Legal and Judicial Ethics Cases

8/9/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Cases

1/17

Cayetano v. Monsod Revisited

Ask any law student to describe what “practice of law” means, and he or she will invariably quote the denitiongiven by the Supreme Court in enato !" Cayetano v" Christian #onsod, et al" $%&' SCA %'& ('))'*+

“-ractice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,knowledge, training and e.perience" /0o engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which arecharacteristics of the profession" 1enerally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, whichdevice or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill"2 $''' A! %3+” $at p" %'4+

0he issue in the case was whether or not the respondent #onsod, a lawyer, was qualied for appointment as Chairof the Commission on 5lections $C6#5!5C+, since Art" 789C, Sec" '('* of the '):; Constitution requires that, interalia, a maustices -adilla, CruI, and1utierreI who dissented from the ponencia of >ustice -aras in Cayetano v" #onsod" >ustice -aras remarked that thedissent of >ustice -adilla

“Fis the traditional or stereotyped notion of law practice, as distinguished from the modern concept of the practiceof law, which modern connotation is e"actly what was intended by the eminent framers of the '()* Constitution"#oreover, >ustice -adilla2s denition would require generally a habitual law practice, perhaps practised two or threetimes a week and would outlaw say, law practice once or twice a year for ten consecutive years" Clearly, this is farfrom the constitutional intent"” $at p" %%; 7talics supplied" 0he dissent is at pp" %3&9%33+

Hith respect to the dissent of >ustice CruI, >ustice -aras said that

“>ustice CruI goes on to say in substance that since the law covers almost all situations, most individuals, in making

uses of the law, or in advising others on what the law means, are actually practicing law" 7n that sense, perhaps, butwe should not lose sight of the fact that #r" #onsod is a lawyer, a member of the +hilippine ar , who has beenpracticing law for over ten years" 0his is diJerent from the acts of persons practicing law, without rst becominglawyers"” $at p" %%; 7talics supplied" 0he dissent is at pp" %349%3@+

+arenthetically, the comment of -ustice +aras about “the acts of persons practicing law, without rst becominglawyers& appears to open the practice of law to non#lawyers .his brings to mind a priest /not 0r ernas1 with a penchant to ponticate about the law /civil, not canon1 even though he is not a lawyer2

“3I have been informed that someone who has taken a perpetual vow to dislike me has asked why I am repeatedly interviewed and asked for opinions on %uestions of law I have never held myself out to be a lawyer I do not needthe title I do not make my living from representing the gripes of others in court, and engorging myself by others’%uest for the vindication of their rights It is not my doing that I am interviewed and he is not, that my opinions aresought, and that none care for his4 I have studied the law as a scholar of a discipline 0or that, you do not need alicense 5ou need intelligence and diligence, and you need the recognition of fellow#academics that you know ofwhat you speak3& /0r 6anhilio A%uino, 0or the 7ake of 6ationality 7eptember 89, :9'8, !anila 7tandard .oday1

“3;egal ethics is an o"ymoron It was not so much a swipe at the law as at lawyers, and the fact is that in the+hilippines, as well as in other


2/17

Ciocon#6eer v ;ubao, A! Eo ?CA I+I Eo 9(#8:'9#6.C B-une :9, :9':D In re -oa%uin . orromeo, :F' 7C6AF9GB'((G1

Eor some reason, >ustice -aras did not address the dissent of >ustice 1utierreI $at pp" %3@9%43+

“Hhen this petition was led, there was hope that engaging in the practice of law as a qualication for public o?cewould be settled one way or another in fairly denitive terms" Dnfortunately, this was not the result"

