IN RE: DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO PUNO. FLORA QUINGWA complainant, vs. ARMANDO PUNO, respondent. Domingo T. Zavalla for complainant.

Armando Puno for and in his own behalf as respondent. REGALA, J.: On April 16, 1959, Flora Quingwa filed before this Court a verified complaint charging Armando Puno, a member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. In his answer, the respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and as a special defense averred that the allegations therein do not constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension under section 25, Rule 127 of the former Rules of Court. The case was referred to the Solicitor General on June 3, 1958, for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings were held by the then Solicitor Roman Cancino, Jr., during which the complainant, assisted by her counsel, presented evidence both oral and documentary. The respondent, as well as his counsel, cross-examined the complainant's witnesses. The respondent likewise testified. He denied having sexual intercourse with complainant at the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, disclaimed the handwriting "Mr. & Mrs. A. Puno" appearing in the hotel register, and disowned Armando Quingwa Puno, Jr. to be his child. After the hearing, the Solicitor General filed a complaint, formally charging respondent with immorality. The complaint recites: That on June 1, 1958, at a time when complainant Flora Quingwa and respondent Armando Puno were engaged to be married, the said respondent invited the complainant to attend a movie but on their way the respondent told the complainant that they take refreshment before going to the Lyric Theater; that they proceeded to the Silver Moon Hotel at R. Hidalgo, Manila; that while at the restaurant on the first floor of the said Silver Moon Hotel, respondent proposed to complainant that they go to one of the rooms upstairs assuring her that 'anyway we are getting married; that with reluctance and a feeling of doubt engendered by love of respondent and the respondent's promise of marriage, complainant acquiesced, and before they entered the hotel room respondent registered and signed the registry book as 'Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno; that after registering at the hotel, respondent shoved complainant inside the room; that as soon as they were inside the room, someone locked the

door from outside and respondent proceeded to the bed and undressed himself; that complainant begged respondent not to molest her but respondent insisted, telling her: 'anyway I have promised to marry you'; and respondent, still noticing the reluctance of complainant to his overtures of love, again assured complainant that 'you better give up. Anyway I promised that I will marry you'; that thereupon respondent pulled complainant to the bed, removed her panty, and then placed himself on top of her and held her hands to keep her flat on the bed; that when respondent was already on top of complainant the latter had no other recourse but to submit to respondent's demand and two (2) sexual intercourse took place from 3:00 o'clock until 7:00 o'clock that same evening when they left the hotel and proceeded to a birthday party together; that after the sexual act with complainant on June 1, 1958, respondent repeatedly proposed to have some more but complainant refused telling that they had better wait until they were married; that after their said sexual intimacy on June 1, 1958 and feeling that she was already on the family way, complainant repeatedly implored respondent to comply with his promise of marriage but respondent refused to comply; that on February 20, 1959, complainant gave birth to a child. That the acts of the respondent in having carnal knowledge with the complainant through a promise of marriage which he did not fulfill and has refused to fulfill up to the present constitute a conduct which shows that respondent is devoid of the highest degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of and must be possessed by members of the Philippine Bar. The Solicitor General asked for the disbarment of the respondent. A copy of this complaint was served on respondent on May 3, 1962. Thereupon, he answered the complaint on June 9, 1962, again denying that he took complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and that on the promise of marriage, succeeded twice in having sexual intercourse with her. He, however, admitted that sometime in June, 1955, he and the complainant became sweethearts until November, 1955, when they broke off, following a quarrel. He left for Zamboanga City in July, 1958, to practice law. Without stating in his answer that he had the intention of introducing additional evidence, respondent prayed that the complaint be dismissed. This case was set for hearing in this Court on July 20, 1962. On the day of the hearing Solicitor Ceferino E. Gaddi who appeared for the complainant submitted the case for decision without oral argument. There was no appearance for the respondents.

Since the failure of respondent to make known in his answer his intention to present additional evidence in his behalf is deemed a waiver of the right to present such evidence (Toledo vs. Toledo, Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963), the evidence produced before the Solicitor General in his investigation, where respondent had an opportunity to object to the evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, may now be considered by this Court, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 139 of the Rules of Court. After reviewing the evidence, we are convinced that the facts are as stated in the complaint. Complainant is an educated woman, having been a public school teacher for a number of years. She testified that respondent took her to the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, signing the hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno," and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage. The hotel register of the Silver Moon Hotel (Exh. B-1 and Exh. B-2) shows that "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno" arrived at that hotel on June 1, 1958 at 3:00 P.M. and departed at 7:00 P.M. Complainant also testified that she last saw respondent on July 5, 1958, when the latter went to Zamboanga City. When she learned that respondent had left for Zamboanga City, she sent him a telegram sometime in August of that year telling him that she was in trouble. Again she wrote him a letter in September and another one in October of the same year, telling him that she was pregnant and she requested him to come. Receiving no replies from respondent, she went to Zamboanga City in November, 1958, where she met the respondent and asked him to comply with his promise to marry her.1wph1.t Respondent admitted that he left for Zamboanga City in July, 1958, and that he and complainant met in Zamboanga City in November, 1958. The fact that complainant sent him a telegram and letters was likewise admitted in respondent's letter to the complainant dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E), which was duly identified by the respondent to be his. Complainant gave birth to a baby boy on February 20, 1959, at the Maternity and Children's Hospital. This is supported by a certified true copy of a birth certificate issued by the Deputy Local Civil Registrar of Manila, and a certificate of admission of complainant to the Maternity and Children's Hospital issued by the medical records clerk of the hospital. To show how intimate the relationship between the respondent and the complainant was, the latter testified that she gave money to the respondent whenever he asked from her. This was corroborated by the testimony of Maria Jaca a witness for the complainant. Even respondent's letter dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E) shows that he used to ask for money from the complainant.

The lengthy cross-examination to which complainant was subjected by the respondent himself failed to discredit complainant's testimony. In his answer to the complaint of the Solicitor General, the respondent averred that he and complainant were sweethearts up to November, 1955 only. The fact that they reconciled and were sweethearts in 1958 is established by the testimony of Fara Santos, a witness of the complainant (pp. 12 & 17, t.s.n.); respondent's letter to the complainant dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E); and respondent's own testimony (pp. 249 & 255, t.s.n.) Complainant submitted to respondent's plea for sexual intercourse because of respondent's promise of marriage and not because of a desire for sexual gratification or of voluntariness and mutual passion. (Cf. Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966) . One of the requirements for all applicants for admission to the Bar is that the applicant must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Rule 127 of the old Rules of Court, now section 2, Rule 138). If that qualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of law, it is essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. (Royong vs. Oblena, Adm. Case No. 376, April 30, 1963, citing In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567). When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by Malcolm, p. 93) and show proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him. Respondent denied that he took complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her on June 1, 1958, but he did not present evidence to show where he was on that date. In the case of United States vs. Tria, 17 Phil. 303, Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court, said: An accused person sometimes owes a duty to himself if not to the State. If he does not perform that duty he may not always expect the State to perform it for him. If he fails to meet the obligation which he owes to himself, when to meet it is the easiest of easy things, he is hardly indeed if he demand and expect that same full and wide consideration which the State voluntarily gives to those who by reasonable effort seek to help themselves. This is particularly so when he not only declines to help himself but actively conceals from the State the very means by which it may assist him. With respect to the special defense raised by the respondent in his answer to the charges of the complainant that the allegations in the complaint do not

fall under any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar as enumerated in section 25 of Rule 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already a settled rule that the statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers of the court over its officers can not be restricted. Times without number, our Supreme Court held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. (In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567, citing In re Smith [1906] 73 Kan 743; Balinon vs. de Leon Adm. Case No. 104, January 28, 1954; 50 O.G. 583; Mortel vs. Aspiras, Adm. Case No. 145, December 28, 1956, 53 O.G. 627). As a matter of fact, "grossly immoral conduct" is now one of the grounds for suspension or disbarment. (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Under the circumstances, we are convinced that the respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thus disregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, it is important that members of this ancient and learned profession of law must conform themselves in accordance with the highest standards of morality. As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics: ... The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the admission to the profession of candidates unfit or unqualified because deficient in either moral character or education. He should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but the administration of justice. Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby disbarred and, as a consequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

