Canon 7

In Re: IBP Elections

Facts:

Newly-elected officers of the IBP were set to take their oath when widespread reports about the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates broke out. The alleged use of government planes and their intervention to certain public officials to influence the voting, all of were done in the violation of IBP by-laws which prohibits such activities.

Issue: WON the respondents violated the Canon 7 of the code of professional responsibility and the IBP laws

Held:

The Court found the candidates to have violated the IBP laws and Code of professional responsibility, stating that IBP is non-political in character and that there should be politicking and lobbying in the choice of officers.

Santos v. Llamas

Facts:

The complaint is about the misrepresentation and non-payment of respondent Atty. Llamas of bar membership. He has engaged in the law practice without paying his dues and only indicating the same IBP number “IBP rizal 259060” for a number of years. He claimed that he only engaged in a “limited law practice” and invoked RA 7432 to be exempt from payment.

Issue: WON Atty. Llamas should be exempted from paying his dues

WON Atty. Llamas has misled the court by using the same IBP number for a number of years.

Held:

No, he is not exempted because membership in the IBP requires payment of his dues whether the respondent engaged in a limited practice is irrelevant. Also, RA 7432 does not include payment of membership fees or association dues.

Yes, he violated the Code of professional Responsibility by declaring the same IBP number and making the Court and the public believe that he has paid his dues.

He was suspended for one year until he paid his IBP dues.

Letter of Atty. Cecilio

Facts:

Petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years 1977-2005. He alleged that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of one’s profession while in government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.

Issue: WON the petitioner should be exempted from paying his IBP dues during the time that he was inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil Service from 1962-1986 and he was working abroad from 1986-2003?

Held:

No, payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one’s membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.

Foodshpere v. Mauricio

Facts:

Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant), a corporation engaged in the business of meat processing and manufacture and distribution of canned goods and grocery products under the brand name "CDO," filed a Verified Complaint1 for disbarment of Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr. for (1) grossly immoral conduct; (2) violation of lawyer’s oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors.

Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. On June 27, 2004, as Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the can.

The respondent Mauricio allegedly threatened to post articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices and defects to it and its products in a tabloid unless complainant gave in to the P150,000 demand of the Corderos. An agreement was agreed upon, eventually, the Corderos forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFA and the complaint was dismissed.

Atty. Mauricio continuously attacked Foodsphere in his columns and radio and television programs.

Issue: WON Atty. Mauricio violated the Code of Professional responsibility

Held:

Yes. He was suspended from law practice for three years.

Violations:

Rule 1.01 of Code of Professional Responsibility – refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.(He engaged in deceitful conduct by taking advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his interest – to obtain funds for his Batas Foundation and seek sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and his television program).

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Rule 8.01 – a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. (Rule 8.01 – a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper)

Rule 13.03 -which reads: "A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party."

Rule 13.02 – a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.(Despite the pendency of civil case against him, he continued with his attacks against complainant and its products).

Young vs. Batuegas

Facts:

On December 29, 2000, Atty. Walter T. Young filed a Verified Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino and Franklin Q. Susa for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyer’s oath.

Complainant is the private prosecutor in Criminal Case, pending before the Regional Trial Court. Respondents Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the “accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. As such, he is now under detention.” Upon personal verification with the (NBI) where accused Arana allegedly surrendered, complainant learned that he surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as shown by the Certificate of Detention.

Respondent Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila, Branch 27, calendared the motion on December 15, 2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other formal defects, namely, the lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant, violation of the three-day notice rule, and the failure to attach the Certificate of Detention

Issue:

WON the respondents are guilty of deliberate falsehood in declaring custody of the accused

Held:

Respondent lawyers fell short of the duties and responsibilities expected from them as members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under detention. Obviously, such artifice was a deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to injustice. To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that we strongly condemn. They violated their oath when they resorted to deception. (Violation: Canon 7 rule 7.01)

Clerk of court should not be made administratively liable for including the Motion in the calendar of thetrial court, considering that it was authorized by the presiding judge.

Batuegas, Nazareno and LLantino suspended for 6 months. Complaint against Susa, dismissed for lack of merit.

In re Investigation of ANGEL J. PARAZO for alleged leakage of questions in some subjects in the 1948 Bar Examinations.

Facts:

The present case had its origin in a story or news item prepared and written by the defendant, Angel J. Parazo, a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter, a local daily of general circulation, that appeared on the front page of the issue of September 14, 1948. The story was preceded by the headline in large letters — "CLAIM 'LEAK' IN LAST BAR TESTS," followed by another in slightly smaller letters — "Applicants In Uproar, Want Anomaly Probed; One School Favored," under the name — "By Angel J. Parazo of the Star Reporter Staff."

The investigation of Mr. Parazo was conducted on September 18, 1948, on which occasion he testified under oath and, answering questions directed to him by Messrs. Cruz and Soriano admitted that he was the author of the news item; that he wrote up the story and had it published, in good faith and in a spirit of public service; and that he knew the persons who gave him the information which formed the basis of his publication but that he declined to reveal their names because the information was given to him in confidence and his informants did not wish to have their identities revealed.

Issue: WON Mr. Parazo should be cited for contempt for his actions

Held:

“We find that the interest of the state in the present case demands that the respondent Angel J. Parazo reveal the source or sources of his information, and that, in refusing to make the revelation which this Court required of him, he committed contempt of Court. The respondent repeatedly stated during the investigation that he knew the names and identities of the persons who furnished him the information. In other words, he omitted and still refuses to do an act commanded by this Court which is yet in his power to perform. (Rule 64, section 7, Rules of Court.)”

The court ordered his immediate arrest and confinement in jail for a period of one month, unless, before the expiration of that period he makes to this Court the revelation demanded of him.

Zaguirre vs. Castillo

Facts:

Complainant and respondent met sometime in 1996 when the two became officemates at the NBI. Respondent courted complainant and promised to marry her while representing himself to be single. Soon they had an intimate relationship that started sometime in 1996 and lasted until 1997. The respondent then was preparing for the bar exams, and passed on 1997. She then found out that he was married when he was confronted by his wife. Respondent admitted their relationship and that he was the father of their unborn child. After the child was born the respondent denied the child and did not provide any support.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Castillo is guilty of gross immoral conduct

Held:

The Court agreed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline that Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of gross immoral conduct and he was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.

Violations:

“Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

“CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.”

“Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”

Tapucar vs. Tapucar

Facts:

In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant Remedios Ramirez Tapucar sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct for cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Peña under scandalous circumstances.

Complainant has migrated to the US after her retirement, she was however, informed of the respondent’s acts including the misery they suffered because of their father’s acts. Complainant was forced to file the present petition for disbarment under the compulsion of the material impulse to shield and protect her children from the despotic and cruel acts of their own father. Complainant secured the assistance of her eldest daughter, Atty. Ma. Susana Tapucar-Baua, to represent her in this case.

Issue: WON Atty. Tapucar should be disbarred

Held:

Record shows that despite previous sanctions imposed upon by this Court, respondent continued his illicit liaison with a woman other than lawfully-wedded wife. The report of the Commissioner assigned to investigate thoroughly the complaint found respondent far from contrite; on the contrary, he exhibited a cavalier attitude, even arrogance; in the face of charges against him.

Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyer’s oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent’s character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.

Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.