Ethics 31 42

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ethics-31-42 1/53

REPUBLIC ACT No. 6397

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR, AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.

Section . Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to

effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the

standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the bar to discharge its

public responsibility more effectively.

Section !. he sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the

!ational reasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act. hereafter, such sums

as may be necessary for the same purpose shall be included in the annual appropriations for the Supreme

Court.

Section 3. his Act shall ta"e effect upon its approval.

Approved# September $%, $&%$

RULE 39"A

Inte#$%te& B%$ o' t(e P(i)i**ine+

Section . Organization. ' here is hereby organi(ed an official national body to be "nown as the

)*ntegrated Bar of the Philippines,) composed of all persons whose names now appear or may hereafter be

included in the +oll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

Section !. Purposes. ' he fundamental purposes of the *ntegrated Bar shall be to elevate the standards

of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public

responsibility more effectively.

Section 3. Regions. ' he Philippines is hereby divided into nine +egions of the *ntegrated Bar, to wit#

a- Northern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Abra, Batanes, Benguet, Cagayan, *fugao,

*locos !orte, *locos Sur, *sabela, alinga/Apayao, 0a 1nion, 2ountain Province, !ueva

3i(caya, and 4uirino.

b- Central Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Bataan, Bulacan, !ueva 5cija, Pampanga,

Pangasinan, arlac, and 6ambales7

c- Greater Manila, consisting of the City of 2anila and 4ue(on City7

d- Southern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Batangas, Cavite, 0aguna, 2arindu8ue,

9ccidental 2indoro, 9riental 2indoro, 4ue(on, and +i(al7

e- Bicolandia, consisting of the provinces of Albay, Camarines !orte, Camarines Sur,

Catanduanes, 2asbate, and Sorsogon7

f- Eastern Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Bohol, Cebu, 5astern Samar, 0eyte,

!orthern Samar, Samar, and Southern 0eyte7

g- Western Visayas, consisting of the provinces of A"lan, Anti8ue, Capi(, *loilo, !egros

9ccidental, !egros 9riental, Palawan, +omblon, and Si8uijor.

h- Eastern Mindanao, consisting of the provinces of Agusan del !orte, Agusan :el Sur,

Bu"idnon, Camiguin, :avao del !orte, :avao del Sur, :avao 9riental, 2isamis 9riental,

Surigao del !orte, and Surigao del Sur7 and

i- Western Mindanao, consisting of the cities of Basilan and 6amboanga, and the provinces of

Cotabato, 0anao del !orte, 0anao del Sur, 2isamis 9ccidental, South Cotabato, Sulu,

6amboanga del !orte, and 6amboanga del Sur.

*n the event of the c reation of any new province, the Board of ;overnors shall, with the approval of the

Supreme Court, determine the +egion to which the said province shall belong.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


Section . Chapters. ' A Chapter of the *ntegrated Bar shall be organi(ed in every province. 5<cept as

hereinbelow provided, every city shall be considered part of the province within which it is geographically

situated.

A separate Chapter shall be organi(ed in each of the following political subdivisions or areas7

a- he sub/province of Aurora7

b- 5ach congressional district of the City of 2anila7

c- 4ue(on City7

d- Caloocan City, 2alabon and !avotas7

e- Pasay City, 2a"ati, 2andaluyong and San =uan del 2onte7

f- Cebu City7 and

g- 6amboanga City and Basilan City.

1nless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered amember of the Chapter of the province, city, political subdivision or area where his office, or, in the

absence thereof, his residence is located. *n no case shall any lawyer be a member of more than one

Chapter.

5ach Chapter shall have its own local government as provided for by uniform rules to be prescribed by the

Board of ;overnors and approved by the Supreme Court, the provisions of Section $& of this +ule

notwithstanding.

Chapters belonging to the same +egion may hold regional conventions on matters and problems of

common concern.

Section -. ouse o! "elegates. ' he *ntegrated Bar shall have a >ouse of :elegates of not more than

one hundred twenty members who shall be apportioned among all the Chapters as nearly as may beaccording to the number of their r espective members, but each Chapter shall have at least one :elegate.

9n or before :ecember ?$, $&%@, and every four years thereafter, the Board of ;overnors shall ma"e an

apportionment of :elegates.

he term of the office of :elegate shall begin on the date of the opening of the annual convention of the

>ouse and shall end on the day immediately preceding the date of the opening of the ne<t succeeding

annual convention. !o person may be a :elegate for more than two terms.

he >ouse shall hold an annual convention at the call of the Board of ;overnors at any time during the

month of April of each year for the election of ;overnor, the reading and discussion of reports including

the annual report of the Board of ;overnors, the transaction of such other business as may be referred to it

by the Board, and the consideration of such additional matters as may be re8uested in writing by at least

twenty :elegates. Special conventions of the >ouse may be ca lled by the Board of ;overnors to consider

only such matters as the Board shall indicate. A majority of the :elegates who have registered for a

convention, whether annual or special, shall constitute a 8uorum to do business.

Section 6. Board o! Go#ernors. ' he *ntegrated Bar shall be governed by a Board of ;overnors. !ine

;overnors shall be elected by the >ouse of :elegates from the nine +egions on the representation basis of

one ;overnor from each +egion. 5ach ;overnor shall be chosen from a list of nominees submitted by the

:elegates from the +egion, provided that not more than one nominee shall come from any Chapter. he

President and the 5<ecutive 3ice President, if chosen by the ;overnors from outside of themselves as

provided in Section % of this +ule, shall ipso !acto become members of the Board.

he members of the Board shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of their election and until

their successors shall have been duly elected and 8ualified. !o person may be a ;overnor for more than

two terms.

he Board shall meet regularly once every three months, on such date and such time and place as it shall

designate. A majority of all the members of the Board shall constitute a 8uorum to do business. Special

meetings may be called by the President or by five members of the Board.

Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, the Board shall adopt By/0aws and promulgate Canons of

Professional +esponsibility for all members of the *ntegrated Bar. he By/0aws and the Canons may be

amended by the Supreme Court $otu propio or upon the recommendation of the Board of ;overnors.

he Board shall prescribe such other rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out the

purposes of the *ntegrated Bar as well as the provisions of this +ule.

Section 7. O!!icers. ' he *ntegrated Bar shall have a President and an 5<ecutive 3ice President whoshall be chosen by the ;overnors immediately after the latters election, either from among themselves or

from other members of the *ntegrated Bar, by the vote of at least five ;overnors. 5ach of the regional

members of the Board shall be e% o!!icio 3ice President for the +egion which he represents.

he President and the 5<ecutive 3ice President shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of

their election and until their successors shall have duly 8ualified. he 5<ecutive 3ice President shall

automatically become the President for the ne<t succeeding full term. he Presidency shall rotate from

year to year among all the nine +egions in such order or rotation as the Board of ;overnors shall

prescribe. !o person shall be President or 5<ecutive 3ice President of the *ntegrated Bar for more than

one term.

he *ntegrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a reasurer, and such other officers and employees as may be

re8uired by the Board of ;overnors, to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board, and tohold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such terms as it may fi<. Said officers and employees need

not be members of the *ntegrated Bar.

Section . Vacancies. ' *n the event the President is absent or unable to act, his duties shall be performed

by the 5<ecutive 3ice President7 and in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the President, the

5<ecutive 3ice President shall serve as Acting President during the remainder of the term of the office

thus vacated. *n the event of the death, resignation, removal, or disability of both the President and the

5<ecutive 3ice President, the Board of ;overnors shall elect an Acting President to hold office until the

ne<t succeeding election or during the period of disability.

he filling of vacancies in the >ouse of :elegates, Board of ;overnors, and all other positions of 9fficers

of the *ntegrated Bar shall be as provided in the By/0aws. Whenever the term of an office or position is

for a fi<ed period, the person chosen to fill a vacancy therein shall serve only for the une<pired term.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


Section 9. Me$&ership dues. ' 5very member of the *ntegrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the

Board of ;overnors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fi<ed sum e8uivalent to

ten percent $- of the collection from each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Dund for disabled

members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.

Section /. E!!ect o! non'pay$ent o! dues. ' Subject to the provisions of Section $E of this +ule, default

in the payment of annual dues for si< months shall warrant suspension of membership in the *ntegrated

Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the

delin8uent member from the +oll of Attorneys.

Section . Voluntary ter$ination o! $e$&ership( re'instate$ent . ' A member may terminate his

membership by filing a written notice to that effect with the Secretary of the *ntegrated Bar, who shall

immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court. Dorthwith he shall cease to be a

member and his name shall be stric"en by the Court from the +oll of Attorneys. +einstatement may be

made by the Court in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of ;overnors and

approved by the Court.

Section !. Grie#ance procedures. ' he Board of ;overnors shall provide in the By/0aws for grievance

procedures for the enforcement and maintenance of discipline among all the members of the *ntegrated

Bar, but no action involving the suspension or disbarment of a member or the removal of his name from

the +oll of Attorneys shall be effective without the final approval of the Supreme Court.

Section 3. Non'political Bar . ' he *ntegrated Bar shall be strictly non/political, and every activity

tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penali(ed accordingly. !o lawyer

holding an elective, judicial, 8uasi/judicial, or prosecutory office in the ;overnment or any political

subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election of appointment to any p osition in the

*ntegrated Bar or any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso !acto resigned from his position as of the

moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any

judicial, 8uasi/judicial, or prosecutory office in the ;overnment or any political subdivision or

instrumentality thereof.

Section . Positions honorary. ' 5<cept as may be specifically authori(ed or allowed by the Supreme

Court, no :elegate or ;overnor and no national or local 9fficer or committee member shall receive any

compensation, allowance or emolument from the funds of the *ntegrated Bar for any service rendered

therein or be entitled to reimbursement for any e<pense incurred in the discharge of his functions.

Section -. )iscal $atters. ' he Board of ;overnors shall administer the funds of the *ntegrated Barand shall have the power to ma"e appropriations and disbursements therefrom. *t shall cause proper Boo"s

of Accounts to be "ept and Dinancial Statements to be rendered and shall see to it that the proper audit is

made of all accounts of the *ntegrated Bar and all the Chapters thereof.

Section 6. *ournal . ' he Board of ;overnors shall cause to be published a 8uarterly =ournal of the

*ntegrated Bar, free copies of which shall be distributed to every member of the *ntegrated Bar.

Section 7. Voluntary Bar associations. ' All voluntary Bar associations now e<isting or which may

hereafter be formed may co/e<ist with the *ntegrated Bar but shall not operate at cross/purposes therewith.

Section . +$end$ents. ' his +ule may be amended by the Supreme Court $otu propio or upon the

recommendation of the Board of ;overnors or any Chapter of the *ntegrated Bar.

Section 9. Organizational period . ' he Commission on Bar *ntegration shall organi(e the local

Chapters and toward this end shall secure the assistance of the :epartment of =ustice and of all =udges

throughout the Philippines. All Chapter organi(ational meetings shall be held on Saturday, Debruary $%,

$&%?. *n every case, the Commission shall cause proper notice of the date, time and place of the meeting

called to organi(e a Chapter shall constitute a 8uorum for the purpose, including the election of a

President, a 3ice President, a Secretary, a reasurer, and f ive :irectors.

he Commission shall initially fi< the number of :elegates and apportion the same among all the

Chapters as nearly as may be in proportion to the number of their respective members, but each Chapter

shall have at least one :elegate. he President of each Chapter shall concurrently be its :elegate to the

>ouse of :elegates. he 3ice President shall be his alternate, e<cept where the Chapter is entitled to have

more than one :elegate, in which case the 3ice President shall also be a :elegate.

he Board of :irectors of the Chapter shall in proper cases elect additional as well as alternate :elegates.

he >ouse of :elegates shall convene in the City of 2anila on Saturday, 2arch $%, $&%? for the Purpose

of electing a Board of ;overnors. he ;overnors shall immediately assume office and forthwith meet to

elect the 9fficers of the *ntegrated Bar. he 9fficers so chosen shall immediately assume their respective

positions.

Section !/. E!!ecti#ity. ' his +ule shall ta"e effect on =anuary $F, $&%?.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


S5C9!: :*3*S*9!

0A.C No. 79. 1%n2%$ !/, !///4

SOLI5AN 5. SANTOS, 1R., complainant, vs. ATT. FRANCISCO R. LLA5AS, respondent .

D E C I S I O N

5ENDOA, J .8

his is a complaint for misrepresentation and non/payment of bar membership dues filed against

respondent Atty. Drancisco +. 0lamas.

*n a letter/complaint to this Court dated Debruary G, $&&%, complainant Soliman 2. Santos, =r., himself amember of the bar, alleged that#

9n my oath as an a ttorney, * wish to bring to your attention and appropriate

sanction the matter of Atty. Drancisco +. 0lamas who, for a number of years now,has not indicated the proper P+ and *BP 9.+. !os. and data date H place ofissuance- in his pleadings. *f at all, he only indicates )*BP +i(al EI&F) but he has

been using this for at least three years already, as shown by the following attachedsample pleadings in various courts in $&&I, $&&F and $&&%# originals available-

Ann

e< A......./

)5</Parte 2anifestation and Submission) dated

:ecember $, $&&I in Civil Case !o. 4/&I/EIEI?,+C, Br. EE@, 4C

Anne< B

......./

)1rgent 5</Parte 2anifestation 2otion) dated !ovember $?, $&&F in Sp. Proc. !o. &I/?, +C

Br. EI& not EI%-, Paraa8ue, 22

Anne< C

)An 1rgent and +espectful Plea for e<tension ofime to Dile +e8uired Comment and 9pposition)

.......

/

dated =anuary $%, $&&% in CA/;.+. SP not Civil

Case- !o. @EEGF, CA Fth :iv.

his matter is being brought in the conte<t of +ule $?G, Section $ which 8ualifies

that only a duly admitted member of the bar )who is in good and regular standing,is entitled to practice law). here is also +ule $?&/A, Section $ which provides

that )default in the payment of annual dues for si< months shall warrant suspensionof membership in the *ntegrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall

be a ground for the removal of the name of the delin8uent member from the +oll of

Attorneys.)

Among others, * see" clarification e.g. a certification- and appropriate action on the bar standing of Atty. Drancisco +. 0lamas both with the Bar Confidant and with the

*BP, especially its +i(al Chapter of which Atty. 0lamas purports to be a member.="sm

Please note that while Atty. 0lamas indicates )*BP +i(al EI&F) sometimes, hedoes not indicate any P+ for payment of professional ta<.

1nder the +ules, particularly +ule $?G, Sections E% and EG, suspension of anattorney may be done not only by the Supreme Court but also by the Court ofAppeals or a +egional rial Court thus, we are also copy furnishing some of these

courts-.

Dinally, it is relevant to note the trac" record of Atty. Drancisco +. 0lamas, as shown by#

$........his dismissal as Pasay City =udge per Supreme Court Admin. 2atter !o.

$?%/C= 5n Banc :ecision on 9ctober EG, $&G$ in SC+A -

E........his conviction for estafa per :ec ision dated =une ?, $&&@ in Crim. Case !o.$$%G%, +C Br. FF, 2a"ati, 22 see attached copy of the 9rder dated Debruary $@,

$&&I denying the motion for reconsideration of the conviction which is purportedly

on appeal in the Court of Appeals-.

Attached to the letter/complaint were the pleadings dated :ecember $, $&&I, !ovember $?, $&&F, and=anuary $%, $&&% referred to by complainant, bearing, at the end thereof, what appears to be respondents

signature above his name, address and the rece ipt number )*BP +i(al EI&F.)$J$K Also attached was acopy of the order ,EJEK dated Debruary $@, $&&I, issued by =udge 5riberto 1. +osario, =r. of the +egional

rial Court, Branch FF, 2a"ati, denying respondents motion for reconsideration of his conviction, inCriminal Case !o. $$%G%, for violation of Art. ?$F, par. E of the +evised Penal Code.

1

2

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


9n April $G, $&&%, complainant filed a certification?J?K dated 2arch $G, $&&%, by the then president of the*ntegrated Bar of the Philippines, Atty. *da +. 2acalinao/=avier, that respondents )last payment of his *BPdues was in $&&$. Since then he has not paid or remitted any amount to cover his membership fees up to

the present.)

9n =uly %, $&&%, respondent was re8uired to comment on the complaint within ten days from receipt ofnotice, after which the case was referred to the *BP for investigation, report and recommendation. *n his

comment/memorandum,@J@K dated =une ?, $&&G, respondent alleged#IJIK

?. hat with respect to the complainants absurd claim that f or using in $&&I, $&&Fand $&&% the same 9.+. !o. EI&F of the +i(al *BP, respondent is automaticallyno longer a member in good standing.

Precisely, as cited under the conte<t of +ule $?G, only an admitted member of the bar who is in good standing is entitled to practice law.

he complainants basis in claiming that the undersigned was no longer in goodstanding, were as above cited, the 9ctober EG, $&G$ Supreme Court decision of

dismissal and the Debruary $@, $&&I conviction for 3iolation of Article ?$F +PC,concealment of encumbrances. Chief

As above pointed out also, the Supreme Court dismissal decision was set aside and

reversed and respondent was even promoted from City =udge of Pasay City to

+egional rial Court =udge of 2a"ati, Br. $I.

Also as pointed out, the Debruary $@, $&&I decision in Crim. Case !o. $$%G% was

appealed to the Court of Appeals and is still pending.

Complainant need not even file this complaint if indeed the decision of dismissal asa =udge was never set aside and reversed, and also had the decision of conviction

for a light felony, been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 1ndersigned himselfwould surrender his right or privilege to practice law.

@. hat complainant capitali(es on the fact that re spondent had been delin8uent inhis dues.

1ndersigned since $&&E have publicly made it clear per his *ncome a< +eturn, upto the present, that he had only a limited practice of law. *n fact, in his *ncome a<+eturn, his principal occupation is a farmer of which he is. >is ? hectares orchard

and pineapple farm is located at Calauan, 0aguna.

2oreover, and more than anything else, respondent being a Senior Citi(en since$&&E, is legally e<empt under Section @ of +ep. Act %@?E which too" effect in $&&E,

in the payment of ta<es, income ta<es a s an e<ample. Being thus e<empt, he

3

4

5

honestly believe in view of his detachment from a total practice of law, but only in alimited practice, the subse8uent payment by him of dues with the *ntegrated Bar iscovered by such e<emption. *n fact, he never e<ercised his rights as an *BP member

to vote and be voted upon.

!onetheless, if despite such honest belief of being covered by the e<emption and ifonly to show that he never in any manner wilfully and deliberately failed and

refused compliance with such dues, he is willing at any time to fulfill and pay all past dues even with interests, charges and surcharges and penalties. >e is ready totender such fulfillment or payment, not for allegedly saving his s"in a s again

irrelevantly and frustratingly insinuated for vindictive purposes by the complainant, but as an honest act of accepting reality if indeed it is reality for him to pay such

dues despite his candor and honest belief in all food faith, to the contrary. 5smsc

9n :ecember @, $&&G, the *BP Board of ;overnors passed a resolutionFJFK adopting and approving thereport and recommendation of the *nvestigating Commissioner which found respondent guilty, andrecommended his suspension from the practice of law for three months and until he pays his *BP dues.

+espondent moved for a reconsideration of the decision, but this was denied by the *BP in a resolution,%J%Kdated April EE, $&&&. >ence, pursuant to +ule $?&/B, $Eb- of the +ules of Court, this case is here for

final action on the decision of the *BP ordering respondents suspension for three months.

he findings of *BP Commissioner Alfredo San( are as follows#

9n the first issue, Complainant has shown )respondents non/indication of the

proper *BP 9.+. and P+ numbers in his pleadings Anne<es )A), )B) and )C) ofthe letter complaint, more particularly his use of )*BP +i(al EI&F for at leastthree years.)

he records also show a )Certification dated 2arch E@, $&&% from *BP +i(alChapter President *da +. 2a"ahinud =avier that respondents last payment of his *BP

dues was in $&&$.)

While these allegations are neither denied nor categorically admitted by r espondent,he has invo"ed and cited that )being a Senior Citi(en since $&&E, he is legally

e<empt under Section @ of +epublic Act !o. %@?E which too" effect in $&&E in the payment of ta<es, income ta<es as an e<ample.)

. . . .

he above cited provision of law is n ot applicable in the present case. *n fact,

respondent admitted that he is still in the practice of law when he alleged that the)undersigned since $&&E have publicly made it clear per his *ncome ta< +eturn up

to the present time that he had only a limited practice of law.) par. @ of+espondents 2emorandum-.

herefore respondent is not e<empt from paying his yearly dues to the *ntegratedBar of the Philippines. 5smmis

6

7

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


9n the second issue, complainant claims that respondent has misled the court abouthis standing in the *BP by using the same *BP 9.+. number in his pleadings of atleast si< years and therefore liable for his actions. +espondent in his memorandum

did not discuss this issue.

)irst . *ndeed, respondent admits that since $&&E, he has engaged in law practice without having paid his*BP dues. >e li"ewise admits that, as appearing in the pleadings submitted by complainant to this Court,

he indicated )*BP/+i(al EI&F) in the pleadings he filed in court, at least for the years $&&I, $&&F, and$&&%, thus misrepresenting that such was his *BP chapter membership and receipt number for the years inwhich those pleadings were filed. >e claims, however, that he is only engaged in a )limited) practice and

that he believes in good faith that he is e<empt from the payment of ta<es, such as income ta<, under +.A. !o. %@?E, @ as a senior citi(en since $&&E.

+ule $?&/A provides#

Sec. &. Me$&ership dues, / 5very member of the *ntegrated Bar shall pay such

annual dues as the Board of ;overnors shall determine with the approval of theSupreme Court. A fi<ed sum e8uivalent to ten percent $- of the collections from

each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Dund for disabled members of theChapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.

Sec. $. E!!ect o! non'pay$ent o! dues. / Subject to the provisions of Section $E ofthis +ule, default in the payment of annual dues for si< months shall warrant

suspension of membership in the *ntegrated Bar, and default in such payment for

one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delin8uent memberfrom the +oll of Attorneys.

*n accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues,and it does not matter that his prac tice is )limited.) While it is true that +.A. !o. %@?E, @ grants seniorciti(ens )e<emption from the payment of individual income ta<es# provided, that their annual ta<able

income does not e<ceed the poverty level as determined by the !ational 5conomic and :evelopmentAuthority !5:A- for that year,) the e<emption does not include payment of membership or association

dues.

Second . By indicating )*BP/+i(al EI&F) in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public andthe courts that he had paid his *BP dues to the +i(al Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of

Professional +esponsibility which provides#

+ule $.$ / A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitfulconduct.

CA!9! % / A 0AWL5+ S>A00 A A00 *25S 1P>90: >5 *!5;+*L

A!: :*;!*L 9D >5 05;A0 P+9D5SS*9!, A!: S1PP9+ >5AC*3**5S 9D >5 *!5;+A5: BA+. 5smso

CA!9! $ / A 0AWL5+ 9W5S CA!:9+, DA*+!5SS A!: ;99: DA*> 9>5 C91+.

+ule $.$ / A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of anycourt7 nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any ar tifice.

+espondents failure to pay his *BP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he f iled in court indeedmerit the most severe penalty. >owever, in view of respondents advanced age, his e<press willingness to

pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law,GJGK we believe the penalty of one year

suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid his *BP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate.

HEREFORE, respondent Atty. Drancisco +. 0lamas is S1SP5!:5: from the practice of law for 9!5$- L5A+, or until he has paid his *BP dues, whichever is later. 0et a copy of this decision be attached to

Atty. 0lamas personal record in the 9ffice of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters ofthe *ntegrated Bar of the Philippines and to a ll courts in the land.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo- .Chair$an/- 0uisu$&ing- Buena- and "e Leon- *r,- **,- concur, ΥΛΑΝ∆Υ

8

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


5! BA!C

JB.2. !o. $?%. 2ay &, EIK

055+ 9D AL. C5C*0*9 L. A+53A09, =+., +5415S*!; 5M52P*9! D+92 PAL25! 9D

*BP :15S.

: 5 C * S * 9 !

C>*C9/!A6A+*9, * .#

his is a re8uest for e<emption from payment of the *ntegrated Bar of the Philippines *BP- dues filed by

petitioner Atty. Cecilio L. Arevalo, =r.

*n his letter ,J$K dated EE September E@, petitioner sought e<emption from payment of *BP dues in the

amount of P$E,?I. as alleged unpaid accountability for the years $&%%/EI. >e alleged that after

being admitted to the Philippine Bar in $&F$, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from =uly

$&FE until $&GF, then migrated to, and wor"ed in, the 1SA in :ecember $&GF until his retirement in the

year E?. >e maintained that he cannot be assessed *BP dues for the years that he was wor"ing in the

Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of ones profession while in

government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was wor"ing in the 1SA.

9n I 9ctober E@, the letter was referred to the *BP for comment.JEK

9n $F !ovember E@, the *BP submitted its commentJ?K stating inter alia# that membership in the *BP is

not based on the actual practice of law7 that a lawyer continues to be included in the +oll of Attorneys as

long as he continues to be a member of the *BP7 that one of the obligations of a member is the payment of

annual dues as determined by the *BP Board of ;overnors and duly approved by the Supreme Court as

provided for in Sections & and $, +ule $?&/A of the +ules of Court7 that the validity of imposing dues on

the *BP members has been upheld as necessary to defray the cost of an *ntegrated Bar Program7 and that

the policy of the *BP Board of ;overnors of no e<emption from payment of dues is but an implementation

of the Courts directives for all members of the *BP to help in defraying the cost of integration of the bar. *t

maintained that there is no rule allowing the e<emption of payment of annual dues as re8uested b y

respondent, that what is allowed is voluntary termination and reinstatement of membership. *t asserted that

what petitioner could have done was to inform the secretary of the *BP of his intention to stay abroad, so

that his membership in the *BP could have been terminated, thus, his obligation to pay dues could have

been stopped. *t also alleged that the *BP Board of ;overnors is in the process of discussing proposals for

the creation of an inactive status for its members, which if approved by the Board of ;overnors and bythis Court, will e<empt inactive *BP members from payment of the annual dues.

*n his replyJ@K dated EE Debruary EI, petitioner contends that what he is 8uestioning is the *BP Board of

;overnors Policy of !on/5<emption in the payment of annual membership dues of lawyers regardless of

whether or not they are engaged in active or inactive practice. >e asseverates that the Policy of !on/

5<emption in the payment of annual membership dues suffers from constitutional infirmities, such as

e8ual protection clause and the due process clause. >e also posits that compulsory payment of the *BP

annual membership dues would indubitably be oppressive to him considering that he has been in an

inactive status and is without income derived from his law prac tice. >e adds that his removal from

nonpayment of annual membership dues would constitute deprivation of property right without due

process of law. 0astly, he claims that non/practice of law by a lawyer/member in inactive status is neither

injurious to active law practitioners, to fellow lawyers in inactive status, nor to the community where the

inactive lawyers/members reside.

Plainly, the issue here is# whether or nor petitioner is entitled to e<emption from payment of his dues

during the time that he was inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil Service from

$&FE/$&GF and he was wor"ing abroad from $&GF/E?N

We rule in the negative.

An *ntegrated Bar is a State/organi(ed Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar

association organi(ed by individual lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary. *ntegration of

the Bar is essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded an opportunity to do his

shares in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities.

9rgani(ed by or under the direction of the State, an *ntegrated Bar is an official national body of which all

lawyers are re8uired to be members. hey are, therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for thegovernance of the Bar, including the re8uirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective

discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional

responsibility, breach of which constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper

cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the offending member .JIK

he integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population. his

re8uires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine 1ua non to the practice of

law and the retention of his name in the +oll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.JFK

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. >e is free to attend or not to attend

the meetings of his *ntegrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. he only

compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of his annual dues. he Supreme Court, in order to

foster the States legitimate interest in elevating the 8uality of professional legal services, may re8uire thatthe cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the

regulatory program the lawyers.J%K

2oreover, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional power and

duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and in the integration of the

Philippine Bar JGK / which power re8uired members of a privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a

reasonable fee toward defraying the e<penses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. *t is

8uite apparent that the fee is, indeed, imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for

carrying out the noble objectives and purposes of integration.

he rationale for prescribing dues has been e<plained in the *ntegration of the Philippine Bar ,J&K thus#

Dor the court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean that the Court is attempting tolevy a ta<.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/bm_1370.htm#_ftn1

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


A membership fee in the Bar association is an e<action for regulation, while ta< purpose of a ta< is a

revenue. *f the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation,

it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. *t would not be possible to put on an integrated Bar

program without means to defray the e<penses. he doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries with it

the power to impose such e<action.

he only limitation upon the States power to regulate the privilege of law is that the regulation does not

impose an unconstitutional burden. he public interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far

outweighs the slight inconvenience to a member resulting from his re8uired payment of the annual dues.

hus, payment of dues is a necessary conse8uence of membership in the *BP, of which no one is e<empt.

his means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as ones membership in the

*BP remains regardless of the lac" of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.

here is nothing in the law or rules which allows e<emption from payment of membership dues. At most,

as correctly observed by the *BP, he could have informed the Secretary of the *ntegrated Bar of his

intention to stay abroad before he left. *n such case, his membership in the *BP could have been

terminated and his obligation to pay dues could have been discontinued.

As abovementioned, the *BP in its comment stated that the *BP Board of ;overnors is in the process of

discussing the situation of members under inactive status and the nonpayment of their dues during such

inactivity. *n the meantime, petitioner is duty bound to comply with his obligation to pay membership

dues to the *BP.

Petitioner also contends that the enforcement of the penalty of removal would amount to a deprivation of

property without due process and hence infringes on one of his constitutional rights.

his 8uestion has been settled in the case of 2n re +tty, Marcial Edillon,J$K in this wise#

. . . Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its being one that entitles the holder of a

license to practice a profession, we do not here pause to consider at length, as it JisK clear that under the

police power of the State, and under the necessary powers granted to the Court to perpetuate its e<istence,

the respondents right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to

regulation and in8uiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recogni(eJdK, then a

penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void

as unreasonable or arbitrary.

But we must here emphasi(e that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as

such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to e<act compliance with the lawyers public

responsibilities.

As a final note, it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with

conditions,J$$K one of which is the payment of membership dues. Dailure to abide by any of them entails

the loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move.

HEREFORE, petitioners re8uest for e<emption from payment of *BP dues is :5!*5:. >e is ordered

to pay P$E,?I., the amount assessed by the *BP as membership fees for the years $&%%/EI, within a

non/e<tendible period of ten $- days from receipt of this decision, with a warning that fa ilure to do so

will merit his suspension from the practice of law.

S9 9+:5+5:.

:avide, =r., C.=., Puno, Panganiban, 4uisumbing, Lnares/Santiago, Sandoval/;utierre(, Carpio, Austria/

2artine(, Corona, Carpio/2orales, Callejo, Sr., A(cuna, inga, and ;arcia, ==., concur.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


+epublic of the Philippines

SUPRE5E COURT

2anila

5! BA!C

A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975

IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO, formr !"r Co#f$%"#t "#% D&ut' C(r) of Court,

respondent.

A.C. No. 116* August 29, 1975

IN RE: RAMON E. +ALAN+, "($"s ROMAN E. +ALAN+, 1971 !"r E"m$#, respondent.

A.M. No. 116- August 29, 1975

IN RE: ON. !ERNARDO /ARDO, ON. RAMON /AMATIAN, ATT0. MANUEL TOMACRU,

ATT0. IDEL MANALO "#% ATT0. +UILLERMO /A!LO, 3R., Mm4rs, 1971 !"r E"m$#$#g

Comm$tt, respondent .

MAAIAR, J.:

Administrative proceedings against Victorio D. Lanuevo — for disbarment; Ramon E. Galang,alias Roman E. Galang — for disbarment; Hon. ernardo !ardo, Hon. Ramon !amatian, Att".#anuel $. %omacru&; Att". #anuel G. #ontecillo, Att". 'idel #analo and Att". Guillermo !ablo,(r. — for disciplinar" action — for t)eir acts and omissions during t)e *+* ar E-aminations.

n )is re/uest dated #arc) 0+, *+0 contained in a confidential letter to t)e $ourt for re1correction and re1evaluation of )is ans2er to t)e *+* ar E-aminations /uestion, 3scarLandic)o — 2)o flun4ed in t)e *+*, *+56 and *+5 ar E-aminations 2it) a grade of 7.89,58.:89 and 5.889, respectivel" — invited t)e attention of t)e $ourt to "The starling fact that

the grade in one examination (Civil Law) of at least one bar candidate was raised for one reason

or another, before the bar results were released this year" $onfidential Letter, p. 0. Vol. , rec.<.%)is 2as confirmed, according to )im, b" t)e $ivil La2 E-aminer )imself Hon. Ramon $.!amatian< as 2ell as b" ar $onfidant Victorio D. Lanuevo. He furt)er t)erein stated =t)at t)ereare strong reasons to believe t)at t)e grades in ot)er e-amination noteboo4s in ot)er sub>ectsalso under2ent alternations — to raise t)e grades — prior to t)e release of t)e results. ?ote t)at

t)is 2as 2it)out an" formal motion or re/uest from t)e proper parties, i.e., t)e bar candidatesconcerned. f t)e e-aminers concerned reconsidered t)eir grades without formal motion, t)ere isno reason 2)" t)e" ma" not do so no2 2)en proper re/uest ans2er motion t)erefor is made. t2ould be contrar" to due process postulates. #ig)t not one sa" t)at some candidates got unfairand un>ust treatment, for t)eir grades 2ere not as4ed to be reconsidered @unofficiall"@ B)" t)ediscrimination Does t)is not afford sufficient reason for t)e $ourt en banc to go into t)esematters b" its conceded po2er to ultimatel" decide t)e matter of admission to t)e bar= p. 0,$onfidential Letter, Vol. , rec.<.