In a sworn complaint dated 25 September 1979, the spouses Erlinda Dalman and Narciso Melendrez charged Reynerio I. Decena, a member of the Philippine Bar, with malpractice and breach of trust. The complainant spouses alleged, among others, that respondent had, by means of fraud and deceit, taken advantage of their precarious financial situation and his knowledge of the law to their prejudice, succeeded in divesting them of their only residential lot in Pagadian City; that respondent, who was their counsel in an estafa case against one Reynaldo Pineda, had compromised that case without their authority. In his answer dated 18 March 1980, respondent denied all the charges levelled against him and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. By resolution dated 14 April 1980, the administrative complaint was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. Accordingly, the Solicitor General forthwith deputized the City Fiscal of Pagadian City, Jorge T. Almonte, to conduct the necessary investigation, with instructions to submit thereafter this report and recommendation thereon. Fiscal Almonte held several hearings on the administrative case until 15 July 1982, when he requested the Solicitor General to release him from the duty of investigating the case. On 10 September 1982, the Solicitor General granted Fiscal Almonte's request and in his stead appointed the Provincial Fiscal of Zamboanga del Sur, Pedro S. Jamero, who resumed hearings on 15 June 1983. Respondent filed with this Court on 9 June 1987, a motion seeking to inhibit Fiscal Jamero from hearing the case followed by an urgent motion for indefinite postponement of the investigation. Both motions were denied by the Court in a Resolution dated 21 September 1987 with instructions to the Solicitor General to complete the investigation of the administrative case and to render his report and recommendation thereon within thirty (30) days from notice. On 19 July 1988, the Solicitor General submitted his 2 Report and Recommendation dated 21 June 1988. In as Report, after setting out the facts and proceedings held in the present case, the Solicitor General presented the following: FINDINGS Complainants allege that on August 5, 1975, they obtained from respondent a loan of P 4,000.00. This loan was secured by a real estate mortgage (Annex C, Complainants' Complaint, p. 16, records).lwph1.t In the said Real Estate Mortgage document, however, it

NARCISO MELENDREZ and ERLINDA DALMAN, complainants, vs. ATTY. REYNERIO I. DECENA, respondent.

PER CURIAM:

was made to appear that the amount borrowed by complainants was P5,000.00. Confronted by this discrepancy, respondent assured complainants that said document was a mere formality, and upon such assurance, complainants signed the same. The document was brought by complainant Narciso Melendres to a Notary Public for notarization. After the same was notarized, he gave the document to respondent. Despite the assurance, respondent exacted from complainants P500.00 a month as payment for what is beyond dispute usurious interest on the P5,000.00 loan. Complainants religiously paid the obviously usurious interest for three months: September, October and November, 1975. Then they stopped paying due to financial reverses. In view of their failure to pay said amounts as interest, respondent prepared a new document on May 7, 1976, a Real Estate Mortgage (Annex D, Complaint, p. 18, records) over the same lot 3125C, replacing the former real estate mortgage dated August 5, 1975, but this time the sum indicated in said new contract of mortgage is P 10,000.00, purportedly with interest at 19% per annum. In this new Real Estate Mortgage, a special power of attorney in favor of respondent was inserted, authorizing him to sell the mortgaged property at public auction in the event complainants fail to pay their obligation on or before May 30, 1976. Without explaining the provisions of the new contract to complainants, respondent insisted that complainants sign the same, again upon the assurance that the document was a mere formality. Unsuspecting of the motive of respondent, complainants signed the document. Complainants Narciso Melendres again brought the same document to a Notary Public for notarization. After the document was notarized, he brought the same to respondent without getting a copy of it. Complainants, relying on the assurance of the respondent that the second Real Estate Mortgage was but a formality, neither bothered to ask from respondent the status of their lot nor tried to pay their obligation. For their failure to pay the obligation, the respondent on October 12, 1976, applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the second real estate mortgage (Exhibit 16,

Respondent's Position Paper). All the requirements of Act No. 3135, as amended, re extrajudicial sale of mortgage were ostensibly complied with by respondent. Hence, finally, title was transferred to him, and on June 20, 1979, respondent sold the involved property to Trinidad Ylanan for P12,000.00. When informed of the above by one Salud Australlado on the first week of March 1979 (see Sworn Statement of complainant Narciso Melendres, p. 6, Folder No. 2 of case), and not having known the legal implications of the provisions of the second Real Estate Mortgage which they had executed, complainants could not believe that title to their lot had already been transferred to respondent and that respondent had already sold the same to a third person. Upon learning of the sale in March, 1979, complainants tried to raise the amount of P10,000.00 and went to respondent's house on May 30, 1979 to pay their obligation, hoping that they could redeem their property, although three years had already lapsed from the date of the mortgage. Respondent did not accept the proffered P10,000.00, but instead gave complainants a sheet of paper (Annex B, Complainants' Position Paper), which indicated that the total indebtedness had soared to P20,400.00. The computation was made in respondent's own handwriting. Complainants went home with shattered hopes and with grief in their hearts. Hence, the instant competent for disbarment against respondent filed on October 5, 1979. Respondent DENIES all the allegations of complainants. He maintains that what appears on the two documents allegedly executed by complainants, i.e., that they obtained a loan of P5,000.00 on August 5, 1975 and another P10,000.00 on May 7,1976, is allegedly the truth, and claims that he in truth delivered the alleged amount of P5,000.00 to complainants and not P4,000.00. With respect to the second loan, respondent claims that he delivered to complainants P8,000.00, plus the P2,000.00 loan previously extended [to] complainants [by] one Regino Villanueva, which loan had been indorsed to respondent for collection,

thus making a total of P10,000.00, as appearing on said document. Respondent denies that he exacted usurious interest of 10% a month or P500.00 from complainants. He asserts that the fact that complainants were able to secure a loan from the Insular Bank of Asia and America (IBAA) only proves the truth of his allegation that the title of the property, at the time complainants obtained a loan from IBAA on April 1976, was clear of any encumbrance, since complainants had already paid the original loan of P5,000.00 obtained from respondent; that complainants knew fully well all the conditions of said mortgage; and that his acquisition of the property in question was in accordance with their contract and the law on the matter. Thus, he denies that he has violated any right of the complainants. After weighing the evidence of both complainants and respondent, we find against respondent. While complainants are correct in their claim that they actually obtained an actual cash of P4,000.00, they are only partly correct in the claim that out of the P10,000.00 appearing in the second Real Estate Mortgage, P6,000.00 was applied to interest considering that not all the P6,000.00 but only P4,000.00 was applied to interest, computed as follows: the first loan of P5,000.00 was supposedly due on August 31, 1975. Complainants paid 10% monthly interest or P500.00 on September 30, 1975, October 31, 1975 and November 30, 1975. Consequently, beginning December 31, 1975 up to May 31, 1976 (the date of the execution of the second Real Estate Mortgage) a total of six (6) months lapsed. Six (6) months at P500.00 equals P 3,000.00, which amount plus the P2,000.00 complainants' loan to one Engr. Villanueva (indorsed to respondent for collection) totals P5,000.00. Adding this amount to the previous P5,000.00 indicated loan secured by the first mortgage results in P10,000.00, the amount appearing in the second Real Estate Mortgage. Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 7. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as complaining all such