6f the fourteen $'4+ member Court, are of the view that #r" Christian #onsod engaged in the practice of law $withone of these leaving his vote behind while on o?cial leave but not e.pressing his clear stand on the matter+ 4categorically stated that he did not practice law % voting in the result because there was no error so gross as toamount to grave abuse of discretion one on o?cial leave with no instructions left behind on how he viewed theissue and % not taking part in the deliberations and the decision".9.9.7nspite of my high regard for #r" #onsod, 7 cannot shirk from my constitutional duty" Ke has never engaged in thepractice of law for even one year" Ke is a member of the bar but to say that he has practiced law is stretching theterm beyond rational limits"A person may have passed the bar e.aminations" ut if he has not dedicated his life to the law, if he has notengaged in an activity where membership in the bar is a re%uirement 7 fail to see how he can claim to have beenengaged in the practice of law"5ngaging in the practice of law is a qualication not only for C6#5!5C chairman but also for appointment to theSupreme Court and all lower courts" Hhat kind of >udges or >ustices will we have if their main occupation is sellingreal estate, managing a business corporation, serving in fact9nding committee, working in media, or operating afarm with no active involvement in the law, whether in 1overnment or private practice, e.cept that in one ustices -adilla, CruI, and 1utierreI

“+ractice of law is referred to no less than three times in Article M777 of the Constitution" Eirst, in reference to therule9making power of the Supreme Court authoriIing it to /promulgate rules concerning ... pleading, practice, andprocedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law ... Secondly, it has reference to the qualication of#embers of the Supreme Court, who /must have been for fteen years or more a


3/17

epublic of the -hilippines

SUPREME COURT

#anila

S5C6GB B7M7S76G

Adm. Case No. 5530 January 2! 20"3

SPOUSES ARC#N$ AN% CRES#N$ &AUT#STA! E%A' RA$A%#O and (RANC#N$ $A)$A)AN!

Complainants,

vs"

ATT'. ARTURO CE(RA! espondent"

B 5 C 7 S 7 6 G

&R#ON! J.:

=efore us is a complaint for disbarment led by spouses Arcing and Cresing =autista, 5day egadio ' and Erancing 1algalan $complainants+ against Atty" Arturo Cefra for violating Canon ': of the Code of

-rofessional esponsibility and ules '3: and '3) of the ules of Court"

0he Eacts

0he complainants were the defendants in Civil Case Go" D9@&4 an action for quieting of title, recovery

of possession and damages led in the egional 0rial Court $0C+, =ranch 4, Drdaneta City,

-angasinan"% 0he complainants engaged the services of Atty" Cefra to represent them in the

proceedings" According to the complainants, they lost in Civil Case Go" D9@&4 because of Atty" Cefra2s

negligence in performing his duties as their counsel" Eirst, Atty" Cefra only presented testimonial

evidence and disregarded two $%+ orders of the 0C directing him to submit a formal oJer of

documentary e.hibits" Second, Atty" Cefra belatedly submitted the formal oJer of documentarye.hibits after the complainants had been declared to have waived their right to make a submission"

0hird, Atty" Cefra did not le a motion or appeal and neither did he le any other remedial pleading to

contest the 0C2s decision rendered against them"

0he Court ordered Atty" Cefra to comment on the complaint" Bespite the e.tensions of time given by

the Court, Atty" Cefra did not le any comment" Ke did not also comply with the Court2s #inute

esolutions,3 dated Becember '4, %&& and #arch %%, %&&@, directing him to pay a -%,&&&"&& ne and

to submit the required comment"

6n >uly '@, %&&:, we held Atty" Cefra in contempt of court, ordering his detention for ve $+ days" He

also reiterated the order for Atty" Cefra to pay a -%,&&&"&& ne and to submit a comment on the

complaint"4

6n August 4, %&&:, Atty" Cefra led his Comment, denying the allegations in the complaint" Ke

claimed that the complainants misunderstood the 0C2s decision

%" 0hat espondent denies the allegation in -aragraphs $sic+ ; of the complaint that

defendants miserably lost the case because the Becision itself conrmed and a?rmed our

stand that defendants do not contest the ownership of . . . Serlito 5vangelista . . ."

