
1952 …………………….71%
1953……………………..72%
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75%
in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the
grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general average in
subsequent bar examinations.”
ISSUE:
Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
RULING:
Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being
embraced in the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar
flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent
system for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for allowing partial passing,
thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not
stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that
for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken
down was based under the following reasons:
The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from
1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to
the end of World War II;
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the
petitions of the said candidates;
The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who
may be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to
repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down by Congress
under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment
of the court on who can practice law; and
The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough
votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in
1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying
admission to the bar of a petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the
power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice
of law.
4. In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562

FACTS:

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender the Lawyer’s Certificate
of Title” to the Supreme Court as a sign of his protest as against to what he call a
tribunal “peopled by people who are calloused to our pleas for justice…”. He also
expressed strong words as against the judiciary like “justice… is not only blind, but
also deaf and dumb.” . The petition rooted from the case he lost due to the absence
of time and place in his motion in the trial court. His appeal was dismissed in the
Court of Appeals by reason of jurisprudence. In a petition for certiorari in the
Supreme Court, it was again dismissed thru a minute resolution. With the
disappointments, he thought of this sacrificial move. He claimed that this petition
to surrender his title is only in trust, and that he may obtain the title again as soon
as he regained confidence in the justice system.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary actions for his acts.

HELD:

YES. Indefinite suspension imposed.

RATIO:

It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that there is no one to blame but
Atty. Almacen himself because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his
accusations are so noble, in speaking of the truth and alleged injustices,so as not to
condemn the sinners but the sin, it has already caused enough damage and
disrepute to the judiciary. Since this particular case is sui generis in its nature, a
number of foreign and local jurisprudence in analogous cases were cited as
benchmarks and references. Between disbarment and suspension, the latter was
imposed. Indefinite suspension may only be lifted until further orders, after Atty.
Almacen may be able to prove that he is again fit to resume the practice of law.
5. Ui vs. Bonifacio
A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000

Facts of the case:

Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on
grounds of immoral conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is having an illicit
relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui, whom they begot two children.
According to petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted to him about the relationship between
them and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui to confront said respondent to stop
their illicit affair but of to no avail. According however to respondent, she is a
victim in the situation. When respondent met Carlos Ui, she had known
him to be a bachelor but with children to an estranged Chinese woman
who is already in Amoy, China. Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii,
USA therefore legalizing their relationship. When respondent knew of the real
status of Carlos Ui, she stopped their relationship. Respondent further claims that
she and Carlos Ui never lived together as the latter lived with his children to allow
them to gradually accept the situation. Respondent however presented a
misrepresented copy of her marriage contract.

Issue:

Did the respondent conduct herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves
to be barred from the practice of law?

Held:

NO. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to
enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations.
It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a
lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. If good moral character is
a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good
moral character is also requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession.

Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good
moral character. A lawyer may be disbarred for “grossly immoral conduct or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude”. A member of the
bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.

Circumstances existed which should have aroused respondent’s suspicion that

something was amiss in her relationship with Ui, and moved her to ask probing
questions. Respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However,
the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered as an immoral. For
immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society
and to opinion of good and respectable member of the community. Moreover, for
such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be grossly immoral,
that is it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards.

Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon

discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and
proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of
the legal profession.
6. In re application of MARIO GUARIÑA for admission to the bar.

Facts: Relying upon the provisions of section 2 of Act No. 1597, the applicant in
this case seeks admission to the bar, without taking the prescribed examination, on
the ground that he holds the office of provincial fiscal for the Province of Batanes.
7. IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE
HARON S. MELING

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE

HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARI’A
BAR,

ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner,

B.M. No. 1154. June 8, 2004

Facts:
On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the Office
of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling)
from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate
disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.

In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to
take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases before
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, namely: Criminal
Cases Nos. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case
No. 15687 for Less Serious Physical Injuries.

The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which occurred on May 21,
2001, when Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his
wife in front of media practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly
attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.

Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in
his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact
that he is not a member of the Bar. Attached to the Petition is an indorsement letter
which shows that Meling used the appellation and appears on its face to have been
received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City on November 27,
2001.

Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated December 3, 2002, Meling filed his
Answer with the OBC.
In his Answer, Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed
against him by Melendrez because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former
professor, advised him to settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez. Believing
in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has moral
ascendancy over them, he being their former professor in the College of Law,
Meling considered the three cases that actually arose from a single incident and
involving the same parties as “closed and terminated.” Moreover, Meling denies
the charges and adds that the acts complained of do not involve moral turpitude.

As regards the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his
communications really contained the word “Attorney” as they were, according to
him, typed by the office clerk.

In its Report and Recommendation dated December 8, 2003, the OBC disposed of
the charge of non-disclosure against Meling in this wise:

The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in his
petition to take the Bar Examinations are ludicrous. He should have known that
only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a
law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are still
pending. Furthermore, granting arguendo that these cases were already dismissed,
he is still required to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral
character. Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are made under oath, and should
not be taken lightly by an applicant.

Issue: WON the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling is

proper and shall subsequently barred him from taking his lawyer’s oath and
signing on the Roll of Attorneys

Held:

The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate

sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a member of the Philippine Shari’a
Bar. Accordingly, the membership of Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a
Bar is hereby SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the suspension to
take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling
from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of
the Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and
academic.
Rationale:

Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a matter of
right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in
the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The requirement
of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the
practice of law.

The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is

satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. The nature of
whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court in
determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer.
By concealing the existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of
fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to
impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.
8. Zoreta v. Simpliciano
A.C. No. 6492. November 18, 2004.
Chico-Nazario, J.

FACTS:
Complainant Melanio L. Zoreta alleged that he filed a complaint for Breach of
Contract and Damages against Security Pacific Assurance Corporation (SPAC)
dated 22 June 2001 due to the latter’s failure to honor SPAC’s Commercial Vehicle
Policy No. 94286, where respondent Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano was the
latter’s counsel. In said cases, respondent who was not a dully commissioned
Notary Public in 2002 per Certifications issued by the Clerk of Court of Quezon
City Mercedes S. Gatmaytan, performed acts of notarization, as evidenced by
presented documents.

ISSUE:
WON respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility under the Rules
of Court.

RULING:
Yes. For one, performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the
lawyer’s oath to obey the laws (i.e. Notarial Law). Then, too, by making it appear
that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes. “A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, “Rule 1.01 of Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility). The lawyer violates, likewise, Canon
7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession.
9.
10. MARILI C. RONQUILLO, et al. vs. ATTY. HOMOBONO T. CEZAR

Facts:

 Complainant Marili C. Ronquillo is a Filipino citizen currently residing in

Cannes, France with her sons.
 Complainants and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment regarding a
townhouse unit and lot for P1.5M. Respondent transferred his rights and
interests over and promised to give a copy of the Contract to Sell he
executed with Crown Asia, the townhouse developer.
 Respondent received P750K upon execution of the DOA. The balance will
be paid in four equal quarterly installments of P187.5K each. Respondent
encashed the first check.

 Crown Asia informed the complainants that respondent has not paid the full
price yet. Respondent also failed to give a copy of the Contract to Sell. For
these reasons, complainant Marili ordered the bank to stop payment on her
checks.
 Complainants wrote the respondent to inform him that they were willing to
pay the balance if he can have Crown Asia to issue a Deed of Absolute Sale
in their favor. Otherwise, they are asking for their money with legal interest
within 10 days.
 Respondent’s response was that he will work on the DOAS or return the
money in 20 days. The period lapsed but respondent did not fulfill his
promise.
 Complainants’ sent a second letter demand letter. The demand was
unheeded.
 Hence, this administrative complaint since respondent violated his oath
under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner
Milagros V. San Juan, recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors, approved the recommendation.

Issue: Whether Cezar violated his oath under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Ratio:
YES. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the
Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath;
(6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” “Conduct,” as used in this rule,
does not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyer’s professional duties.
This Court has made clear in a long line of cases that a lawyer may be disbarred or
suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor,
or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.