terms, and, therefore, there can be, as between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing, except in the following cases: (a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the writing, or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties, or the validity of the agreement is put in issue by the pleadings; (b) Where there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing. The term "agreement" includes wills. There is no dispute that the two documents denominated Real Estate Mortgages covering the supposed original loan of P5,000.00 and the inflated P10,000.00, respectively, were voluntarily signed by the complainants. The general rule is that when the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, it is presumed that they have made the writing the only repository and memorial of the truth, and whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived and abandoned. However, the rule is not absolute as it admits of some exceptions, as aforequoted. One of the exceptions, that is, failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties, applies in this case. From the facts obtaining in the case, it is clear that the complainants were induced to sign the Real Estate Mortgage documents by the false and fraudulent representations of respondent that each of the successive documents was a are formality. While it may be true that complainants are not at all illiterate, respondent, being a lawyer, should have at least explained to complainants the legal implications of the provisions of the real estate mortgage, particularly the provision appointing him as the complainants' attorney-in-fact in the event of default in payments on the part of complainants. While it may be conceded that it is presumed that in practice the notary public apprises complainants of the legal implications of the contract, it is of common knowledge that most notaries public do not go through the desired practice. Respondent at least could have informed the complainants by

sending a demand letter to them to pay their obligation as otherwise he would proceed to sell the lot at public auction as per their contract. This respondent failed to do, despite the fact that he knew fully wen that complainants were trying their best to raise money to be able to pay their obligation to him, as shown by the loan obtained by complainants from the IBAA on April 8, 1976. In this connection, it may be stated that complainants, per advice of respondent himself, returned the proceeds of the IBAA loan to the bank immediately on April 30, 1976, considering that the net proceeds of the loan from said bank was only P4,300.00 and not enough to pay the indicated loan from respondent of P5,000.00, which per computation of respondent would already have earned interest of P2,500.00 for five (5) months (December 1975 to April, 1976). Respondent claims that complainants had paid him the original loan of P5,000.00, and that this was the reason why complainants were able to mortgage the lot to the bank free from any encumbrance. This claim is incorrect. The reason why the title (T2684) was free from any encumbrance was simply because of the fact that the first Real Estate Mortgage for the indicated loan of P5,000.00 (the actual amount was only P 4,000.00) had not been annotated at the back of the title (see Annex B, p. 14, rec.). Respondent also denies that complainants offered to him the amount of Pl0,000. 00 as payment of the loan, alleging that if the offer were true, he could have readily accepted the same since he sold the lot for almost the same amount, for only P12,000.00, a difference of a few thousand pesos. Respondent's denial is spacious. Indeed, complainants made the offer, but respondent refused the same for the simple reason that the offer was made on May 30,1979, three (3) years after the execution of the mortgage on May 31, 1976. With its lapse of time, respondent demanded obviously the payment of the accumulated substantial interest for three years, as shown by his own computation in as own handwriting on a sheet of paper (Annex C,

Complainants' Position Paper, Folder No. 2).lwph1.t In view of all the foregoing, the observation made by the Hearing Officer is worth quoting: In the humble opinion of the undersigned the pivotal question with respect to this particular charge is whose version is to be believed. Is it the version of the complainants or the version of the respondent. In resolving this issue the possible motive on the part of the complainants in filing the present complaint against the respondent must be carefully examined and considered. At the beginning there was a harmonious relationship between the complainants and the respondent so much so that respondent was even engaged as counsel of the complainants and it is but human nature that when respondent extended a loan to the complainants the latter would be grateful to the former. However, in the case at bar, complainants filed a complaint against the respondent in spite of the great disparity between the status of the complainants and the respondent. Admittedly, respondent is in a better position financially, socially and intellectually. To the mind of the undersigned, complainants were only compelled to file the above entitled complaint against the respondent because they felt that they are so aggrieved of what the respondent has done to them. It is for this reason therefore that the undersigned is inclined to believe the version of the complainants rather than of the respondent. In addition thereto, the respondent as a lawyer could really see to it that the transaction between the complainants and himself on papers appear legal and in order. Besides, there is ample evidence in the records of its case that respondent is actually engaged in lending money at least in a limited way and that the interest at the rate of ten per cent a month is but common among money lenders during the time of the transactions in question' Going now into the second charge, complainants alleged that respondent, who was their counsel (private prosecutor) in Criminal Case No. 734, for estafa, against accused Reynaldo

Pineda, compromised the case with the accused without their consent and received the amount of P500.00 as advance payment for the amicable settlement, without however, giving to the complainants the Id amount nor informing them of said settlement and payment. Again, respondent denies the allegation and claims that the amicable settlement was with the consent of complainant wife Erlinda Dalman Melendre[z]. We are inclined to believe the version of the complainants. It is admitted that complainants were not interested in putting the accused Reynaldo Pineda to jail but rather in merely recovering their money of P2,000.00. At this stage, relationship between complainants and respondent was not yet strained, and respondent, as counsel of the complainants in this case, knew that complainants were merely interested in said recovery. Knowing this, respondent on his own volition talked to accused and tried to settle the case amicably for P2,000.00. He accepted the amount of P500.00 as advance payment, being then the only amount carried by the accused Pineda. A receipt was signed by both respondent and accused Pineda (Annex M, p. 34, record). However, respondent did not inform complainants about this advance payment, perhaps because he was still waiting for the completion of the payment of P2,000.00 before turning over the whole amount to complainants. At any rate, complainants saw accused Pineda give the abovementioned P500.00 to respondent, but they were ashamed then to ask directly of respondent what the money was all about. On June 27, 1979, barely a month after May 30, 1979, when the complainants had already lost their trust and respect and/or confidence in respondent upon knowing what happened to their lot and, more so, upon respondent's refusal to accept the Pl0,000.00 offered by complainants to redeem the same, Narciso Melendre[z] saw the accused Pineda on his way home and confronted him on the P500.00 that had been given to respondent. Accused then showed

complainant Melendres the receipt (Annex M, Id.) showing that the P500.00 was an advance payment for the supposed settlement/dismissal of the case filed by complainants against him. Sensing or feeling that respondent was fooling them, complainants then filed a motion before the court which was trying the criminal case and relieved respondent as their counsel. The Investigating Fiscal, who heard the case and saw the demeanor of the witnesses in testifying, had this to say: With respect to the second charge, the fact that respondent received P500.00 from Reynaldo Pineda is duly established. Both the complainants and the respondent agreed that the said amount was given to the respondent in connection with a criminal case wherein the complainants were the private offended parties: that Reynaldo Pineda is the accused and that the respondent is the private prosecutor of the said case. The pivotal issue in this particular charge is whether the respondent received the amount of P500.00 from Reynaldo Pineda as an advance payment of an amicable settlement entered into by the complainants and the accused or the respondent received said amount from the accused without the knowledge and consent of the complainants. If it is true as alleged by the respondent that he only received it for and in behalf of the complainants as advance payment of an amicable settlement why is it that the same was questioned by the complainants? Why is it that it was not the complainants who signed the receipt for the said amount? How come that as soon as complainants knew that the said amount was given to the respondent, the former filed a motion in court to relieve respondent as their counsel on the ground that they have lost faith and confidence on him? If it is really true that complainants have knowledge and have consented to this amicable settlement they should be grateful to the efforts of their private prosecutor yet the fact is that they resented the same and went to the extent of disqualifying the respondent as their private prosecutor. Reynaldo Pineda himself executed an affidavit belying the claim of the respondent.'