3

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt5


4/17

3" 0hat it was defendants $sic+ failure to fully understand the Becision which led to the ling of

this administrative case and which subsequent events have proven that in the implementation

of the Hrit of 5.ecution the land owned by the defendants covered by 0ransfer Certicates of

0itles were not aJected"@

7n a #inute esolution; dated September %4, %&&:, we referred the case to the 7ntegrated =ar of the

-hilippines $7=-+ for investigation, report and recommendationNdecision"

0he eport and ecommendation of the 7=-

6n >une '', %&&), the 7nvestigating Commissioner: recommended the dismissal of the complaint" 0he

7nvestigating Commissioner opined

0he administrative complaint failed to show su?cient evidence to warrant disciplinary action against

respondent" Complainants led this complaint because they believed that they lost their case,

however, their claim over their properties was not aJected by the Becision of the court" )

7n esolution Go" 8789%&'&9%: dated April '@, %&'&, the 7=- =oard of 1overnors reversed the ndings

of the 7nvestigating Commissioner" 0he 7=- =oard of 1overnors found Atty" Cefra negligent in handlingthe complainants2 case and unanimously approved his suspension from the practice of law for si. $@+

months"

Atty" Cefra led a motion for reconsideration" 6n >anuary '4, %&'%, in esolution Go" 889%&'%9%4, the

7=- =oard of 1overnors partially granted Atty" Cefra2s motion in this wise

5S6!M5B to -A07A!!P 1AG0 espondent2s #otion for econsideration and unanimously #6B7EP

esolution Go" 8789%&'&9%: dated April '@, %&'& Suspending Atty" Arturo =" Cefra from the practice of

law for si. $@+ months to 5-7#AGB5B considering that the failure was not material to the case and

that complainants were not prer",'3 the Court held

5very case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of

its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or free" Certainly, a member of the =ar who is worth

his title cannot aJord to practice the profession in a lackadaisical fashion" A lawyer2s lethargy from the

perspective of the Canons is both unprofessional and unethical"

Atty" Cefra failed to live up to these standards" 7nterestingly, he did not deny the complainants2

allegations and impliedly admitted his actions in the proceedings in Civil Case Go" D9@&4"

0he records further substantiate clear acts of negligence on Atty" Cefra2s part in handling the

complainants2 case"

Eirst, Atty" Cefra failed to submit a formal oJer of documentary evidence within the period

given by the 0C" Atty" Cefra submitted a formal oJer of documentary evidence ve $+ months

after the 0C2s rst order directing him to make a formal oJer" 0he formal oJer of evidence

was only made after the complainants had been declared by the 0C to have waived their right

to submit a formal oJer of documentary evidence"

4

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/ac_5530_2013.html#fnt13


5/17

Second, Atty" Cefra failed to comply with the two $%+ orders of the 0C directing him to submit

a formal oJer of documentary evidence" Ke made no eJort to submit the required formal oJer

of documentary evidence within the prescribed period" Geither did he give his reasons, within

the required period, on why he could not make the required formal oJer of documentary

evidence" 7n fact, Atty" Cefra2s belated e.planation for this omission was only done in a motion

for reconsideration $with motion to admit the formal oJer of documentary evidence+ that he

subsequently led, which motion the 0C denied for lack of merit"

0hird, Atty" Cefra failed to le an appropriate motion or appeal, or avail of any remedial

measure to contest the 0C2s decision" Kis claim that the complainants had not been

pre


6/17

esponsibility mandates that “a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

diligence"” 7t further states that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,

and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable"” 7n addition, a lawyer has

the duty to “keep the client informed of the status of his case"” Atty" Cefra failed to live up to

these standards as shown by the following $'+ Atty" Cefra failed to submit a formal oJer of

documentary evidence within the period given by the 0C $%+ Ke failed to comply with the

two orders of the 0C directing him to submit a formal oJer of documentary evidence $3+

Atty" Cefra failed to le an appropriate motion or appeal, or avail of any remedial measure to

contest the 0C2s decision $4+ Ke failed to le an appropriate motion or appeal, or avail of

any remedial measure to contest the 0C2s decision which was adverse to complainants"