Acting on t)e aforesaid confidential letter, t)e $ourt c)ec4ed t)e records of t)e *+* arE-aminations and found t)at t)e grades in five sub>ects — !olitical La2 and !ublic nternationalLa2, $ivil La2, #ercantile La2, $riminal La2 and Remedial La2 — of a successful barcandidate 2it) office code ?o. +8C under2ent some c)anges 2)ic), )o2ever, 2ere dul" initialedand aut)enticated b" t)e respective e-aminer concerned. 'urt)er c)ec4 of t)e records revealed

t)at t)e bar candidate 2it) office code ?o. +8C is one Ramon E. Galang, a perennial barcandidate, 2)o flun4ed in t)e 1!, 1!!, 1!, 1!#, and 1!$ bar e-aminations 2it) a gradeof !%&'', !&!', %$&%', !&$, '!&' and '%&#, respectivel". He passed in t)e *+*bar e-aminations 2it) a grade of C.*89, 2)ic) 2as considered as 89 b" virtue of a $ourt ofC.*89, 2)ic) 2as considered as 89 as t)e passing mar4 for t)e *+* bar e-aminations.

pon t)e direction of t)e $ourt, t)e *+* ar E-amination $)airman re/uested ar $onfidantVictorio D. Lanuevo and t)e five 8< bar e-aminers concerned to submit t)eir s2orn statementson t)e matter, 2it) 2)ic) re/uest t)e" complied.

n )is s2orn statement dated April *0, *+0, said ar $onfidant admitted )aving broug)t t)e fivee-amination noteboo4s of Ramon E. Galang, alias Ramon E. Galang, bac4 to t)e respectivee-aminers for re1evaluation andor re1c)ec4ing, stating t)e circumstances under 2)ic) t)e same

2as done and )is reasons for doing t)e same.

Eac) of t)e five 8< e-aminers in )is individual s2orn statement admitted )aving re1evaluatedandor re1c)ec4ed t)e noteboo4 involved pertaining to )is sub>ect upon t)e representation to )imb" ar $onfidant Lanuevo t)at )e )as t)e aut)orit" to do t)e same and t)at t)e e-amineeconcerned failed onl" in )is particular sub>ect andor 2as on t)e borderline of passing.

'inding a prima facie case against t)e respondents 2arranting a formal investigation, t)e $ourtre/uired, in a resolution dated #arc) 8, *+:, ar $onfidant Victorio Lanuevo =to s)o2 cause2it)in ten *7< da"s from notice why his name should not be stric*en from the +oll of ttorneys" Adm. $ase ?o. **50, p. :C, rec.<. $onsidering t)at t)e re1evaluation of t)e e-amination papersof Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, 2as unauthori-ed , and t)erefore )e did not obtaina passing average in t)e *+* bar e-aminations, t)e $ourt li4e2ise resolved on #arc) 8, *+*to re/uires )im =to s)o2 cause 2it)in ten *7< da"s from notice why his name should not be

stric*en from the +oll of ttorneys" Adm. $ase ?o. **5:, p. ++, rec.<. %)e five e-aminers

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


concerned 2ere also re/uired b" t)e $ourt =to s)o2 cause 2it)in ten *7< da"s from notice 2)"no disciplinary action should be ta*en against them= Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, p. :*, rec.<.

Respondent %omacru& filed )is ans2er on #arc) *0, *+: Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, p. 7, rec.<.2)ile respondents !ardo, !amatian, #ontecillo, #analo and Lanuevo filed t)eirs on #arc) *+,*+: Adm. $ase ?o. **50, pp. 5715:, :01:8, C71C*, :51:+ and :81:6, rec.<. At t)e )earing on

August 0, *+:, respondent Lanuevo filed anot)er s2orn statement in addition to, and inamplication of, )is ans2er filed on #arc) *+, *+: Adm. $ase ?o. **50, pp. C81C, rec.<.Respondent Galang filed )is unverified ans2er on #arc) *5, *+: Adm. $ase ?o. **5:, pp.*771*7C, rec.<. He 2as re/uired b" t)e $ourt to verif" t)e same and complaince came on #a"

*6, *+: Adm. $ase ?o. **5:, pp. *751**7,< rec.<.

n t)e course of t)e investigation, it 2as found t)at it 2as not respondent ernardo !ardo 2)ore1evaluated andor re1c)ec4ed e-amination boo4let 2it) 3ffice $ode ?o. +8C in !olitical La2and !ublic nternational La2 of e-aminee Ramon Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, but Guillermo!ablo, (r., e-aminer in Legal Et)ics and !ractical E-ercise, 2)o 2as as4ed to )elp in t)ecorrection of a number of e-amination noteboo4s in !olitical La2 and !ublic nternational La2 tomeet t)e deadline for submission pp. *10C, Vol. V, rec.<. ecause of t)is development, Att".Guillermo !ablo, (r. 2as li4e2ise included as respondent in Administrative $ase ?o. **5C. Hon.ernardo !ardo remainded as a respondent for it 2as also discovered t)at anot)er paper in!olitical La2 and !ublic nternational La2 also under2ent re1evaluation andor re1c)ec4ing. %)isnoteboo4 2it) 3ffice $ode ?o. *550 turned out to be o2ned b" anot)er successful candidate b"t)e name of .rnesto /uitaleg . 'urt)er investigation resulted in t)e discover" of anot)er re1evaluation andor re1c)ec4ing of a noteboo4 in t)e sub>ect of #ercantile La2 resulting in t)ec)ange of t)e grade from C9 to 879 %)is noteboo4 bearing 3ffice $ode ?o. **7 is o2ned b"anot)er successful candidate b" t)e name of lfredo Ty dela Cru- . Fuitaleg and %" dela $ru&and t)e latter@s fat)er 2ere summoned to testif" in t)e investigation.

An investigation conducted b" t)e ?ational ureau of nvestigation upon re/uest of t)e$)airman of t)e *+* ar E-amination $ommittee as nvestigation 3fficer, s)o2ed t)at oneRom" Galang " Esguerra, alias Ramon E. Galang, a student in t)e c)ool of La2 of #anuel L.Fue&on niversit", 2as, on eptember 6, *+8+, c)arged 2it) t)e crime of slig)t p)"sical in>uriesin t)e #unicipal $ourt of #anila committed on Eufrosino '. de Vera, anot)er student of t)e sameuniversit". $onfronted 2it) t)is information at t)e )earing of August *:, *+: Vol. V, pp. 0710*,:0, rec.<, respondent Galang declared t)at )e does not remember )aving been c)arged 2it) t)ecrime of slig)t p)"sical in>uries in t)at case. Vol. V, pp. C8157, rec.<.

Respondent Galang, in all )is application to ta4e t)e bar e-aminations, did not ma4e mention oft)is fact 2)ic) )e is re/uired under t)e rules to do.

%)e >oint investigation of all t)e cases commenced on (ul" *, *+: and 2as terminated on3ctober 0, *+:. %)ereafter, parties1respondents 2ere re/uired to submit t)eir memoranda.Respondents Lanuevo, Galang and !ardo submitted t)eir respective memorandum on?ovember *C, *+:.

efore t)e >oint )earing commenced, 3scar Landic)o too4 up permanent residence in Australia,2)ere )e is believed to be gainfull" emplo"ed. Hence, )e 2as not summoned to testif".

At t)e >oint investigation, all respondents, e-cept respondent !ablo, 2)o offered as evidenceonl" )is oral testimon", submitted as t)eir direct evidence onl" )is oral testimon", submitted as

t)eir direct evidence t)e affidavits and ans2ers earlier submitted b" t)em to t)e $ourt. %)esame became t)e basis for t)eir cross1e-amination.

n t)eir individual s2orn statements and ans2er, 2)ic) t)e" offered as t)eir direct testimon" int)e investigation conducted b" t)e $ourt, t)e respondent1e-aminers recounted t)ecircumstances under 2)ic) t)e" re1evaluated andor re1c)ec4ed t)e e-amination noteboo4s in/uestion.

n His affidavit dated April **, *+0, respondent (udge later Associate (ustice of t)e $ourt of Appeals< Ramon $. !amatian, e-aminer in $ivil La2, affirmed

0. %)at one evening sometime in December last "ear, 2)ile 2as correcting

t)e e-amination noteboo4s, Att". Lanuevo, 0ar Confidant, explained to methat it is the practice and the policy in bar examinations that he (tty&

Lanuevo) ma*e a review of the grades obtained in all subects and if he

finds that candidate obtained an extraordinary high grade in one subect

and a rather low one in another, he will bring bac* the latter to the examiner

concerned for re2evaluation and change of grade ;

:. %)at sometime in t)e latter part of 3anuary of this year, he brought bac*

to me an examination boo*let in Civil Law for re2evaluation, because

according to him the owner of the paper is on the borderline and if 4 could

reconsider his grade to %' the candidate concerned will get passing mar* ;

C. That ta*ing his word for it and under the belief that it was really the

practice and policy of the 5upreme Court to do so in t)e furt)er belief t)at 2as >ust manifesting cooperation in doing so, re2evaluated the paper and

reconsidered the grade to %';

8. %)at onl" one noteboo4 in $ivil La2 2as broug)t bac4 to me for suc) re1evaluation and upon verif"ing m" files found t)at t)e noteboo4 isnumbered @+8;

5. %)at t)e original grade 2as ! and m" re1evaluation of t)e ans2ers2ere based on t)e same standard used in t)e correction and evaluation ofall ot)ers; t)us, ?os. : and C 2it) original grades of 9 eac) 2asreconsidered to *79; ?o. 8 2it) C9 to 89; ?o. 2it) :9 to 89; and ?o. 62it) 69 to *79 emp)asis supplied<.

His ans2er dated #arc) *+, *+: substantiall" reiterated )is allegations in )is April **, *+0affidavit 2it) follo2ing additional statements

--- --- ---

:. ... Ho2ever t)e grades in ?os. *, 0, 5, + and *7, 2ere not reconsideredas it is no longer to ma4e t)e reconsideration of t)ese ans2ers because oft)e same evaluation and standard; )ence, ?os. *, 0 and *7 remainded at89 and ?os. 5 and + at *79;

C. %)at at t)e time made t)e reconsideration of e-amination boo4let ?o.+8* did not 4no2 t)e identit" of its o2ner until received t)is resolution oft)e Honorable upreme $ourt nor t)e identities of t)e e-aminers in ot)ersub>ects;

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


8. %)at t)e above re2evaluation was made in good faith and under the belief

that 4 am authori-ed to do so in view of the misrepresentation of said tty&

Lanuevo, based on t)e follo2ing circumstances

a< ince started correcting t)e papers on or about3ctober *5, *+*, relations)ip bet2een Att". Lanuevoand m"self )ad developed to t)e point t)at 2it) respectto t)e correction of t)e e-amination boo4lets of barcandidates )ave al2a"s follo2ed )im and considered)is instructions as reflecting t)e rules and polic" of t)e

Honorable upreme $ourt 2it) respect to t)e same;t)at )ave no alternative but to ta4e )is 2ords;

b< %)at considering t)is relations)ip and considering

his misrepresentation to me as reflecting the real and

policy of the 6onorable 5upreme Court , did not bot)er an" more to get t)e consent and permission of t)e$)airman of t)e ar $ommittee. esides, at t)at time, 2as isolating m"self from all members of t)e upreme$ourt and speciall" t)e c)airman of t)e ar $ommitteefor fear t)at mig)t be identified as a bar e-aminer;

--- --- ---

e< %)at no consideration 2)atsoever )as been received b" me in return forsuc) recorrection, and as proof of it, declined to consider and evaluate oneboo4let in Remedial La2 aforesaid because 2as not t)e one 2)o madet)e original correction of t)e same Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. :01:8, rec.;emp)asis supplied<.

%)en Assistant olicitor General, no2 $' (udge, ernardo !ardo, e-aminer in !olitical La2 and!ublic nternational La2, confirmed in )is affidavit of April 6, *+0 t)at

3n a da" or t2o after t)e ar $onfidant 2ent to m" residence to obtain fromme t)e last bag of t2o )undred noteboo4s bearing e-aminer@s codenumbers *077 to *C77< 2)ic) according to m" record 2as on 'ebruar" 8,

*+0, )e came to m" residence at about :7 p.m. riding in a Vo4s2agenpanel of t)e upreme $ourt, 2it) at least t2o companions. %)e barconfidant )ad 2it) )im an e-aminee@s noteboo4 bearing code number 55*,and, after t)e usual amenties, he re7uested me if it was possible for me to

review and re2examine the said noteboo* because it appears that the

examinee obtained a grade of '%, whereas, according to the 0ar Confidant,

the said examinee had obtained higher grades in other subects, the highest

of which was , if 4 recall correctly, in remedial law .

4 as*ed the 0ar Confidant if 4 was allowed to receive or re2examinee the

noteboo* as 4 had submitted the same beforehand, and he told me that 4

was authori-ed to do so because the same was still within my control and

authority as long as the particular examinee8s name had not been identified

or that the code number decode and the examinee8s name was revealed .

%)e ar $onfidant told me t)at t)e name of t)e e-aminee in t)e casepresent bearing code number 55* )ad not been identified or revealed; and

t)at it mig)t )ave been possible t)at )ad given a particularl" lo2 grade tosaid e-aminee.

ccepting at face value the truth of the 0ar Confidant8s representations to

me, and as it was humanly possible that 4 might have erred in the grading of

the said noteboo*, 4 re2examined the same, carefull" read t)e ans2er, andgraded it in accordance 2it) t)e same standards )ad used t)roug)out t)egrading of t)e entire noteboo4s, with the result that the examinee deserved

an increased grade of !!& fter again clearing with the 0ar Confidant my

authority to correct the grades, and as he had assured me that the code

number of the examinee in 7uestion had not been decoded and his name*nown, &&& 4 therefore corrected the total grade in t)e noteboo4 and t)egrade card attac)ed t)ereto, and properl" initial<ed t)e same. alsocorrected t)e itemi&ed grades from item ?o. * to item ?o. *7< on t)e t2osets of grading s)eets, m" personal cop" t)ereof, and t)e ar $onfidantbroug)t 2it) )im t)e ot)er cop" t)ereof, and t)e ar $onfidant broug)t 2it))im t)e ot)er cop" t)e grading s)eet= Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. 8618+; rec.;emp)asis supplied<

n )is ans2er dated #arc) *, *+: 2)ic) )e denominated as =E-planation=, respondenternardo !. !ardo adopted and replaced t)erein b" reference t)e facts stated in )is earliers2orn statement and in additional alleged t)at

--- --- ---

:. At t)e time revie2ed t)e e-aminee@s noteboo4 in political andinternational la2, code numbered !!1, did 4no2 t)e name of t)ee-aminee. n fact, came to 4no2 )is name onl" upon receipt of t)eresolution of #arc) 8, *+:; no2 4no2ing )is name, 2is) to state t)at donot 4no2 )im personall", and t)at )ave never met )im even up to t)epresent;

C. At t)at time, 4 acted under the impression that 4 was authori-ed to ma*e

such review, and had repeatedly as*ed the 0ar Confidant whether 4 was

authori-ed to ma*e such revision and was so assured of my authority as the

name of the examinee had not yet been decoded or his identity revealed&

The 0ar Confidant8s assurance was apparently regular and so appeared tobe in the regular course of express prohibition in the rules and guidelines

given to me as an examiner, and the 0ar Confidant was my official liaison

with the Chairman, as, unless called, refrained as muc) as possible fromfre/uent personal contact 2it) t)e $)airman lest be identified as ane-aminer. ...;

8. At t)e time t)e ar $onfidant came to see me at about :7 o@cloc4 in t)eevening at m" residence, felt it inappropriate to verif" )is aut)orit" 2it) t)e$)airman. 4t did not appear to me that his representations were

unauthori-ed or suspicious. ndeed, t)e ar $onfidant 2as riding in t)eofficial ve)icle of t)e upreme $ourt, a Vol4s2agen panel, accompanied b"t2o companions, 2)ic) 2as usual, and t)us loo4ed li4e a regular visit to meof t)e ar $onfidant, as it 2as about t)e same )our t)at )e used to see me

--- --- ---

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


. ndeed, t)e noteboo4 code numbered 55* 2as still in t)e same conditionas 2)en submitted t)e same. 4n agreeing to review the said noteboo*

code numbered !!1, my aim was to see if 4 committed an error in the

correction, not to ma*e the examinee pass the subect . considered itentirel" )umanl" possible to )ave erred, because corrected t)at particularnoteboo4 on December :*, *+*, considering especially the representation

of the 0ar Confidant that the said examinee had obtained higher grades in

other subects, the highest of which was in remedial law , if recallcorrectl". 3f course, it did not stri4e me as unusual t)at t)e ar $onfidant4ne2 t)e grades of t)e e-aminee in t)e position to 4no2 and t)at t)ere 2as

not)ing irregular in t)at

6. n political and international la2, t)e original grade obtained b" t)ee-aminee 2it) noteboo4 code numbered 55* 2as 89. After revie2, it 2asincreased b" + points, resulting in a final grade of 559. till, t)e e-amineedid not pass t)e sub>ect, and, as )eretofore stated, m" aim 2as not to ma4et)e e-aminee pass, not2it)standing t)e representation t)at )e )ad passedt)e ot)er sub>ects. ...

+. /uite recall t)at during t)e first meeting of t)e ar E-aminers@$ommittee consensus 2as t)at 2)ere an e-aminee failed in onl" onesub>ect and passed t)e rest, t)e e-aminer in said sub>ect 2ould revie2 t)enoteboo4. ?obod" ob>ected to it as irregular. At t)e time of t)e $ommittee@sfirst meeting, 2e still did not 4no2 t)e names of t)e candidates.

*7. 4n fine, 4 was a victim of deception, not a party to it . t )ad absolutel" no4no2ledge of t)e motives of t)e ar $onfidant or )is malfeasance in office,and did not 4no2 t)e e-aminee concerned nor )ad an" 4ind of contract2it) )im before or rat)er t)e revie2 and even up to t)e present Adm. $ase?o. **5C, pp. 5715:; rec.; emp)asis supplied<.

Att". #anuel %omacru&, e-aminer in $riminal La2, affirmed in )is affidavit dated April *0, *+0

*. --- --- ---

0. %)at about 2ee4l", t)e ar $onfidant 2ould deliver and collect

e-amination boo4s to m" residence at +8* Luna #encias, #andalu"ong,Ri&al.

:. %)at to2ards t)e end 2)en )ad alread" completed correction of t)eboo4s in $riminal La2 and 2as )elping in t)e correction of some of t)epapers in anot)er sub>ect, t)e ar $onfidant brought bac* to me one (1)

paper in Criminal Law saying that that particular examinee had missed the

passing grade by only a fraction of a percent and that if his paper in

Criminal Law would be raised a few points to %' t)en )e 2ould ma4e t)egeneral passing average.

C. %)at seeing t)e >urisdiction, raised t)e grade to 89, t)at is, giving araise of, if remember correctl", 0 or : points, initialled t)e revised mar4 and

revised also t)e mar4 and revised also t)e mar4 in t)e general list.

8. %)at do not recall t)e number of t)e boo4 of t)e e-aminee concerned=Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, p. 5+, rec.; emp)asis supplied<.

n )is ans2er dated #arc) *0, *+:, respondent %omacru& stated t)at "4 accepted the word of

the 0ar Confidant in good faith and without the slightest in*ling as to the identity of the examinee

in /uestion 2)o up to no2 remains a total stranger and 2it)out e-pectation of nor did derivean" personal benefit= Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, p. 7, rec.; emp)asis supplied<.

Att". 'idel #analo, e-aminer in Remedial La2, stated in )is affidavit dated April *C, *+0, t)at

--- --- ---

0. ometime about t)e late part of (anuar" or earl" part of 'ebruar" *+0, Attorne" Lanuevo, ar $onfidant of t)e upreme $ourt, sa2 me in m")ouse at ?o. *68C Asuncion treet, #a4ati, Ri&al. He produced to me ane-aminee@s noteboo4 in Remedial La2 2)ic) )ad previousl" graded andsubmitted to )im. He informed me that he and others )e used t)e 2ords=2e=< had reviewed the said noteboo*& 6e re7uested me to review the said

noteboo* and possibly reconsider the grade that 4 had previously given& 6e

explained that the examine concerned had done well in other subects, but

that because of the comparatively low grade that 4 had given him in

+emedial Law his general average was short of passing . #r. Lanuevoremar4ed t)at )e t)oug)t t)at if t)e paper 2ere revie2ed mig)t find t)e

e-aminee deserving of being admitted to t)e ar. As far as can recall, #r.Lanuevo particularl" called m" attention to t)e fact in )is ans2ers t)ee-aminee e-pressed )imself clearl" and in good enoug) Englis). 9r&

Lanuevo however informed me that whether 4 would reconsider the grades 4

had previously given and submitted was entirely within my discretion.

:. 0elieving fully that it was within 9r& Lanuevo8s authority as 0ar Confidant

to address such a re7uest to me and that the said re7uest was in order, 4, in

the presence of 9r& Lanuevo, proceeded tore2read and re2evaluate each

and every item of the paper in 7uestion. recall t)at in m" re1evaluation oft)e ans2ers, increased t)e grades in some items, made deductions inot)er items, and maintained t)e same grades in ot)er items. Ho2ever, recall t)at after #r. Lanuevo and )ad totalled t)e ne2 grades t)at )ad

given after re1evaluation, t)e total grade increased b" a fe2 points, but stills)ort of t)e passing mar4 of 89 in m" sub>ect.

--- --- --- Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. C18, rec.; emp)asis supplied<.

n )is ans2er response< dated #arc) *6, *+:, respondent #analo reiterated t)e contents of)is s2orn statement, adding t)e follo2ing

--- --- ---

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


8. n agreeing to re1evaluate t)e noteboo4, 2it) resulted in increasing t)etotal grade of t)e e-aminee1concerned in Remedial La2 from !#&%' to

%&', )erein respondent acted in good fait). t ma" 2ell be t)at )e couldbe faulted for not )aving verified from t)e $)airman of t)e $ommittee of ar E-aminers t)e legitimac" of t)e re/uest made b" #r. Lanuevo. Hereinrespondent, )o2ever, pleads in attenuation of suc) omission, t)at —

a< Having been appointed an E-aminer for t)e firsttime, )e 2as not a2are, not )aving been apprisedot)er2ise, t)at it 2as not 2it)in t)e aut)orit" of t)e ar

$onfidant of t)e upreme $ourt to re/uest or suggestt)at t)e grade of a particular e-amination noteboo4 berevised or reconsidered. 6e had every right to

presume, owing to the highly fiduciary nature of the

position of the 0ar Confidant, that the re7uest was

legitimate.

--- --- ---

c< n revising t)e grade of t)e particular e-amineeconcerned, )erein respondent carefull" evaluated eac)and ever" ans2er 2ritten in t)e noteboo4. %esting t)eans2ers b" t)e criteria laid do2n b" t)e $ourt, and

giving the said examinee the benefit of doubt in view of9r& Lanuevo8s representation that it was only in that

particular subect that the said examine failed , )ereinrespondent became convinced t)at t)e said e-amineedeserved a )ig)er grade t)an t)at previousl" given to)im, but t)at )e did not deserve, in )erein respondent@s)onest appraisal, to be given t)e passing grade of 89.t s)ould also be mentioned t)at, in reappraising t)eans2ers, )erein respondent do2ngraded a previousrating of an ans2er 2ritten b" t)e e-aminee, from+.089 to +9 Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. :51:+, rec.;emp)asis supplied<.

Att". #anuel #ontecillo, e-aminer in #ercantile La2, affirmed in )is affidavit dated April *,

*+0

--- --- ---

%)at during one of t)e deliberations of t)e ar E-aminers@ $ommittee aftert)e ar E-aminations 2ere )eld, 2as informed t)at one ar e-amineepassed all ot)er sub>ects e-cept #ercantile La2;

%)at informed t)e ar E-aminers@ $ommittee t)at 2ould be 2illing to re1evaluate t)e paper of t)is particular ar candidate;.

%)at t)e ne-t da", t)e ar $onfidant )anded to me a ar candidate@s

noteboo4 ?o. *5*:< s)o2ing a grade of !1;

%)at revie2ed t)e 2)ole paper and after re1evaluating t)e ans2ers of t)isparticular ar candidate decided to increase )is final grade to %1;

%)at conse/uentl", amended m" report and dul" initialed t)e c)anges int)e grade s)eet Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, p. 0, rec.; emp)asis supplied<.

n )is ans2er dated #arc) *+, *+:, respondent #ontecillo restated t)e contents of )is s2ornstatement of April *, *+0, and

--- --- ---

0. upplementar" to t)e foregoing s2orn statement, )ereb" state t)at re2

evaluated t)e e-amination noteboo4 of ar $andidate ?o. *5*: in#ercantile La2 in absolute good faith and in direct compliance with the

agreement made during one of the deliberations of the 0ar .xaminers

Committee that where a candidate fails in only one subect, the .xaminer

concerned should ma*e a re2evaluation of the answers of the candidate

concerned , 2)ic) did.

:. 'inall", )ereb" state t)at did not 4no2 at t)e time made t)eaforementioned re1evaluation t)at noteboo4 ?o. *5*: in #ercantile La2pertained to bar e-amine Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, and

t)at )ave never met up to t)is time t)is particular bar e-aminee Adm.$ase ?o. **5C, pp. C71C*, rec.; emp)asis supplied<.

n )is s2orn statement dated April *0, *+0, ar $onfidant Lanuevo stated

--- --- ---

s 4 was going over those noteboo*s, chec*ing the entries in the grading

sheets and the posting on the record of ratings, 4 was impressed of the

writing and the answers on the first noteboo*& This led me to scrutini-e all

the set of noteboo*s. elieving t)at t)ose five merited re1evalation on t)ebasis of t)e memorandum circulari&ed to t)e e-aminers s)ortl" earlier to t)eeffect t)at

... in t)e correction of t)e papers, substantial 2eig)ts)ould t)en be given to clarif" of language andsoundness of reasoning@ par. C<,

4 too* it upon myself to bring them bac* to the respective examiners for re2

evaluation and:or re2chec*ing .

t is our e-perience in t)e ar Division t)at immediatel" after t)e release oft)e results of t)e e-aminations, 2e are usuall" s2armed 2it) re/uests oft)e e-aminees t)at t)e" be s)o2n t)eir noteboo4s. #an" of t)em 2ouldcop" t)eir ans2ers and )ave t)em c)ec4ed b" t)eir professors. Eventuall"some of t)em 2ould file motions or re/uests for re1correction andor re1

evaluation. Rig)t no2, 2e )ave some *+ of suc) motions or re/uests 2)ic)2e are reading for submission to t)e Honorable $ourt.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


3ften 2e feel t)at a fe2 of t)em are meritorious, but >ust t)e same t)e")ave to be denied because t)e result of t)e e-aminations 2)en released isfinal and irrevocable.

t 2as to at least minimi&e t)e occurrence of suc) instances t)at motivatedme to bring t)ose noteboo4s bac4 to t)e respective e-aminers for re1evaluation= Adm. $ase ?o. **50, p. 0C, rec.; emp)asis supplied<.

n )is ans2er dated #arc) *+, *+:, respondent Lanuevo avers

That he submitted the noteboo*s in 7uestion to the examiners concerned in

his hotest belief that the same merited re2evaluation; t)at in so doing, it 2asnot )is intention to forsa4e or betra" t)e trust reposed in )im as barconfidant but on t)e contrar" to do >ustice to t)e e-aminee concerned; t)atneit)er did )e act in a presumptuous manner, because t)e matter of2)et)er or not re1evaluation 2as inorder 2as left alone to t)e e-aminers@decision; and t)at, to )is 4no2ledge, )e does not remember )aving madet)e alleged misrepresentation but t)at )e remembers )aving broug)t to t)eattention of t)e $ommittee during t)e meeting a matter concerning anot)ere-aminee 2)o obtained a passing general average but 2it) a grade belo2879 in #ercantile La2. As t)e $ommittee agreed to remove t)edis/ualification b" 2a" of raising t)e grade in said sub>ect, respondentbroug)t t)e noteboo4 in /uestion to t)e E-aminer concerned 2)o t)ereb"

raised t)e grade t)us enabling t)e said e-aminee to pass. f )e remembersrig)t, t)e e-aminee concerned is one surnamed =de la $ru&= or =%"1de la$ru&=.

Iour Honors, respondent never entertained a notion t)at )is act 2ould stirsuc) serious c)arges as 2ould tend to undermine )is integrit" because )edid it in all good fait).

--- --- --- Adm. $ase ?o. **50, p. :8, rec.; emp)asis supplied<.

3n August 0, *+:, during t)e course of t)e investigation, respondent Lanuevo filed anot)ers2orn statement in addition to, and in amplification of, )is ans2er, stating

--- --- ---

*. %)at ve)ementl" den" )aving deceived t)e e-aminers concerned intobelieving t)at t)e e-aminee involved failed onl" in t)eir respective sub>ects,t)e fact of t)e matter being t)at t)e noteboo4s in /uestion 2ere submitted tot)e respective e-aminers for re1evaluation believing in all good fait) t)att)e" so merited on t)e basis of t)e $onfidential #emorandum identifiedand mar4ed as E-). *1Lanuevo, particularl" t)at portion mar4ed as E-). *1a1Lanuevo<2)ic) 2as circulated to all t)e e-aminers earlier, leaving to t)ementirel" t)e matter of 2)et)er or not re1evaluation 2as in order,

0. %)at t)e follo2ing coincidence prompted me to pr" into t)e noteboo4s in/uestion

ometime during t)e latter part of (anuar" and t)e earl"part of 'ebruar", *+0, on m" 2a" bac4 to t)e officear Division< after lunc), t)oug) of bu"ing as2eepsta4e tic4et. )ave al2a"s made it a point t)att)e moment t)in4 of so bu"ing, pic4 a number froman" ob>ect and t)e first number t)at comes into m"sig)t becomes t)e basis of t)e tic4et t)at bu". At t)atmoment, t)e first number t)at sa2 2as =+8C= boldl"printed on an electrical contribance evidentl" belongingto t)e #ERAL$3< attac)ed to a post standing along t)e

rig)t side2al4 of !. 'aura street to2ards t)e upreme$ourt building from an #arcelino street and almostad>acent to t)e sout)1eastern corner of t)e fence of t)e

Araullo Hig) c)oolp)otograp) of t)e number @+8C@,t)e contrivance on 2)ic) it is printed and a portion oft)e post to 2)ic) it is attac)ed is identified and mar4edas E-)ibit C1Lanuevo and t)e number =+8C= as E-). C1a1Lanuevo<.

Bit) t)is number +8C< in mind, proceeded to !la&ata. $ru& to loo4 for a tic4et t)at 2ould contain suc)number. Eventuall", found a tic4et, 2)ic) t)enboug)t, 2)ose last t)ree digits corresponded to =+8C=.%)is number became doubl" impressive to me because

t)e sum of all t)e si- digits of t)e tic4et number 2as=0=, a number t)at is so significant to me t)atever"t)ing do tr" some2)at instinctivel" to lin4 orconnect it 2it) said number 2)enever possible. %)useven in assigning code numbers on t)e #aster List ofe-aminees from *+56 2)en first too4 c)arge of t)ee-aminations as ar $onfidant up to *+*, eit)erstarted 2it) t)e number =0= or =00=< or end 2it) saidnumber. *+56 #aster List is identified and mar4ed asE-). 81Lanuevo and t)e figure =0= at t)e beginning oft)e list, as E-). 81a Lanuevo; *+5+ #aster List as E-).51Lanuevo and t)e figure =00= at t)e beginning of t)elist, as E-). 51a1Lanuevo; *+7 #aster List as E-). 1Lanuevo and t)e figure =00= at t)e beginning of t)e list

as E-). 1a1Lanuevo; and t)e *+* #aster List as E-).61Lanuevo and t)e figure =00= at t)e end of t)e list asE-). 61a1Lanuevo<.

%)e significance to me of t)is number 0< 2as born outof t)ese incidents in m" life, to 2it a< 3n ?ovember0, *+C* 2)ile 2it) t)e !)ilippine Arm" stationed at$amp #anacnac, $abanatuan, ?ueva Eci>a, 2asstric4en 2it) pneumonia and 2as )ospitali&ed at t)e?ueva Eci>a !rovincial Hospital as a result. As 2ill berecalled, t)e last !acific Bar bro4e out on December 6,*+C*. B)ile 2as still confined at t)e )ospital, ourcamp 2as bombed and strafed b" (apanese planes onDecember *:, *+C* resulting in man" casualties. 'rom

t)en on, regarded ?ovember 0, *+C* as t)ebeginning of a ne2 life for me )aving been saved from

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


t)e possibilit" of being among t)e casualties;b< 3n'ebruar" 0, *+C5, 2as able to get out of t)e arm"b"2a" of )onorable disc)arge; and c< on 'ebruar" 0,*+C, got married and since t)en 2e begot c)ildrent)e "oungest of 2)om 2as born on 'ebruar" 0, *+8.