Clearly, the complained acts as described and levelled against respondent Decena are contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals for which he may be suspended. The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of misconduct in either his professional or non- professional attitude (Royong v. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859). The complained acts of respondent imply something immoral in themselves, regardless of the fact whether they are punishable by law. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute, fixes the moral turpitude (Bartos vs. U.S. Dist. Court for District of Nebraska C.C.C. Neb] 19 F [2d] 722). A parting comment. All the above is not to say that complainants themselves are faultless. Complainants should likewise be blamed for trusting the respondent too much. They did not bother to keep a copy of the documents they executed and considering that they admitted they did not understand the contents of the documents, they did not bother to have them explained by another lawyer or by any knowledgeable person in their locality. Likewise, for a period of three years, they did not bother to ask for respondent the status of their lot and/or their obligation to him. Their complacency or apathy amounting almost to negligence contributed to the expedient loss of their property thru the legal manuevers employed by respondent. Hence, respondent's liability merits mitigation. (Emphasis supplied) and made the following recommendation: WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Reynerio I. Decena be suspended from the practice 3 of law for a period of five (5) years. The Office of the Solicitor General, through Fiscals Almonte and Jamero, held several hearings during the investigation of the present administrative case: City Fiscal Jorge T. Almonte was able to hold six (6) actual 4 hearings out of twenty-five (25) resettings While only 5 five (5) actual hearings, out of forty (40) resettings were held under Provincial Fiscal Pedro S. Jamero. In those hearings, the complainants presented a number of witnesses who, after their direct testimony, were crossexamined by the counsel for respondent; complainant

Narciso Melendrez also testified and was accordingly cross-examined. Considering the long delay incurred in the investigation of the administrative case and having been pressed by the Solicitor General immediately to complete the investigation, Fiscal Jamero posed a change of procedure, from trial type proceedings to requiring the parties to submit their respective position papers. The complainants immediately filed their position paper which consisted of their separate sworn statements, (that of Narciso Melendrez was in a question and answer form), their documentary exhibits and an affidavit of one Jeorge G. Santos. Respondent also filed his counter-affidavit and affidavits of his witnesses, with several annexes in support thereof In the healing of 28 October 1987, which had been set for the cross examination of the complainants and their witnesses by respondent, the complainants refused to submit themselves to cross-examination on the ground that the order of the hearing officer dated 17 December 1986 declaring respondent's right of cross examination as having been waived, had become final and executory. Respondent questions now the evidentiary value of the complainants' position paper, not having passed through any cross-examination and argues that the nonsubmission of the complainants and their witnesses to cross-examination constitutes a denial of his right to due process. We do not think respondent's right to confront the complainants and their witnesses against him has been violated, Respondent in fact cross-examined complainant Narciso Melendrez and some of the witnesses which complainants had presented earlier. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the record of the proceedings shows that respondent had all the opportunity to cross-examine the other witnesses of the complainants (those whose affidavits were attached to complainants' position paper) had he wanted to, but had forfeited such opportunity by asking for numerous continuances which indicated a clear attempt on his part to delay the investigation proceedings. Respondent had in fact requested a total of twenty three (23) resettings during the investigation proceedings: he had eight (8) under Fiscal Almonte and fifteen (15) under Fiscal Jamero. There were also instances where respondent asked for postponement and at the same time reset the hearing to a specific date of his choice on which neither he nor as counsel would appear. That attitude of respondent eventually led the hearing officer to declare his (respondent's) right to cross-examine the complainants and their witnesses as having been waived in his order of 17 December 1986. Respondent can not now claim that he had been deprived below of the opportunity to confront the complainants and their witnesses. After carefully going through the record of the proceedings as well as the evidence presented by both parties, we agree with the findings and conclusions of the Solicitor General.

The following acts of respondent: 1. making it appear on the 5 August 1975 real estate mortgage that the amount loaned to complainants was P5,000.00 instead of P4,000.00; 2. exacting grossly unreasonable and usurious interest; 3. making it appear in the second real estate mortgage of 7 May 1976 that the loan extended to complainants had escalated to P10,000.00; 4. failing to inform complainants of the import of the real mortgage documents and inducing them to sign those documents with assurances that they were merely for purposes of "formality"; 5. failing to demand or refraining from demanding payment from complainants before effecting extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property; and 6. failing to inform or refraining from informing complainants that the real estate mortgage had already been foreclosed and that complainants had a right to redeem the foreclosed property within a certain period of time. constitute deception and dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. We agree with the Solicitor General that the acts of respondent "imply something immoral in themselves regardless of whether they are punishable by law" and that these acts constitute moral turpitude, being "contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals." The standard required from members of the Bar is not, of course, satisfied by conduct which merely avoids collision with our criminal law. Even so, respondent's conduct, in fact, may be penalizable under at least one penal statute the anti-usury law. The second charge against respondent relates to acts done in his professional capacity, that is, done at a time when he was counsel for the complainants in a criminal case for estafa against accused Reynaldo Pineda. There are two (2) aspects to this charge: the first is that respondent Decena effected a compromise agreement concerning the civil liability of accused Reynaldo Pineda without the consent and approval of the complainants; the second is that, having received the amount of P500.00 as an advance payment on this "settlement," he failed to inform complainants of that advance payment and moreover, did not turn over the P500.00 to the complainants. The facts show that respondent "settled" the estafa case amicably for P2,000.00 without the

knowledge and consent of complainants. Respondent informed complainants of the amicable "settlement" and of the P500.00 advance payment only after petitioner Narciso Melendrez had confronted him about these matters. And respondent never did turn over to complainants the P500.00. Respondent is presumed to be aware of the rule that lawyers cannot "without special authority, compromise their clients' litigation or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim, but the full 6 amount in cash. Respondent's failure to turn over to complainants the amount given by accused Pineda as partial "settlement" of the estafa case underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his clients. Generally, a lawyer should not be suspended or disbarred for misconduct committed in his personal or non-professional capacity. Where however, misconduct outside his professional dealings becomes so patent and so gross as to demonstrate moral unfitness to remain in the legal profession, the Court must suspend or strike 7 out the lawyer's name from the Rollo of Attorneys. The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification 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, in the exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Gross misconduct on the part of a lawyer, although not related to the discharge of professional duties as a member of the Bar, which puts his moral character in serious doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the 8 practice of law. In the instant case, the exploitative deception exercised by respondent attorney upon the complainants in his private transactions with them, and the exacting of unconscionable rates of interest, considered together with the acts of professional misconduct committed by respondent attorney, compel this Court to the conviction that he has lost that good moral character which is indispensable for continued membership in the Bar. WHEREFORE, respondent Reynerio I. Decena is hereby DISBARRED and his name shall be stricken from the Rollo of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Resolution be FURNISHED each to the Bar Confidant and spread on the personal records of respondent attorney, and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Fernan, (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., in Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Gr;no-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

JOSEFINA ROYONG, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARISTON OBLENA, respondent. BARRERA, J.:

In a verified complaint filed with this Court on January 14, 1959, complainant Josefina Royong charged the respondent Ariston J. Oblena, a member of the Philippine Bar, with rape allegedly committed on her person in the manner described therein. Upon requirement of this Court, the respondent filed his answer denying all the allegations in the complaint and praying that he be not disbarred. On February 3, 1959, this Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. On July 10, 1961, the Solicitor General submitted his report on the case with the recommendation that the respondent "be permanently removed from his office lawyer and his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys". The pertinent part of the report reads as follows: The complainant testified that after lunch on August 5, 1958, Cecilia Angeles, her foster mother, left her alone in their house and went down to the pig sty to feed the pigs. At about 1:00 p.m., while she" (complainant) was ironing clothes on the second floor of the house the respondent entered and read a newspaper at her back. Suddenly he covered her mouth with one hand and with the other hand dragged her to one of the bedrooms of the house and forced her to lie down on the floor. She did not shout for help because he threatened her and her family with death. He next undressed as she lay on the floor, then had sexual intercourse with her after he removed her panties and gave her hard blows on the thigh with his fist to subdue her resistance. After the sexual intercourse, he warned her not to report him to her foster parents, otherwise, he would kill her and all the members of her family. She resumed ironing clothes after he left until 5:00 o'clock that afternoon when she joined her foster mother on the first floor of the house. As a result of the sexual intercourse she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby on June 2, 1959 (pp. 4-8, 21, 23, 26, 27, t.s.n., hearing of Aug. 5, 1959). She admitted that had she shouted for help she would have been heard by the neighbors that she did not report the outrage to anyone because of the threat made by the respondent; that she still frequented the respondent's house after August 5, 1959, sometimes when he was alone, ran errands for him, cooked his coffee, and received his mail for him. Once, on November 14, 1958, when respondent was sick of influenza, she was left alone with him in his house while her aunt Briccia Angeles left for Manila to buy medicine (pp. 11, 14-18, 24, t.s.n., hearing of August 5, 1959). The respondent on the witness stand denied that he raped the complainant (p. 3, t.s.n., hearing of