0hus, the above acts showing Atty" Cefra2s lack of diligence and inattention to his duties as a

lawyer warrant disciplinary sanction" 0he court has repeatedly held that “(t*he practice of

law is a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the legal

qualications for it" !awyers are e.pected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal

prociency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing" 0hey must perform

their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance

with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of -rofessionalesponsibility"” 7ps Arcing and Cresing autista, et al vs Atty Arturo Cefra A"C" Go" 3&"

>anuary %:, %&'3"

epublic of the -hilippinesSUPREME COURT

#anila

0K7B B7M7S76G

AC No. **+,3- June "0! 2002

%OM#NA%OR P. &UR&E! complainant,vs"ATT'. A)&ERTO C. MA$U)TA! respondent"

PAN$AN#&AN! J.

After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes delity to both cause and client, even ifthe client never paid any fee for the attorney9client relationship" !awyering is not a business it is aprofession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration"

Te Case

=efore us is a Complaint for the disbarment or suspension or any other disciplinary action against Atty"Alberto C" #agulta" Eiled by Bominador -" =urbe with the Commission on =ar Biscipline of the

@

https://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/5530.pdfhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/5530.pdfhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/5530.pdfhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/5530.pdf


7/17

7ntegrated =ar of the -hilippines $7=-+ on >une '4, '))), the Complaint is accompanied by a SwornStatement alleging the following

Q. . . . . . . . .

Q0hat in connection with my business, 7 was introduced to Atty" Alberto C" #agulta, sometime inSeptember, ')):, in his o?ce at the espicio, #agulta and Adan !aw 6?ces at %'9= 6tero=uilding, >uan de la CruI St", Bavao City, who agreed to legally represent me in a money claimand possible civil case against certain parties for breach of contract

Q0hat consequent to such agreement, Atty" Alberto C" #agulta prepared for me the demandletter and some other legal papers, for which services 7 have accordingly paid inasmuch,however, that 7 failed to secure a settlement of the dispute, Atty" #agulta suggested that 7 lethe necessary complaint, which he subsequently drafted, copy of which is attached as Anne.A, the ling fee whereof will require the amount of 0wenty Eive 0housand -esos $-%,&&&"&&+

Q0hat having the need to legally recover from the parties to be sued 7, on >anuary 4, '))),deposited the amount of -%,&&&"&& to Atty" Alberto C" #agulta, copy of the eceipt attachedas Anne. =, upon the instruction that 7 needed the case led immediately

Q0hat a week later, 7 was informed by Atty" Alberto C" #agulta that the complaint had alreadybeen led in court, and that 7 should receive notice of its progress

Q0hat in the months that followed, 7 waited for such notice from the court or from Atty" #agultabut there seemed to be no progress in my case, such that 7 frequented his o?ce to inquire, andhe would repeatedly tell me uly %%, '))) 6rder of the 7=- Commission on =ar Biscipline, % respondent led his Answer3 vehemently denying the allegations of complainant Qfor being totallyoutrageous and baseless"Q 0he latter had allegedly been introduced as a kumpadre of one of theformers law partners" After their meeting, complainant requested him to draft a demand letter againstegwill 7ndustries, 7nc" 99 a service for which the former never paid" After #r" Said Sayre, one of thebusiness partners of complainant, replied to this letter, the latter requested that another demand letter99 this time addressed to the former 99 be drafted by respondent, who reluctantly agreed to do so"Hithout informing the lawyer, complainant asked the process server of the formers law o?ce to

deliver the letter to the addressee"

Aside from attending to the egwill case which had required a three9hour meeting, respondent drafteda complaint $which was only for the purpose of compelling the owner to settle the case+ and prepareda compromise agreement" Ke was also requested by complainant to do the following

'" Hrite a demand letter addressed to #r" Gelson 0an

%" Hrite a demand letter addressed to A!C Corporation

;