Returning to t)e office t)at same afternoon after bu"ingt)e tic4et, resumed m" 2or4 2)ic) at t)e time 2as ont)e c)ec4ing of t)e noteboo4s. B)ile t)us c)ec4ing, came upon t)e noteboo4s bearing t)e office code

number =+8C=. As t)e number 2as still fres) in m" mind,it aroused m" curiosit" prompting me to pr" into t)econtents of t)e noteboo4s. mpressed b" t)e clarit" oft)e 2riting and language and t)e apparent soundnessof t)e ans2ers and, t)ereb", believing in all good fait)on t)e basis of t)e aforementioned $onfidential#emorandum E-). *1Lanuevo and E-). *1a1Lanuevo<t)at t)e" merited re1evaluation, set t)em aside andlater on too4 t)em bac4 to t)e respective e-aminers forpossible revie2 recalling to t)em t)e said $onfidential#emorandum but leaving absolutel" t)e matter to t)eirdiscretion and >udgment.

:. %)at t)e alleged misrepresentation or deception could )ave reference toeit)er of t)e t2o cases 2)ic) broug)t to t)e attention of t)e committeeduring t)e meeting and 2)ic) t)e $ommittee agreed to refer bac4 to t)erespective e-amines, namel"

a< %)at of an e-aminee 2)o obtained a passinggeneral average but 2it) a grade belo2 879 C9< in#ercantile La2t)e noteboo4s of t)is e-aminee beart)e 3ffice $ode ?o. **7, identified and mar4ed as E-).+1Lanuevo and t)e noteboo4 in #ercantile La2 bearingt)e E-aminer@s $ode ?o. +8* 2it) t)e original grade ofC9 increased to 879 after re1evaluation as E-). +1a1Lanuevo<; and

b< %)at of an e-aminee 2)o obtained a borderlinegeneral average of :.*89 2it) a grade belo2 57989< in one sub>ect 2)ic), at t)e time, could notpinpoint )aving inadvertentl" left in t)e office t)e datat)ereon. t turned out t)at t)e sub>ect 2as !olitical andnternational La2 under Asst. olicitor Generalernardo !ardo %)e noteboo4s of t)is e-aminee beart)e 3ffice $ode ?o. *500 identified and mar4ed as E-).*71Lanuevo and t)e noteboo4 in !olitical andnternational La2 bearing t)e E-aminer@s $ode ?o. 55*2it) t)e original grade of 89 increased to 559 afterre1evaluation, as E-). *71a1Lanuevo<. %)is noteboo4 in!olitical and nternational La2 is precisel" t)e samenoteboo4 mentioned in t)e s2orn statement of Asst.

olicitor General ernardo !ardoE-). 1111111 !ardo<.

C. %)at in eac) of t)e t2o cases mentioned in t)e ne-t preceding paragrap),onl" one *ect or noteboo4 2as revie2ed or re1evaluated, t)at is, onl"#ercantile La2 in t)e former; and onl" !olitical and nternational La2 in t)elatter, under t)e facts and circumstances made 4no2n to t)e $ommitteeand pursuant to 2)ic) t)e $ommittee aut)ori&ed t)e referral of t)enoteboo4s involved to t)e e-aminers concerned;

8. %)at at t)at >uncture, t)e e-aminer in %a-ation even volunteered to revie2or re1c)ec4 some *+, or so, noteboo4s in )is sub>ect but t)at told t)e$ommittee t)at t)ere 2as ver" little time left and t)at t)e increase in grade

after re1evaluation, unless ver" )ig)l" substantial, ma" not alter t)e outcomesince t)e sub>ect carries t)e 2eig)t of onl" *79 Adm. $ase ?o. **50, pp.C81C, rec.<.

%)e foregoing last1minute embellis)ment onl" serves to accentuate t)e fact t)at Lanuevo@s stor"is devoid of trut). n )is s2orn statement of April *0, *+0, )e 2as =led to scrutini&e all t)e set ofnoteboo4s= of respondent Galang, because )e =2as impressed of t)e 2riting and t)e ans2erson t)e first noteboo4 =as )e =2as going over t)ose noteboo4s, c)ec4ing t)e entries in t)egrading s)eets and t)e posting on t)e record of ratings.= n )is affidavit of August 0, *+:, )estated t)at t)e number +8C on a #eralco post provo4ed )im =to pr" into t)e contents of t)enoteboo4s= of respondent Galang =bearing office code number @+8C.=

Respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, asserted, among ot)ers;

*. %)at )erein respondent is not ac/uainted 2it) former ar$onfidantVictorio Lanuevo and never met )im before e-cept once 2)en, as re/uiredb" t)e latter respondent submitted certain papers necessar" for ta4ing t)ebar e-aminations.

--- --- ---

C. %)at it )as been t)e consistent polic" of t)e upreme $ourt not toreconsider =failure= cases; after t)e official release t)ereof; 2)" s)ould itno2 reconsider a =passing= case, especiall" in a situation 2)ere t)erespondent and t)e bar confidant do not 4no2 eac) ot)er and, indeed, metonl" once in t)e ordinar" course of official business

t is not inevitable, t)en, to conclude t)at t)e entire situation clearl"manifests a reasonable doubt to 2)ic) respondent is ric)l" entitled

8. %)at respondent, before reading a cop" of t)is Honorable $ourt@sresolution dated #arc) 8, *+:, )ad no 4no2ledge 2)atsoever of formerar $onfidant Victorio Lanuevo@s actuations 2)ic) are stated in particular int)e resolution. n fact, t)e respondent never 4ne2 t)is man intimatel" nor,)ad t)e )erein respondent utili&ed an"one to contact t)e ar $onfidantLanuevo in )is be)alf.

ut, assuming as true, t)e said actuations of ar $onfidant Lanuevo asstated in t)e Resolution, 2)ic) are evidentl" purported to s)o2 as )aving

redounded to t)e benefit of )erein respondent, t)ese /uestions arise 'irst,2as t)e re1evaluation of Respondent@s e-amination papers b" t)e ar

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


E-amination $ommittee done onl" or especiall" for )im and not donegenerall" as regards t)e paper of t)e ot)er bar candidates 2)o aresupposed to )ave failed f t)e re1evaluation of Respondent@s grades 2asdone among t)ose of ot)ers, t)en it must )ave been done as a matter ofpolic" of t)e $ommittee to increase t)e percentage of passing in t)at "ear@se-amination and, t)erefore, t)e insinuation t)at onl" respondent@s papers2ere re1evaluated upon t)e influence of ar $onfidant Lanuevo 2ould beun>ustifiable, if not far fetc)ed. econdl", is t)e fact t)at ar$onfidantLanuevo@s actuations resulted in )erein Respondent@s benefit an evidenceper se of Respondent@s )aving caused actuations of ar confidant Lanuevo

to be done in former@s be)alf %o assume t)is could be disastrous in effectbecause t)at 2ould be presuming all t)e members of t)e ar E-amination$ommittee as devoid of integrit", unfit for t)e bar t)emselves and t)e resultof t)eir 2or4 t)at "ear, as also un2ort)" of an"t)ing. All of t)ese inferencesare deductible from t)e narration of facts in t)e resolution, and 2)ic) onl"goes to s)o2 said narration of facts an un2ort)" of credence, orconsideration.

--- --- ---

. %)is Honorable %ribunal@s Resolution of #arc) 8, *+: 2ould ma4e t)isRespondent Account or ans2er for t)e actuations of ar $onfidant Lanuevoas 2ell as for t)e actuations of t)e ar E-aminers impl"ing t)e e-istence ofsome conspirac" bet2een t)em and t)e Respondent. %)e evidentimputation is denied and it is contended t)at t)e ar E-aminers 2ere in t)eperformance of t)eir duties and t)at t)e" s)ould be regarded as suc) in t)econsideration of t)is case.

--- --- --- Adm. $ase ?o. **5:, pp. *771*7C, rec.<.

%)e evidence t)us disclosed clearl" demonstrates )o2 respondent Lanuevo s"stematicall" andcleverl" initiated and prepared t)e stage leading to t)e re1evalation andor recorrection of t)eans2ers of respondent Galang b" deceiving separatel" and individuall" t)e respondents1e-aminers to ma4e t)e desired revision 2it)out prior aut)orit" from t)e upreme $ourt after t)ecorrected noteboo4s )ad been submitted to t)e $ourt t)roug) t)e respondent ar $onfidant,2)o is simpl" t)e custodian t)ereof for and in be)alf of t)e $ourt.

t appears t)at one evening, sometime around t)e middle part of ;ecember, 1%1, >ust before$)ristmas da", respondent Lanuevo approac)ed $ivil La2 e-aminer !amatian 2)ile t)e latter2as in t)e process of correcting e-amination boo4lets, and t)en and t)ere made t)erepresentations t)at as ar$onfidant, )e ma4es a revie2 of t)e grades obtained in all sub>ectsof t)e e-aminees and if )e finds t)at a candidate obtains an e-traordinaril" )ig) grade in onesub>ect and a rat)er lo2 one on anot)er, )e 2ill bring bac4 to t)e e-aminer concerned t)enoteboo4 for re1evaluation and c)ange of gradeE-). 01!amatian, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. 88185; Vol. V, pp. :1C, rec.<.

ometime in t)e latter part of 3anuary, 1%$ , respondent Lanuevo broug)t bac4 to respondent1e-aminer !amatian an e-amination boo4let in $ivil La2 for re1evaluation, representing t)at t)e

e-aminee 2)o o2ned t)e particular noteboo4 is on t)e borderline of passing and if his grade insaid subect could be reconsidered to %', the said examine will get a passing average .

Respondent1e-aminer !amatian too4 respondent Lanuevo@s 2ord and under t)e belief t)at 2asreall" t)e practice and polic" of t)e upreme $ourt and in )is furt)er belief t)at )e 2as >ustmanifesting cooperation in doing so, )e re1evaluated t)e paper and reconsidered t)e e-aminee@sgrade in said sub>ect to 89 from 5C9. %)e particular noteboo4 belonged to an e-aminee 2it)E-aminer@s $ode ?umber +8 and 2it) 3ffice $ode ?umber +8C. %)is e-aminee is Ramon E.Galang, alias Roman E. Galang. Respondent !amatian did not 4no2 t)e identit" of t)ee-aminee at t)e time )e re1evaluated t)e said boo4let E-)s. *1!amatian, 01!amatian, and :1!amatian, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. :01::, 88185, 8; Vol. V, pp. :1C, rec.<.

efore (ustice !amatian made t)e revision, E-aminee Galang failed in seven sub>ects including

$ivil La2. After suc) revision, e-aminee Galang still failed in si- sub>ects and could not obtaint)e passing average of 89 for admission to t)e ar.

%)ereafter, about t)e latter part of 3anuary, 1%$ or early part of <ebruary, 1%$ , respondentLanuevo 2ent to t)e residence of respondent1e-aminer 'idel #analo at *68C Asuncion treet,#a4ati, Ri&al, 2it) an e-aminee@s noteboo4 in Remedial La2, 2)ic) respondent #analo andpreviousl" corrected and graded. Respondent Lanuevo t)en re/uested respondent #analo torevie2 t)e said noteboo4 and possibl" to reconsider t)e grade given, e-plaining andrepresenting t)at =t)e"= )as revie2ed t)e said noteboo4 and that the examinee concerned had

done well in other subects, but that because of the comparatively low grade given said

examinee by respondent 9analo in +emedial Law, the general average of said examinee was

short of passing . Respondent Lanuevo li4e2ise made t)e remar4 and observation t)at )et)oug)t t)at if t)e noteboo4 2ere revie2ed, respondent #analo mig)t "et find t)e e-amineedeserving of being admitted to t)e ar. Respondent Lanuevo also particularl" called t)eattention of respondent #analo to t)e fact t)at in )is ans2ers, t)e e-aminee e-pressed )imselfclearl" and in good Englis). 'urt)ermore, respondent Lanuevo called t)e attention ofrespondent #analo to !aragrap) C of t)e $onfidential #emorandum t)at read as follo2s

C. E-amination /uestions s)ould be more a test of logic, 4no2ledge of legalfundamentals, and abilit" to anal"&e and solve legal problems rat)er t)an atest of memor"; in t)e correction of papers, substantial 2eig)t s)ould begiven to clarif" of language and soundness of reasoning.

Respondent #analo 2as, )o2ever, informed b" respondent Lanuevo t)at t)e matter ofreconsideration 2as entirel" 2it)in )is #analo@s< discretion. Respondent #analo, believing t)atrespondent Lanuevo, as ar $onfidant, )ad t)e aut)orit" to ma4e suc) re/uest and furt)erbelieving t)at suc) re/uest 2as in order, proceeded to re1evaluate t)e e-aminee@s ans2ers in

t)e presence of Lanuevo, resulting in an increase of t)e e-aminee@s grade in t)at particularsub>ect, Remedial La2, from 5:.089 to C.89. Respondent #analo aut)enticated 2it) )issignature t)e c)anges made b" )im in t)e noteboo4 and in t)e grading s)eet. %)e said noteboo4e-aminer@s code number is *:5, instead of :*7 as earlier mentioned b" )im in )is affidavit, andbelonged to Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang E-)s. * J 01 #analo, Adm. $ase ?o.**5C, pp. :51:+, C18; Vol. V, pp. 8718:, rec.<.

ut even after t)e re1evaluation b" Att". #analo, E-aminee Galang could not ma4e t)e passinggrade due to )is failing mar4s in five sub>ects.

Li4e2ise, in t)e latter part of (anuar", *+0, on one occasion 2)en respondent Lanuevo 2ent todeliver to respondent Guillermo !ablo, (r. in t)e latter@s )ouse a ne2 batc) of e-aminationpapers in !olitical La2 and !ublic nternational La2 to be corrected, respondent Lanuevo

broug)t out a noteboo4 in !olitical La2 bearing .xaminer8s Code =umber 1%'$ E-). 81!ardo, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, p. 55, rec.<, informing respondent !ablo that particular examinee 2)o

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


o2ns t)e said noteboo4 seems to have passed in all other subects except in >olitical Law and

>ublic 4nternational Law? and that if the said noteboo* would be re2evaluated and the mar* be

increased to at least %', said examinee will pass the bar examinations& fter satisfying himself

from respondent that this is possible @ the respondent 0ar Confidant informing him that this is

the practice of the Court to help out examinees who are failing in ust one subect @ respondent

>ablo acceded to t)e re/uest and t)ereb" told t)e ar $onfidant to >ust leave t)e said noteboo4.Respondent !ablo t)ereafter re1evaluated t)e ans2ers, t)is time 2it) lenienc". After t)e re1evaluation, t)e grade 2as increased to % from !, or an increase of *79. Respondent!ablo t)en made t)e corresponding corrections in t)e grading s)eet and accordingl" initialed t)ec)arges made. %)is noteboo4 2it) 3ffice $ode ?umber +8C also belonged to Ramon E. Galang,

alias Roman E. Galang Vol. V, pp. C:1C5, rec.<.

After t)e re1evaluation b" Att". !ablo, (r., e-aminee Galang@s general average 2as still belo2 t)epassing grade, because of )is failing mar4s in four sub>ects.

%o2ards t)e end of t)e correction of e-amination noteboo4s, respondent Lanuevo broug)t bac4to respondent %omacru& one e-amination boo4let in $riminal La2, 2it) t)e former informing t)elatter, 2)o 2as t)en )elping in t)e correction of papers in !olitical La2 and !ublic nternationalLa2, as )e )ad alread" finis)ed correcting t)e e-amination noteboo4s in )is assigned sub>ect —$riminal La2 — t)at t)e e-aminee 2)o o2ns t)at particular noteboo4 )ad missed t)e passinggrade b" onl" a fraction of a percent and t)at if )is grade in $riminal La2 2ould be raised a fe2points to 89, t)en t)e e-aminee 2ould ma4e t)e passing grade. Accepting t)e 2ords ofrespondent Lanuevo, and seeing t)e >ustification and because )e did not 2ant to be t)e onecausing t)e failure of t)e e-aminee, respondent Tomacru- raised the grade from ! to %' and t)ereafter, )e initialed t)e revised mar4 and also revised t)e mar4 in t)e general list andli4e2ise initialed t)e same. %)e e-aminee@s E-aminer $ode ?umber is C5 2)ile )is 3ffice $ode?umber is +8C. %)is e-aminee is Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang E-)s. *, 0 J :1%omacru&, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. 58, 55 and *; Vol. V, pp. 0C108, 5715*, rec.<.

Respondent %omacru& does not recall )aving been s)o2n an" memo b" respondent Lanuevo2)en t)e latter approac)ed )im for t)is particular re1evaluation; but he remembers Lanuevo

declaring to him that where a candidate had almost made the passing average but had failed in

one subect, as a matter of policy of the Court, leniency is applied in reviewing the examinee8s

noteboo* in the failing subect . He recalls, )o2ever, t)at )e 2as provided a cop" of t)e$onfidential #emorandum but t)is 2as long before t)e re1evaluation re/uested b" respondentLanuevo as t)e same 2as received b" )im before t)e e-amination period Vol. V, p. 5*, rec.<.

Ho2ever, suc) revision b" Att". %omacru& could not raise Galang@s general average to a passinggrade because of )is failing mar4 in t)ree more sub>ects, including #ercantile La2. 'or t)erevision of e-aminee Galang@s noteboo4 in #ercantile La2, respondent Lanuevo neatl" set t)elast p)ase of )is /uite ingenious sc)eme — b" securing aut)ori&ation from t)e ar E-amination$ommittee for t)e e-aminer in #ercantile La2 tore1evaluate said noteboo4.

At t)e first meeting of t)e ar E-amination $ommittee on 'ebruar" 6, *+0, respondentLanuevo suggested t)at 2)ere an examinee failed in only one subect and passed the rest, the

examiner concerned would review the noteboo* . ?obod" ob>ected to it as irregular and t)e$ommittee adopted t)e suggestion E-)s. A J 1#ontecillo, E-). 01!ardo, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C,pp. C*, 0, 5:; Vol. Vi, p. *5, rec.<.

At a subse/uent meeting of t)e ar E-amination $ommittee, respondent #ontecillo 2as

informed b" respondent Lanuevo t)at a candidate passed all ot)er sub>ects e-cept #ercantileLa2. %)is information 2as made during t)e meeting 2it)in )earing of t)e order members, 2)o

2ere all closel" seated toget)er. Respondent #ontecillo made 4no2n )is 2illingness tore1evaluate t)e particular paper. %)e ne-t da", respondent Lanuevo )anded to respondent#ontecillo a bar candidate@s noteboo4 2it) E-aminer@s $ode ?umber *5*: 2it) a grade of !1.Respondent #ontecillo t)en revie2ed t)e 2)ole paper and after re1evaluating t)e ans2ers,decided to increase the final grade to %1. %)e matter 2as not )o2ever t)ereafter officiall"broug)t to t)e $ommittee for consideration or decision E-)s. AJ 1#ontecillo, Adm. $ase ?o.**5C, pp. C71C*, 71*; Vol. V, pp. ::1:C, rec.<.

+espondent 9ontecillo declared that without being given the information that the particular

examinee failed only in his subect and passed all the others, he would not have consented to

ma*e the re2evaluation of the said paper Vol. V, p. ::, rec.<.Respondent #ontecillo li4e2iseadded t)at t)ere 2as onl" one instance )e remembers, 2)ic) is substantiated b" )is personalrecords, t)at )e )ad to c)ange t)e grade of an e-aminee after )e )ad submitted )is report,referring to t)e noteboo4 of e-aminee Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, 2it)E-aminer@s $ode ?umber *5*: and 2it) 3ffice $ode ?umber +8C Vol. V, pp. :C1:8, rec.<.

day or two after <ebruary ', 1%$ , 2)en respondent Lanuevo 2ent to t)e residence ofrespondent1e-aminer !ardo to obtain t)e last bag of 077 noteboo4s, respondent Lanuevoreturned to t)e residence of respondent !ardo riding in a Vol4s2agen panel of t)e upreme$ourt of t)e !)ilippines 2it) t2o companions. According to respondent Lanuevo, t)is 2asaround t)e second 2ee4 of 'ebruar", *+0, after t)e first meeting of t)e ar E-amination$ommittee. respondent Lanuevo )ad 2it) )im on t)at occasion an e-aminee@s noteboo4 bearingE-aminer@s $ode ?o. 55*. +espondent Lanuevo, after t)e usual amenities, re7uested

respondent >ardo to review and re2examine, if possible, the said noteboo* because , accordingto respondent Lanuevo, the examine who owns that particular noteboo* obtained higher grades

in other subects, t)e )ig)est of 2)ic) is 6C9 in Remedial La2. After clearing 2it) respondentLanuevo )is aut)orit" to reconsider t)e grades, respondent >ardo re2evaluated t)e ans2ers oft)e e-amine concerned, resulting in an increase of grade from '% of !!. aid noteboo4 )asnumber *500 as office code number. t belonged to e-aminee Ernesto Fuitaleg E-)s. * J 01!ardo, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. 8615:; Vol. V, pp. *010C, 0+1:7, rec.<.

Re Administrative $ase ?o. **50, Victorio D. Lanuevo, respondent.

A

?A%H3RKED RE1EVALA%3? 3' %HE A?BER 3' EA#?E RA#3? E. GALA?G,alias R3#A? E. GALA?G, ? ALL 'VE 8< #A(3R (E$%.

Respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo admitted )aving re/uested on )is o2n initiative t)e fivee-aminers concerned to re1evaluate t)e five noteboo4s of Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E.Galang, t)at eventuall" resulted in t)e increase of Galang@s average from 55.089 to t)e passinggrade C.*89, or a total increase of eig)t 6< 2eig)ted points, more or less, t)at enabled Galangto )urdle t)e *+* ar e-aminations via a resolution of t)e $ourt ma4ing C9 t)e passingaverage for t)at "ear@s e-amination 2it)out an" grade belo2 fift" percent 879< in an" sub>ect.Galang t)ereafter too4 )is la2"er@s oat). t is l i4e2ise be"ond dispute t)at )e )ad no aut)orit"from t)e $ourt or t)e $ommittee to initiate suc) steps to2ards t)e said re1evaluation of t)eans2ers of Galang or of ot)er e-aminees.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


Den"ing t)at )e made representations to t)e e-aminers concerned t)at respondent Galangfailed onl" in t)eir respective sub>ects andor 2as on t)e borderline of passing, RespondentLanuevo soug)t to >ustif" )is actuations on t)e aut)orit" of t)e afore/uoted paragrap) C of t)e$onfidential #emorandumE-)s. * and *1A1Lanuevo, Adm. $ases ?os. **50 J **5C, p. 8*,

Adm. $ase ?o. **50; Vol. V, p. C, rec.< distributed to t)e members of t)e ar E-amination$ommittee. He maintains t)at )e acted in good fait) and =in )is )onest belief t)at t)e samemerited re1evaluation; t)at in doing so, it 2as not )is intention to forsa4e or betra" t)e trustreposed in )im as ar$onfidant but on t)e contrar" to do >ustice to t)e e-aminee concerned;and t)at neit)er did )e act in a presumptuous manner because t)e matter of 2)et)er or not re1evaluation 2as in order 2as left alone to t)e e-aminers@ decision ...= E-). 01Lanuevo, Adm.

$ase ?o. **50, pp. :81:, rec.<.

ut as openl" admitted b" )im in t)e course of t)e investigation, t)e said confidentialmemorandum 2as intended solel" for t)e e-aminers to guide t)em in t)e initial correction of t)ee-amination papers and never as a basis for )im to even suggest to t)e e-aminers t)e re1evaluation of t)e e-amination papers of t)e e-aminees Vol. V, p. 0:, rec.<. An" suc)suggestion or re/uest is not onl" presumptuous but also offensive to t)e norms of delicac".

Be believe t)e E-aminers — !ablo, #analo, #ontecillo, %omacru&, !ardo and !amatian —2)ose declarations on t)e matter of t)e misrepresentations and deceptions committed b"respondent Lanuevo, are clear and consistent as 2ell as corroborate eac) ot)er.

'or indeed t)e facts unfolded b" t)e declarations of t)e respondents1e-aminers Adm. $ase ?o.

**5C< and clarified b" e-tensive cross1e-amination conducted during t)e investigation and)earing of t)e cases s)o2 )o2 respondent Lanuevo adroitl" maneuvered t)e passing ofe-aminee Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang in t)e *+* ar E-aminations. t is patentli4e2ise from t)e records t)at respondent Lanuevo too undue advantage of t)e trust andconfidence reposed in )im b" t)e $ourt and t)e E-aminers implicit in )is position asar$onfidant as 2ell as t)e trust and confidence t)at prevailed in and c)aracteri&ed )isrelations)ip 2it) t)e five members of t)e *+* ar E-amination $ommittee, 2)o 2ere t)usdeceived and induced into re1evaluating t)e ans2ers of only respondent Galang in five sub>ectst)at resulted in t)e increase of )is grades t)erein, ultimatel" enabling )im to be admitted amember of t)e !)ilippine ar.

t 2as plain, simple and unmitigated deception t)at c)aracteri&ed respondent Lanuevo@s 2ell1studied and 2ell1calculated moves in successivel" representing separatel" to eac) of t)e fivee-aminers concerned to t)e effect t)at t)e e-aminee failed onl" in )is particular sub>ect andor

2as on t)e borderline of passing. %o repeat, t)e before t)e unaut)ori&ed re1evaluations 2eremade, Galang failed in t)e five 8< ma>or sub>ects and in t2o 0< minor sub>ects 2)ile )is generalaverage 2as onl" 55.089 — 2)ic) under no circumstances or standard could it be )onestl"claimed t)at t)e e-aminee failed onl" in one, or )e 2as on t)e borderline of passing. n fact,before t)e first noteboo4 of Galang 2as referred bac4 to t)e e-aminer concerned for re1evaluation, Galang )ad onl" one passing mar4 and t)is 2as in Legal Et)ics and !racticalE-ercises, a minor sub>ect, 2it) grade of 6*9. %)e averages and individual grades of Galangbefore and after t)e unaut)ori&ed re1evaluation are as follo2s

0 4

*. !olitical La2 !ublicnternational La2 569 69 M *7 pts.

or :7 2eig)ted points

0 4

Labor La2s and ocialLegislations 59 59 M no re1evaluation made.

0. $ivil La2 5C9 89 M * pointsor :: 2eig)ted points.

%a-ation C9 C9 M no re1evaluation made.

:. #ercantile La2 5*9 *9 M *7 pts.or :7 2eig)ted points.

C. $riminal La2 5C9 89 M ** pts. or 00 2eig)ted points.

8. Remedial La2 5:.89 5C< 8.89 89< M** pts. or CC 2eig)ted points.

Legal Et)ics and !racticalE-ercises 6*9 6*9 M no re1evaluation made.————————————

General Beig)ted Averages 55.089 C.*89

Hence, b" t)e simple e-pedient of initiating t)e re1evaluation of t)e ans2ers of Galang in t)e five8ects under t)e circumstances alread" narrated, Galang@s original average of 55.089 2asincreased to C.*89 or an increase of .+ 2eig)ted points, to t)e great damage and pre>udice of t)e integrit" of t)e ar e-aminations and to t)e disadvantage of t)e ot)er e-aminees. He did t)isin favor onl" of e-aminee Galang, 2it) t)e possible addition of e-aminees Ernesto Fuitaleg and

Alfredo %" dela $ru&. ut onl" one noteboo4 2as re1evaluated for eac) of t)e latter 2)o —!olitical La2 and !ublic nternational La2 for Fuitaleg and #ercantile La2 for %" dela $ru&.

%)e 3ffice of t)e ar $onfidant, it must be stressed, )as absolutel" not)ing to do in t)e re1evaluation or reconsideration of t)e grades of e-aminees 2)o fail to ma4e t)e passing mar4before or after t)eir noteboo4s are submitted to it b" t)e E-aminers. After t)e correctednoteboo4s are submitted to )im b" t)e E-aminers, )is onl" function is to tall" t)e individualgrades of ever" e-aminee in all sub>ects ta4en and t)ereafter compute t)e general average.%)at done, )e 2ill t)en prepare a comparative data s)o2ing t)e percentage of passing andfailing in relation to a certain average to be submitted to t)e $ommittee and to t)e $ourt and ont)e basis of 2)ic) t)e $ourt 2ill determine t)e passing average, 2)et)er 8 or C or :, etc.%)e ar $onfidant )as no business evaluating t)e ans2ers of t)e e-aminees and cannotassume t)e functions of passing upon t)e appraisal made b" t)e E-aminers concerned. He isnot t)e over1all E-aminer. He cannot presume to 4no2 better t)an t)e e-aminer. An" re/uest forre1evaluation s)ould be done b" t)e e-aminee and t)e same s)ould be addressed to t)e $ourt,2)ic) alone can validl" act t)ereon. A ar $onfidant 2)o ta4es suc) initiative, e-poses )imselfto suspicion and t)ereb" compromises )is position as 2ell as t)e image of t)e $ourt.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


Respondent Lanuevo@s claim t)at )e 2as merel" doing >ustice to Galang 2it)out an" intention ofbetra"ing t)e trust and confidence reposed in )im b" t)e $ourt as ar $onfidant, can )ardl"invite belief in t)e fact of t)e incontrovertible fact t)at )e singled out Galang@s papers for re1evaluation, leaving out t)e papers of more t)an ninet" +7< e-aminees 2it) far better averagesranging from 79 to :.+9 of 2)ic) )e 2as full" a2are Vol. V, pp. C51C, *7*, rec.<, 2)ic)could be more properl" claimed as borderline cases. %)is fact furt)er betra"s respondentLanuevo@s claim of absolute good fait) in referring bac4 t)e papers of Galang to t)e E-aminersfor re1evaluation. 'or certainl", as against t)e original 2eig)ted average of 55.089 of Galang,t)ere can )ardl" be an" dispute t)at t)e cases of t)e aforesaid more t)an ninet" +7< e-aminees2ere more deserving of reconsideration. Hence, in tr"ing to do >ustice to Galang, as claimed b"

respondent Lanuevo, grave in>ustice 2as inflicted on t)e ot)er e-aminees of t)e *+* are-aminations, especiall" t)e said more t)an ninet" candidates. And t)e une-plained failure ofrespondent Lanuevo to apprise t)e $ourt or t)e $ommittee or even t)e ar $)airman of t)e factof re1evaluation before or after t)e said re1evaluation and increase of grades, precludes, as t)esame is inconsistent 2it), an" pretension of good fait).

His re/uest for t)e re1evaluation of t)e noteboo4 in !olitical La2 and nternational La2 ofErnesto Fuitaleg and t)e noteboo4 in #ercantile La2 of Alfredo %" dela $ru& to give )isactuations in t)e case of Galang a semblance of impartialit", )oping t)at t)e over ninet"e-aminees 2)o 2ere far better situated t)an Galang 2ould not give )im a2a". Even t)e re1evaluation of one noteboo4 of Fuitaleg and one noteboo4 of %" dela $ru& violated t)eagreement of t)e members of t)e *+* ar E-amination $ommittee to re1evaluate 2)en t)ee-aminee concerned fails onl" in one sub>ect. Fuitaleg and %" dela $ru& failed in four C< andt)ree :ects respectivel" — as )ereinafter s)o2n.

%)e strange stor" concerning t)e figures +8C, t)e office code number given to Galang@snoteboo4, unveiled for t)e first time b" respondent Lanuevo in )is suplemental s2ornstatementE-). :1 Lanuevo, Adm. $ase ?o. **50, pp. C81C. rec.< filed during t)e investigation2it) t)is $ourt as to 2)" )e pried into t)e papers of Galang deserves scant consideration. t onl"serves to picture a man desperatel" clutc)ing at stra2s in t)e 2ind for support. 'urt)ermore, it2as revealed b" respondent Lanuevo for t)e first time onl" on August 0, *+: or a period ofmore t)an five +8< mont)s after )e filed )is ans2er on #arc) *+, *+:E-). 01Lanuevo, Adm.$ase ?o. **50, pp. :81:5, rec.<, s)o2ing t)at it 2as >ust an after1t)oug)t.

RE'ERRAL 3' EA#?EE AL'RED3 %I DELA $RK ?3%E33N ? #ER$HA?%LE LAB

%3 RAE H GRADE 3' C9 %3 879 %3 EA#?ER #A?EL #3?%E$LL3 A?D 3'EA#?EE ER?E%3 F%ALEG@ ?3%E33N ? !3L%$AL LAB %3 EA#?ERER?ARD3 !ARD3 '3R RE1EVALA%3?, REL%?G ? %HE ?$REAE 3' H GRADE? %HA% (E$% 'R3# 89 %3 559.

Li4e2ise, respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo admitted )aving referred bac4 t)e aforesaidnoteboo4s on #ercantile La2 and !olitical La2 respectivel" of Alfredo %" dela $ru& and ErnestoFuitaleg to t)e E-aminers concerned.