March 25 1960). He testified that after lunch on August 5, 1958, he went to the Commission Of Civil Service to follow up his appointment as technical assistant in the office of the mayor of Makati, Rizal, and read the record of the administrative case against Buenaventura Perez (pp. 23, 24, 34, t.s.n., hearing of March 25, 1960, Exhs. 1 and 2). The respondent, however, admitted that he had illicit relations with the complainant from January, 1957 to December, 1958, when their clandestine affair was discovered by the complainant's foster parents, but to avoid criminal liability for seduction, according to him, he limited himself to kissing and embracing her and sucking her tongue before she completed her eighteenth birthday. They had their first sexual intercourse on May 11, 1958, after she had reached eighteen, and the second one week later, on May 18. The last intercourse took place before Christmas in December, 1958. In all, they had sexual intercourse about fifty times, mostly in her house and sometimes in his house whenever they had the opportunity. He intended to marry her when she could legally contract marriage without her foster parents' intervention, 'in case occasion will permit ... because we cannot ask permission to marry, for her foster parents will object and even my common-law wife, will object.' After the discovery of their relationship by the complainant's foster parents, he confessed the affair to Briccia, explaining that he wanted to have a child, something she (Briccia) could not give him. (pp. 14-16, 19-25, t.s.n., hearing of March 25, 1960). xxx xxx xxx

FINDINGS AND COMMENT There is no controversy that the respondent had carnal knowledge of the complainant. The complainant claims she surrendered to him under circumstances of violence and intimidation, but the undersigned are convinced that the sexual intercourse was performed not once but repeatedly and with her consent. From her behaviour before and after the alleged rape, she appears to have been more a sweetheart than of the victim of an outrage involving her honor .... But the foregoing observations notwithstanding, the undersigned cannot in conscience recommend respondent's exoneration. The respondent tempted Briccia Angeles to live maritally with him not long after she and her husband parted, and it is not improbable that the spouses never reconciled because of him. His own evidence shows that, tiring of her after more

than fifteen years of adulterous relationship with her and on the convenient excuse that she, Briccia Angeles, could not bear a child, he seduced Josefina Andalis, then 17 or 18 years of age, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of a child, on June 2, 1959. The seduction was accomplished with grave abuse of confidence and by means of promises of marriage which he knew he could not fulfill without grievous injury to the woman who forsook her husband so that he, respondent, could have all of her. He also took advantage of his moral influence over her. From childhood, Josefina Andalis, treated him as an uncle and called him 'tata' (uncle), undoubtedly because he is the paramour of a sister of her mother. Considering her age (she was 17 or 18 years old then), it is not difficult to see why she could not resist him. The evidence further shows that on July 22, 1954, the respondent filed a sworn petition dated May 22, 1954 alleging "that he is a person of good moral character" (Par. 3) and praying that the Supreme Court permit him "to take the bar examinations to be given on the first Saturday of August, 1954, or at any time as the Court may fix.." But he was not then the person of good moral character he represented himself to be. From 1942 to the present, he has continuously lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles whose husband is still alive, knowing that his concubine is a married woman and that her marriage still subsists. This fact permanently disqualified him from taking the bar examinations, and had it been known to the Supreme Court in 1954, he would not have been permitted to take the bar examinations that year or thereafter, or to take his oath of office as a lawyer. As he was then permanently disqualified from admission to the Philippine Bar by reason of his adulterous relations with a married woman, it is submitted that the same misconduct should be sufficient ground for his permanent disbarment, unless we recognize a double standard of morality, one for membership to the Philippine Bar and another for disbarment from the office of a lawyer. xxx xxx xxx

alleged rape nevertheless he was guilty of other misconduct, the Solicitor General formulated another complaint which he appended to his report, charging the respondent of falsely and deliberately alleging in his application for admission to the bar that he is a person of good moral character; of living adulterously with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations with the complainant Josefina Royong, niece of Briccia, thus rendering him unworthy of public confidence and unfit and unsafe to manage the legal business of others, and praying that this Court render judgment ordering "the permanent removal of the respondent ... from his office as a lawyer and the cancellation of his name from the roll of attorneys." In his answer to this formal complaint, respondent alleged the special defense that "the complaint does not merit action", since the causes of action in the said complaint are different and foreign from the original cause of action for rape and that "the complaint lacks the necessary formalities called for in Sec. 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court." Respondent prayed that after due notice and hearing for additional evidence, the complaint be dismissed. On September 13, 1961, this Court designated the Court Investigators to receive the additional evidence. Accordingly the case was set for hearing of which the parties were duly notified. On September 29, 1961, respondent asked leave to submit a memorandum which was granted, and on October 9, 1961 the same was filed, alleging the following: 1) That the charge of rape has not been proven; 2) That no act of seduction was committed by the respondent; 3) That no act of perjury or fraudulent concealment was committed by the respondent when he filed his petition for admission to the bar; and 4) That the respondent is not morally unfit to be a member of the bar. Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t At the hearing on November 16, 1961, respondent presented his common-law wife, Briccia Angeles, who testified as follows: ... Respondent is her common-law husband (t.s.n. 23). She first met respondent on December 16, 1941 at Cavinti, Laguna (t.s.n. 23). She and her sister Cecilia Angeles-Royong were evacuated to Cavinti by the Red Cross (t.s.n. 23). She was already married (to Teodoro Arines) at the time (t.s.n. 24). She and Arines are from Iriga, Camarines Sur (t.s.n. 24). Respondent and one Mr. Flores registered them (t.s.n. 24) as evacuees. When Mr. Flores asked her about her status she told him she was 'single' (t.s.n. 25). She and her sister, Cecilia,

RECOMMENDATION Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully recommend that after due hearing, respondent Ariston J. Oblena be permanently removed from his office as a lawyer and his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys. In view of his own findings as a result of his investigation, that even if respondent did not commit the