8/17

3" Braft a complaint against A!C Corporation

4" esearch on the #andaue City property claimed by complainants wife

All of these respondent did, but he was never paid for his services by complainant"

espondent likewise said that without telling him why, complainant later on withdrew all the lespertinent to the egwill case" Kowever, when no settlement was reached, the latter instructed him todraft a complaint for breach of contract" espondent, whose services had never been paid bycomplainant until this time, told the latter about his acceptance and legal fees" Hhen told that thesefees amounted to -':;,;4% because the egwill claim was almost -4 million, complainant promised topay on installment basis"

6n >anuary 4, '))), complainant gave the amount of -%,&&& to respondents secretary and told herthat it was for the ling fee of the egwill case" Hhen informed of the payment, the lawyerimmediately called the attention of complainant, informing the latter of the need to pay theacceptance and ling fees before the complaint could be led" Complainant was told that the amounthe had paid was a deposit for the acceptance fee, and that he should give the ling fee later"

Sometime in Eebruary '))), complainant told respondent to suspend for the meantime the ling of the

complaint because the former might be paid by another company, the Eirst 6riental -roperty Mentures,7nc", which had oJered to buy a parcel of land owned by egwill 7ndustries" 0he negotiations went onfor two months, but the parties never arrived at any agreement"

Sometime in #ay '))), complainant again relayed to respondent his interest in ling the complaint"espondent reminded him once more of the acceptance fee" 7n response, complainant proposed thatthe complaint be led rst before payment of respondents acceptance and legal fees" Hhenrespondent refused, complainant demanded the return of the -%,&&&" 0he lawyer returned theamount using his own personal checks because their law o?ce was undergoing e.tensive renovationat the time, and their o?ce personnel were not reporting regularly" espondents checks wereaccepted and encashed by complainant"

espondent averred that he never inconvenienced, mistreated or deceived complainant, and if anyonehad been shortchanged by the undesirable events, it was he"

Te #&P/s Reommendation

7n its eport and ecommendation dated #arch :, %&&&, the Commission on =ar Biscipline of the7ntegrated =ar of the -hilippines $7=-+ opined as follows

Q. . . (7*t is evident that the -%,&&& deposited by complainant with the espicio !aw 6?cewas for the ling fees of the egwill complaint" Hith complainants deposit of the ling fees forthe egwill complaint, a corresponding obligation on the part of respondent was created andthat was to le the egwill complaint within the time frame contemplated by his client, thecomplainant" 0he failure of respondent to fulll this obligation due to his misuse of the lingfees deposited by complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client,which caused complainant additional damage and preanuary 4, '))) was for attorneys fees and not for the ling fee"

He are not persuaded" !awyers must e.ert their best eJorts and ability in the prosecution or thedefense of the clients cause" 0hey who perform that duty with diligence and candor not only protect

:


9/17

the interests of the client, but also serve the ends of anuary 4, '))) was erroneous" 0he 7=- eport correctly noted that it was quiteincredible for the o?ce personnel of a law rm to be prevailed upon by a client to issue a receipterroneously indicating payment for something else" #oreover, upon discovering the QmistakeQ 99 ifindeed it was one 99 respondent should have immediately taken steps to correct the error" Ke shouldhave lost no time in calling complainants attention to the matter and should have issued anotherreceipt indicating the correct purpose of the payment"

The Practice of Law -- aProfession, Not a Business

7n this day and age, members of the bar often forget that the practice of law is a profession and not abusiness"'' !awyering is not primarily meant to be a money9making venture, and law advocacy is not acapital that necessarily yields prots"'% 0he gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a secondaryconsideration"'3 Buty to public service and to the administration of


10/17

him by his client and thus failed to le the complaint promptly" 0he fact that the former returned theamount does not e.culpate him from his breach of duty"

6n the other hand, we do not agree with complainants plea to disbar respondent from the practice oflaw" 0he power to disbar must be e.ercised with great caution" 6nly in a clear case of misconduct thatseriously aJects the standing and the character of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty" ')

4ERE(ORE, Atty" Alberto C" #agulta is found guilty of violating ules '@"&' and ':"&3 of the Code of -rofessional esponsibility and is hereby !P"N#"# from the practice of law for a period of one $'+year, eJective upon his receipt of this Becision" !et copies be furnished all courts as well as the 6?ceof the =ar Condant, which is instructed to include a copy in respondents le"