%)e records are not clear, )o2ever, under 2)at circumstances t)e noteboo4s of %" dela $ru&and Fuitaleg 2ere referred bac4 to t)e E-aminers concerned. Respondent Lanuevo claimedt)at t)ese t2o cases 2ere officiall" broug)t to t)e ar E-amination $ommittee during its firstmeeting Vol. V, pp. 8718*, rec.< and t)e latter decided to refer t)em bac4 to t)e E-aminers

concerned for re1evaluation 2it) respect to t)e case of Fuitaleg and to remove t)edis/ualification in t)e case of %" dela $ru&Vol. V, pp. ::1:+, 6C165, rec.<. Respondent Lanuevo

furt)er claimed t)at t)e date of t)ese t2o cases 2ere contained in a s)eet of paper 2)ic) 2aspresented at t)e said first meeting of t)e $ommittee Vol. V, pp. :+1C:, C+18*, rec.<. Li4e2ise arecord of t)e dates of ever" meeting of t)e $ommittee 2as made b" respondent Lanuevo Vol.V, p. 06, rec.<. %)e alleged s)eet containing t)e date of t)e t2o e-aminees and record of t)edates of t)e meeting of t)e $ommittee 2ere not presented b" respondent Lanuevo as,according to )im, )e left t)em inadvertentl" in )is des4 in t)e $onfidential Room 2)en )e 2enton leave after t)e release of t)e ar results Vol. V, pp. 06, C*1C8, rec.<. t appears, )o2ever,t)at t)e inventor" conducted b" officials of t)e $ourt in t)e $onfidential Room of respondentLanuevo did not "ield an" suc) s)eet of record E-). , Adm. $ase ?o. **50, p. C, rec.; Vol.V, pp. **1*:, 07100, 0+1:*, rec.<.

Respondent E-aminer #ontecillo, #ercantile La2, maintained t)at t)ere 2as onl" one noteboo4in #ercantile La2 2)ic) 2as officiall" broug)t to )im and t)is is substantiated b" )is personal fileand record Vol. V, pp. :C1:8, rec.<. According to )im, t)is noteboo4@s e-aminer code number is*5*: Vol. V, p.:8, rec.< and is o2ned b" Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang. t appears,)o2ever, t)at t)e original grade of C9 in #ercantile La2 of %" dela $ru& 2as c)anged to 879as appearing in t)e cover of t)e noteboo4 of said e-aminee and t)e c)ange is aut)enticated2it) t)e initial of E-aminer #ontecillo. He 2as present 2)en respondent Lanuevo presented inevidence t)e noteboo4 of %" dela $ru& bearing E-aminer code number +8* and 3ffice $ode?umber **7 as E-)ibit +1Lanuevo in Administrative $ase ?o. **50, and t)e figures C crossedout, replaced b" t)e figures 87 bearing t)e initial of E-aminer #ontecillo as E-)ibit +1a1LanuevoAdm. $ase ?o. **50, p. C6, rec.; Vol. V, pp. 0:10C, Vol. V, p. C, rec.<; but Att". #ontecillo didnot interpose an" ob>ection to t)eir admission in evidence.

n t)is connection, respondent E-aminer !ardo testified t)at )e remembers a case of ane-aminee presented to t)e $ommittee, 2)o obtained passing mar4s in all sub>ects e-cept in oneand t)e $ommittee agreed to refer bac4 to t)e E-aminer concerned t)e noteboo4 in t)e sub>ectin 2)ic) t)e e-aminee failed Vol. V, pp. *81*5, rec.<. He cannot recall t)e sub>ect, but )e iscertain t)at it 2as not !olitical La2 Vol. V, p. *5, rec.<.'urt)er, !ardo declared t)at )e is nota2are of an" case of an e-aminee 2)o 2as on t)e borderline of passing but 2)o got a gradebelo2 879 in one sub>ect t)at 2as ta4en up b" t)e $ommittee Vol. V, pp. *51*, rec.<.

E-aminer #ontecillo testified t)at it 2as t)e noteboo4 2it) E-aminer $ode ?umber *5*:belonging to Galang< 2)ic) 2as referred to t)e $ommittee and t)e $ommittee agreed to returnit to t)e E-aminer concerned. %)e da" follo2ing t)e meeting in 2)ic) t)e case of an e-aminee2it) $ode ?umber *5*: 2as ta4en up, respondent Lanuevo )anded )im said noteboo4 and )eaccordingl" re1evaluated it. %)is particular noteboo4 2it) 3ffice $ode ?umber +8C belongs to

Galang.

E-aminer %omacru& recalled a case of an e-aminee 2)ose problem 2as #ercantile La2 t)at2as ta4en up b" t)e $ommittee. He is not certain of an" ot)er case broug)t to t)e $ommitteeVol. V, pp. 8+15*, rec.<. !ardo declared t)at t)ere 2as no case of an e-aminee t)at 2asreferred to t)e $ommittee t)at involved !olitical La2. He re1evaluated t)e ans2ers of ErnestoFuitaleg in !olitical La2 upon t)e representation made b" respondent Lanuevo to )im.

As )eretofore stated, it 2as t)is consensus at t)e meeting on 'ebruar" 6, *+0 of t)e membersof t)e $ommittee t)at 2)ere an e-aminee failed in onl" one sub>ect and passed all t)e ot)ers,t)e E-aminer in 2)ose sub>ect t)e e-aminee failed s)ould re1evaluate or rec)ec4 t)e noteboo4Vol. V, p. *5, rec. E-). 01!ardo, allegation ?o. +, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. 5715:, E-). A1#ontecillo, Allegation ?o. 0, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. C71C*, and E-). 1#ontecillo, Adm. $ase?o. **5C, p. 0, rec.<.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


At t)e time t)e noteboo4 of Ernesto Fuitaleg in !olitical La2 2it) a grade of 89 2as referredbac4 to E-aminer !ardo, said e-aminee )ad ot)er failing grades in t)ree :ects, as follo2s

Labor La2s :9

%a-ation 5+9

#ercantile La2 569

Ernesto Fuitaleg@s grades and averages before and after t)e re1evaluation of )is grade in!olitical La2 are as follo2s

A

!olitical La2 89 559 M + pts. or 02eig)ted pointsLabor La2s :9 :9 M ?o reevaluation$ivil La2 89 89 M =%a-ation 5+9 5+9 M =#ercantile La2 569 569 M =$riminal La2 69 69 M =Remedial La2 689 689 M =

Legal Et)ics 6:9 6:9 M =————————————————

Average 2eig)ted< :.*89 C.89

Vol. V, pp. 0510; E-)s. *7 and *71A1Lanuevo, Adm. $ase ?o. **50, rec.<

Alfredo %" dela $ru&, at t)e time )is noteboo4 in #ercantile La2 2as referred to E-aminer#ontecillo to remove t)e dis/ualification grade of C9 in said sub>ect, )ad t2o 0< ot)er failinggrades. %)ese are

!olitical La2 79

%a-ation 09

His grades and averages before and after t)e dis/ualif"ing grade 2as removed are as follo2s

A

!olitical La2 79 79 M ?o reevaluationLabor La2s 89 89 M =$ivil La2 6+9 6+9 M =%a-ation 09 09 M =#ercantile La2 C9 879 M : pts. or +2eig)ted points$riminal La2 69 69 M no reevaluation

Remedial La2 669 669 M =

Legal Et)ics +9 +9 M =—————————————————

Beig)ted Averages C.+89 8.C9

Vol. V, pp. 0510, rec.<.

%)e re1evaluation of t)e ans2ers of Fuitaleg in !olitical La2 and t)e ans2ers of %" dela $ru& in#ercantile La2, violated t)e consensus of t)e ar E-amination $ommittee in 'ebruar", *+*,

2)ic) violation 2as due to t)e misrepresentation of respondent Lanuevo.

t must be stated t)at t)e referral of t)e noteboo4 of Galang in #ercantile La2 to E-aminer#ontecillo can )ardl" be said to be covered b" t)e consensus of t)e ar E-amination$ommittee because even at the time of said referral , 2)ic) 2as after t)e unaut)ori&ed re1evaluation of )is ans2ers of four Cects, Galang )ad still failing grades in %a-ation andLabor La2s. His re1evaluated grade of C.89 in Remedial La2 2as considered 89 under t)e$onfidential #emorandum and 2as so entered in t)e record. His grade in #ercantile La2 assubse/uentl" re1evaluated b" E-aminer #ontecillo 2as *9.

Respondent Lanuevo is t)erefore guilt" of serious misconduct — of )aving betra"ed t)e trustand confidence reposed in )im as ar $onfidant, t)ereb" impairing t)e integrit" of t)e are-aminations and undermining public fait) in t)e upreme $ourt. He s)ould be disbarred.

As to 2)et)er Ernesto Fuitaleg and Alfredo %" dela $ru& s)ould be disbarred or t)eir namesstric4en from t)e Roll of Attorne"s, it is believed t)at t)e" s)ould be re/uired to s)o2 cause andt)e corresponding investigation conducted.

Re Administrative $ase ?o. **5:, Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, respondent.

A

%)e name of respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, s)ould li4e2ise be stric4en

off t)e Roll of Attorne"s. %)is is a necessar" conse/uence of t)e un1aut)ori&ed re1evaluation of)is ans2ers in five8< ma>or sub>ects — $ivil La2, !olitical and nternational La2, $riminal La2,Remedial La2, and #ercantile La2.

%)e >udicial function of t)e upreme $ourt in admitting candidates to t)e legal profession, 2)ic)necessaril" involves t)e e-ercise of discretion, re/uires *< previous establis)ed rules andprinciples; 0< concrete facts, 2)et)er past or present, affecting determinate individuals; and :<a decision as to 2)et)er t)ese facts are governed b" t)e rules and principles n re $unanan —'lun4ers@ !etition for Admission to t)e ar 11 +C !)il. 8:C, 8CC18C8<. %)e determination of2)et)er a bar candidate )as obtained t)e re/uired passing grade certainl" involves discretionLegal and (udicial Et)ics, (ustice #artin, *+5+ ed., p. *:<.

n t)e e-ercise of t)is function, t)e $ourt acts t)roug) a ar E-amination $ommittee, composedof a member of t)e $ourt 2)o acts as $)airman and eig)t 6< members of t)e ar 2)o act as

e-aminers in t)e eig)t 6< bar sub>ects 2it) one sub>ect assigned to eac). Acting as a sort ofliaison officer bet2een t)e $ourt and t)e ar $)airman, on one )and, and t)e individual

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


members of t)e $ommittee, on t)e ot)er, is t)e ar $onfidant 2)o is at t)e same time a deput"cler4 of t)e $ourt. ?ecessaril", ever" act of t)e $ommittee in connection 2it) t)e e-ercise ofdiscretion in t)e admission of e-aminees to members)ip of t)e ar must be in accordance 2it)t)e establis)ed rules of t)e $ourt and must al2a"s be sub>ect to t)e final approval of t)e $ourt.Bit) respect to t)e ar $onfidant, 2)ose position is primaril" confidential as t)e designationindicates, )is functions in connection 2it) t)e conduct of t)e ar e-aminations are defined andcircumscribed b" t)e $ourt and must be strictl" ad)ered to.

%)e re1evaluation b" t)e E-aminers concerned of t)e e-amination ans2ers of respondentGalang in five 8ects, as alread" clearl" establis)ed, 2as initiated b" Respondent Lanuevo

2it)out an" aut)orit" from t)e $ourt, a serious breac) of t)e trust and confidence reposed b"t)e $ourt in )im as ar $onfidant. $onse/uentl", t)e re1evaluation t)at enabled respondentGalang to pass t)e *+* ar e-aminations and to be admitted to t)e ar is a complete nullit".%)e ar $onfidant does not possess an" discretion 2it) respect to t)e matter of admission ofe-aminees to t)e ar. He is not clot)ed 2it) aut)orit" to determine 2)et)er or not ane-aminee@s ans2ers merit re1evaluation or re1evaluation or 2)et)er t)e E-aminer@s appraisal ofsuc) ans2ers is correct. And 2)et)er or not t)e e-aminee benefited 2as in connivance or apriv" t)ereto is immaterial. B)at is decisive is 2)et)er t)e proceedings or incidents t)at led tot)e candidate@s admission to t)e ar 2ere in accordance 2it) t)e rules.

ection 0 of Rule *:6 of t)e Revised Rules of $ourt of *+5C, in connection, among ot)ers, 2it)

t)e c)aracter re/uirement of candidates for admission to t)e ar, provides t)at =ever" applicantfor admission as a member of t)e ar must be ... of good moralc)aracter ... and must produce before t)e upreme $ourt satisfactor" evidence of good moralc)aracter, and t)at no c)arges against )im involving moral turpitude, )ave been filed or arepending in an" court in t)e !)ilippines.= !rior to *+5C, or under t)e old Rules of $ourt, a barapplicant 2as re/uired to produce before t)e upreme $ourt satisfactor" testimonials of goodmoral c)aracter ec. 0, Rule *0<. nder bot) rules, ever" applicant is dut" bound to la" beforet)e $ourt all )is involvement in an" criminal case, pending or ot)er2ise terminated, to enablet)e $ourt to full" ascertain or determine applicant@s moral c)aracter. 'urt)ermore, as to 2)atcrime involves moral turpitude, is for t)e supreme $ourt to determine. Hence, t)e necessit" ofla"ing before or informing t)e $ourt of one@s personal record — 2)et)er )e 2as criminall"indicted, ac/uitted, convicted or t)e case dismissed or is still pending — becomes morecompelling. %)e forms for application to ta4e t)e ar e-aminations provided b" t)e upreme$ourt beginning t)e "ear *+58 re/uire t)e disclosure not onl" of criminal cases involving moralturpitude filed or pending against t)e applicant but also of all ot)er criminal cases of 2)ic) )e)as been accused. t is of course true t)at t)e application form used b" respondent Galang2)en )e too4 t)e ar for t)e first time in *+50 did not e-pressl" re/uire t)e disclosure of t)eapplicant@s criminal records, if an". ut as alread" intimated, implicit in )is tas4 to s)o2satisfactor" evidence or proof of good moral c)aracter is )is obligation to reveal to t)e $ourt all)is involvement in an" criminal case so t)at t)e $ourt can consider t)em in t)e ascertainmentand determination of )is moral c)aracter. And undeniabl", 2it) t)e applicant@s criminal recordsbefore it, t)e $ourt 2ill be in a better position to consider t)e applicant@s moral c)aracter; for itcould not be gainsaid t)at an applicant@s involvement in an" criminal case, 2)et)er pending orterminated b" its dismissal or applicant@s ac/uittal or conviction, )as a bearing upon )isc)aracter or fitness for admission to t)e ar. n *+5: and *+5C, 2)en respondent Galang too4t)e ar for t)e second and t)ird time, respectivel", t)e application form provided b" t)e $ourt for use of applicants alread" re/uired t)e applicant to declare under oat) t)at =)e )as not beenaccused of, indicted for or convicted b" an" court or tribunal of an" offense involving moralturpitude; and t)at t)ere is no pending case of t)at nature against )im.= " *+55, 2)en Galangtoo4 t)e ar e-aminations for t)e fourt) time, t)e application form prepared b" t)e $ourt for use

of applicants re/uired t)e applicant to reveal all )is criminal cases 2)et)er involving moralturpitude or not. n paragrap) C of t)at form, t)e applicant is re/uired under oat) to declare t)at=)e )as not been c)arged 2it) an" offense before a 'iscal, #unicipal (udge, or ot)er officer; oraccused of, indicted for or convicted b" an" court or tribunal of an" crime involving moralturpitude; nor is t)ere a pending case against )im= Adm. $ase ?o. **5:, p. 85, rec.<. Iet,respondent Galang continued to intentionall" 2it))old or conceal from t)e $ourt )is criminalcase of slig)t p)"sical in>uries 2)ic) 2as t)en and until no2 is pending in t)e $it" $ourt of#anila; and t)ereafter repeatedl" omitted to ma4e mention of t)e same in )is applications tota4e t)e ar e-aminations in *+5, *+5+ and *+*.

All told, respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, is guilt" of fraudulentl"concealing and 2it))olding from t)e $ourt )is pending criminal case for p)"sical in>uries in*+50, *+5:, *+5C, *+55, *+5, *+5+ and *+*; and in *+55, *+5,*+5+ and *+*, )e committedper>ur" 2)en )e declared under oat) t)at )e )ad no pending criminal case in court. " falsel"representing to t)e $ourt t)at )e )ad no criminal case pending in court, respondent Galang 2asallo2ed unconditionall" to ta4e t)e ar e-aminations seven < times and in *+0 2as allo2ed tota4e )is oat).

%)at t)e concealment of an attorne" in )is application to ta4e t)e ar e-aminations of t)e factt)at )e )ad been c)arged 2it), or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for revocation of )islicense to practice la2 is 2ell — settled see *58 ALR **8*, $( C*<. %)us

O*P t re/uires no argument to reac) t)e conclusion t)at t)e respondent, in

2it))olding from t)e board of la2 e-aminers and from t)e >ustice of t)iscourt, to 2)om )e applied for admission, information respecting so seriousa matter as an indictment for a felon", 2as guilt" of fraud upon t)e courtcases cited<.

O0P t is e/uall" clear t)at, )ad t)e board of la2 e-aminers, or t)e >udge to2)om )e applied for admission, been apprised of t)e true situation, neit)ert)e certificate of t)e board nor of t)e >udge 2ould )ave been fort)comingtate e- rel. oard of La2 E-aminers v. !odell, 07 ? — B — 7+ — *7<.

%)e license of respondent !odell 2as revo4e and annulled, and )e 2as re/uired to surrender tot)e cler4 of court t)e license issued to )im, and )is name 2as stric4en from t)e roll of attorne"sp. *7<.

Li4e2ise in Re $arpel, it 2as declared t)at

O*P %)e po2er to admit to t)e bar on motion is conferred in t)e discretion oft)e Appellate Division.@ n t)e e-ercise of t)e discretion, t)e court s)ould beinformed trut)full" and fran4l" of matters tending to s)o2 t)e c)aracter oft)e applicant and )is standing at t)e bar of t)e state from 2)ic) )e comes.%)e finding of indictments against )im, one of 2)ic) 2as still outstanding att)e time of )is motion, 2ere facts 2)ic) s)ould )ave been submitted to t)ecourt, 2it) suc) e-planations as 2ere available. ilence respecting t)em2as repre)ensible, as tending to deceive t)e court *58 ?I, *70, *7C;emp)asis supplied<.

$arpel@s admission to t)e bar 2as revo4ed p. *78<.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


'urt)ermore, respondent@s persistent denial of )is involvement in an" criminal case despite )is)aving been apprised b" t)e nvestigation of some of t)e circumstances of t)e criminal caseincluding t)e ver" name of t)e victim in t)at case)e finall" admitted it 2)en )e 2as confrontedb" t)e victim )imself, 2)o 2as called to testif" t)ereon<, and )is continued failure for aboutt)irteen "ears to clear )is name in t)at criminal case up to t)e present time, indicate )is lac4 oft)e re/uisite attributes of )onest", probit" and good demeanor. He is t)erefore un2ort)" ofbecoming a member of t)e noble profession of la2.

B)ile t)is aspect of t)e investigation 2as not part of t)e formal resolution of t)e $ourt re/uiring)im to e-plain 2)" )is name s)ould not be stric4en from t)e Roll of Attorne"s, respondent

Galang 2as, as earl" as August, *+:, apprised of )is omission to reveal to t)e $ourt )ispending criminal case. Iet )e did not offer an" e-planation for suc) omission.

nder t)e circumstances in 2)ic) respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, 2asallo2ed to ta4e t)e ar e-aminations and t)e )ig)l" irregular manner in 2)ic) )e passed t)ear, BE )ave no ot)er alternative but to order t)e surrender of )is attorne"@s certificate and t)estri4ing out of )is name from t)e Roll of Attorne"s. 'or as BE said in Re 'elipe del Rosario

%)e practice of t)e la2 is not an absolute rig)t to be granted ever" one 2)odemands it, but is a privilege to be e-tended or 2it))eld in t)e e-ercise ofsound discretion. %)e standards of t)e legal profession are not satisfied b"conduct 2)ic) merel" enables one to escape t)e penalties of t)e criminalla2. t 2ould be a disgrace to t)e (udiciar" to receive one 2)ose integrit" is

/uestionable as an officer of t)e court, to clot)e )im 2it) all t)e prestige ofits confidence, and t)en to permit )im to )old )imself as a dul" aut)ori&edmember of t)e bar citing American cases< O80 !)il. :++1C7*P.

B)at BE no2 do 2it) respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, in t)is presentcase is not 2it)out an" precedent in t)is >urisdiction. BE )ad on several occasions in t)e pastnullified t)e admission of successful bar candidates to t)e members)ip of t)e ar on t)egrounds, among ot)ers, of a<misrepresentations of, or false pretenses relative to, t)ere/uirement on applicant@s educational attainment O%apel vs. !ublico, resolution of t)e upreme$ourt stri4ing off t)e name of (uan %. !ublico from t)e Roll of Attorne"s on t)e basis of t)efindings of t)e $ourt nvestigators contained in t)eir report and recommendation, 'eb. 0:, *+50;n re %elesforo A. Diao, $RA C81C6; b< lac4 of good moral c)aracter On re !eralta, *7*!)il. :*:1:*CP; and c< fraudulent passing of t)e ar e-aminations O!eople vs. Romualde& 11 reLuis #abuna", 8 !)il. *8*; n re Del Rosario, 80 !)il. :++ and !eople vs. $astro and Doe, 8C

!)il. C0P. n t)e cases of Romualde& #abuna"< and $astro, t)e $ourt found t)at t)e grades of#abuna" and $astro 2ere falsified and t)e" 2ere convicted of t)e crime of falsification of publicdocuments.

V

RE Administrative $ase ?o. **5C, Assistant olicitor General ernardo !ardo no2 $' (udge<,(udge Ramon !amatianLater Associate (ustice of t)e $ourt of Appeals, no2 deceased<Att".#anuel G. #ontecillo, Att". 'idel #analo, Att". #anuel %omacru& and Att". Guillermo !ablo, (r.,respondents.

All respondents ar e-aminers candidl" admitted )aving made t)e re1evaluation andor re1correction of t)e papers in /uestion upon t)e misrepresentation of respondent ar$onfidant

Lanuevo. All, )o2ever, professed good fait); and t)at t)e" re1evaluated or increased t)e gradesof t)e noteboo4s 2it)out 4no2ing t)e identit" of t)e e-aminee 2)o o2ned t)e said noteboo4s;

and t)at t)e" did t)e same 2it)out an" consideration or e-pectation of an". %)ese t)e recordsclearl" demonstrate and BE are of t)e opinion and BE so declare t)at indeed t)e respondents1e-aminers made t)e re1evaluation or re1correcion in good fait) and 2it)out an" consideration2)atsoever.

$onsidering )o2ever t)e vital public interest involved in t)e matter of admission of members tot)e ar, t)e respondents bar e-aminers, under t)e circumstances, s)ould )ave e-ercisedgreater care and caution and s)ould )ave been more in/uisitive before acceding to t)e re/uestof respondent ar $onfidant Lanuevo. %)e" could )ave as4ed t)e $)airman of t)e arE-amination $ommittee, 2)o 2ould )ave referred t)e matter to t)e upreme $ourt. At least t)e

respondents1e-aminers s)ould )ave re/uired respondent Lanuevo to produce or s)o2 t)em t)ecomplete grades andor t)e average of t)e e-aminee represented b" respondent Lanuevo to)ave failed onl" in t)eir respective and particular sub>ect andor 2as on t)e borderline of passingto full" satisf" t)emselves t)at t)e e-aminee concerned 2as reall" so circumstances. %)is t)e"could )ave easil" done and t)e stain on t)e ar e-aminations could )ave been avoided.

Respondent ar e-aminers #ontecillo, !amatian, and #analo claimed and so declared underoat) t)at t)e ans2ers of respondent Galang reall" deserved or merited t)e increased grades;and so 2it) respondent !ardo in connection 2it) t)e re1evaluation of Ernesto Fuitaleg@sans2ers in !olitical La2. Bit) respect to respondents %omacru& and !ablo, it 2ould appear t)att)e" increased t)e grades of Galang in t)eir respective sub>ect solel" because of t)emisrepresentations of Respondent Lanuevo. Hence, in t)e 2ords of respondent %omacru& =Ioubroug)t to me one paper and "ou said t)at t)is particular e-aminee )ad almost passed,)o2ever, in m" sub>ect )e received 57 somet)ing, cannot remember t)e e-act average and if

)e 2ould get a fe2 points )ig)er, )e 2ould get a passing average. 4 agreed to do that because 4

did not wish to be the one causing his failure. ...= Vol. V, pp. 5715*, rec.; see also allegations :and C, E-). *1%omacru&, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, p. 5+, rec.; emp)asis ours<. And respondent!ablo =... )e told me t)at t)is particular e-aminee seems to )ave passed in allot )er sub>ecte-cept t)is sub>ect and t)at if can re1evaluate t)is e-amination noteboo4 and increase t)e mar4to at least 8, t)is particular e-aminee 2ill pass t)e bar e-aminations so believe as4ed )im @st)is being done@ and )e said @Ies, t)at is t)e practice used to be done before to )elp oute-aminees 2)o are failing in >ust one sub>ect@ so readil" acceded to )is re/uest and said @(ustleave it 2it) me and 2ill tr" to re1evaluate@ and )e left it 2it) me and 2)at i did 2as to go overt)e boo4 and tried to be as lenient as could. Ahile 4 did not mar* correct the answers which

were wrong, what 4 did was to be more lenient and if the answers was correct although it was

not complete 4 raise the grade so 4 had a total of % instead of ! and what 4 did was to correct

the grading sheet accordingly and initial the changes = Vol. V, pp. CC1C8, rec.; emp)asissupplied<.

t could not be seriousl" denied, )o2ever, t)at t)e favorable re1evaluations made b"respondents !amatian, #ontecillo, #analo and !ardo not2it)standing t)eir declarations t)at t)eincreases in grades t)e" gave 2ere deserved b" t)e e-aminee concerned, 2ere to a certaine-tent influenced b" t)e misrepresentation and deception committed b" respondent Lanuevo.%)us in t)eir o2n 2ords

#ontecillo —

F And b" reason of t)at information "ou made t)e re1evaluation of t)e paper

A Ieas, "our Honor.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


F Bould "ou )ave re1evaluated t)e paper of "our o2naccord in t)e absence of suc) information

A ?o, "our Honor, because )ave submitted m" reportat t)at time= Vol. V, p. ::, rec.; see also allegations inparagrap)s 0, :, C J 8, Affidavit of April *, *+0, E-).1#ontecillo; allegation ?o. 0, Ans2er dated marc) *+,*+:, E-). A1#ontecillo, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. C71C*, and 0, rec.<.

!amatian —

:. %)at sometime in t)e later part of (anuar" of t)is "ear, )e broug)t bac4 tome an e-amination boo4let in $ivil La2 for re1evaluation because accordingto )im t)e o2ner of t)e paper is on t)e borderline and if could reconsider)is grade to 89 t)e candidate concerned 2ill get passing mar4;

C. %)at ta4ing )is 2ord for it and under t)e belief t)at it 2as reall" t)epractice and polic" of t)e upreme $ourt to do so and in t)e furt)er belieft)at 2as >ust manifesting cooperation in doing so, re1evaluated t)e paperand reconsidered t)e grade to 89; ...= E-). 01!amatian, Adm. $ase ?o.**5C, p. 88, rec.<; and

8. %)at t)e above re1evaluation 2as made in good fait) and under t)e belief t)at am aut)ori&ed to do so in vie2 of t)em is representation of said Att".Victorio Lanuevo, ...= E-). *1!amatian, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, pp. ::1:C,rec.<.

#analo —

c< n revising t)e grade of t)e particular e-aminee concerned, )ereinrespondent carefull" evaluated eac) and ever" ans2er 2ritten in t)enoteboo4. %esting t)e ans2er b" t)e criteria laid do2n b" t)e $ourt, andgiving t)e said e-aminee t)e benefit of t)e doubt in vie2 of #r. Lanuevo@srepresentation t)at it 2as onl" in t)at particular sub>ect t)at said e-amineefailed, )erein respondent became convinced t)at t)e said e-aminee

deserved a )ig)er grade t)an t)at previousl" given )im, but )e did notdeserve, in )erein respondent@s )onest appraisal, to be given t)e passinggrade of89. ...=allegation 81c, p. :6, E-). *1#analo, rec.; emp)asis supplied<.

!ardo —

... considered it entirel" )umanl" possible to )ave erred, because corrected t)at particular noteboo4 on December :*,*+*, consideringespeciall" t)e representation of t)e ar $onfidant t)at t)e said e-aminee)ad obtained )ig)er grades in ot)er sub>ects, t)e )ig)est of 2)ic) 2as 6C9in Remedial La2, if recallcorrectl". ... allegation , E-). 01!ardo, Adm. $ase ?o. **5C, p. 50, rec.;

emp)asis supplied<.

Bit) t)e misrepresentations and t)e circumstances utili&ed b" respondent Lanuevo to inducet)e )erein e-aminers to ma4e t)e re1evaluation adverted to, no one among t)em can trul" claimt)at t)e re1evaluation effected b" t)em 2as impartial or free from an" improper influence, t)eirconceded integrit", )onest" and competence not2it)standing.

$onse/uentl", Galang cannot >ustifiabl" claim t)at )e deserved t)e increased grades given aftert)e said re1evaluationsGalang@s memo attac)ed to t)e records, Adm. $ase ?o. **5:<.

At an" rate, BE are convinced, in t)e lig)t of t)e e-planations of t)e respondents1e-aminers,2)ic) 2ere earlier /uoted in full, t)at t)eir actuations in connection 2it) t)e re1evaluation of t)eans2ers of Galang in five 8ects do not 2arrant or deserve t)e imposition of an"disciplinar" action. BE find t)eir e-planations satisfactor". ?evert)eless, BE are constrained toremind )erein respondents1e-aminers t)at t)eir participation in t)e admission of members to t)ear is one impressed 2it) t)e )ig)est consideration of public interest — absolute purit" of t)eproceedings — and so are re/uired to e-ercise t)e greatest or utmost case and vigilance in t)eperformance of t)eir duties relative t)ereto.

V

Respondent Att". Victorio D. Lanuevo, in )is memorandum filed on ?ovember *C, *+:, claimedt)at respondent1e-aminer !amatian =in bringing up t)is unfounded cause, or lending undueassistance or support t)ereto ... 2as motivated 2it) vindictiveness due to respondent@s refusal tobe pressured into )elping )is e-aminer@s< alleged friend — a participant in t)e *+* ar

E-aminations 2)om said e-aminer named as 3scar Landic)o and 2)o, t)e records 2ill s)o2,did not pass said e-aminations p. +, Lanuevo@s memo, Adm. $ase ?o. **50<.

t must be stated t)at t)is i s a ver" serious c)arge against t)e )onor and integrit" of t)e late(ustice Ramon !amatian, 2)o passed a2a" on 3ctober *6, *+: and t)erefore cannot refuteLanuevo@s insinuations. Respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo did not bring t)is out during t)einvestigation 2)ic) in )is 2ords is =essential to )is defense. =His pretension t)at )e did not ma4et)is c)arge during t)e investigation 2)en (ustice !amatian 2as still alive, and deferred t)e filingof suc) c)arge against (ustice !amatian and possibl" also against 3scar Landic)o before t)elatter departed for Australia =until t)is case s)all )ave been terminated lest it be misread ormisinterpreted as being intended as a leverage for a favorable outcome of t)is case on t)e partof respondent or an act of reprisal=, does not invite belief; because )e does not impugn t)emotives of t)e five ot)er members of t)e *+* ar E-amination $ommittee, 2)o also affirmedt)at )e deceived t)em into re1evaluating or revising t)e grades of respondent Galang in t)eirrespective sub>ects.

t appears, )o2ever, t)at after t)e release of t)e results of t)e *+* ar e-aminations, 3scarLandic)o, 2)o failed in t)at e-aminations, 2ent to see and did see $ivil La2 e-aminer !amatianfor t)e purpose of see4ing )is )elp in connection 2it) t)e *+* ar E-aminations. E-aminer!amatian advised Landic)o to see t)e $)airman of t)e *+* ar E-amination $ommittee.E-aminer !amatian mentioned in passing to Landic)o t)at an e-amination boo4let 2as re1evaluated b" )im !amatian< before t)e release of t)e said bar results Vol. V, pp. 51, rec<.Even t)oug) suc) information 2as divulged b" respondent !amatian after t)e official release oft)e bar results, it remains an indecorous act, )ardl" e-pected of a member of t)e (udiciar" 2)os)ould e-)ibit restraint in )is actuations demanded b" resolute ad)erence to t)e rules ofdelicac". His unseeml" act tended to undermine t)e integrit" of t)e bar e-aminations and toimpair public fait) in t)e upreme $ourt.

V

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


%)e investigation failed to uneart) direct evidence t)at t)e illegal mac)ination of respondentLanuevo to enable Galang to pass t)e *+* ar e-aminations 2as committed for valuableconsideration.

A

%)ere are, )o2ever, ac/uisitions made b" Respondent Lanuevo immediatel" after t)e officialrelease of t)e *+* ar e-aminations in 'ebruar", *+0, 2)ic) ma" be out of proportion to )issalar" as ar $onfidant and Deput" $ler4 of $ourt of t)e upreme $ourt.