were then told to stay at respondent's house, respondent courted her (t.s.n. 26). Respondent asked her if she was married and she told him 'we will talk about that later on' (t.s.n. 26). She told respondent she was married (to Arines) when she and respondent were already living together as 'husband and wife', in 1942( t.s.n. 26). Respondent asked her to marry him, when they were living as husband and wife (t.s.n. 27). Her sister Cecilia left Cavinti 2 months after their arrival thereat, but she did not go with her because she and respondent 'had already a good understanding'(sexual relations) [t.s.n. 27]. Later, she left Cavinti and went to her hometown in Iriga, Camarines Sur, because respondent was already reluctant to live with her and he told her it was better for her to go home to Iriga (t.s.n. 25). Arriving at Iriga, she met her legitimate husband (Arines), who told her he had already a wife, named Conching Guevara (t.s.n. 28-29). She then went back to Cavinti (in 1943), with her father, and lived with respondent (t.s.n. 29). Respondent eventually agreed that she live with him (t.s.n. 35); in fact, she is still presently living with respondent (t.s.n. 35) [Report of Court Investigators, March 6, 1962, pp. 5-6]." Thereafter, respondent requested permission to submit an affidavit at a later date, which request was also granted. The affidavit was filed on December 16, 1961, the respondent averring, among others, the following:. ... That he never committed any act or crime of seduction against the complainant, because the latter was born on February 19, 1940, and his first sexual intercourse with her took place on May 11, 1958, when she was already above 18 years of age; that he had been living with his common-law wife, Briccia Angeles, for almost 20 years, but from the time he began courting her, he 'had no intention to alienate' her love for her husband, Arines, or to commit the crime of adultery; that he courted Briccia on October 16, 1941, and was shortly thereafter accepted by her; that on February 21, 1942, he found Briccia alone in his house, who told him that her sister, Cecilia, had gone to Pagsanjan with the other evacuees; that from said date (February 21), to the present, he and Briccia had been living together as common-law husband and wife; that 2 or 3 weeks thereafter, he asked Briccia to marry him, but she confessed she was already married, and maybe her husband (Arines) was still living in Iriga; that he could not then drive Briccia away, because she was a stranger in the place, nor could he urge her to join her sister Cecilia, as the latter had left Pagsanjan; that in 1943 she told Briccia to separate from him and to return to Iriga, and urged her never to see him again; that contrary to his expectations, Briccia returned to Cavinti 3 months thereafter; that Briccia strongly insisted to live with him again,

telling him that she cannot separate from him anymore, as he was ashamed; that Briccia's father told him that Briccia's husband (Arines) had agreed not to molest them as in fact he (Arines) was already living with another woman; that he had 'no choice but to live with her' (Briccia) again; that when he filed his petition to take the bar examinations in 1954, he 'did not have the slightest intention to hide' from this Court the fact of his 'open cohabitation with a married woman' (Briccia Angeles); that he did not state said fact in his petition, because he did not see in the form of the petition being used in 1954 that the fact must be stated; and that since his birth, he thought and believed he was a man of good moral character, and it was only from the Solicitor General that he first learned he was not so; and that he did not commit perjury or fraudulent concealment when he filed his petition to take the bar examinations in 1954." (Report of the Court Investigators, pp. 6-8, March 6, 1962). After hearing, the investigators submitted a report with the finding that: 1) Respondent used his knowledge of the law to take advantage by having illicit relations with complainant, knowing as he did, that by committing immoral acts on her, he was free from any criminal liability; and 2) Respondent committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with a married woman even after he became a lawyer in 1955 to the present; and 3) That respondent falsified the truth as to his moral character in his petition to take the 1954 bar examinations, being then immorally (adulterously) in cohabitation with his common-law wife, Briccia Angeles, a married woman. The investigators also recommended that the respondent be disbarred or alternatively, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. Upon the submission of this report, a copy of which was served on respondent, through his counsel of record, the case was set for hearing before the Court on April 30, 1962. Respondent asked leave to file his memorandum in lieu of oral argument. This was granted and the corresponding memorandum was duly filed. It is an admitted and uncontroverted fact that the respondent had sexual relations with the complainant several times, and as a consequence she bore him a child on June 2, 1959; and that he likewise continuously cohabited with Briccia Angeles, in an adulterous manner, from 1942 up to the present. The main point in issue is thus limited illicit relations with the complainant Josefina Royong the and the open cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds to cause the respondent's disbarment. It is argued by the respondent that he is not liable for disbarment notwithstanding his illicit relations with the complainant and his open cohabitation with Briccia

Angeles, a married woman, because he has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. It is true that the respondent has not been convicted of rape, seduction, or adultery on this count, and that the grounds upon which the disbarment proceedings is based are not among those enumerated by Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court for which a lawyer may be disbarred. But it has already been held that this enumeration is not exclusive and that the power of the courts to exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is inherent; it is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice; it may be exercised without any special statutory authority, and in all proper cases unless positively prohibited by statute; and the power may be exercised in any manner that will give the party be disbarred a fair trial and a fair opportunity to be heard. (1 Francisco, Rules of Court [1958 ed.] 698, citing In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567). Although it is a well settled rule that the legislature (or the Supreme Court by virtue of its rule-making power) may provide that certain acts or conduct shall require disbarment, the accepted doctrine is that statutes and rules merely regulate the power to disbar instead of creating it, and that such statutes (or rules) do not restrict the general powers of the court over attorneys, who are its officers, and that they may be removed for other than statutory grounds (7 C.J.S. 734). In the United States, where from our system of legal ethics is derived, "the continued possession of a fair private and professional character or a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law for one who has been admitted, and its loss requires suspension or disbarment even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground of disbarment". The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of misconduct in either his professional or non-professional activities (5 Am. Jur. 417). The tendency of the decisions of this Court has been toward the conclusion that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from office as a lawyer for other than statutory grounds. Indeed, the rule is so phrased as to be broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer (In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567). In the case at bar, the moral depravity of the respondent is most apparent. His pretension that before complainant completed her eighteenth birthday, he refrained from having sexual intercourse with her, so as not to incur criminal liability, as he himself declared and that he limited himself merely to kissing and embracing her and sucking her tongue, indicates a scheming mind, which together with his knowledge of the law, he took advantage of, for his lurid purpose. Moreover, his act becomes more despicable considering that the complainant was the niece of his common-law wife and that he enjoyed a moral ascendancy over her who looked up to him as her uncle. As the Solicitor General observed: "He also took advantage of his moral influence over her. From childhood, Josefina Andalis (Royong), treated him as an uncle and called him 'tata' (uncle), undoubtedly because he is the paramour of a sister of her mother. Considering her age (she was 17 or 18 years old then), her inexperience and his moral

ascendency over her, it is not difficult to see why she could not resist him." Furthermore, the blunt admission of his illicit relations with the complainant reveals the respondent to be a person who would suffer no moral compunction for his acts if the same could be done without fear of criminal liability. He has, by these acts, proven himself to be devoid of the moral integrity expected of a member of the bar. The respondent's misconduct, although unrelated to his office, may constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment. This is a principle we have followed since the ruling in In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567, where this Court quoted with approval the following portion of the decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas in the case of Peyton's Appeal (12 Kan. 398, 404), to wit:. The nature of the office, the trust relation which exists between attorney and client, as well as between court and attorney, and the statutory rule prescribing the qualifications of attorneys, uniformly require that an attorney be a person of good moral character. If that qualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of the law, it would seem to be equally essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. So it is held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. (Emphasis supplied). Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly bearing on his profession, has nevertheless rendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer. We cannot give sanction to his acts. For us to do so would be as the Solicitor General puts it recognizing "a double standard of morality, one for membership to the Philippine Bar, and another for disbarment from the office of the lawyer." If we concede that respondent's adulterous relations and his simultaneous seduction of his paramour's niece did not and do not disqualify him from continuing with his office of lawyer, this Court would in effect be requiring moral integrity as an essential prerequisite for admission to the bar, only to later on tolerate and close its eyes to the moral depravity and character degeneration of the members of the bar. The decisions relied upon by the respondent in justifying his stand that even if he admittedly committed fornication, this is no ground for disbarment, are not controlling. Fornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as have proven in this case, as to shock common sense of decency, certainly may justify positive action by the Court in protecting the prestige of the noble profession of the law. The reasons advanced by the respondent why he