S6 6B55B"

=D=5 MS A00P" #A1D!0AEacts #agulta decided to represent =urbe in a moneyclaim and a possible civil case for breach of contractagainstcertain parties" Atty #agulta drafted the demandletter and other legal documents needed which =urbeaccordinglypaid" 0hey failed to secure a settlement but Atty #agulta still suggested to =urbe that they le acomplaint and theamount of the ling fee needed was%,&&&" =urbe deposited the amount to Atty #agulta andwas informed by theattorney that the complaint wasalready led in court" #onths passed and still there was nonotice from the court

about the progress of the complaint"=urbe was advised by Atty #agulta to


11/17

epublic of the -hilippines

SUPREME COURT

#anila

EN &ANC

&.M. No. ",6 %eem7er "6! 2006

PET#T#ON (OR )EA8E TO RESUME PRACT#CE O( )A4!

&ENJAM#N M. %ACANA'! petitioner"

R E S O ) U T # O N

CORONA! J.

0his bar matter concerns the petition of petitioner =en


12/17

S5C076G '" Hho may practice law" O Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the

bar, or thereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this ule, and who is in

good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law"

-ursuant thereto, any person admitted as a member of the -hilippine bar in accordance with the

statutory requirements and who is in good and regular standing is entitled to practice law"

Admission to the bar requires certain qualications" 0he ules of Court mandates that an applicant for

admission to the bar be a citiIen of the -hilippines, at least twenty9one years of age, of good moral

character and a resident of the -hilippines" Ke must also produce before this Court satisfactory

evidence of good moral character and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have

been led or are pending in any court in the -hilippines"@

#oreover, admission to the bar involves various phases such as furnishing satisfactory proof of

educational, moral and other qualications; passing the bar e.aminations: taking the lawyer2s oath)

and signing the roll of attorneys and receiving from the clerk of court of this Court a certicate of the

license to practice"'&

0he second requisite for the practice of law T membership in good standing T is a continuingrequirement" 0his means continued membership and, concomitantly, payment of annual membership

dues in the 7=-'' payment of the annual professional ta.'% compliance with the mandatory continuing

legal education requirement'3 faithful observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession and

being continually sub


13/17

4ERE(ORE, the petition of Attorney =enanuary %', ');@, the 7=-, through its then -resident !iliano =" Geri, submitted the said resolutionto the Court for consideration and approval, pursuant to paragraph %, Section %4, Article 777 of the =y9!aws of the 7=-, which reads

"""" Should the delinquency further continue until the following >une %), the =oard shallpromptly inquire into the cause or causes of the continued delinquency and takewhatever action it shall deem appropriate, including a recommendation to theSupreme Court for the removal of the delinquent members name from the oll of

Attorneys" Gotice of the action taken shall be sent by registered mail to the memberand to the Secretary of the Chapter concerned"

6n >anuary %;, ');@, the Court required the respondent to comment on the resolution and letteradverted to above he submitted his comment on Eebruary %3, ');@, reiterating his refusal to pay themembership fees due from him"

6n #arch %, ');@, the Court required the 7=- -resident and the 7=- =oard of 1overnors to reply to5dillons comment on #arch %4, ');@, they submitted a


14/17

0hereafter, the case was set for hearing on >une 3, ');@" After the hearing, the parties were requiredto submit memoranda in amplication of their oral arguments" 0he matter was thenceforth submittedfor resolution"

At the threshold, a painstaking scrutiny of the respondents pleadings would show that the proprietyand necessity of the integration of the =ar of the -hilippines are in essence conceded" 0he respondent,however, ob=ect of non#payment of dues Sub


15/17

o?cial national body of which all lawyers are required to be members" 0hey are, therefore, subustice oberts e.plained, the e.pression QaJected with a public interestQ is the equivalent of Qsub


16/17


17/17

0he Courts

Documents

Legal and Judicial Ethics Cases