*. 3n April 8, *+0, respondent Lanuevo and )is 2ife ac/uired from t)e 'Homes, nc. a )ouse and lot 2it) an area of :C s/uare meters, more orless, for t)e amount of !6C,**C.77. %)e deed of sale 2as dated #arc) 8,*+0 but 2as notari&ed onl" on April 8, *+0. 3n t)e same date, )o2ever,respondent Lanuevo and )is 2ife e-ecuted t2o 0<mortgages covering t)esaid )ouse and lot in favor of ' Homes, nc. in t)e total amount of!5,0+*.07 'irst mortgage — !86,6+.67, Entr" ?o. +7+*: date ofinstrument — pril ', 1%$ , date of inscription — pril $B, 1%$ econdmortgage — !6,C**.C7, Entr" ?o. +7+*C date of instrument — pril ',

1%$ , date of inscription — pril $B, 1%$ <. OD10 to D1C, Vol. , rec.P.Respondent Lanuevo paid as do2n pa"ment t)e amount of onl"!*,777.77, 2)ic) according to )im is e/uivalent to 079, more or less, oft)e purc)ase price of !6C,**C.77. Respondent Lanuevo claimed t)at

!8,777.77 of t)e !*,777.77 2as )is savings 2)ile t)e remaining t)e!*0,777.77 came from )is sister in 34ina2a in t)e form of a loan andreceived b" )im t)roug) a niece before $)ristmas of *+* in dollars Q0777<OVol. V, pp. C*1C6; Vol. V, pp. 01:, rec.P

t appears, )o2ever, t)at )is alleged >',BBB&BB savings and >1$,BBB&BB

loan from his sister ; are not full" reflected and accounted for in respondent@s1%1 5tatement of ssets and Liabilities which he filed on (anuar" *,*+0.

n said *+* statement, respondent Lanuevo listed under Assets a ban4deposit in t)e amount of onl" !0,777.77. n )is *+0 statement, )is ban4deposit listed under Assets 2as in t)e amount of !*,7**.77, 2)ic) s)o2st)erefore t)at of t)e !0,777.77 ban4 deposit listed in )is *+* statementunder Assets, onl" t)e amount of !+6+.77 2as used or 2it)dra2n. %)eamount of !*6,777.77 receivable listed under Assets in )is *+* statement

2as not reali&ed because t)e transaction t)erein involved did not pus)t)roug) tatement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent Lanuevo from*+58 to *+0; Vol. V, pp. C1C6, rec.<.

Li4e2ise, t)e alleged December, *+* Q0777 loan of respondent from )ismarried sister in 34ina2a is e-tremel" doubtful. n t)e first place, saidamount of Q0777 !*0,777.77< is not reflected in )is 1%1 5tatement of

ssets and Liabilities filed on (anuar" *, *+0. econdl", t)e alleged note2)ic) )e allegedl" received from )is sister at t)e time )e received t)e Q0772as not even presented b" respondent during t)e investigation. Andaccording to Respondent Lanuevo )imself, 2)ile )e considered t)is a loan,

)is sister did not seriousl" consider it as one. n fact, no mode or time ofpa"ment 2as agreed upon b" t)em. And furt)ermore, during t)e

investigation, respondent Lanuevo promised to furnis) t)e nvestigator t)eaddress of )is sister in 34ina2a. aid promise 2as not fulfilled as borne outb" t)e records. $onsidering t)at t)ere is no s)o2ing t)at )is sister, 2)o )asa famil" of )er o2n, is among t)e top earners in 34ina2a or )as saved a lotof mone" to give to )im, t)e conclusion, t)erefore, t)at t)e >1%,BBB&BB ofrespondent Lanuevo 2as eit)er an ill1gotten or undeclared income isinevitable under t)e foregoing circumstances.

3n ugust 1, 1%$ , respondent Lanuevo and )is 2ife mortgaged t)eir 'Homes )ouse and lot to t)e G for t)e amount of !58,777.77 Entr" ?o.

C++0 ugust 1, 1%$ — date of instrument; ugust $#, 1%$ — date ofinscription<. 3n <ebruary $, 1%#, t)e second mortgage in favor of 0<

6omes, .ntry =o& B1, 2as redeemed b" respondent and 2assubse/uentl" cancelled on #arc) 07,*+:, Entr" ?o. :7*C:. ubse/uentl",or on #arc) 0, *+: t)e first mortgage in favor of ' Homes, Entr" ?o.+7+*: 2as also redeemed b" respondent Lanuevo and t)ereafter cancelledon 9arch $B, 1%#, ee D10 to D1C, Vol. , rec.<. Hence, onl" t)emortgage in favor of G remains as t)e encumbrance of respondent@s)ouse and lot. According to respondent Lanuevo, t)e mont)l" amorti&ationof t)e G mortgage is !6.77 a mont), but t)at since 9ay of 1%#, )e2as unable to pa" t)e same. n )is 1%$ 5tatement of ssets and Liabilities ,2)ic) )e filed in connection 2it) )is resignation and retirement filedctober 1#, 1%$ <, t)e )ouse and lot declared as part of )is assets, 2erevalued at !8,85.+7. Listed, )o2ever, as an item in )is liabilities in t)e

same statement 2as t)e G real estate loan in t)e amount of >!,$BB&BB *+0 tatement of Assets and Liabilities<.

0. Listed as an asset in )is 1%$ 5tatement of ssets and Liabilities is a1'! DA car valued at >',$BB&BB . %)at )e ac/uired t)is car sometimebet2een (anuar", *+0 and ?ovember, *+0 could be inferred from t)e factt)at no suc) car or an" car 2as listed in )is statement of assets andliabilities of *+* or in t)e "ears previous to *+58. t appears, )o2ever, t)at)is listed total assets, excluding receivables in his 1%1 5tatement was

>1,BBB&BB , 2)ile in )is *+0 as of ?ovember, *+0< tatement, )is listedtotal assets, excluding the house and lot 2as !*6,0**.77, including the said

1'! DA car 2ort) !8,077.77.

%)e pro-imit" in point of time bet2een t)e official release of t)e *+* are-aminations and t)e ac/uisition of t)e above1mentioned properties, tendsto lin4 or tie up t)e said ac/uisitions 2it) t)e illegal mac)ination committedb" respondent Lanuevo 2it) respect to respondent Galang@s e-aminationpapers or to s)o2 t)at t)e mone" used b" respondent Lanuevo in t)eac/uisition of t)e above properties came from respondent Galang inconsideration of )is passing t)e ar.

During t)e earl" stage of t)is investigation but after t)e $ourt )ad informed respondent Lanuevoof t)e serious irregularities in t)e *+* ar e-aminations alleged in 3scar Landic)o@s$onfidential Letter and in fact, after Respondent Lanuevo )ad filed on pril 1$, 1%$ )is s2ornstatement on t)e matter, as ordered b" t)e $ourt, respondent Lanuevo surprisingl" filed )isletter or resignation on 3ctober *:, *+0 2it) t)e end in vie2 of retiring from t)e $ourt. Hisresignation before )e 2as re/uired to s)o2 cause on #arc) 8, *+: but after )e 2as informed

of t)e said irregularities, is indicative of a consciousness of guilt.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


t must be noted t)at immediatel" after t)e official release of t)e results of t)e *+* are-aminations, respondent Lanuevo 2ent on vacation and sic4 leave from #arc) *5, *+0 to(anuar" *8, *+:, obtaining t)e case value t)ereof in lump sum in t)e amount of !**,777.77. Heinitiall" claimed at t)e investigation t)at ) e used a part t)ereof as a do2n pa"ment for )is 'Homes )ouse and lot Vol. V, pp. C71C6, rec.<, 2)ic) )e boug)t on April 8, *+0.

$riminal proceedings ma" be instituted against respondent Lanuevo under ection : a J e< inrelation to ection + of Republic Act ?o. *:+ Anti1Graft La2< for

a< !ersuading inducing or influencing anot)er public officer to perform anact constituting a violation of rules and regulations dul" promulgated b"competent aut)orit" or an offense in connection 2it) t)e official duties of t)elatter, or allo2ing )imself to be presented, induced, or influenced to commitsuc) violation or offense.

--- --- ---

e< $ausing an" undue in>ur" to an" part", including t)e Government, orgiving an" private part" an" un2arranted benefits, advantage or preferencein t)e disc)arge of )is official administrative or >udicial functions t)roug)manifest partialit", evidence bad fait) or gross ine-cusable negligence. %)isprovision s)all appl" to officers and emplo"ees of offices or governmentcorporations c)arged 2it) t)e grant of licenses or permits or ot)er

concessions.

ection 6 of said Republic Act ?o. :7*+ aut)ori&es t)e dismissal or removal of a public officeronce it is determined t)at )is propert" or mone" =is manifestl" out of proportion to )is salar" assuc) public officer or emplo"ee and to )is ot)er la2ful income and t)e income from legitimatel"ac/uired propert" ... = ec. 0, Rep. Act *:+; ec. 6, Rep. Act :7*+<.

t s)ould be stressed, )o2ever, t)at respondent Lanuevo@s aforementioned tatements of Assetsand Liabilities 2ere not presented or ta4en up during t)e investigation; but t)e" 2ere e-aminedas t)e" are part of t)e records of t)is $ourt.

%)ere are li4e2ise circumstances indicating possible contacts bet2een respondent Ramon E.Galang andor )is fat)er and respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo before t)e latter become t)e bar$onfidant.

*. Respondent Ramon E. Galang 2as a beneficiar" of t)e G. ill of Rig)ts educational programof t)e !)ilippine Veterans oard from )is )ig) sc)ool da"s — 1'1 to 1'' — up to )is pre1la2studies at t)e #LF Educational nstitution no2 #LF niversit"< — 1'' to 1' . 'rom *+C6 to*+86, respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo 2as connected 2it) t)e !)ilippine Veterans oard 2)ic)is t)e governmental agenc" entrusted 2it) t)e affairs of our veterans including t)eimplementation of t)e Veterans ill of Rig)ts. 'rom 1'' to 1' , Respondent Lanuevosuccessivel" )eld t)e position of (unior nvestigator, Veterans $laims nvestigator, upervisingVeterans nvestigator and Veterans $laims nvestigator ervice Record, p. +, Adm. $ase ?o.**50<. During t)at period of time, t)erefore, respondent Lanuevo )ad direct contacts 2it)

applicants and beneficiaries of t)e Veterans ill of Rig)ts. Galang@s educational benefits 2as

approved on 9arch 1!, 1', retroactive as of t)e date of 2aiver — 3uly #1, 1'1, 2)ic) is alsot)e date of filing A, Vol. V, rec.<.

t is alleged b" respondent Ramon E. Galang t)at it 2as )is fat)er 2)o all t)e time attended tot)e availment of t)e said educational benefits and even 2)en )e 2as alread" in #anila ta4ing up)is pre1la2 at #LF Educational nstitution from 1'' to 1' . n *+88, respondent Galang 2asalread" *+ "ears old, and from *+8 to *+86, )e 2as emplo"ed as a tec)nical assistant in t)eoffice of enator Ro" Vol. V, pp. +167, 6516, rec.<.Oubse/uentl", during t)e investigation, )eclaimed t)at )e 2as t)e private secretar" of enator !u"at in *+8 Vol. V, pp. *01*:, rec.<P. tappears, )o2ever, t)at a cop" of t)e notice1letter dated (une 06, *+88 of t)e !)ilippine Veterans

oard to t)e #LF Educational nstitution on t)e approval of t)e transfer of respondent Galangfrom ta. Rita nstitute to t)e #LF Educational nstitution effective t)e first semester of t)esc)ool "ear 1''2'! 2as directl" addressed and furnis)ed to respondent Ramon E. Galang at00+0 nt. 6 anal t., %ondo, #anila A1*0, Vol. V, rec.<.

Respondent Ramon E. Galang furt)er declared t)at )e never 2ent to t)e 3ffice of t)e !)ilippineVeterans to follo2 up )is educational benefits and claimed t)at )e does not even 4no2 t)elocation of t)e said office. He does not also 4no2 2)et)er beneficiaries of t)e G.. ill of Rig)tseducational benefits are re/uired to go to t)e !)ilippine Veterans oard ever" semester tosubmit t)eir ratings Vol. V, p. 65, rec.<. ut respondent Galang admits t)at )e )ad gone to t)eG and $it" $ourt of #anila, alt)oug) )e insists t)at )e never bot)ered to ta4e a loo4 at t)eneig)boring buildings Vol. V, pp. +:1+C, rec.<. %)e )uge and imposing !)ilippine Veteransuilding is beside t)e G building and is obli/uel" across t)e $it" $ourt building.

0. Respondent Lanuevo stated t)at as an investigator in t)e !)ilippine Veterans oard, )einvestigated claims for t)e several benefits given to veterans li4e educational benefits anddisabilit" benefits; t)at )e does not remember, )o2ever, 2)et)er in t)e course of )is duties asveterans investigator, )e came across t)e application of Ramon E. Galang for educationalbenefits; and t)at )e does not 4no2 t)e fat)er of #r. Ramon E. Galang and )as never met )imVol. V, pp. 06, C+, rec.<.

:. Respondent Lanuevo, as a member of t)e E5<.., belonged to the 1st 4nfantry operating

at Fambales and then Cabanatuan, =ueva .cia, shortly before the war Vol. V, pp. C61C+,rec.<. Later )e >oined t)e guerrilla movement in amar.

He used to be a member of t)e !)ilippine Veterans Legion especiall" 2)ile 2or4ing 2it) t)e!)ilippine Veterans oardVol. V, p. C+, rec.<.

He does not 4no2 t)e anal Regiment of t)e guerrillas, to 2)ic) Galang@s fat)er belonged.During t)e (apanese occupation, )is guerrilla outfit 2as operating in amar onl" and )e )ad nocommunications 2it) ot)er guerrilla organi&ation in ot)er parts of t)e countr".

He attended meetings of t)e !)ilippine Veterans Legion in )is c)apter in amar onl" and doesnot remember )aving attended its meeting )ere in #anila, even 2)ile )e 2as emplo"ed 2it) t)e!)ilippine Veterans oard. He is not a member of t)e Defenders of ataan and $orregidor Vol.V, p.8*, rec.<.

3n ?ovember 0, *+C*, 2)ile respondent Lanuevo 2as 2it) t)e !)ilippine Arm" stationed at$amp #anacnac, $abanatuan, ?ueva Eci>a, )e 2as stric4en 2it) pneumonia and 2as)ospitali&ed at t)e ?ueva Eci>a !rovincial Hospital as a result and 2as still confined t)ere 2)en

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


t)eir camp 2as bombed and strafed b" (apanese planes on December *:, *+C* 2ornstatement of respondent Lanuevo dated August 0, *+:, Adm. $ase ?o. **50, p. C5, rec.<.

German Galang, fat)er of respondent Galang, 2as a member of t)e anal Guerilla 'orces,ot)er2ise 4no2n as t)e anal Regiment. He 2as commissioned and inducted as a membert)ereof on (anuar" *5, *+C0 and 2as given t)e ran4 of first lieutenant. His unit =2as attac)edand served into t)e 1$orps, Arm"; 1$ Arm", C:rd Div., Arm", stationed)ead/uarters at 5ta& +osa, ?ueva Eci>a and 2it) t)e :6t) Division, arm" stationed at$orregidor in t)e mopping1up operations against t)e enemies, from + #a" *+C8 date ofrecognition to :* December *+C8, date of demobili&ation=Affidavit of (ose anal dated

December 00, *+C, Vol. V, A1:, rec.<.

t s)ould be stressed t)at once t)e bar e-aminer )as submitted t)e corrected noteboo4s to t)ear $onfidant, t)e same cannot be 2it)dra2n for an" purpose 2)atsoever 2it)out prior aut)orit"from t)e $ourt. $onse/uentl", t)is $ourt e-presses )erein its strong disapproval of t)eactuations of t)e bar e-aminers in Administrative $ase ?o. **5C as above delineated.

BHERE'3RE, ? AD#?%RA%VE $AE ?3. **50, RE!3?DE?% V$%3R3 D.LA?EV3 HEREI DARRED A?D H ?A#E 3RDERED %R$NE? 'R3# %HER3LL 3' A%%3R?EI; A?D ? AD#?%RA%VE $AE ?3. **5:, RE!3?DE?% RA#3?E. GALA?G, alias Roman E. GALA?G, HEREI LNEBE DARRED A?D H ?A#E

AL3 3RDERED %R$NE? 'R3# %HE R3LL 3' A%%3R?EI.

9a*alintal, C&3&, Castro, <ernando, 0arredo, .sguerra, 9uGo- >alma and 7uino, 33&, concur&

Teehan*ee, 3&, concurs in the result&

ntonio, 3&, is on official leave&

Concepcion and 9artin, 33&, too* no part&

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42



SUPRE5E COURT

2anila

5! BA!C

!.M. No. 18 3"#u"r' 27, 199

IN RE: /ETITION TO TAE TE LA0ER OAT !0 ARTUR M. CUEVA, 3R.

R E 3 L % 3 ?

RANCICO, J.:

!etitioner Art)ur #. $uevas, (r., recentl" passed t)e *++5 ar E-aminations *. His oat)1ta4ing2as )eld in abe"ance in vie2 of t)e $ourt@s resolution dated August 0, *++5 2)ic) permitted)im to ta4e t)e ar E-aminations =sub>ect to t)e condition t)at s)ould )e< pass t)e same, )e<

s)all not be allo2ed to ta4e t)e la2"er@s oat) pending approval of t)e $ourt . . .= due to )isprevious conviction for Rec4less mprudence Resulting n Homicide. %)e conviction stemmedfrom petitioner@s participation in t)e initiation rites of t)e LE %AL3? 'RA%ER?%A, afraternit" in t)e A? EDA $3LLEGE 3' LAB, sometime in eptember *++*, 2)ere Raul .$amaligan, a neop)"te, died as a result of t)e personal violence inflicted upon )im. %)ereafter,petitioner applied for and 2as granted probation. 3n #a" *7, *++8, )e 2as disc)arged fromprobation and )is case considered closed and terminated.

n t)is petition, received b" t)e $ourt on #a" 8, *++, petitioner pra"s t)at =)e be allo2ed tota4e )is la2"er@s oat) at t)e $ourt@s most convenient time= 0 attac)ing t)ereto t)e 3rder dated#a" *5, *++8 of t)e Regional %rial $ourt, ranc) *7 of Anti/ue disc)arging )im from )isprobation, and certifications attesting to )is rig)teous, peaceful and la2 abiding c)aracter issuedb" a< t)e #a"or of t)e #unicipalit" of Hamtic, Anti/ue; b< t)e 3fficer1in1$)arge of Hamtic!olice tation; c< t)e angguniang Nabataan of !ob. , Hamtic, t)roug) its c)airman and

officers; d< a member of t)e ! loilo $)apter; e< t)e !aris) !riest and Vicar General of t.(osep) $at)edral, an (ose, Anti/ue; and f< t)e !resident of t)e !aris) !astoral $ouncil,!aris) of ta. #onica, Hamtic, Anti/ue. 3n (ul" *8, *++, t)e $ourt, before acting on petitioner@sapplication, resolved to re/uire Att". Gilbert D. $amaligan, fat)er of t)e deceased )a&ing victimRaul . $amaligan, to comment t)ereon. n compliance 2it) t)e $ourt@s directive, Att". Gilbert D.$amaligan filed )is comment 2)ic) states as follo2s

* — He full" appreciates t)e benign concern given b" t)is Hon. $ourt inallo2ing )im to comment to t)e pending petition of Art)ur #. $uevas to ta4et)e la2"er@s oat), and )ereb" e-presses )is genuine gratitude to suc)gesture.

0 — He conforms completel" to t)e observation of t)e Hon. $ourt in its

resolution dated #arc) *+, *++ in ar #atter ?o. *0 t)at t)e infliction ofsevere p)"sical in>uries 2)ic) appro-imatel" led to t)e deat) of t)e

unfortunate Raul $amaligan 2as deliberate rat)er t)an merel" accidentalor inadvertent< t)us, indicating serious c)aracter fla2s on t)e part of t)ose2)o inflicted suc) in>uries. %)is is consistent 2it) )is stand at t)e outset oft)e proceedings of t)e criminal case against t)e petitioner and )is co1defendants t)at t)e" are liable not onl" for t)e crime of )omicide butmurder, since t)e" too4 advantage of t)e neop)"tes@ )elpless anddefenseless condition 2)en t)e" 2ere =beaten and 4ic4ed to deat) li4e auseless stra" dog=, suggesting t)e presence of abuse of confidence, ta4ingadvantage of superior strengt) and treac)er" !eople vs. Gagoco, 86 !)il.80C<.

: — He, )o2ever, )as consented to t)e accused1students@ plea of guilt" tot)e lesser offense of rec4less imprudence resulting to t)e )omicide,including t)e petitioner, out of pit" to t)eir mot)ers and a pregnant 2ife oft)e accused 2)o 2ent toget)er at )is )ouse in Lucena $it", literall"4neeling, cr"ing and begging for forgiveness for t)eir sons, on a $)ristmasda" in *++* and on #aund" %)ursda" in *++0, during 2)ic) t)e" reportedt)at t)e fat)er of one of t)e accused died of )eart attac4 upon learning of)is son@s involvement in t)e case.

C — As a $)ristian, )e )as forgiven t)e petitioner and )is co1defendants int)e criminal case for t)e deat) of )is son. ut as a loving fat)er, 2)o lost ason in 2)om )e )as )ig) )ope to become a good la2"er — to succeed )im,)e still feels t)e pain of )is untimel" demise, and t)e stigma of t)e

gruesome manner of ta4ing )is life. %)is )e cannot forget.

8 — He is not, rig)t no2, in a position to sa" 2)et)er petitioner, since t)en)as become morall" fit for admission to t)e noble profession of t)e la2. Hepolitel" submits t)is matter to t)e sound and >udicious discretion of t)e Hon.$ourt. :

At t)e outset, t)e $ourt s)ares t)e sentiment of Att". Gilbert D. $amaligan and commiserates2it) t)e untimel" deat) of )is son. ?onet)eless, Att". Gilbert D. $amaligan admits t)at =O)Pe isnot, rig)t no2, in a position to sa" 2)et)er petitioner since t)en )as become morall" fit . . .= andsubmits petitioner@s plea to be admitted to t)e noble profession of la2 to t)e sound and >udiciousdiscretion of t)e $ourt.

%)e petition before t)e $ourt re/uires t)e balancing of t)e reasons for disallo2ing or allo2ingpetitioner@s admission to t)e noble profession of la2. His deliberate participation in t)e senselessbeatings over a )elpless neop)"te 2)ic) resulted to t)e latter@s untimel" demise indicatesabsence of t)at moral fitness re/uired for admission to t)e bar. And as t)e practice of la2 is aprivilege e-tended onl" to t)e fe2 2)o possess t)e )ig) standards of intellectual and moral/ualifications t)e $ourt is dut" bound to prevent t)e entr" of undeserving aspirants, as 2ell as toe-clude t)ose 2)o )ave been admitted but )ave become a disgrace to t)e profession. %)e$ourt, nonet)eless, is 2illing to give petitioner a c)ance in t)e same manner t)at it recentl"allo2ed Al $aparros Argosino, petitioner@s co1accused belo2, to ta4e t)e la2"er@s oat). C

!etitioner Art)ur #. $uevas, (r.@s disc)arge from probation 2it)out an" infraction of t)eattendant conditions t)erefor and t)e various certifications attesting to )is rig)teous, peacefuland civic1oriented c)aracter prove t)at )e )as ta4en decisive steps to purge )imself of )isdeficienc" in moral c)aracter and atone for t)e unfortunate deat) of Raul . $amaligan. %)e$ourt is prepared to give )im t)e benefit of t)e doubt, ta4ing >udicial notice of t)e general

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


tendenc" of t)e "out) to be ras), temerarious and uncalculating. 8 Let it be stressed to )ereinpetitioner t)at t)e la2"er@s oat) is not a mere formalit" recited for a fe2 minutes in t)e glare offlas)ing cameras and before t)e presence of select 2itnesses. !etitioner is e-)orted to conduct)imself be"ond reproac) at all times and to live strictl" according to )is oat) and t)e $ode of!rofessional Responsibilit". And, to parap)rase #r. (ustice !adilla@s comment in t)e sister caseof +e >etition of l grosino To Ta*e Lawyer8s ath, ar #atter ?o. *0, #arc) *+, *++, =OtP)e$ourt sincerel" )opes t)at= #r. $uevas, (r., =2ill continue 2it) t)e assistance )e )as been givingto )is communit". As a la2"er )e 2ill no2 be in a better position to render legal and ot)erservices to t)e more unfortunate members of societ"= 5.

A$$3RD?GLI, t)e $ourt )ereb" resolved to allo2 petitioner Art)ur #.. $uevas, (r., to ta4e t)ela2"er@s oat) and to sign t)e Roll of Attorne"s on a date to be set b" t)e $ourt, sub>ect to t)epa"ment of appropriate fees. Let t)is resolution be attac)ed to petitioner@s personal records int)e 3ffice of t)e ar $onfidant.

3 3RDERED.

=arvasa, C&3&, +egalado, ;avide, 3r&, +omero, 0ellosillo, 9elo, >uno, Ditug, Hapunan,

9endo-a, >anganiban and 9artine-, 33&, concur&

oot#ots

* Held on eptember , *C, 0*, and 06, *++5, at De La alle niversit", %aft Avenue, #anila, 2it) Associate (ustice Ricardo (. 'rancisco as $)airman of t)e ar $ommittee.

0 #anifestation Bit) #otion %o %a4e %)e La2"er@s 3at), p. 0.

: $omment, pp. *10.

C Re !etition of Al Argosino %o %a4e %)e La2"er@s 3at), ar #atter ?o.*0, #arc) *+, *++.

8 4d .

5 4d ., at p. 8.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


5! BA!C

JB.2. !o. $$I@. =une G, E@K

*! >5 2A5+ 9D >5 :*S41A0*D*CA*9! 9D BA+ 5MA2*!55 >A+9! S. 250*!; *! >5EE BA+ 5MA2*!A*9!S A!: D9+ :*SC*P0*!A+L AC*9! AS 252B5+ 9D >5

P>*0*PP*!5 S>A+*A BA+,

AL. D+9*0A! +. 2505!:+56, petitioner-

+ 5 S 9 0 1 * 9 !

*!;A, *,#

he Court is here confronted with a Petition that see"s twin reliefs, one of which is ripe while the other

has been rendered moot by a supervening event.

he antecedents follow.

9n 9ctober $@, EE, Atty. Droilan +. 2elendre( 2elendre(- filed with the 9ffice of the Bar Confidant9BC- a Petition3J$K to dis8ualify >aron S. 2eling 2eling- from ta"ing the EE Bar 5<aminations and

to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Sharia Bar.

*n the Petition, 2elendre( alleges that 2eling did not disclose in his Petition to ta"e the EE Bar5<aminations that he has three ?- pending cr iminal cases before the 2unicipal rial Court in Cities2CC-, Cotabato City, namely# Criminal Cases !oa. $IFGI and $IFGF, both for ;rave 9ral :efamation,

and Criminal Case !o. $IFG% for 0ess Serious Physical *njuries.

he above/mentioned cases arose from an incident which occurred on 2ay E$, E$, when 2elingallegedly uttered defamatory words against 2elendre( and his wife in front of media practitioners and

other people. 2eling also purportedly attac"ed and hit the face of 2elendre( wife causing the injuries tothe latter.

Durthermore, 2elendre( alleges that 2eling has been using the title Attorney in his communications, as

Secretary to the 2ayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar. Attached tothe Petition is an indorsement letter which shows that 2eling used the appellation and appears on its faceto have been received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City on !ovember E%, E$.

Pursuant to this Courts Resolution45JEK dated :ecember ?, EE, 2eling filed his +ns6er with the 9BC.

9

10

*n his +ns6er ,$$J?K 2eling e<plains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed against him by2elendre( because retired =udge Corocoy 2oson, their former professor, advised him to settle hismisunderstanding with 2elendre(. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said

=udge has moral ascendancy over them, he being their former professor in the College of 0aw, 2elingconsidered the three cases that actually arose from a single incident and involving the same parties asclosed and terminated. 2oreover, 2eling denies the charges and adds that the ac ts complained of do not

involve moral turpitude.

As regards the use of the title Attorney, 2eling admits that some of his communications really containedthe word Attorney as they were, according to him, typed by the office cler".

*n its Report and Reco$$endation47J@K dated :ecember G, E?, the 9BC disposed of the charge of non/

disclosure against 2eling in this wise#

he reasons of 2eling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in his petition to ta"e the Bar5<aminations are ludicrous. >e should have "nown that only the court of competent jurisdiction can

dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. *n fact, the cases filed against 2eling are still pending. Durthermore, granting arguendo that these cases were already dismissed, he is still re8uired to

disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character. Petitions to ta"e the Bar5<aminations are made under oath, and should not be ta"en lightly by an applicant.

he merit of the cases against 2eling is not material in this case. What matters is his act of concealingthem which constitutes dishonesty.

*n Bar 2atter $E&, the Court stated, thus#

*t has been held that good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputationor from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the

place where he is "nown. 2oral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective

reality. he standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it merelyenables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law. ;ood moral character includes at least common

honesty.

he non/disclosure of 2eling of the criminal cases filed against him ma"es him also answerable under+ule %.$ of the Code of Professional +esponsibility which states that a la6yer shall &e ans6era&le !or

8no6ingly $a8ing a !alse state$ent or suppressing a $aterial !act in connection 6ith his application !orad$ission to the &ar .$?JIK

As regards 2elings use of the title Attorney, the 9BC had this to say#

Anent the issue of the use of the appellation Attorney in his letters, the e<planation of 2eling is notacceptable. Aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he signed as a ttorney

whoever may have typed the letters.

11

12

13

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


Although there is no showing that 2eling is engaged in the practice of law, the fact is, he is signing hiscommunications as Atty. >aron S. 2eling "nowing fully well that he is not entitled thereto. As held by theCourt in Bar 2atter $E&, the unauthori(ed use of the appellation attorney may render a person liable for

indirect contempt of court.$@JFK

Conse8uently, the 9BC recommended that 2eling not be allowed to ta"e the 0awyers 9ath and sign the+oll of Attorneys in the event that he passes the Bar 5<aminations. Durther, it recommended that 2elings

membership in the Sharia Bar be suspended until further orders from the Court.$IJ%K

We fully concur with the findings and recommendation of the 9BC. 2eling, however, did not pass the

E? Bar 5<aminations. his renders the Petition- insofar as it see"s to prevent 2eling from ta"ing the0awyers 9ath and signing the +oll of Attorneys, moot and academic.

9n the other hand, the prayer in the same Petition for the Court to impose the appropriate sanctions uponhim as a member of the Sharia Bar is ripe for resolution and has to be acted upon.

Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Sharia Court, is not a matter of r ight but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also "nown to

possess good moral character .$FJGK he re8uirement 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.$%J&K

he standard form issued in connection with the application to ta"e the EE Bar 5<aminations re8uiresthe applicant to aver that he or she has not been charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule

or regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude7 nor is there any pending caseor charge against himOher. :espite the declaration re8uired by the form, 2eling did not reveal that he has

three pending criminal cases. >is deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done under oath at that.

he disclosure re8uirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is satisfactory evidence ofgood moral character of the applicant.$GJ$K he 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 alawyer. By concealing the e<istence of such cases, the applicant then flun"s the test of fitness even if thecases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character

of the applicant.

2elings concealment of the fact that there are three ?- pending criminal ca ses against him spea"s of hislac" of the re8uisite good moral charac ter and results in the forfeiture of the privilege bestowed upon him

as a member of the Sharia Bar.

14

15

16

17

18

2oreover, his use of the appellation Attorney, "nowing fully well that he is n ot entitled to its use, cannotgo unchec"ed. *n +la6i #, +lauya -43J$$K the Court had the occasion to discuss the impropriety of the use of the title Attorney by members of the Sharia Bar who are not li"ewise members of the Philippine Bar. he

respondent therein, an e<ecutive cler" of court of the @ th =udicial Sharia :istrict in 2arawi City, used thetitle Attorney in several correspondence in connection with the rescission of a contract entered into by himin his private capacity. he Court declared that#

persons who pass the Sharia Bar are not full/fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence, may only practice law before Sharia courts. While one who has been admitted to the Sharia Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered counselors, in the sense that they give

counsel or advice in a professional capacit y, only the latter is an attorney. he title attorney is reserved tothose who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully ta"en the Bar

5<aminations, have been admitted to the *ntegrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof ingood standing7 and it is they only who are authori(ed to practice law in this jurisdiction.EJ$EK

he judiciary has no place for dishonest officers of the court, such as 2eling in this case. he solemn tas"of administering justice demands that those who are privileged to be part of service therein, from the

highest official to the lowliest employee, must not only be competent and dedicated, but li"ewise live and practice the virtues of honesty and integrity. Anything short of this standard would diminish the publics

faith in the =udiciary and constitutes infidelity to the constitutional tenet that a public office is a publictrust.

*n Leda #, 9a&ang- supra- the respondent concealed the fact of his marriage in his application to ta"e theBar e<aminations and made conflicting submissions before the Court. As a result, we found the respondent

grossly unfit and unworthy to continue in the practice of law and suspended him therefrom until further

orders from the Court.

HEREFORE, the Petition is ;+A!5: insofar as it see"s the imposition of appropriate sanctions

upon >aron S. 2eling as a member of the Philippine Sharia Bar. Accordingly, the membership of >aronS. 2eling in the Philippine Sharia Bar is hereby S1SP5!:5: until further orders from the Court, the

suspension to ta"e effect immediately. *nsofar as the Petition see"s to prevent >aron S. 2eling fromta"ing the 0awyers 9ath and signing the +oll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same is:*S2*SS5: for having become moot and academic.

Copies of this :ecision shall be circulated to all the Sharia Courts in the country for their information and

guidance.

S9 9+:5+5:.