continued his adulterous relations with Briccia Angeles, in that she helped him in some way finish his law studies, and that his "sense of propriety and Christian charity" did not allow him to abandon her after his admission to the bar after almost 13 years of cohabitation, are hardly an excuse for his moral dereliction. The means he employed, as he stated, in order to extricate himself from the predicament he found himself in, by courting the complainant and maintaining sexual relations with her makes his conduct more revolting. An immoral act cannot justify another immoral act. The noblest means he could have employed was to have married the complainant as he was then free to do so. But to continue maintaining adulterous relations with a married woman and simultaneously maintaining promiscuous relations with the latter's niece is moral perversion that can not be condoned. Respondent's conduct therefore renders him unfit and unworthy for the privileges of the legal profession. As good character is an essential qualification for admission of an attorney to practice, he may be removed therefrom whenever he ceases to possess such character (7 C.J.S. 735). The respondent further maintains that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing the present complaint against him for seduction, adultery and perjury, as it charges an offense or offenses different from those originally charged in the complaint of January 14, 1959 for rape, and cites as authority Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, which state:. SEC. 4. Report of the Solicitor General. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, if the Solicitor General finds no sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent, he shall submit a report to the Supreme Court containing his findings of fact and conclusion, whereupon the respondent shall be exonerated unless the court orders differently. SEC. 5. Complaint of the Solicitor General. Answer of the respondent. If the Solicitor General finds sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint, accompanied with all the evidence introduced in his investigation, with the Supreme Court, and the respondent shall be served by the clerk of the Supreme Court with a copy of the complaint with direction to answer the same within fifteen days. The contention is devoid of merit. Nothing in the language of the foregoing rules requires the Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offense charged in the complaint originally filed by the complainant for disbarment. Precisely, the law provides that should the Solicitor General find sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint, accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation. The Solicitor General therefore is at liberty to file any case against the

respondent he may be justified by the evidence adduced during the investigation.. The respondent also maintains that he did not falsify his petition to take the bar examinations in 1954 since according to his own opinion and estimation of himself at that time, he was a person of good moral character. This contention is clearly erroneous. One's own approximation of himself is not a gauge to his moral character. Moral character is not a subjective term, but one which corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what a person really is, and not what he or other people think he is. As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An applicant for license to practice law is required to show good moral character, or what he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. As has been said, ante the standard of personal and professional integrity which should be applied to persons admitted to practice law is not satisfied by such conduct as merely enables them to escape the penalties of criminal law. Good moral character includes at least common honesty (3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, [1957 ed.] 626, citing In Re Weinstein, 42 P. [2d] 744 B.L.D., Cooper v. Greeley. 1 Den. [N.Y.] 3447; In Re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399; and People v. Macauley, 82 N.E. 612). Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for admission to the bar. He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people who knew him seemed to have acquiesced to his status, did not render him a person of good moral character. It is of no moment that his immoral state was discovered then or now as he is clearly not fit to remain a member of the bar. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby entered striking the name of herein respondent, Ariston J. Oblena, from the roll of attorneys.

In re suspension of VICENTE PELAEZ, attorney, Juan Sumulong for respondent. Attorney-General Villa-Real for the Government. MALCOLM, J.: Following the suspension of Attorney Vicente Pelaez by Judge of First Instance Wislizenus for a period of one year, the case has been elevated to this court as provided by law, for full investigation of the facts involved, and for the rendition of the appropriate order. The respondent Vicente Pelaez is a member of the Philippine Bar, residing at Cebu, Cebu. On March 20, 1918, he was appointed guardian of the minor Gracia Cabrera. As such guardian, he came into possession of certain property, including twenty shares of the E.

Michael & Co., Inc., and ten shares of the Philippine Engineering Co. While Pelaez was still the guardian of the minor, he borrowed P2,800 from the Cebu branch of the Philippine National bank. Shortly thereafter, to guarantee the loan, Pelaez, without the knowledge or consent of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, deposited with the Cebu branch of the Philippine National Bank the shares of stock corresponding to the guardianship. On April 13, 1921, Pelaez executed a written agreement in favor of the Cebu branch of the Philippine National Bank, pledging, without the authority of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, the shares of stock in question, to guarantee the payment of the loan above referred to. These are the facts, taken principally from the memorandum filed in this court on behalf of the respondent, which caused the judge of First Instance to suspend him from the legal profession. To quote counsel for the respondent, "the misconduct of which the respondent in this case is guilty consist of having pledged the shares belonging to his ward, to guarantee the payment of his personal debt." Two questions present themselves for the resolution. The first question is this: Are the courts in the Philippines authorized to suspend or disbar a lawyer for causes other than those enumerated in the statute? The second questions is this: May a lawyer be suspended or disbarred for non-professional misconduct? Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from this office as lawyer by the Supreme Court for any of the causes therein enumerated. It will be noticed that our statute merely provides that certain cause shall be deemed sufficient for the revocation or suspension of an attorney's license. It does not provide that these shall constitute the only causes for disbarment, or that an attorney may not be disbarred or suspended for other reasons. It is a well-settled rule that a statutory enumeration of the grounds of disbarment is not to be taken as a limitation of the general power of the court in this respect. Even where the Legislature has specified the grounds for disbarment, the inherent power of the court over its officer is not restricted. The prior tendency of the decisions of this court has been toward the conclusion that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as lawyer for other than statutory grounds. Indeed, the statute is so phrased as to be broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer. Passing now to the second point as a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its officers for misconduct alleged to have been committed in his private capacity. But this is a general rule with many exceptions. The courts sometimes stress the point that the attorney has shown, through misconduct outside

of his professional dealings, a want of such professional honesty as render him unworthy of public confidence, and an unfit and unsafe person to manage the legal business of others. The reason why such a distinction can be drawn is because it is the court which admits an attorney to the bar, and the court requires for such admission the possession of good moral character. The principal authority for the respondent is the case of People ex rel. vs. Appleton ([1883], 105 Ill., 474). Here it was held, by a divided court, that where property is conveyed to an attorney in trust, without his professional advice, and he mortgages the same, for the purpose of raising a sum of money which he claims is due him from the cestui que trust, and the trustee afterwards sells the property and appropriates the proceeds of the sale to his own use, the relation of client and attorney not being created by such trust, his conduct, however censurable as an individual occupying the position of a trustee, is not such as to warrant the summary disbarring of him on motion to the court to strike his name from the roll of attorneys, but the injured party must be left to his proper remedy by suit. The Illinois court, however, admits that although the general rule is, that an attorney-at-law will not be disbarred for misconduct not in his professional capacity, but as an individual, there are cases forming an exception where his misconduct in his private capacity may be of so gross a character as to require his disbarment. The Attorney-General relies principally on the case of In re Smith ([1906], 73 Kan., 743). In the opinion written by Mr. Chief Justice Johnston, it was said: It is next contended that some of the charges against Smith do not fall within the cause for disbarment named in the statute. As will be observed, the statute does not provide that the only cause for which the license of an attorney may be revoked or suspended are those specified in it, nor does it undertake to limit the common-law power of the courts to protect themselves and the public by excluding those who are unfit to assist in the administration of the law. It merely provides that certain causes shall be deemed sufficient for the revocation or suspension of an attorney's license. (Gen. Stat., 1901, sec. 398.) In the early case ofPeyton's Appeal (12 Kan., 398, 404), it was held that this statute is not an enabling act, but that the power of the court to exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is inherent; that "it is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice; that it may be exercised without any special statutory authority, and in all proper cases, unless positively prohibited by statute; and that it may be exercised in any manner that will give the party to be disbarred a fair trial and a full opportunity to be heard.' If there is authority in the Legislature to restrict the discretion of the courts as to what shall