:avide, =r., C.=., Puno, 3itug, Panganiban, 4uisumbing, Lnares/Santiago, Sandoval/;utierre(, Carpio,Austria/2artine(, Corona, Carpio/2orales, Callejo, Sr., and A(cuna, ==., concur.

SECOND DIVISION

19

20

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_sdc_97_2_p.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_sdc_97_2_p.htm

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


ATT. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, 1R.,A.C. No. -76

Complainant,

Present#

CA+P*9, * .,Chairperson,

/ versus / B+*9!,

:50CAS*009,

ABA:, and

P5+56, **,

ATT. EDIN . FERRER, SR.,

+espondent. Promulgated#

2arch EF, E$

< /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// <

DECISION

ABAD, J .#

his administrative case concerns a lawyer who is claimed to have hurled invectives upon

another lawyer and filed a baseless suit against him.

T(e F%ct+ %n& t(e C%+e

9n =anuary $$, E$ complainant Atty. Bonifacio . Barandon, =r. filed a complaint/

affidavitE$J$K with the *ntegrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar :iscipline *BP/CB:- see"ing

the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action

against respondent Atty. 5dwin 6. Derrer, Sr. for the following offenses#

$.9n !ovember EE, E Atty. Derrer, as plaintiffs counsel in Civil Case

%@, filed a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive,

offensive, and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a

falsified document in court.

E. Atty. Derrer filed a fabricated charge against Atty. Barandon

in Civil Case %@ for alleged falsification of public document when the document

allegedly falsified was a notari(ed document e<ecuted on Debruary E?, $&&@, at a

date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer nor was assigned in Camarines

!orte. he latter was not even a signatory to the document.

?. 9n :ecember $&, E, at the courtroom of 2unicipal rial

Court 2C- :aet before the start of hearing, Atty. Derrer, evidently drun",

threatened Atty. Barandon saying, La&an 8ung la&an- patayan 8ung patayan-

8asa$a ang lahat ng pa$ilya, Wala na palang $agaling na a&ogado sa Ca$arines

Norte- ang a&ogado na rito ay $ga taga'Ca$arines Sur- u$u6i na 8ayo sa

Ca$arines Sur- hindi 8ayo taga'rito.

@. Atty. Derrer made his accusation of falsification of public

document without bothering to chec" the copy with the 9ffice of the Cler" of Court

21

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


and, with gross ignorance of the law, failed to consider that a notari(ed document is

presumed to be genuine and authentic until proven otherwise.

I. he Court had warned Atty. Derrer in his first disbarment

case against repeating his unethical act7 yet he faces a disbarment charge for se<ual

harassment of an office secretary of the *BP Chapter in Camarines !orte7 a related

criminal case for acts of lasciviousness7 and criminal cases for libel and grave

threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him. *n 9ctober E, Atty. Derrer as"ed

Atty. Barandon to falsify the daily time record of his son who wor"ed with the

Commission on Settlement of 0and Problems, :epartment of =ustice. When Atty.

Barandon declined, Atty. Derrer repeatedly harassed him with inflammatory

language.

Atty. Derrer raised the following defenses in his answer with motion to dismiss#

$. *nstead of having the alleged forged document submitted for

e<amination, Atty. Barandon filed charges of libel and grave threats against him.

hese charges came about because Atty. Derrers clients filed a case for falsification

of public document against Atty. Barandon.

E. he offended party in the falsification case, *melda Palatolon,

vouchsafed that her thumbmar" in the waiver d ocument had been falsified.

?. At the time Atty. Derrer allegedly uttered the threatening

remar"s against Atty. Barandon, the 2C :aet was already in session. *t was

improbable that the court did not ta"e steps to stop, admonish, or cite Atty. Derrer in

direct contempt for his behavior.

@ . Atty. Barandon presented no evidence in support of hi s

allegations that Atty. Derrer was drun" on :ecember $&, E and that he degraded

the law profession. he latter had received various citations that spea" well of his

character.

I. he cases of libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed

against Atty. Derrer were still pending. heir mere filing did not ma"e the latter

guilty of the charges. Atty. Barandon was forum shopping when he filed this

disbarment case since it referred to the same libel and grave threats subject of the

criminal cases.

*n his reply affidavit,EEJEK Atty. Barandon brought up a si<th ground for disbarment. >e alleged

that on :ecember E&, E at about $#? p.m., while Atty. Derrer was on board his sons ta<i, it figured in a

collision with a tricycle, resulting in serious injuries to the tricycles passengers.E?J?K But neither Atty.

Derrer nor any of his co/passengers helped the victims and, during the police investigation, he denied

"nowing the ta<i driver and blamed the tricycle driver for being drun". Atty. Derrer also prevented an

eyewitness from reporting the accident to the authorities.E@J@K

Atty. Barandon claimed that the falsification case against him had already been dismissed. >e belittled the

citations Atty. Derrer allegedly received. 9n the contrary, in its +esolution /$ ,EIJIK the *BP/Camarines

!orte Chapter opposed his application to serve as judge of the 2C of 2ercedes, Camarines Sur, on the

ground that he did not have the 8ualifications, integrity, intelligence, industry and character of a trial judge

and that he was facing a criminal charge for acts of lasciviousness and a disbarment case filed by an

employee of the same *BP chapter.

9n 9ctober $, E$ *nvestigating Commissioner 2ilagros 3. San =uan of the *BP/CB: submitted to this

Court a +eport, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Derrer. he *nvestigating

Commissioner found enough evidence on r ecord to prove Atty. Derrers violation of Canons G.$ and %.?

of the Code of Professional +esponsibility. >e attributed to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case %@,

the falsification of the plaintiffs affidavit despite the absence of evidence that the document had in fact

been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a party to it. he *nvestigating Commissioner also found that

22

23

24

25

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


Atty. Derrer uttered the threatening remar"s imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court

personnel, and litigants before the start of hearing.

9n =une E&, EE the *BP Board of ;overnors passed +esolution M3/EE/EEI,EFJFK adopting

and approving the *nvestigating Commissioners recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to

only one year.

Atty. Derrer filed a motion for reconsideration but the Board denied it in its +esolution E%J%K of

9ctober $&, EE on the ground that it had already endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court. 9n

Debruary I, E?, however, the Court referred bac" the case to the *BP for resolution of Atty. Derrers

motion for reconsideration.EGJGK 9n 2ay EE, EG the *BP Board of ;overnors adopted and approved the

+eport and +ecommendationE&J&K of the *nvestigating Commissioner that denied Atty. Derrers motion for

reconsideration.?J$K

9n Debruary $%, E&, Atty. Derrer filed a Comment on Board of ;overnors *BP !otice of +esolution !o.

M3***/EG.?$J$$K 9n August $E, E& the Court resolved to treat Atty. Derrers comment as a petition for

review under +ule $?& of the +evised +ules of Court. Atty. Barandon filed his comment,?EJ$EK reiterating

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

his arguments before the *BP. Durther, he presented certified copies of orders issued by courts in

Camarines !orte that warned Atty. Derrer against appearing in court drun" .??J$?K

T(e I++2e+ P$e+ente&

he issues presented in this case are#

$. Whether or not the *BP Board of ;overnors and the *BP *nvestigating

Commissioner erred in finding respondent Atty. Derrer guilty of the charges against him7 and

E. *f in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified.

T(e Co2$t+ R2)in#

We have e<amined the records of this case and find no reason to disagree with the findings and

recommendation of the *BP Board of ;overnors and the *nvestigating Commissioner.

he practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal

proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards e<poses the lawyer to administrative liability.?@

J$@K

33

34

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


Canon G of the Code of Professional +esponsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with

courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing

counsel. Specifically, in +ule G.$, the Code provides#

R2)e ./. A )%:e$ +(%)) not, in (i+ *$o'e++ion%) &e%)in#+, 2+e

)%n#2%#e :(ic( i+ %;2+i<e, o''en+i<e o$ ot(e$:i+e i=*$o*e$.

Atty. Derrers actions do not measure up to this Canon. he evidence shows that he imputed to

Atty. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay +!!ida#it of the plaintiff in Civil Case %@. >e made this

imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty.

Barandon authored the same.

2oreover, Atty. Derrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and

without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. o 8uote portions of what he said in

his reply with motion to dismiss#

. T(%t t(e %n+:e$ i + '$%2#(t :it( #$%<e %n& c2)*%;)e

=i+$e*$e+ent%tion %n& FALSIFICATION o' &oc2=ent+, co==itte& to =i+)e%&

t(i+ Hono$%;)e Co2$t, ;2t :it( conco=it%nt #$%<e $e+*on+i;i)it o' co2n+e) 'o$

De'en&%nt+, 'o$ &i+to$tion %n& +e$io2+ =i+$e*$e+ent%tion to t(e co2$t, 'o$*$e+entin# % #$o++) FALSIFIED &oc2=ent, in <io)%tion o' (i+ o%t( o' o''ice %+

% #o<e$n=ent e=*)oee %n& %+ =e=;e$ o' t(e B%$, 'o$ t(e $e%+on, t(%t,

P)%inti'', I5ELDA PALATOLON, (%+ ne<e$ e>ec2te& t(e SALASA

AFFIDAVIT, :(e$ein (e$ 'in#e$*$int (%+ ;een '%)+i'ie&, in <ie: :(e$eo',

(e$e; DEN t(e +%=e inc)2&in# t(e %''i$=%ti<e &e'en+e+, t(e$e ;ein# no

?no:)e&#e o$ in'o$=%tion to 'o$= % ;e)ie' %+ to t(e t$2t( o' t(e +%=e, '$o=

*%$+. @ to *%$. @- :(ic( %$e %)) )ie+ %n& =e$e '%;$ic%tion+, +2''icient #$o2n&

'o$ DISBAR5ENT o' t(e one $e+*on+i;)e 'o$ +%i& '%)+i'ic%tion %n&

&i+to$tion+.3-J$IK

35

he Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite

the adversarial nature of our legal system.?FJ$FK

Atty. Derrer had li"ewise violated Canon % of the Code of Professional +esponsibility which enjoins

lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. +ule %.? of the Code

provides#

R2)e 7./3. A )%:e$ +(%)) not en#%#e in con&2ct t(%t %&<e$+e) $e')ect on (i+

'itne++ to *$%ctice )%:, no$ +(%)) (e, :(et(e$ in *2;)ic o$ *$i<%te )i'e ;e(%<e in

+c%n&%)o2+ =%nne$ to t(e &i+c$e&it o' t (e )e#%) *$o'e++ion.

Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Derrers drun"en invectives at Atty. Barandon

shortly before the start of a court hearing. Atty. Derrer did not present convincing evidence to support his

denial of this particular charge. >e merely presented a certification from the police that its blotter for the

day did not report the threat he supposedly made. Atty. Barandon presented, however, the police blotter on

a subse8uent date that recorded his complaint against Atty. Derrer.

Atty. Derrer said, La&an 8ung la&an- patayan 8ung patayan- 8asa$a ang lahat ng pa$ilya,

Wala na palang $agaling na a&ogado sa Ca$arines Norte- ang a&ogado na rito ay $ga taga'Ca$arines

Sur- u$u6i na 8ayo sa Ca$arines Sur- hindi 8ayo taga'rito . 5vidently, he uttered these with intent to

annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court personnel,

and litigants waiting for the start of hearing in court. hese language is unbecoming a member of the legal

profession. he Court cannot countenance it.

hough a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and

respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. he use of intemperate language and un"ind

ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. ?%J$%K Atty. Derrer ought to have reali(ed that this

sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public

36

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness Atty. Derrer had was negated by the way he chose to e<press

his indignation.

Contrary to Atty. Derrers allegation, the Court finds that he has been accorded due process. he

essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence

one may have in support of ones defense.?GJ$GK So long as the parties are given the opportunity to e<plain

their side, the re8uirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with.?&J$&K >ere, the *BP

*nvestigating Commissioner gave Atty. Derrer all the opportunities to file countless pleadings and refute all

the allegations of Atty. Barandon.

All lawyers should ta"e heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the

dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.@JEK Atty.

Derrers display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the performance of his

duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a patent transgression

of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.

ACCORDINGL, the Court AFFIR5S the 2ay EE, EG +esolution of the *BP Board of ;overnors in

CB: Case $/G& and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. 5dwin 6. Derrer, Sr. from the practice of law for

one year effective upon his rece ipt of this :ecision.

37

38

39

40

0et a copy of this :ecision be entered in Atty. Derrers personal record as an attorney with the

9ffice of the Bar Confidant and a copy of the same be served to the *BP and to the 9ffice of the Court

Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate =ustice

E CONCUR8

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

S5C9!: :*3*S*9!

JA. C. !o. I?&G. :ecember ?, EEK

A!9!*9 A. A0CA!A+A, co$plainant , #s, AL. 2A+*A!9 P5D*A!C9, respondent .

: 5 C * S * 9 !

25!:96A, *,#

his is a complaint against Atty. 2ariano Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for using

improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault complainant.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


he complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent :istrict Public Attorney of the PublicAttorneys 9ffice in San =ose, Anti8ue. >e alleged that on 2ay $G, E, while Atty. +amon Salvani ***was conferring with a client in the Public Attorneys 9ffice PA9- at the >all of =ustice in San =ose,

Anti8ue, a woman approached them. Complainant saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to thegroup and suggested that Atty. Salvani tal" with her amicably as a hearing was ta"ing place in anotherroom. At this point, respondent Atty. 2ariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at

Atty. Salvani and his client, saying, Nga'a gina'areglo $o ina- ipapreso ang i$o nga 8liyente para$ahi&al'an na anang sala, Why do you settle that caseN >ave your client imprisoned so that he will

reali(e his mista"e.-

Complainant said he was surprised at respondent Pefiancos outburst and as"ed him to cool off, but

respondent continued to fulminate a t Atty. Salvani. Atty. Salvani tried to e<plain to respondent that it wasthe woman who was as"ing if the civil aspect of the criminal case could be settled because she was nolonger interested in prosecuting the same. +espondent refused to listen and instead continued to scoldAtty. Salvani and the latters client.

As head of the 9ffice, complainant approached respondent and as"ed him to ta"e it easy and leave Atty.

Salvani to settle the matter. +espondent at first listened, but shortly after he again started shouting at andscolding Atty. Salvani. o avoid any scene with respondent, complainant went inside his office. >e as"ed

his cler" to put a notice outside prohibiting anyone from interfering with any activity in the PublicAttorneys 9ffice.

Complainant said that he then went out to attend a hearing, but when he came bac" he heard respondentPefianco saying# Nagsiling si +tty, +lcantara nga pag6a'on na 8uno a8o dya sa P+O- &uyon nga 8lase 8ata6o, Atty. Alcantara said that he would send me out of the PA9, what an idiot.- hen, upon seeing

complainant, respondent pointed his finger at him and repeated his statement for the other people in theoffice to hear. At this point, according to complainant, he confronted respondent Pefianco and told him toobserve civility or else to leave the office if he had no business there. Complainant said respondentresented this and started hurling invectives at him. According to complainant, respondent even too" a

menacing stance towards him.

his caused a commotion in the office. Atty. Pepin 2arfil and 2r. +obert 2ingue(, the Chief of theProbation 9ffice, tried to pacify respondent Pefianco. wo guards of the >all of =ustice came to ta"e

respondent out of the office, but before they could do so, respondent tried to attac" complainant and evenshouted at him, Gago 8a: Loure stupid- Dortunately, the guards were able to fend off respondents blowand complainant was not harmed.

Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty. +amon Salvani ***, Deli(ardo :el +osario, Atty. Pepin=oey 2arfil, +obert 2ingue(, >erbert Lsulat and +amon 4uintayo to corroborate his allegations.

*n his Comment and Counter/Complaint, respondent Pefianco said that the sight of the crying woman,whose husband had been murdered, moved him and prompted him to ta"e up her defense. >e said that he

resented the fact that complainant had ordered an employee, !apoleon 0abonete, to put a sign outside prohibiting standbys from hanging round in the Public Attorneys 9ffice.

+espondent claimed that while tal"ing with Atty. Salvani concerning the womans case, complainant, with

his bodyguard, arrived and shouted at him to get out of the Public Attorneys 9ffice. >e claimed that twosecurity guards also came, and complainant ordered them to ta"e respondent out of the office. Contrary to

complainants claims, however, respondent said that it was complainant who moved to punch him andshout at him, Gago 8a: Loure stupid-

Prior to the filing of the present complaint, respondent Pefianco had filed before the 9ffice of the9mbudsman an administrative and criminal complaint against complainant. >owever, the complaint was

dismissed by the said office.

he Committee on Bar :iscipline of the *ntegrated Bar of the Philippines found that respondentcommitted the acts alleged in the complaint and that he violated Canon G of the Code of Professional+esponsibility. he Committee noted that respondent failed not only to deny the accusations against him

but also to give any e<planation for his actions. Dor this reason, it recommended that respondent bereprimanded and warned that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely in the future.

We find the recommendation of the *BP Committee on Bar :iscipline to be well ta"en.

he evidence on record indeed shows that it was respondent Pefianco who provo"ed the incident in

8uestion. he affidavits of several disinterested persons confirm complainants allegation that respondent

Pefianco shouted and hurled invectives at him and Atty. Salvani and even attempted to lay hands on himcomplainant-.

Canon G of the Code of Professional +esponsibility@$J$K admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves withcourtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. 0awyers are duty bound to uphold the dignityof the legal profession. hey must act honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise

conduct themselves without reproach at all times.@EJEK

*n this case, respondents meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused the untowardincident. >e had no right to demand an e<planation from Atty. Salvani why the case of the woman had not

or could not be settled. 5ven so, Atty. Salvani in fact tried to e<plain the matter to respondent, but thelatter insisted on his view about the case.

+espondent said he was moved by the plight of the woman whose husband had been murdered as she was

pleading for the settlement of her case because she needed the money. Be that as it may, respondent shouldreali(e that what he thought was righteous did not give him the right to demand that Atty. Salvani and hisclient, apparently the accused in the criminal case, settle the case with the widow. 5ven when he was

being pacified, respondent did not relent. *nstead he insulted and berated those who tried to calm himdown. wo of the witnesses, Atty. Pepin 2arfil and +obert 2ingue(, who went to the Public Attorneys9ffice because they heard the commotion, and two guards at the >all of =ustice, who had been summoned,

failed to stop respondent from his verbal rampage. +espondent ought to have reali(ed that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect

for it. Whatever moral righteousness respondent had was negated by the way he chose to e<press hisindignation. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.

HEREFORE, Atty. 2ariano Pefianco is found ;1*0L of violation of Canon G of the Code of

Professional +esponsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby D*!5: in the amount ofP$,. and +5P+*2A!:5: with a warning that similar action in the future will be sanctioned more

severely.

S9 9+:5+5:.

Bellosillo, Chairman-, 4uisumbing, Austria/2artine(, and Callejo, Sr., ==., concur.

41

42

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42



SUPRE5E COURT

2anila

S5C9!: :*3*S*9!

A.C. No. *1-9 August 17, 199-

CERINA !. LION+, petitioner,vs.ATT0. ALE;ANDER . LIM, respondent.

<lorentino I& Temporal for complainant&

Trabao Lim Law ffice for respondent&

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


/ADILLA, J.:

$erina . Li4ong f iled t)is administrative case against Att". Ale-ander H. Lim, see4ing t)e latter@sdisbarment for alleged malpractice and grave misconduct.

%)e circumstances 2)ic) led to t)e filing of t)is complaint are as follo2s

ometime in eptember *+6C, complainant obtained a loan of !+0,*77.77 from a certainGeesnell L. Iap. $omplainant e-ecuted a promissor" note in favor of Iap and a deed of

assignment, assigning to Iap pension c)ec4s 2)ic) s)e regularl" receives from t)e nitedtates government as a 2ido2 of a pensioner. %)e aforementioned deed of assignmentstates t)at t)e same s)all be irrevocable until t)e loan is full" paid. $omplainant li4e2isee-ecuted a special po2er of attorne" aut)ori&ing Iap to get, demand, collect and receive )erpension c)ec4s from t)e post office at %agbilaran $it". %)e above documents 2ere apparentl"prepared and notari&ed b" respondent Ale-ander H. Lim, Iap@s counsel.

3n ** December *+6C, about t)ree :< mont)s after t)e e-ecution of t)e aforementioned specialpo2er of attorne", complainant informed t)e %agbilaran $it" post office t)at s)e 2as revo4ingt)e special po2er of attorne". As a conse/uence, Geesnell Iap filed a complaint for in>unction2it) damages against complainant. Respondent Ale-ander H. Lim appeared as counsel for Iap2)ile Att"s. Roland . nting and Erico . Aumentado appeared for complainant as defendant<.

A 2rit of preliminar" in>unction 2as issued b" t)e trial court on

0: (anuar" *+68, preventing complainant from getting )er pension c)ec4s from t)e %agbilaran$it" post office. Iap later filed an urgent omnibus motion to cite complainant in contempt of courtfor attempting to circumvent t)e preliminar" in>unction b" c)anging )er address to #andaue $it".pon motion b" Iap, t)e court also issued an order dated 0* #a" *+68 e-panding t)e scope oft)e preliminar" in>unction to prevent all post offices in t)e !)ilippines from releasing pensionc)ec4s to complainant.

3n 05 (ul" *+68, complainant and Iap filed a >oint motion to allo2 t)e latter to 2it)dra2 t)epension c)ec4s. %)is motion does not bear t)e signatures of complainant@s counsel of record butonl" t)e signatures of bot) parties, =assisted b"= respondent Attorne" Ale-ander H. Lim.

3n 0 August *+68, complainant and Iap entered into a compromise agreement again 2it)outt)e participation of t)e former@s counsel. n t)e compromise agreement, it 2as stated t)at

complainant $erina . Li4ong admitted an obligation to Iap of >1'B,BBB .BB . t 2as li4e2isestated t)erein t)at complainant and Iap agreed t)at t)e amount 2ould be paid in mont)l"installments over a period of 8C mont)s at an interest of B per annum discounted every six

(!) months. %)e compromise agreement 2as approved b" t)e trial court on *8 August *+68.

3n 0C ?ovember *+6, $erina . Li4ong filed t)e present complaint for disbarment, based ont)e follo2ing allegations

. n all t)ese motions, complainant 2as prevented from see4ing assistance,advise and signature of an" of )er t2o 0< la2"ers; no cop" t)ereof 2asfurnis)ed to eit)er of t)em or at least to complainant )erself despite t)elatter@s pleas to be furnis)ed copies of t)e same;

6. $omplainant 2as even advised b" respondent t)at it 2as not necessar"for )er to consult )er la2"ers under t)e pretense t)at a< t)is could onl"

>eopardi&e t)e settlement; b< s)e 2ould onl" be incurring enormouse-pense if s)e consulted a ne2 la2"er; c< respondent 2as assisting )eran"2a"; d< s)e )ad not)ing to 2orr" about t)e documents foisted upon )er to sign; e< complainant need not come to court after2ards to save )er time;and in an" event respondent alread" too4 care of ever"t)ing;

+. $omplainant )ad been prevented from e-)ibiting full" )er case b" meansof fraud, deception and some ot)er form of mendacit" practiced on )er b"

respondent;

*7. 'inall", respondent fraudulentl" or 2it)out aut)orit" assumed torepresent complainant and connived in )er defeat; . . . 1

Respondent filed )is Ans2er stating t)at counsel for complainant, Att". Roland . nting )ad abandoned )is client. Att". Lim furt)er stated t)at t)e ot)er counsel, Att". Enrico Aumentado, did not activel" participate in t)e case and it 2as upon t)e re/uest ofcomplainant and anot)er debtor of Iap, $rispina Acuna, t)at )e respondent< made t)ecompromise agreement.

Respondent states t)at )e first instructed complainant to notif" )er la2"ers but 2as informedt)at )er la2"er )ad abandoned )er since s)e could not pa" )is attorne"@s fees.

$omplainant filed a repl" den"ing t)at s)e )ad been abandoned b" )er la2"ers. $omplainantstated t)at respondent never furnis)ed )er la2"ers 2it) copies of t)e compromise agreementand a motion to 2it)dra2 t)e in>unction cas) bond deposited b" Iap.

At t)e outset, it is 2ort) noting t)at t)e terms of t)e compromise agreement are indeed grossl"loaded in favor of Geesnell L. Iap, respondent@s client.

$omplainant@s original obligation 2as to pa" !+0,*77.77 2it)in one *< "ear from C 3ctober*+6C. %)ere is no provision in t)e promissor" note signed b" )er 2it) respect to an" interest tobe paid. %)e onl" additional amount 2)ic) Iap could collect based on t)e promissor" note 2as089 of t)e principal as attorne"@s fees in case a la2"er 2as )ired b" )im to collect t)e loan.

n t)e compromise agreement prepared b" respondent, dated 0 August *+68, complainant@sdebt to Iap was increased to >1'B,BBB .BB from +0,*77.77< after t)e lapse of onl" ten *7<mont)s. %)is translates to an interest in e-cess of seventy2five percent (%') per annum. naddition, t)e compromise agreement provides t)at t)e !*87,777.77 debt 2ould be pa"able infift"1four 8C< mont)l" installments at an interest of forty percent (B) per annum. ?o greatamount of mat)ematical pro2ess is re/uired to see t)at t)e terms of t)e compromise agreementare grossl" pre>udicial to complainant.

Bit) respect to respondent@s failure to notif" complainant@s counsel of t)e compromiseagreement, it is of record t)at complainant 2as represented b" t2o 0< la2"ers, Att"s. nting and

Aumentado. $omplainant states t)at respondent prevented )er from informing )er la2"ers b"giving )er t)e reasons enumerated in t)e complaint and earlier /uoted in t)is decision.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


%)ere is no s)o2ing t)at respondent even tried to inform opposing counsel of t)e compromiseagreement. ?eit)er is t)ere an" s)o2ing t)at respondent informed t)e trial court of t)e allegedabandonment of t)e complainant b" )er counsel.

nstead, even assuming t)at complainant 2as reall" abandoned b" )er counsel, respondent sa2an opportunit" to ta4e advantage of t)e situation, and t)e result 2as t)e e-ecution of t)ecompromise agreement 2)ic), as previousl" discussed, is grossl" and patentl"disadvantageous and pre>udicial to complainant.

ndoubtedl", respondent@s conduct is unbecoming a member of t)e legal profession.

$anon + of t)e $ode of !rofessional Et)ics states

+. ?egotiations 2it) opposite part".

A la2"er s)ould not in an" 2a" communicate upon t)esub>ect of controvers" 2it) a part" represented b"counsel; muc) less s)ould )e underta4e to negotiate or compromise t)e matter 2it) )im, but s)ould deal onl"2it) )is counsel. t is incumbent upon t)e la2"er mostparticularl" to avoid ever"t)ing t)at ma" tend to misleada part" not represented b" counsel and )e s)ould notunderta4e to advise )im as to t)e la2.

%)e $ode of !rofessional Responsibilit" states

Rule *.7* — A la2"er s)all not engage in unla2ful, dis)onest, immoral, ordeceitful conduct.

Rule 6.70 — A la2"er s)all not, directl" or indirectl", encroac) upon t)eprofessional emplo"ment of anot)er la2"er; )o2ever, it is t)e rig)t of an"la2"er, 2it)out fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to t)osesee4ing relief against unfait)ful or neglectful counsel.

Rule *8.7: — A la2"er s)all not represent conflicting interests e-cept b"

2ritten consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of t)e facts.

%)e violation of t)e aforementioned rules of professional conduct b" respondent Att". Ale-anderH. Lim, 2arrants t)e imposition upon )im of t)e proper sanction from t)is $ourt. uc) actsconstituting malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunis)ed for not onl" do t)e"erode confidence and trust in t)e legal profession, t)e" li4e2ise prevent >ustice from beingattained.

A$$3RD?GLI, respondent Att". Ale-ander H. Lim is )ereb" imposed t)e penalt" of!E?3? from t)e practice of la2 for a period of 3?E *< IEAR, effective immediatel"upon )is receipt of t)is decision.

Let a cop" of t)is decision be entered in respondent@s personal record as attorne" and member

of t)e ar, and furnis)ed t)e ar $onfidant, t)e ntegrated ar of t)e !)ilippines and t)e $ourt Administrator for circulation to all courts in t)e countr".

3 3RDERED.

=arvasa, C&3&, +egalado, >uno and 9endo-a, 33&, concur&

FIRST DIVISION

ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA, Adm. Case No. 6290

Compla!a!",

#$ese!"%

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


DAVIDE, &R., C.J .,

- versus -

#AN'ANIBAN,

SANTIA'O,

CAR#IO, a!d

AZC(NA, JJ.

ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO,

Respo!de!".

#$om)l*a"ed%

&)l+ -, 200-

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

RESOL(TION

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.%

I! a e$1ed ompla!" 1o$ ds3a$me!" 1led 4"5 "5e Comm""ee o! Ba$ Dspl!e o1 "5e

I!"e*$a"ed Ba$ o1 "5e #5lpp!es IB#7 o! 80 Ma+ 2000, ompla!a!" A!a Ma$e Cam3ala, a 1o$me$

emplo+ee o1 $espo!de!" A""+. A!a L) B. C$s"al/Te!o$o ! 5e$ la4 o11e, 5a$*ed "5e la""e$ 4"5

dee", *$ossl+ mmo$al o!d)", a!d malp$a"e o$ o"5e$ *$oss mso!d)" ! o11e.

O! dee", "5e ompla!a!" alle*ed "5a" "5e $espo!de!" 5as 3ee! 1alsel+ $ep$ese!"!* 5e$sel1

"o 3e ma$$ed "o Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., 45o 5as a p$o$ a!d s)3ss"!* ma$$a*e 4"5 a!o"5e$ 4oma!. :o4ee$, "5$o)*5 sp)$o)s mea!s, "5e $espo!de!" a!d Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., 4e$e a3le "o

o3"a! a 1alse ma$$a*e o!"$a",-8;< 455 s"a"es "5a" "5e+ 4e$e ma$$ed o! 0 Fe3$)a$+ 9=0 !

Ma!la. Ce$"1a"o!s 1$om "5e Cl Re*s"$+ o1 Ma!la--;2< a!d "5e Na"o!al S"a"s"s O11e NSO7 ->

;8< p$oe "5a" !o $eo$d o1 ma$$a*e e?s"s 3e"4ee! "5em. T5e 1alse da"e a!d plae o1 ma$$a*e 3e"4ee!

"5e "4o a$e s"a"ed ! "5e 3$"5 e$"1a"es o1 "5e$ "4o 5ld$e!, Do!!a3el Te!o$o -6;-< a!d Felsmo

Te!o$o III.-@;>< B)" ! "5e 3$"5 e$"1a"es o1 "5e$ "4o o"5e$ 5ld$e!, Ole$ Te!o$o -=;6< a!d &o5!

Ced$ Te!o$o,-9;@< a!o"5e$ da"e a!d plae o1 ma$$a*e a$e !da"ed, !amel+, 2 Fe3$)a$+ 9=0 !

Mala+3ala+, B)d!o!.

As "o *$ossl+ mmo$al o!d)", "5e ompla!a!" alle*ed "5a" "5e $espo!de!" a)sed "5e

dssem!a"o! "o "5e p)3l o1 a l3elo)s a11da" de$o*a"o$+ "o Maa" C"+ Co)!lo$ D!a Alo$a

&aome. T5e $espo!de!" 4o)ld o1"e! ope!l+ a!d sa$as"all+ dela$e "o "5e ompla!a!" a!d 5e$ o/

emplo+ees "5e alle*ed mmo$al"+ o1 Co)!lo$ &aome.

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


O! malp$a"e o$ o"5e$ *$oss mso!d)" ! o11e, "5e ompla!a!" alle*ed "5a" "5e

$espo!de!" 7 oope$a"ed ! "5e lle*al p$a"e o1 la4 3+ 5e$ 5)s3a!d, 45o s !o" a mem3e$ o1 "5e

#5lpp!e Ba$ 27 o!e$"ed 5e$ le!"s mo!e+ "o 5e$ o4! )se a!d 3e!e1", 455 led "o "5e 1l!* o1 a!

es"a1a ase a*a!s" 5e$ a!d 87 "5$ea"e!ed "5e ompla!a!" a!d 5e$ 1aml+ o! 2- &a!)a$+ 2000 4"5

"5e s"a"eme!" Isang bala ka lang "o de"e$ "5em 1$om d)l*!* $espo!de!"s lle*al a""es a!d

"$a!sa"o!s.

I! 5e$ a!s4e$, "5e $espo!de!" de!ed all "5e alle*a"o!s a*a!s" 5e$. As "o "5e 5a$*e o1

dee", s5e dela$ed "5a" s5e s le*all+ ma$$ed "o Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$. T5e+ 4e$e ma$$ed o! 2Fe3$)a$+ 9=0 as s5o4! 3+ "5e$ Ce$"1a"e o1 Ma$$a*e, Re*s"$+ No. 2000/90= o1 "5e Cl Re*s"$+

o1 )eo! C"+.>0;=< :e$ 5)s3a!d 5as !o p$o$ a!d s)3ss"!* ma$$a*e 4"5 a!o"5e$ 4oma!.

As "o "5e 5a$*e o1 *$ossl+ mmo$al o!d)", "5e $espo!de!" de!ed "5a" s5e a)sed "5e

dssem!a"o! o1 a l3elo)s a!d de1ama"o$+ a11da" a*a!s" Co)!lo$ &aome. O! "5e o!"$a$+, " 4as

Co)!lo$ &aome 45o a)sed "5e e?e)"o! o1 sad do)me!". Add"o!all+, "5e ompla!a!" a!d 5e$

o5o$"s a$e "5e $)mo$mo!*e$s 45o 4e!" a$o)!d "5e "+ o1 Maa" o! "5e p$e"e?" o1 o!d)"!* a

s)$e+ 3)" dd so "o 3esm$5 $espo!de!"s *ood !ame a!d $ep)"a"o!.

T5e 5a$*e o1 malp$a"e o$ o"5e$ *$oss mso!d)" ! o11e 4as le4se de!ed 3+ "5e

$espo!de!". S5e lamed "5a" 5e$ Cristal-Tenorio Law Office s $e*s"e$ed 4"5 "5e Depa$"me!" o1

T$ade a!d I!d)s"$+ as a s!*le p$op$e"o$s5p, as s5o4! 3+ "s Ce$"1a"e o1 Re*s"$a"o! o1 B)s!ess

Name.>;9< :e!e, s5e 5as !o pa$"!e$s ! 5e$ la4 o11e. As "o "5e es"a1a ase, "5e same 5ad al$ead+

3ee! d$opped p)$s)a!" "o "5e O$de$ o1 - &)!e 996 ss)ed 3+ B$a!5 08 o1 "5e R e*o!al T$al Co)$"

o1 )eo! C"+ .>2;0< T5e $espo!de!" le4se de!ed "5a" s5e "5$ea"e!ed "5e ompla!a!" 4"5 "5e

4o$ds Isang bala ka lang o! 2- &a!)a$+ 2000.

F)$"5e$, "5e $espo!de!" ae$$ed "5a" "5s ds3a$me!" ompla!" 4as 1led 3+ "5e

ompla!a!" "o *e" ee! 4"5 5e$. S5e "e$m!a"ed ompla!a!"s emplo+me!" a1"e$ $ee!* !)me$o)s

ompla!"s "5a" "5e ompla!a!" e?"o$"ed mo!e+ 1$om d11e$e!" people 4"5 "5e p$omse o1 p$oess!*

"5e$ passpo$"s a!d ma$$a*es "o 1o$e*!e$s, 3)" s5e $e!e*ed o! 5e$ p$omse. Le4se, "5s ds3a$me!"

ompla!" s pol"all+ mo"a"ed% some pol"a!s o11e$ed "o $e/5$e "5e ompla!a!" a!d 5e$ o5o$"s

s5o)ld "5e+ !"a"e "5s ompla!", 455 "5e+ dd a!d 1o$ 455 "5e+ 4e$e $e/5$ed. T5e $espo!de!"

also 1la)!"ed "5e 1a" "5a" s5e 5ad $eeed !)me$o)s a4a$ds a!d "a"o!s 1o$ 4o$s a!d

e?empla$+ se$e "o "5e omm)!"+. S5e "5e! p$a+ed 1o$ "5e dsmssal o1 "5e ds3a$me!" ase 1o$ 3e!*

3aseless.

50

51

52

T5e IB# $e1e$$ed "5s ase "o I!es"*a"!* Commsso!e$ A""+. e!!+ :. Ta!")o.

D)$!* "5e 5ea$!* o! 80 A)*)s" 2000, "5e pa$"es a*$eed "5a" "5e ompla!a!" 4o)ld

s)3m" a Repl+ "o $espo!de!"s A!s4e$, 45le "5e $espo!de!" 4o)ld s)3m" a Reo!de$ "o "5e Repl+.

T5e pa$"es also a*$eed "5a" "5e Compla!", A!s4e$, a!d "5e a""a5ed a11da"s 4o)ld o!s"")"e as "5e

$espe"e d$e" "es"mo!es o1 "5e pa$"es a!d "5e a11a!"s.>8;<

I! 5e$ Repl+, "5e ompla!a!" 3ols"e$ed 5e$ lam "5a" "5e $espo!de!" oope$a"ed ! "5e

lle*al p$a"e o1 la4 3+ 5e$ 5)s3a!d 3+ s)3m""!* 7 "5e le""e$5ead o1 Cristal-Tenorio LawOffice 54;2< 45e$e "5e !ame o1 Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., s ls"ed as a se!o$ pa$"!e$ a!d 27 a Sa*p

Comm)!a"o! Rado '$o)p de!"1a"o! a$d>>;8< s*!ed 3+ "5e $espo!de!" as C5a$pe$so! 45e$e

5e$ 5)s3a!d s de!"1ed as A""+. Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$. S5e added "5a" $espo!de!"s 5)s3a!d ee!

appea$ed ! o)$" 5ea$!*s.

I! 5e$ Reo!de$, $espo!de!" ae$$ed "5a" s5e !e"5e$ 1o$med a la4 pa$"!e$s5p 4"5 5e$

5)s3a!d !o$ allo4ed 5e$ 5)s3a!d "o appea$ ! o)$" o! 5e$ 3e5al1. I1 "5e$e 4as a! !s"a!e "5a" 5e$

5)s3a!d appea$ed ! o)$", 5e dd so as a $ep$ese!"a"e o1 5e$ la4 1$m. T5e le""e$5ead s)3m""ed 3+

"5e ompla!a!" 4as a 1alse $ep$od)"o! "o s5o4 "5a" 5e$ 5)s3a!d s o!e o1 5e$ la4 pa$"!e$s. B)"

)po! $oss/e?am!a"o!, 45e! o!1$o!"ed 4"5 "5e le""e$5ead o1 Cristal-Tenorio Law Office 3ea$!*

5e$ s*!a")$e, s5e adm""ed "5a" Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., s !o" a la4+e$, 3)" 5e a!d a e$"a! 'e$a$do

A. #a!*5)la!, 45o s also !o" a la4+e$, a$e !amed as se!o$ pa$"!e$s 3ea)se "5e+ 5ae !es"me!"s !

5e$ la4 o11e.>6;-<

T5e $espo!de!" 1)$"5e$ dela$ed "5a" s5e ma$$ed Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., o! 2 Fe3$)a$+

9=0 ! )eo! C"+, 3)" 45e! s5e la"e$ dsoe$ed "5a" "5e$ ma$$a*e o!"$a" 4as !o" $e*s"e$ed s5e

appled 1o$ la"e $e*s"$a"o! o! > Ap$l 2000. S5e "5e! p$ese!"ed as ede!e a e$"1ed op+ o1 "5e

ma$$a*e o!"$a" ss)ed 3+ "5e O11e o1 "5e Cl Re*s"$a$ 'e!e$al a!d a)"5e!"a"ed 3+ "5e NSO. T5e

e$$o!eo)s e!"$es ! "5e 3$"5 e$"1a"es o1 5e$ 5ld$e! as "o "5e plae a!d da"e o1 5e$ ma$$a*e 4e$e

me$el+ a! oe$s*5".>@;><

53

54

55

56

57

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


Some"me a1"e$ "5e pa$"es s)3m""ed "5e$ $espe"e O11e$ o1 Ede!e a!d Memo$a!da,

"5e ompla!a!" 1led a Mo"o! "o "5d$a4 Compla!" o! 8 Noem3e$ 2002 a1"e$ alle*edl+ $eal!*

"5a" "5s ds3a$me!" ompla!" a$ose o)" o1 a ms)!de$s"a!d!* a!d msapp$ea"o! o1 1a"s. T5)s,

s5e s !o lo!*e$ !"e$es"ed ! p)$s)!* "5e ase. T5s mo"o! 4as !o" a"ed )po! 3+ "5e IB#.

I! 5e$ Repo$" a!d Reomme!da"o! da"ed 80 Sep"em3e$ 2008, IB# Commsso!e$ o! Ba$

Dspl!e Mla*$os V. Sa! &)a! 1o)!d "5a" "5e ompla!a!" 1aled "o s)3s"a!"a"e "5e 5a$*es o1 dee"a!d *$ossl+ mmo$al o!d)". :o4ee$, s5e 1o)!d "5e $espo!de!" *)l"+ o1 "5e 5a$*e o1 oope$a"!* !

"5e lle*al p$a"e o1 la4 3+ Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., ! ola"o! o1 Ca!o! 9 a!d R)le 9.0 o1 "5e

Code o1 #$o1esso!al Respo!s3l"+ 3ased o! "5e 1ollo4!* ede!e% 7 "5e le""e$5ead o1 Cristal-

Tenorio Law Office, 455 ls"s Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., as a se!o$ pa$"!e$ 27 "5e Sa*p

Comm)!a"o! Rado '$o)p de!"1a"o! a$d o1 A""+. Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., s*!ed 3+

$espo!de!" as C5a$pe$so! 87 a!d "5e O$de$ da"ed = &)!e 99@ ss)ed 3+ "5e Me"$opol"a! T$al

Co)$" ! C$m!al Cases Nos. 20@29 20@8-, 45e$e! Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., e!"e$ed 5s appea$a!e

as o)!sel a!d ee! moed 1o$ "5e p$oso!al dsmssal o1 "5e ases 1o$ 1al)$e o1 "5e p$a"e

ompla!a!"s "o appea$ a!d 1o$ la o1 !"e$es" "o p$ose)"e "5e sad ases. T5)s, Commsso!e$ Sa!

&)a! $eomme!ded "5a" "5e $espo!de!" 3e $ep$ma!ded.

I! "s Resol)"o! No. VI/2008/22= da"ed 2> O"o3e$ 2008, "5e IB# Boa$d o1 'oe$!o$s

adop"ed a!d app$oed 4"5 mod1a"o! "5e Repo$" a!d Reomme!da"o! o1 Commsso!e$ Sa! &)a!.

T5e mod1a"o! o!ss"ed ! !$eas!* "5e pe!al"+ 1$om $ep$ma!d "o s)spe!so! 1$om "5e p$a"e

o1 la4 1o$ s? mo!"5s 4"5 a 4a$!!* "5a" a smla$ o11e!se ! "5e 1)")$e 4o)ld 3e deal" 4"5 mo$e

see$el+.

e a*$ee 4"5 "5e 1!d!*s a!d o!l)so! o1 Commsso!e$ Sa! &)a! as app$oed a!d

adop"ed 4"5 mod1a"o! 3+ "5e Boa$d o1 'oe$!o$s o1 "5e IB#.

A" "5e o)"se", 4e 1!d "5a" "5e IB# 4as o$$e" ! !o" a"!* o! "5e Mo"o! "o "5d$a4

Compla!" 1led 3+ ompla!a!" Cam3ala. I! Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,>=;6< 4e dela$ed%

T5e a11da" o1 4"5d$a4al o1 "5e ds3a$me!" ase alle*edl+ e?e)"ed 3+ ompla!a!" does

!o", ! a!+ 4a+, e?o!e$a"e "5e $espo!de!". A ase o1 s)spe!so! o$ ds3a$me!" ma+ p$oeed $e*a$dless

o1 !"e$es" o$ la o1 !"e$es" o1 "5e ompla!a!". 5a" ma""e$s s 45e"5e$, o! "5e 3ass o1 "5e 1a"s

3o$!e o)" 3+ "5e $eo$d, "5e 5a$*e o1 dee" a!d *$ossl+ mmo$al o!d)" 5as 3ee! d)l+ p$oe!. T5s

$)le s p$emsed o! "5e !a")$e o1 dspl!a$+ p$oeed!*s. A p$oeed!* 1o$ s)spe!so! o$ ds3a$me!"

s !o" ! a!+ se!se a l a"o! 45e$e "5e ompla!a!" s a pla!"11 a!d "5e $espo!de!" la4+e$ s a

de1e!da!". Dspl!a$+ p$oeed!*s !ole !o p$a"e !"e$es" a!d a11o$d !o $ed$ess 1o$ p$a"e

58

*$ea!e. T5e+ a$e )!de$"ae! a!d p$ose)"ed solel+ 1o$ "5e p)3l 4el1a$e. T5e+ a$e )!de$"ae! 1o$

"5e p)$pose o1 p$ese$!* o)$"s o1 )s"e 1$om "5e o11al m!s"$a"o! o1 pe$so!s )!1" "o p$a"e !

"5em. T5e a""o$!e+ s alled "o a!s4e$ "o "5e o)$" 1o$ 5s o!d)" as a! o11e$ o1 "5e o)$". T5e

ompla!a!" o$ "5e pe$so! 45o alled "5e a""e!"o! o1 "5e o)$" "o "5e a""o$!e+Gs alle*ed mso!d)" s

! !o se!se a pa$"+, a!d 5as *e!e$all+ !o !"e$es" ! "5e o)"ome e?ep" as all *ood "e!s ma+ 5ae !

"5e p$ope$ adm!s"$a"o! o1 )s"e. :e!e, 1 "5e ede!e o! $eo$d 4a$$a!"s, "5e $espo!de!" ma+ 3e

s)spe!ded o$ ds3a$$ed desp"e "5e dess"a!e o1 ompla!a!" o$ 5s 4"5d$a4al o1 "5e 5a$*es.

:e!e, !o"4"5s"a!d!* "5e Mo"o! "o "5d$a4 Compla!", "5s ds3a$me!" ase s5o)ld p$oeedao$d!*l+.

T5e IB# o$$e"l+ 1o)!d "5a" "5e 5a$*es o1 dee" a!d *$ossl+ mmo$al o!d)" 4e$e !o"

s)3s"a!"a"ed. I! ds3a$me!" p$oeed!*s, "5e ompla!a!" 5as "5e 3)$de! o1 p$o!* 5s ase 3+

o!!!* ede!e.>9;@< "5 $espe" "o "5e es"a1a ase 455 s "5e 3ass 1o$ "5e 5a$*e o1

malp$a"e o$ o"5e$ *$oss mso!d)" ! o11e, "5e $espo!de!" s !o" +e" o!"ed "5e$eo1. I! Gerona

vs. atingaling,60;=< 4e 5eld "5a" 45e! "5e $m!al p$ose)"o! 3ased o! "5e same a" 5a$*ed s s"ll

pe!d!* ! o)$", a!+ adm!s"$a"e dspl!a$+ p$oeed!*s 1o$ "5e same a" m)s" a4a" "5e o)"ome

o1 "5e $m!al ase "o aod o!"$ad"o$+ 1!d!*s.

e, 5o4ee$, a11$m "5e IB#s 1!d!* "5a" "5e $espo!de!" s *)l"+ o1 asss"!* ! "5e )!a)"5o$ed

p$a"e o1 la4. A la4+e$ 45o allo4s a !o!/mem3e$ o1 "5e Ba$ "o ms$ep$ese!" 5msel1 as a la4+e$ a!d

"o p$a"e la4 s *)l"+ o1 ola"!* Ca!o! 9 a!d R)le 9.0 o1 "5e Code o1 #$o1esso!al Respo!s3l"+,

455 $ead as 1ollo4s%

Ca!o! 9 A la4+e$ s5all !o" d$e"l+ o$ !d$e"l+ asss" ! "5e)!a)"5o$ed p$a"e o1 la4.

R)le 9.0 A la4+e$ s5all !o" dele*a"e "o a!+ )!H)al1ed pe$so! "5epe$1o$ma!e o1 a!+ "as 455 3+ la4 ma+ o!l+ 3e pe$1o$med 3+ a mem3e$ o1 "5e Ba$ ! *ood s"a!d!*.

T5e "e$m p$a"e o1 la4 mples )s"oma$l+ o$ 5a3")all+ 5old!* o!esel1 o)" "o "5e p)3l

as a la4+e$ 1o$ ompe!sa"o! as a so)$e o1 lel5ood o$ ! o!sde$a"o! o1 5s se$es. :old!* o!es

sel1 o)" as a la4+e$ ma+ 3e s5o4! 3+ a"s !da"e o1 "5a" p)$pose le de!"1+!* o!esel1 as a""o$!e+,

appea$!* ! o)$" ! $ep$ese!"a"o! o1 a le!", o$ assoa"!* o!esel1 as a pa$"!e$ o1 a la4 o11e 1o$ "5e

*e!e$al p$a"e o1 la4.6;9< S)5 a"s o!s"")"e )!a)"5o$ed p$a"e o1 la4.

59

60

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


I! "5s ase, Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., s !o" a la4+e$, 3)" 5e 5olds 5msel1 o)" as o!e. :s

41e, "5e $espo!de!" 5e$e!, a3e""ed a!d aded 5m ! "5e )!a)"5o$ed p$a"e o1 "5e le*al p$o1esso!.

A" "5e 5ea$!*, "5e $espo!de!" adm""ed "5a" "5e le""e$5ead o1 Cristal-Tenorio Law Office

ls"ed Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., 'e$a$do A. #a!*5)la!, a!d Ma$$s D. Ba"")!* as se!o$ pa$"!e$s.

S5e adm""ed "5a" "5e 1$s" "4o a$e !o" la4+e$s 3)" pa$ale*als. T5e+ a$e ls"ed ! "5e le""e$5ead o1 5e$

la4 o11e as se!o$ pa$"!e$s 3ea)se "5e+ 5ae !es"me!"s ! 5e$ la4 o11e. 62;20< T5a" s a 3la"a!"

ms$ep$ese!"a"o!.

T5e Sa*p Comm)!a"o! Rado '$o)p de!"1a"o! a$d s a!o"5e$ p$oo1 "5a" "5e

$espo!de!" asss"ed Felsmo R. Te!o$o, &$., ! ms$ep$ese!"!* "o "5e p)3l "5a" 5e s a la4+e$.

No"a3l+, "5e de!"1a"o! a$d s"a"!* "5a" 5e s A""+. Felsmo Te!o$o, &$., 3ea$s "5e s*!a")$e o1

"5e $espo!de!" as C5a$pe$so! o1 "5e '$o)p.

T5e la4+e$s d)"+ "o p$ee!", o$ a" "5e e$+ leas" !o" "o asss" !, "5e )!a)"5o$ed p$a"e o1

la4 s 1o)!ded o! p)3l !"e$es" a!d pol+. #)3l pol+ $eH)$es "5a" "5e p$a"e o1 la4 3e lm"ed "o

"5ose !dd)als 1o)!d d)l+ H)al1ed ! ed)a"o! a!d 5a$a"e$. T5e pe$msse $*5" o!1e$$ed o!

"5e la4+e$ s a! !dd)al a!d lm"ed p$le*e s)3e" "o 4"5d$a4al 1 5e 1als "o ma!"a! p$ope$

s"a!da$ds o1 mo$al a!d p$o1esso!al o!d)". T5e p)$pose s "o p$o"e" "5e p)3l, "5e o)$", "5e le!",

a!d "5e 3a$ 1$om "5e !ompe"e!e o$ ds5o!es"+ o1 "5ose )!le!sed "o p$a"e la4 a!d !o" s)3e" "o

"5e dspl!a$+ o!"$ol o1 "5e Co)$". I" deoles )po! a la4+e$ "o see "5a" "5s p)$pose s a""a!ed.

T5)s, "5e a!o!s a!d e"5s o1 "5e p$o1esso! e!o! 5m !o" "o pe$m" 5s p$o1esso!al se$es o$ 5s

!ame "o 3e )sed ! ad o1, o$ "o mae poss3le "5e )!a)"5o$ed p$a"e o1 la4 3+, a!+ a*e!+, pe$so!al

o$ o$po$a"e. A!d, "5e la4 maes " a ms3e5ao$ o! 5s pa$", s)3e" "o dspl!a$+ a"o!, "o ad a

la+ma! ! "5e )!a)"5o$ed p$a"e o1 la4 .68;2<

WHEREFORE, 1o$ )lpa3le ola"o! o1 Ca!o! 9 a!d R)le 9.0 o1 "5e Code o1 #$o1esso!al

Respo!s3l"+, $espo!de!" A""+. A!a L) B. C$s"al/Te!o$o s 5e$e3+ SUSPENDED 1$om "5e p$a"e

o1 la4 1o$ a pe$od o1 s? 67 mo!"5s e11e"e mmeda"el+, 4"5 a 4a$!!* "5a" a $epe""o! o1 "5e same

o$ smla$ a" ! "5e 1)")$e 4ll 3e deal" 4"5 mo$e see$el+.

Le" opes o1 "5s Resol)"o! 3e a""a5ed "o $espo!de!" C$s"al/Te!o$os $eo$d as a""o$!e+

! "5s Co)$" a!d 1)$!s5ed "o "5e IB# a!d "5e O11e o1 "5e Co)$" Adm!s"$a"o$ 1o$ $)la"o! "o all

o)$"s.

61

62

63

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

ATT. EDITA NOE"LACSA5ANA, A.C. No. 7!69

Complainant,

n,

/ versus /

B+*9!,

P

5+56

,

ATT. OLANDO F. BUS5ENTE, Promulgated#

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


+espondent.

!ovember E?, E$$

</ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / <

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.8

T(e C%+e

Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. 5dita !oe/0acsamana !oe/0acsamana-

against Atty. Lolando D. Busmente Busmente- before the *ntegrated Bar of the Philippines *BP-.

T(e Antece&ent F%ct+

!oe/0acsamana alleged in her complaint that she was the counsel for *rene Bides, the plaintiff in Civil

Case !o. SCA/E@G$ before the +egional rial Court of Pasig City, Branch $F%, while Busmente was the

counsel for the defendant *melda B. 1laso 1laso-. !oe/0acsamana alleged that 1lasos deed of sale over

the property subject of Civil Case !o. SCA/E@G$ was annulled, which resulted in the filing of anejectment case before the 2etropolitan rial Court 2C-, San =uan, doc"eted as Civil Case !o. &EG@,

where Busmente appeared as counsel. Another case for f alsification was filed against 1laso where

Busmente also appeared a s counsel. !oe/0acsamana alleged that one Atty. 5li(abeth :ela +osa or Atty.

0i(a :ela +osa :ela +osa- would accompany 1laso in court, projecting herself as Busmentes

collaborating counsel. :ela +osa signed the minutes of the court proceedings in Civil Case !o. &EG@ nine

times from EI !ovember E? to G Debruary EI. !oe/0acsamana further alleged that the court orders

and notices specified :ela +osa as Busmentes collaborating counsel. !oe/0acsamana alleged that upon

verification with this Court and the *ntegrated Bar of the Philippines, she discovered that :ela +osa was

not a lawyer.

Busmente alleged that :ela +osa was a law graduate and was his paralegal assistant for a few years.

Busmente alleged that :ela +osas employment with him ended in E but :ela +osa was able to

continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the help of +egine 2acasieb 2acasieb-, Busmentes

former secretary. Busmente alleged that he did not represent 1laso in Civil Case !o. &EG@ and that his

signature in the Answer $ presented as proof by !oe/0acsamana was forged.

T(e Deci+ion o' t(e Co==i++ion on B%$ Di+ci*)ine

*n its +eport and +ecommendation,E the *BP Commission on Bar :iscipline *BP/CB:- found that :ela

+osa was not a lawyer and that she represented 1laso as Busmentes collaborating counsel in Civil Case

!o. &EG@. he *BP/CB: noted that while Busmente claimed that :ela +osa no longer wor"ed for him

since E, there was no proof of her separation from employment. he *BP/CB: found that notices from

the 2C San =uan, as well as the pleadings of the case, were all sent to Busmentes designated office

address. he *BP/CB: stated that Busmentes only e<cuse was that :ela +osa connived with his former

secretary 2acasieb so that the notices and pleadings would not reach him.

he *BP/CB: rejected the affidavit submitted by =udy 2. 9rtale( 9rtale( -, Busmentes staff, alleging

2acasiebs failure to endorse pleadings and notices of Civil Case !o. &EG@ to Busmente. he *BP/CB:

noted that 9rtale( did not e<actly refer to 1lasos case in her affidavit and that there was no mention thatshe actually witnessed 2acasieb withholding pleadings and notices from Busmente. he *BP/CB: also

noted that 2acasieb was still wor"ing at Busmentes office in !ovember E? as shown by the affidavit

attached to a 2otion to 0ift 9rder of :efault that she signed. >owever, even if 2acasieb resigned in

!ovember E?, :ela +osa continued to represent 1laso until EI, which belied Busmentes allegation

that :ela +osa was able to illegally practice law using his office address without his "nowledge and only

due to :ela +osas connivance with 2acasieb. As regards Busmentes allegation that his signature on the

Answer was forged, the *BP/CB: gave Busmente the opportunity to coordinate with the !a tional Bureau

of *nvestigation !B*- to prove that his signature was forged but he failed to submit any report from the

!B* despite the lapse of four months from the time he reserved his right to submit the report.

he *BP/CB: recommended Busmentes suspension from the practice of law for not less than five years.

9n EF 2ay EF, in its +esolution !o. M3**/EF/E%$,? the *BP Board of ;overnors adopted and

approved the recommendation of the *BP/CB:, with modification by reducing the period of Busmentes

suspension to si< months.

Busmente filed a motion for reconsideration and submitted a repor t@ from the !B* stating that the

signature in the Answer, when compared with standardOsample signatures submitted to its office, showed

that they were not written by one and the same person. *n its $@ 2ay E$$ +esolution !o. M*M/E$$/$FG,

the *BP Board of ;overnors denied Busmentes motion for reconsideration.

T(e I++2e

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/7269.html#sdfootnote1sym

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


he issue in this case is whether Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting :ela +osa in her

illegal practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of law.

T(e R2)in# o' t(i+ Co2$t

We agree with the *BP.

Canon & of the Code of Professional +esponsibility states#

Canon &. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthori(ed practice of law.

he Court ruled that the term practice of law implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the

public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his services.I he

Court further ruled that holding ones self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose,

such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating

oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law.F

he Court e<plained#

he lawyers duty to prevent, or a t the very least not to assist in, the unauthori(ed practice of

law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy re8uires that the practice of law be

limited to those individuals found duly 8ualified in education and character. he permissive

right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he

fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. he purpose is to protect

the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those

unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. *t devolves

upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. hus, the canons and ethics of the profession

enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to ma"e

possible the unauthori(ed practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law

ma"es it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the

unauthori(ed practice of law.%

*n this case, it has been e stablished that :ela +osa, who is not a member of the Bar, misrepresented herself

as Busmentes collaborating counsel in Civil Case !o. &EG@. he only 8uestion is whether Busmente

indirectly or directly assisted :ela +osa in her illegal practice of law.

Busmente alleged that :ela +osas employment in his office ended in E and that :ela +osa was able to

continue with her illegal practice of law through connivance with 2acasieb, another member of

Busmentes staff. As pointed out by the *BP/CB:, Busmente claimed that 2acasieb resigned from his

office in E?. Let, :ela +osa continued to represent 1laso until EI. Pleadings and court notices were

still sent to Busmentes office until EI. he *BP/CB: noted that :ela +osas practice should have ended

in E? when 2acasieb left.

We agree. Busmentes office continued to receive all the notices of Civil Case !o. &EG@. he % :ecember

E@ 9rder G of =udge 5lvira :C. Panganiban =udge Panganiban- in Civil Case !o. &EG@ showed that

Atty. 5li(abeth :ela +osa was still representing 1laso in the case. *n that 9rder, =udge Panganiban set the

preliminary conference of Civil Case !o. &EG@ on G Debruary EI. *t would have been impossible for:ela +osa to continue representing 1laso in the case, considering Busmentes claim that 2acasieb already

resigned, if :ela +osa had no access to the files in Busmentes office.

Busmente, in his motion for reconsideration of +esolution !o. M3**/EF/E%$, submitted a copy of the

!B* report stating that the signature on the Answer submitted in Civil Case !o. &EG@ and the specimen

signatures submitted by Busmente were not written by one and the same person. he report shows that

Busmente only submitted to the !B* the 8uestioned signature in the Answer. he *BP/CB: report,

however, showed that there were other documents signed by Busmente, including the Pre/rial Brief dated

$@ !ovember E? and 2otion to 0ift 9rder of :efault dated EE !ovember E?. !oe/0acsamana also

submitted a letter dated $@ August E? addressed to her as well as three letters dated E& August E?

addressed to the occupants of the disputed property, all signed by Busmente. Busmente failed to impugn

his signatures in these other documents.

Dinally, Busmente claimed that he was totally unaware of Civil Case !o. &EG@ and he only came to "now

about the case when 1laso went to his office to in8uire about its status. Busmentes allegation contradicted

the =oint Counter/Affidavit& submitted by 1laso and 5ddie B. Bides stating that#

a. T(%t o2$ )e#%) co2n+e) i+ Att. OLANDO F. BUS5ENTE of the L90A!:9 D.

B1S25!5 A!: ASS9C*A5S 0AW 9DD*C5S with address at suite %$G BP* 9ffice Cond.

Pla(a Cervantes, Binondo 2anila.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


b. hat 50*6AB5> :50A +9SA is not our legal counsel in the case which have been filed

by *+5!5 B*:5S and 0*0*A 3A05+A in representation of her sister A250*A B*:5S for

5jectment doc"eted as Civil Case !o. &EG@ before Branch IG of the 2etropolitan rial Court

of San =uan, 2etro 2anila.

c. hat we never stated in an y of the pleadings filed in the cases mentioned in the Complaint/

Affidavit that 50*6AB5> :50A +9SA was our lawyer7

d. hat if ever 50*6AB5> :50A +9SA had affi<ed her signature in the notices or other

court records as our legal counsel the same could not be ta"en against us for, we believed in

good faith that she was a lawyer7 and we are made to believe that it was so since had referred

her to us sic-, she was handling some cases of >ortale(a and client of Atty. Lolando D.

Busmente7

e. hat we "now for the fact that 50*6AB5> :50A +9SA did not sign any pleading which

she filed in court in connection with our cases at all of those were signed by Atty. L90A!:9

B1S25!5 as our legal counsel7 she just accompanied us to the court rooms andOor hearings7

f. hat we cannot be made liable for violation of Article $%$ for and in relation to Article $%E

of the +evised Penal Code- for the reason that the following elements of the offense are not

present, to wit#

$. hat offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of

the facts narrated7

E. here must be wrongful

intent to injure a ? rd party7

?. nowledge that the facts

narrated by him areabsolutely false7

@. hat the offender ma"es

in a document untruthful

statements in the narration

of facts.

And furthermore the

untruthful narrations of

facts must affect the

integrity which is not so in

the instant case.

g. hat from the start of our ac8uaintance with 50*6AB5> :50A +9SA we never as" her

whether she was a real lawyer and allowed to practice law in the Philippines7 it would have

been unethical and shameful on our part to as" her 8ualification7 :e 2+t *$e+2=e& t(%t +(e

(%+ )e#%) 2%)i'ic%tion+ to $e*$e+ent 2+ in o2$ c%+e+ ;ec%2+e Att. OLANDO F.

BUS5ENTE %))o:e& (e$ to %cco=*%n 2+ %n& %tten& o2$ (e%$in#+ in +(o$t, +(e #%<e 2+

*%$%)e#%) %++i+t%nce0.4 5mphasis supplied-

he counter/affidavit clearly showed that Busmente was the legal counsel in Civil Case !o. &EG@ and that

he allowed :ela +osa to give legal assistance to 1laso.

>ence, we agree with the f indings of the *BP/CB: that there was sufficient evidence to prove that

Busmente was guilty of violation of Canon & of the Code of Professional +esponsibility. We agree with

the recommendation of the *BP, modifying the recommendation of the *BP/CB:, that Busmente should be

suspended from the practice of law for si< months.

HEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Lolando D. Busmente from the practice of law for S*M 29!>S.

0et a copy of this :ecision be attached to Atty. Busmentes personal record in the 9ffice of the Bar

Confidant. 0et a copy of this :ecision be also furnished to all chapters of the *ntegrated Bar of the

Philippines and to all courts in the land.

SO ORDERED.

+epublic of the PhilippinesSUPRE5E COURT

2anila

S5C9!: :*3*S*9!

A.C. No. 96/ 5%$c( !/, !/3

RODRIGO E. TAPA %n& ANTHON 1. RUSTIA, Complainants,

vs.

ATT. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO %n& ATT. 1ANUS T. 1ARDER, +espondents.

: 5 C * S * 9 !

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


CARPIO, J.:

T(e C%+e

his administrative case arose from a Complaint tiled by +odrigo 5. apay apay- and Anthony =. +ustia

+ustia-, both employees of the Sugar +egulatory Administration, against Atty. Charlie 0. Bancolo Atty.

Bancolo- and Atty. =anus . larder Atty. =arder- for violation of the Canons of 5thics and Professionalism,

Dalsification of Public :ocument, ;ross :ishonesty, and >arassment.

T(e F%ct+

Sometime in 9ctober E@, apay and +ustia received an 9rder dated $@ 9ctober E@ from the 9ffice of

the 9mbudsman/3isayas re8uiring them to file a counter/affidavit to a complaint for usurpation of

authority, falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against them by !ehimias

:ivinagracia, =r. :ivinagracia-, a co/employee in the Sugar +egulatory Administration. he Complaint$

dated ?$ August E@ was allegedly signed on behalf of :ivinagracia by one Atty. Charlie 0. Bancolo of

the =arder Bancolo 0aw 9ffice based in Bacolod City, !egros 9ccidental.

When Atty. Bancolo and +ustia accidentally chanced upon each other, the latter informed Atty. Bancolo of

the case filed against them before the 9ffice of the 9mbudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented

:ivinagracia since he had yet to meet :ivinagracia in person. When +ustia showed him the Complaint,

Atty. Bancolo declared that the signature appearing above his name as counsel for :ivinagracia was not

his. hus, +ustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign an affidavit to attest to such fac t. 9n & :ecember E@,

Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit denying his supposed signature appearing on the Complaint filed withthe 9ffice of the 9mbudsman and submitted si< specimen signatures for comparison. 1sing Atty.

BancoloQs affidavit and other documentary evidence, apay and +ustia filed a counter/affidavit accusing

:ivinagracia of falsifying the signature of his alleged counsel, Atty. Bancolo.

*n a +esolution dated EG 2arch EI, the 9ffice of the 9mbudsman provisionally dismissed the

Complaint since the falsification of the counselQs signature posed a prejudicial 8uestion to the ComplaintQs

validity. Also, the 9ffice of the 9mbudsman ordered that separate cases for Dalsification of Public

:ocumentE and :ishonesty? be filed against :ivinagracia, with +ustia and Atty. Bancolo as complainants.

hereafter, :ivinagracia filed his Counter/Affidavit dated $ August EI denying that he falsified the

signature of his former lawyer, Atty. Bancolo. :ivinagracia presented as evidence an affidavit dated $

August EI by +ichard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the =arder Bancolo 0aw

9ffice accepted :ivinagraciaQs case and that the Complaint filed with the 9ffice of the 9mbudsman wassigned by the office secretary per Atty. BancoloQs instructions. :ivinagracia as"ed that the 9ffice of the

9mbudsman dismiss the cases for falsification of public document and dishonesty filed against him b y

+ustia and Atty. Bancolo and to revive the original Complaint for various offenses that he filed against

apay and +ustia.

*n a +esolution dated $& September EI, the 9ffice of the 9mbudsman dismissed the criminal case for

falsification of public document 92B/3/C/I/E%/5- for insufficiency of evidence. he dispositive

portion states#

W>5+5D9+5, the instant case is hereby :*S2*SS5: for insufficiency of evidence, without prejudice to

the re/filing by :ivinagracia, =r. of a proper complaint for violation of +A ?$& and other offenses against

+ustia and apay.

S9 9+:5+5:.@

he administrative case for dishonesty 92B/3/A/I/E$&/5- was also dismissed for lac" of substantial

evidence in a :ecision dated $& September EI.

9n E& !ovember EI, apay and +ustia filed with the *ntegrated Bar of the Philippines *BP- a

complaintI to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty. =arder, Atty. BancoloQs law partner. he complainants alleged

that they were subjected to a harassment Complaint filed before the 9ffice of the 9mbudsman with the

forged signature of Atty. Bancolo. Complainants stated further that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in the

Complaint was not the only one that was forged. Complainants attached a +epor tF dated $ =uly EI by

the Philippine !ational Police Crime 0aboratory F which e<amined three other letter/complaints signed byAtty. Bancolo for other clients, allegedly close friends of Atty. =arder. he report concluded that the

8uestioned signatures in the letter/complaints and the submitted standard signatures of Atty. Bancolo were

not written by one and the same pe rson. hus, complainants maintained that not only were respondents

engaging in unprofessional and unethical practices, they were also involved in falsification of documents

used to harass and persecute innocent people.

9n & =anuary EF, complainants filed a Supplement to the :isbarment Complaint :ue to Additional

*nformation. hey alleged that a certain 2ary =ane ;entugao, the secretary of the =arder Bancolo 0aw

9ffice, forged the signature of Atty. Bancolo.

*n their Answer dated EF =anuary EF to the disbarment complaint, respondents admitted that the

criminal and administrative cases filed by :ivinagracia against complainants before the 9ffice of the

9mbudsman were accepted by the =arder Bancolo 0aw 9ffice. he cases were assigned to Atty. Bancolo.Atty. Bancolo alleged that after being informed of the assignment of the cases, he ordered his staff to

prepare and draft all the necessary pleadings and documents. >owever, due to some minor lapses, Atty.

Bancolo permitted that the pleadings and communications be signed in his name by the secretary of the

law office. +espondents added that complainants filed the disbarment complaint to retaliate against them

since the cases filed before the 9ffice of the 9mbudsman were meritorious and strongly supported by

testimonial and documentary evidence. +espondents also denied that 2ary =ane ;entugao was employed

as secretary of their law office.

apay and +ustia filed a +eply to the Answer dated E 2arch EF. hereafter, the parties were directed by

the Commission on Bar :iscipline to attend a mandatory conference scheduled on I 2ay EF. he

conference was reset to $ August EF. 9n the said date, complainants were present but respondents

failed to appear. he conference was reset to EI September EF for the last time. Again, respondents

failed to appear despite receiving notice of the conference. Complainants manifested that they were

submitting their disbarment complaint based on the documents submitted to the *BP. +espondents werealso deemed to have waived their right t o participate in the mandatory conference. Durther, both parties

were directed to submit their respective position papers. 9n E% 9ctober EF, the *BP received

complainantsQ position paper dated $G 9ctober EF and respondentsQ position paper dated E? 9ctober

EF.

he *BPQs +eport and +ecommendation

9n $$ April E%, Atty. 0olita A. 4uisumbing, the *nvestigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar

:iscipline of the *BP, submitted her +eport. Atty. 4uisumbing found that Atty. Bancolo violated +ule &.$

of Canon & of the Code of Professional +esponsibility while Atty. =arder violated +ule $.$ of Canon $ of

the same Code. he *nvestigating

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/ac_9604_2013.html#fnt1

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


Commissioner recommended that Atty. Bancolo be suspended for two years from the practice of law and

Atty. =arder be admonished for his failure to e<ercise certain responsibilities in their law firm.

*n her +eport and +ecommendation, the *nvestigating Commissioner opined#

< < <. *n his answer, respondent Atty. Charlie 0. Bancolo admitted that his signature appearing in the

complaint filed against complainantsQ +odrigo 5. apay and Anthony =. +ustia with the 9mbudsman were

signed by the secretary. >e did not refute the findings that his signatures appearing in the various

documents released from his office were found not to be his. Such pattern of malpratice b y respondent

clearly breached his obligation under +ule &.$ of Canon &, for a lawyer who allows a non/member to

represent him is guilty of violating the aforementioned Canon. he fact that respondent was busy cannotserve as an e<cuse for him from signing personally. After all respondent is a member of a law firm

composed of not just one $- lawyer. he Supreme Court has ruled that this practice constitute negligence

and undersigned finds the act a sign of indolence and ineptitude. 2oreover, respondents ignored the

notices sent by undersigned. hat showed patent lac" of respect to the *ntegrated Bar of the PhilippinesQ

Commission on Bar :iscipline and its proceedings. *t betrays lac" of courtesy and irresponsibility as

lawyers.

9n the other hand, Atty. =anus . =arder, a senior partner of the law firm =arder Bancolo and Associates

0aw 9ffice, failed to e<ercise cer tain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm. As a

senior partnerJ,K he failed to abide to the principle of )command responsibility). < < <.

< < < <

+espondent Atty. =anus =arder after all is a seasoned practitioner, having passed the bar in $&&I and

practicing law up to the present. >e holds himself out to the public as a law firm designated as =arder

Bancolo and Associates 0aw 9ffice. *t behooves Atty. =anus . =arder to e<e rt ordinary diligence to find

out what is going on in his law firm, to ensure that all lawyers in his firm act in conformity to the Code of

Professional +esponsibility. As a partner, it is his responsibility to provide efficacious control of court

pleadings and other documents that carry the name of the law firm. >ad he done that, he could have

"nown the unethical practice of his law partner Atty. Charlie 0. Bancolo. +espondent Atty. =anus . =arder

failed to perform this tas" and is administratively liable under Canon $, +ule $.$ of the Code of

Professional +esponsibility.%

9n $& September E%, in +esolution !o. M3***/E%/&%, the Board of ;overnors of the *BP approved

with modification the +eport and +ecommendation of the *nvestigating Commissioner. he +esolution

states#

+5S9035: to A:9P and APP+935, as it is hereby A:9P5: and APP+935:, with modification,

the +eport and +ecommendation of the *nvestigating Commissioner of the above/entitled case, herein

made part of this +esolution as Anne< )A)7 and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the

evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering +espondent Atty. BancoloQs

violation of +ule &.$, Canon & of the Code of Professional +esponsibility, Atty. Charlie 0. Bancolo is

hereby S1SP5!:5: from the practice of law for one $- year.

>owever, with regard to the charge against Atty. =anus . =arder, the Board of ;overnors +5S9035: as it

is hereby +5S9035: to A25!:, as it is hereby A25!:5: the +ecommendation of the *nvestigating

Commissioner, and APP+935 the :*S2*SSA0 of the case for lac" of merit. G

apay and +ustia filed a 2otion for +econsideration. 0i"ewise, Atty. Bancolo filed his 2otion for

+econsideration dated EE :ecember E%. hereafter, Atty. =arder filed his separate Consolidated

CommentO+eply to ComplainantsQ 2otion for +econsideration and Comment Diled by Complainants dated

E& =anuary EG.

*n +esolution !o. MM/E$E/$%I dated & =une E$E, the *BP Board of ;overnors denied both

complainantsQ and Atty. BancoloQs motions for reconsideration. he *BP Board found no cogent reason to

reverse the findings of the *nvestigating Commissioner and affirmed +esolution !o. M3***/E%/&% dated

$& September E%.

T(e Co2$t+ R2)in#

After a careful review of the records of the case, we agree with the findings and recommendation of the

*BP Board and find reasonable grounds to hold respondent Atty. Bancolo administratively liable.

Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the 9ffice of the

9mbudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of +ule

&.$ of Canon & of the Code of Professional +esponsibility, which provides#

CA!9! &

A 0AWL5+ S>A00 !9, :*+5C0L 9+ *!:*+5C0L, ASS*S *! >5 1!A1>9+*65:

P+AC*C5 9D 0AW.

+ule &.$ / A lawyer shall not delegate to any un8ualified person the performance of any tas" which by

law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

his rule was clearly e<plained in the case of Cambali(a v. Cristal/enorio,& where we held#

he lawyerQs duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthori(ed practice of law is

founded on public interest and policy. Public policy re8uires that the practice of law be limited to those

individuals found duly 8ualified in education and character. he permissive right conferred on the lawyer

is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of

moral and professional conduct. he purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from

the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary

control of the Court. *t devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. hus, the canons and

ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of,

or to ma"e possible the unauthori(ed practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law

ma"es it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthori(ed

practice of law.

*n +epublic v. enric" :evelopment Corporation,$ we held that the preparation and signing of a pleading

constitute legal wor" involving the practice of law which is reserved e<clusively for members of the legal

profession. Atty. BancoloQs authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. Although he may

delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non/lawyer. Durther, under

the +ules of Court, counselQs signature serves as a certification that $- he has read the pleading7 E- to the

best of his "nowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it7 and ?- it is not

interposed for delay.$$ hus, by affi<ing oneQs signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone who has the

responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document.4;6phi4

*n his 2otion for +econsideration dated EE :ecember E%, Atty. Bancolo wants us to believe that he was

a victim of circumstances or of manipulated events because of his unconditional trust and confidence in

his former law partner, Atty. =arder. >owever, Atty. Bancolo did not ta"e any steps to rectify the situation,

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


save for the affidavit he gave to +ustia denying his signature to the Complaint filed before the 9ffice of

the 9mbudsman. Atty. Bancolo had an opportunity to maintain his innocence when he f iled with the *BP

his =oint Answer with Atty. =arder- dated EF =anuary EF. Atty. Bancolo, however, admitted that prior to

the preparation of the =oint Answer, Atty. =arder threatened to file a disbarment case against him if he did

not cooperate. hus, he was constrained to allow Atty. =arder to prepare the =oint Answer. Atty. Bancolo

simply signed the verification without seeing the contents of the =oint Answer.

*n the Answer, Atty. Bancolo categorically stated that because of some minor lapses, the communications

and pleadings filed against apay and +ustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his tolerance.

1ndoubtedly, Atty. Bancolo violated the Code of Professional +esponsibility by allowing a non/lawyer to

affi< his signature to a pleading. his violation *s an ac t of falsehood which *S a ground for disciplinaryaction.

he complainants did not present any evidence that Atty. =arder was directly involved, had "nowledge of,

or even participated in the wrongful prac tice of Atty. Bancolo in allowing or tolerating his secretary to

sign pleadings for him. hus, we agree with the finding of the *BP Board that Atty. =arder is not

administratively liable.

*n sum, we find that the suspension of Atty. Bancolo from the practice of law for one year is warranted.

We also find proper the dismissal of the case against Atty. larder.

W>5+5D9+5, we :*S2*SS the complaint against Atty. =anus . larder for lac" of merit.

We find respondent Atty. Charlie 0. Bancolo administratively liable for violating +ule &.$ of Canon & ofthe Code of Professional +esponsibility. >e is hereby S1SP5!:5: from the practice of law for one year

effective upon finality of this :ecision. >e is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the

future shall be dealt with more severe ly.

0et a copy of this :ecision be attached to respondent Atty. Charlie 0. Bancolos record in this Court as

attorney. Durther, let copies of this :ecision be furnished to the *ntegrated Bar of the Philippines and the

9ffice of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for

their information and guidance.

S9 9+:5+5:.


SUPRE5E COURT

2anila

5! BA!C

G.R. No. L"!367 5%$c( !7, 96

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


A5ALGA5ATED LABORERS ASSOCIATION %n&o$ FELISBERTO 5. 1AVIER 'o$ (i=+e)'

%n& %+ Gene$%) P$e+i&ent,

ATT. 1OSEUR. CARBONELL, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.

HON. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND ATT. LEONARDO C. FERNANDE,

respondents.

*ose <r, Car&onell !or and in his o6n &ehal! as petitioner,

Leonardo C, )ernandez !or and in his o6n &ehal! as respondent,

SANCHE, J.:

Controversy over attorneys fees for legal services rendered in C*+ Case !o. %/10P/Cebu.

he bac"ground facts are as follows#

9n 2ay ?, $&IF, Dlorentino Arceo and @% others together with their union, Amalgamated 0aborers

Association, andOor Delisberto =avier, general president of said union, lodged a complaint $ in the Court of

*ndustrial +elations C*+-, for unfair labor practices specified in Sec. @a- $, E, ? and @ of the *ndustrial

Peace Act. 2ade respondents were their former employer, Binalbagan Sugar Central Company, *nc.

Biscom-, +afael =alandoni, its president and general manager7 ;on(alo ;uillen, its chief engineer and

general factory superintendent7 and Draternal 0abor 9rgani(ation andOor +oberto Poli, its president.

Dailing in their attempts to dismiss the complaint motions to dismiss dated =une ?, $&IF and =uly

F, $&IF-, E respondents Biscom, =alandoni, and ;uillen, on =uly &, $&I%, answered and counterclaimed.

+espondents Draternal 0abor 1nion and Poli also filed their answer dated =uly $E, $&I%.

With the issues joined, the case on the merits was heard before a trial commissioner.

At the hearings, only ten of the forty/eight complainant laborers appeared and testified. wo of these

ten were permanent regular- employees of respondent company7 the remaining eight were seasonal

wor"ers. he regular employees were Arsenio +eyes and Didel 2agtubo. Seasonal wor"ers were Catalino

Bangoy, =uan Dernande(, =ose ;arlitos, :ionisio Pido, Santiago alagtag, :ominador angente, Delimon

3illaluna and Brigido Casas.

9n !ovember $?, $&FE, C*+, thru Associate =udge Arsenio *. 2artine(, rendered judgment, which provides, inter alia, that the two regular employees +eyes and 2agtubo- be reinstated )to their former

positions, without loss of seniority and other benefits which should have accrued to them had they not

been illegally dismissed, with full bac" wages from the time of their said dismissals up to the time of their

actual reinstatements, minus what they have earned elsewhere in the meantime) and that the eight seasonal

wor"ers )be readmitted to their positions as seasonal wor"ers of respondent company Biscom-, with bac"

wages as seasonal wor"ers from the time they were not rehired at the start of the $&II/$&IF milling

season on 9ctober $, $&II up to the time they are actually reinstated, less the amount earned elsewhere

during the period of their lay/off.)

+espondents Biscom, =alandoni and ;uillen appealed direct to this Court. ? 9n 2arch EG, $&F?, this

Court dismissed the appeal, without costs. ;round# Petitioners therein did not see" reconsideration of

C*+s decision of !ovember $?, $&FE. he judgment became final.

1pon the ten complainants motion to name an official computer to determine the actual money due

them, C*+, on =une @, $&F?, directed the Chief 5<aminer of its 5<amining :ivision to go to the premises

of Biscom and compute the bac" wages due the ten complainants.

9n August &, $&F?, the Chief 5<aminer reported that the total net bac" wages due the ten

complainants were P%&,%II.EE. Biscom and the complainants moved for reconsideration# Biscom on

August $%, $&F?7 complainants on September E@, $&F?.

*n the interim, Atty. 0eonardo C. Dernande( a respondent herein- filed on =uly $I, $&F? in the same

case ' C*+ Case !o. %/10P/Cebu ' a )!otice of Attorneys 0ien.) >e alleged therein that he had been

the attorney of record for the laborers in C*+ Case !o. %/10P/Cebu )since the inception of the preliminary hearings of said case up to the Supreme Court on appeal, as chief counsel thereof)7 that he

)had actually rendered legal services to the laborers who are subject of this present litigation JC*+ Case

!o. %/10P/CebuK since the year $&IF, more or less)7 that the laborers )have voluntarily agreed to give

JhimK, representing his attorneys fees on contingent basis such amounts e8uivalent to EI thereof which

agreement is evidenced by a !ote)7 and that the EI attorneys fee so contracted is )reasonable and proper

ta"ing into consideration the length of services he rendered and the nature of the wor" actually performed

by him.)

9n September EI, $&F?, Atty. Dernande( filed an )Amended !otice of Attorneys 0ien,) which in

part reads#

?. hat the laborers, subject of this present litigation, sometime on Debruary ?, $&IF, had

initially voluntarily agreed to give 1ndersigned Counsel herein, representing his Attorneysfees on contingent basis, such amounts as e8uivalent to hirty Per Cent ?- of whatever

money claims that may be adjudicated by this >onorable Court, copy of said Agreement, in the

local 3isayan dialect and a translation of the same in the 5nglish language are hereto attached

as anne<es )A) )A/$) hereof7

@. hat subse8uently thereafter, when the above/entitled Case was already decided in their

favor, Arsenio +eyes, in behalf of his co/laborers who are also Complainants in this Case

begged from the 1ndersigned Counsel herein that he reduce his attorneys fees to wenty/Dive

Per Cent EI- only for the reason that they have to share and satisfy also Atty. =ose 1r.

Carbonell in the e8uivalent amount of Dive Per Cent I- although the latters actual services

rendered was so insignificant thereof7

I. hat because of the pleadings of said Arsenio +eyes, who is the President of said 1nion, the

1ndersigned Counsel herein finally agreed and consented that his attorneys f ees be reduced to

only wenty/Dive Per Cent EI- instead of hirty Per Cent ?- as originally agreed upon

in $&IF.

9n 9ctober %, $&F?, Atty. =ose 1r. Carbonell a petitioner herein- filed in court a document labelled

):ischarge) informing C*+ of the discharge, release and dismissal ' thru a union board resolution

attached thereto as Anne< A thereof- ' of Atty. 0eonardo C. Dernande( as one of the lawyers of the

complainants in C*+ Case !o. %/10P/Cebu, effective Debruary EG, $&F?.

9n 9ctober $@, $&F?, Atty. Dernande( replied. >e averred that the grounds for his discharge

specified in the board resolution were )malicious and motivated by greed and ungratefulness) and that the

unjustifiable discharge did not affect the already stipulated contract for a ttorneys fees.

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


9n 2arch $&, $&F@, C*+ =udge Arsenio *. 2artine( resolved Biscoms and complainants motions

for resonsideration objecting to the Chief 5<aminers +eport and also respondent Dernande( Amended

!otice of Attorneys 0ien. =udge 2artine( order reads in part#

b- +espondent company is further directed to deposit the amount representing EI of

P%&,%II.EE with the Cashier of this Court, as attorneys fees7

< < < < < < < < <

d- he amount representing attorneys fees to be deposited by the respondent company

is hereby awarded and granted to Atty. 0eonardo C. Dernande(, and he may collect the same

from the Cashier of the Court upon the finality of this order, subject to e<isting auditing

procedures7 ....

Biscom complied with the order of deposit. @

9n April $, $&F@, Atty. Carbonell moved to reconsider the 2arch $&, $&F@ order with respect to

the award of attorneys fees. Amongst his grounds are that C*+ has no jurisdiction to determine the matter

in 8uestion, and that the award of EI as attorneys fees to Atty. Dernande( is e<cessive, unfair and illegal.

his motion was denied on April EG, $&F@ by C*+ en &anc.

9n =une &, $&F@, a motion for reconsideration of the April EG, $&F@ resolution was filed by Atty.

Carbonell. his was amplified by a similar motion filed on =une $$, $&F@.

9n =une EI, $&F@, two things happened# Dirst. C*+ en &anc denied the motion of =une $$, $&F@.

Second. 9n Atty. Dernande( motion, =udge 2artine( authori(ed the Cashier of the court to disburse to

Dernande( the amount of P$&,&?G.G$ representing attorneys fees and deducting therefrom all legal fees

incident to such deposit.

Petitioners herein, Atty. Carbonell, Amalgamated 0aborers Association, and the ten employees,

appealed from the =une EI, $&F@ resolution of C*+, direct to this Court.

$. Petitioners press upon this Court the view that C*+ is bereft of authority to adjudicate contractual

disputes over attorneys fees. heir reasons# $- a dispute arising from contracts for attorneys fees is not a

labor dispute and is not one among the cases ruled to be within C*+s authority7 and E- to consider such a

dispute to be a mere incident to a case over which C*+ may validly assume jurisdiction is to disregard thespecial and limited nature of said courts jurisdiction.

hese arguments are devoid of merit.

he present controversy over attorneys fees is but an epilogue or a tail/end feature of the main case,

C*+ !o. %/10P/Cebu, which undoubtedly is within C*+s jurisdiction. And, it has been held that )once

the Court of *ndustrial +elations has ac8uired jurisdiction over a case under the law of its creation, it

retains that jurisdiction until the case is completely decided, including all the incidents related thereto.) I

5<pressive of the rule on this point is this '

@. *t is well settled that#

A grant of jurisdiction implies the necessary and usual incidental powers

essential to effectuate it, and every regularly constituted court has power to do all

things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its

jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its judgments and mandates, e#en though

the court $ay thus &e called upon to decide $atters 6hich 6ould not &e 6ithin its

cognizance as original causes o! action.

While a court may be e<pressly granted the incidental powers necessary to

effectuate its jurisdiction, a grant of jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive

legislation, implies the necessary and usual incidental powers essential to effectuate

it *n re Stingers 5state, E$ P. F&?-, and, subject to e<isting laws and constitutional

provisions, every regularly constituted court has power to do all things that are

reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its

jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its judgments and mandates. So de$ands-

$atters- or 1uestions ancillary or incidental to- or gro6ing out o!- the $ain action-

and co$ing 6ithin the a&o#e principles- $ay &e ta8en cognizance o! &y the court

and deter$ined- since such =urisdiction is in aid o! its authority o#er the principal

$atter- e#en though the Court $ay thus &e- called on to consider and decide

$atters- 6hich as original causes o! action- 6ould not &e 6ithin its cognizance

Bartholomew vs. Shipe, EI$ S.W. $?$-, E$ C.=.S. pp. $?F/$?G.-

hus, in Go$ez #s, North Ca$arines Lu$&er Co., 0/$$&@I, August $G, $&IG, and

Serrano #s, Serrano, 0/$&IFE, 2ay E?, $&F@, we held that the court having jurisdiction over

the main cause of action, may grant the relief incidental thereto, even if they would otherwise,

be outside its competence. F

o direct that the present dispute be lodged in another court a s petitioners advocate would only

result in multiplicity of suits, % a situation abhorred by the rules. hus it is, that usually the application to

fi< the attorneys fees is made be fore the court which renders the judgment. G And, it has been observed

that )JaKn approved procedure, where a charging lien has attached to a judgment or where money has been

paid into court, is for the attorney to file an intervening petition and have the amount and e<tent of his lien

judicially determined.) & Appropriately to be recalled at this point, is the recent ruling in Martinez #s,

<nion de Ma1uinistas, $&F%A Phild. $@E, $@@, =anuary ?, $&F%, where, spea"ing thru 2r. =ustice Arsenio

P. :i(on, e<plicit pronouncement was made by this Court that# )We are of the opinion that since the Court

of *ndustrial +elations obviously had jurisdiction over the main cases, ... it li"ewise had full jurisdiction to

consider and decide all matters collateral thereto, such as clai$s !or attorney>s !ees made by the members

of the bar who appeared therein.) $

E. he parties herein join hands in one point / the ten $- successful complainants in C.*.+ Case

!o. %/10P/Cebu should pay as attorneys fees ? of the amount adjudicated by the court in the latters

favor P%&,%II.EE-.

hey are at odds, however, on how to split the fees.

+espondent Atty. Dernande( claims twenty/five per cent EI- of the ? attorneys fees. >e

e<plains that upon the plea of Arsenio +eyes, union president and one of the $ successful complainants,

he had to reduce his fees to EI since )they have to share and satisfy also Atty. =ose 1r. Carbonell in the

e8uivalent amount of Dive Per Cent I-.) Atty. Dernande( e<hibited a contract purportedly dated

Debruary ?, $&IF ' before the @G employees have even filed their complaint in C*+. he stipulated fee is

? of whatever amount the ten might recover. Strange enough, this contract was signed only by G of the

$ winning claimants. What happened to the othersN Why did not the union intervene in the signing of this

i i di id h h d i d h i h h l i i l d h i l b i f f h d h h

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


contractN Petitioners dispute said contract. hey say that Atty. Dernande( re8uired the ten to sign the

contract only a!ter the receipt of the decision.

Petitioners, on the other hand, contend that the verbal agreement entered into by the union and its

officers thru its President =avier and said two lawyers, Atty. Carbonell and Atty. Dernande(, is that the ?

attorneys fees, shall be divided e8ually )share and share ali"e)- amongst Atty. Carbonell, Atty. Dernande(

and Delisberto =avier, the union president.

After hearing, C*+ Associate =udge Arsenio *. 2artine( awarded EI attorneys fees to respondent

Atty. Dernande(. C*+ noted that )the active conduct and prosecution of the above/entitled case was done

by Atty. Dernande( up to the appeal in the Supreme Court,) and that petitioner Atty. Carbonell manifestedthat )Atty. 0eonardo C. Dernande( was the counsel mainly responsible for the conduct of the case.) *t

noted, too, that petitioner Atty. Carbonell did not file any notice of Attorneys 0ien.

?. We stri"e down the alleged oral agreement that the union president should share in the attorneys

fees. Canon ?@ of 0egal 5thics condemns this arrangement in terms clear and e<plicit. *t says# )!o

division of fees for legal services is proper, e<cept with another lawyer, based upon a division of service

or responsibility.) he union president is not the attorney for the laborers. >e may see" compensation only

as such president. An agreement whereby a union president is allowed to share in attorneys fees is

immoral. Such a contract we emphatically reject. *t cannot be justified.

@. A contingent fee contract specifying the percentage of recovery an attorney is to receive in a suit

)should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case, including the ris" and uncertainty of the

compensation, but should always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness.)

$$

0ately, we said# $E

he principle that courts should reduce stipulated attorneys fees whenever it is found

under the circumstances of the case that the same is unreasonable, is now deeply rooted in this

jurisdiction....

< < < < < < < < <

Since then this Court has invariably fi<ed counsel fees on a 1uantu$ $eruit basis

whenever the fees stipulated appear e<cessive, unconscionable, or unreasonable, because a

lawyer is primarily a court officer charged with the duty of assisting the court in administering

impartial justice between the parties, and hence, the fees should be subject to judicial control. !or should it be ignored that sound public policy demands that courts disregard stipulations for

counsel fees, whenever they appear to be a source of speculative profit at the e<pense of the

debtor or mortgagor. See, Gorospe- et al, #, Gochangco, 0/$E%?I, 9ctober ?, $&I&. And it is

not material that the present action is between the debtor and the creditor, and not between

attorney and client. As courts have power to fi< the fee as between attorney and client, it must

necessarily have the right to say whether a stipulation li"e this, inserted in a mortgage contract,

is valid. Bachrach #, Golingco, ?& Phil. $?G.

*n the instant case, the stipulated ? attorneys fee is e<cessive and unconscionable. With the

e<ception of Arsenio +eyes who receives a monthly salary of P$%I, the other successful complainants

were mere wage earners paid a daily rate of [email protected] to PI.. $? Considering the long period of time that

they were illegally and arbitrarily deprived of their just pay, these laborers loo"ed up to the favorable

money judgment as a serum to their pitiful economic malaise. A thirty per cent ?- slice therefrom

immensely dilutes the palliative ingredient of this judicial antidote.

he ten complainants involved herein are mere laborers. *t is not far/fetched to assume that they

have not reached an educational attainment comparable to that of petitioner Carbonell or respondent

Dernande( who, on the other hand, are lawyers. Because of the ine8uality of the situation between laborer s

and lawyers, courts should go slow in awarding huge sums by way of attorneys fees based solely on

contracts. $@ Dor, as in the present case, the real objective of the C*+ judgment in C*+ Case !o. %/10P/

Cebu is to benefit the complaint laborers who were unjustifiedly dismissed from the service. While it is

true that laborers should not be allowed to develop that atavistic proclivity to bite the hands that fed them,

still lawyers should not be permitted to get a lions share of the benefits due by reason of a wor"ers labor.

What is to be paid to the laborers is not windfall but a product of the sweat of their brow. Contracts for

legal services between laborer and attorney should then be (ealously scrutini(ed to the end that a fair share

of the benefits be not denied the former.

I. An e<amination of the record of the case will readily show that an award of twenty/five per cent

EI- attorneys fees reasonably compensates the whole of the legal services rendered in C*+ Case !o.

%/10P/Cebu. his fee must be shared by petitioner Atty. Carbonell and respondent Atty. Dernande(. Dor,

after all, they are the counsel of record of the complainants. +espondent Atty. Dernande( cannot deny this

fact. he pleadings filed even at the ea rly stages of the proceedings reveal the e<istence of an association

between said attorneys. he pleadings were filed under the name of )Dernande( H Carbonell.) his

imports a common effort of the two. *t cannot be denied though that most of those pleadings up to

judgment were signed for Dernande( H Carbonell by respondent Dernande(.

We note that a brea"/up in the professional tie/up between Attorneys Dernande( and Carbonell

began when petitioner Atty. Carbonell, on !ovember EF, $&FE, complained to C*+ that respondent Atty.

Dernande( )failed to communicate with him nor to inform him about the incidents of this case.) >e there

re8uested that he be furnished )separately copies of the decision of the court and other pleadings andsubse8uent orders as well as motions in connection with the case.)

Subse8uent pleadings filed in the case unmista"ably show the widening rift in their professional

relationship. hus, on 2ay E?, $&F?, a )2otion to !ame and Authori(e 9fficial Computer) was filed with

C*+. 9n the same day, a )2otion to *ssue Writ of 5<ecution) was also registered in the same court.

Although filed under the name of )Carbonell H Dernande(,) these pleadings were signed solely by

petitioner Atty. Carbonell.

9n September $F, $&F?, an )9pposition to respondent Biscoms 2otion for +econsideration) was

filed by petitioner Atty. Carbonell. 9n September E@, $&F?, he filed a )2otion for Clarification) of the

!ovember $?, $&FE judgment of C*+ regarding the basic pay of Arsenio +eyes and Didel 2agtubo. 9n

September E@, $&F?, he also filed a )2otion to +econsider +eport of Chief 5<aminer.) hese, and other

pleadings that were filed later were signed solely by petitioner Atty. Carbonell, not in the name of

)Carbonell H Dernande(.) While it was correctly observed by C*+ that a good portion of the court battle

was fought by respondent Atty. Dernande(, yet C*+ cannot close its eyes to the legal services also rendered

by Atty. Carbonell. Dor, important and numerous, too, were his services. And, they are not negligible. he

conclusion is inevitable that petitioner Atty. Carbonell must have a share in the twenty/five per cent EI-

attorneys fees awarded herein. As to how much, this is a function pertaining to C*+.

F. We note that C*+s cashier was authori(ed on =une EI, $&F@ to disburse to Atty. 0eonardo C.

Dernande( the sum of P$&,&?G.G$ which is EI of the amount recovered. *n the event payment actually

was made, he should be re8uired to r eturn whatever is in e<cess of the amount to which he is entitled in

line with the opinion e<pressed herein. $I

*! 3*5W 9D >5 D9+5;9*!;, the award of twenty five per cent EI- attorneys fees solely to

respondent Atty. Dernande( contained in C*+s order of 2arch $&, $&F@ and affirmed by said courts en

banc resolutions of April EG, $&F@ and =une EI, $&F@, is hereby set aside7 and the case is hereby remanded

h C f * d i l + l i i h i i d h i d d i h R * B L + C * "i M 8 li l B * P ? ldi C + l d ) d **

7/23/2019 Ethics 31 42


to the Court of *ndustrial +elations with instructions to conduct a hearing on, and determine, the

respective shares of Attorney 0eonardo C. Dernande( and Attorney =ose 1r. Carbonell in the amount of

P$&,&?G.G$ herein awarded as attorneys fees or both. !o costs. So ordered.

Reyes- *,B,L,- +ctg, C,*,- "izon- Ma8alintal- Bengzon- *,P,- ?aldi#ar- Castro- +ngeles and )ernando- **,-

concur,

Concepcion- C,*,- is on lea#e,

Ethics 31 42

Documents

Transcript of Ethics 31 42