constitute causes for disbarment, or to limit the inherent power which they have exercised from time immemorial, it should not be deemed to have done so unless its purpose is clearly expressed. It is generally held that the enumeration of the grounds for disbarment in the statute is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of the court, but that attorneys may be removed for common-law causes when the exercise of the privileges and functions of their high office is inimical to the due administration of justice . . . . The nature of the office, the trust relation which exists between attorney and client, as well as between court and attorney, and the statutory rule prescribing the qualifications of attorney, uniformly require that an attorney shall be a person of good moral character. If that qualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of the law, it would seem to be equally essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. So it is held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. We are of the opinion that the doctrines announced by the Supreme Court of Kansas are sound. The relation of guardian and ward requires of the guardian the continual maintenance of the utmost good faith in his dealings with the estate of the ward. The bond and the oath of the guardian require him to manage the estate of the ward according to law for the best interests of the ward, and faithfully to discharge his trust in relation thereto. Moreover, it has not escaped our attention that in the petition by Vicente Pelaez, asking the court to appoint him the guardian of Gracia Cabrera, he begins his petition in this manner: "El abogado que subscribe, nombrado tutor testamentario, etc." (The undersigned attorney, appointed testamentary guardian, etc.) which indicates that petitioner might not have been named the guardian in this particular case had he not at the same time been a lawyer. Counsel argues that the misconduct for which the respondent has been suspended by the lower court is single and isolated. "It forms," he says, "the only blot upon the escutcheon." We feel, however, that the trial court has been extremely considerate of the respondent, and that were we sitting in first instance, we would probably incline to a more severe sentence. Judgment affirmed. So ordered.

JOSE TOLOSA, complainant, vs. ALFREDO CARGO, respondent. RESOLUTION

FELICIANO, J.: On 7 April 1982, complainant Jose Tolosa filed with the Court an Affidavit- Complaint dated 7 March 1982 seeking the disbarment of respondent District Citizens' Attorney Alfredo Cargo for immorality. Complainant claimed that respondent had been seeing his (complainant's) wife Priscilla M. Tolosa in his house and elsewhere. Complainant further alleged that in June 1981, his wife left his conjugal home and went to live with respondent at No. 45 Sisa Street, Barrio Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila and that since then has been living with respondent at that address. Complying with an order of this Court, respondent filed a "Comment and/or Answer" dated 13 May 1982 denying the allegations of complainant. Respondent acknowledged that complainant's wife had been seeing him but that she bad done so in the course of seeking advice from respondent (in view of the continuous cruelty and unwarranted marital accusations of affiant [complainant] against her), much as complainant's mother-in-law had also frequently sought the advice of respondent and of his wife and mother as to what to do about the" continuous quarrels between affiant and his wife and the beatings and physical injuries (sometimes less serious) that the latter sustained from the former." (Rollo, p. 8). Complainant filed a Reply dated 16 June 1982 to respondent's "Comment and/or Answer" and made a number of further allegations, to wit: (a) That complainant's wife was not the only mistress that respondent had taken; (b) That respondent had paid for the hospital and medical bills of complainant's wife last May 1981, and visited her at the hospital everyday; (c) That he had several times pressed his wife to stop seeing respondent but that she had refused to do so;

(d) That she had acquired new household and electrical appliances where she was living although she had no means of livelihood; and (e) That respondent was paying for his wife's house rent. Respondent filed a Rejoinder on 19 July 1982, denying the further allegations of complainant, and stating that he (respondent) had merely given complainant's wife the amount of P35.00 by way of financial assistance during her confinement in the hospital. By a Resolution dated 29 July 1982, the Court referred this case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. The Solicitor General's office held a number of hearings which took place from 21 October 1982 until 1986, at which hearings complainant and respondent presented evidence both testimonial and documentary. The Solicitor General summed up what complainant sought to establish in the following terms: 1. That respondent had been courting his wife, Priscilla (tsn, May 12, 1982, p. 9). 2. That he actually saw them together holding hands in l980 in Cubao and Sto. Domingo, Quezon City (tsn, pp. 13-15, May 12, 1983). 3. That sometime in June, 1982, his wife left their conjugal house at No. 1 Lopez Jaena Street, Galas, Quezon City, to live with respondent at No. 45 Sisa Street, Barrio Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila (tsn, pp. 16- 17, May 12, 1983). 4. That while Priscilla was staying there, she acquired household appliances which she could not afford to buy as she has no source of income (tsn, pp. 10-11,

Sept. 10, 1985, Exh. 'M', N' and 'Q'). 5. That when Priscilla was hospitalized in May, 1982, at the FEU Hospital, respondent paid for her expenses and took care of her (tsn, pp. 18-20, June 15, 1983). In fact, an incident between respondent and complainant took place in said hospital (tsn, pp. 5-8, Sept. 20, 1983, Exhibits 'C' and 'C-l'). 6. That an incident which was subject of a complaint took place involving respondent and complainant at No. 45 Sisa Street, Barrio Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila (tsn, pp. 8- 10, July 29, 1983; Exh. 'B', 'B-l' and 'K'). 7. That again in Quezon City, incidents involving respondent and complainant were brought to the attention of the police (Exhibits 'F' and 'G'). 8. That Complainant filed an administrative case for immorality against respondent with the CLAO and that respondent was suspended for one year (Exhibits 'D' and 'E'). (Rollo, pp. 33-35). Respondent's defenses were summarized by the Solicitor General in the following manner: a) That Priscilla used to see respondent for advice regarding her difficult relationship with complainant; that Priscilla left complainant because she suffered maltreatment, physical injuries and public humiliation inflicted or caused by complainant;

b) That respondent was not courting Priscilla, nor lived with her at No. 45 Sisa St., Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila; that the owner of the house where Priscilla lived in Malabon was a friend and former client whom respondent visited now and then; c) That respondent only gave P35.00 to Priscilla in the FEU Hospital, as assistance in her medical expenses; that he reprimanded complainant for lying on the bed of Priscilla in the hospital which led to their being investigated by the security guards of the hospital; d) That it is not true that he was with Priscilla holding hands with her in Cubao or Sto. Domingo Church in 1980; e) That Priscilla bought all the appliances in her apartment at 45 Sisa Street, Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila from her earnings; f) That it is not true that he ran after complainant and tried to stab him at No. 1 Galas St., Quezon City; that said incident was between Priscilla's brother and complainant; g) That it is also not true that he is always in 45 Sisa St., Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila and/or he had a quarrel with complainant at 45 Sisa St., Malabon; that the quarrel was between Priscilla's brother, Edgardo Miclat, and complainant; that respondent went there only to intervene upon

request of complainant's wife (see tsn, June 21, 1984). (Rollo, pp. 3537). The Solicitor General then submitted the following FINDINGS 1. That complainant and Priscilla are spouses residing at No.1 Lopez Jaena St., Galas, Quezon City. 2. That respondent's wife was their 'ninang' at their marriage, and they (complainant and Priscilla) considered respondent also their 'ninong'. 3. That respondent and complainant are neighbors, their residences being one house away from each other. 4. That respondent admitted that Priscilla used to see him for advice, because of her differences with complainant. 5. That Priscilla, in fact, left their conjugal house and lived at No. 45 Sisa St., Barrio Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila; that the owner of the house where Priscilla lived in Malabon is a friend and former client of respondent. 6. That Priscilla indeed acquired appliances while she was staying in Malabon. 7. That incidents involving respondent and complainant had indeed happened. 8. That Priscilla returned to her mother's

house later in 1983 at No. 1 Lopez Jaena St., Galas, Quezon City; but complainant was staying two or three houses away in his mother's house. 9. That complainant filed an administrative case for immorality against respondent in CLAO, where respondent was found guilty and suspended for one year. (Rollo, pp. 37-39). In effect, the Solicitor General found that complainant's charges of immorality had not been sustained by sufficient evidence. At the same time, however, the Solicitor General found that the respondent had not been able to explain satisfactorily the following: 1. Respondent's failure to avoid seeing Priscilla, in spite of complainant's suspicion and/or jealousy that he was having an affair with his wife. 2. Priscilla's being able to rent an apartment in Malabon whose owner is admittedly a friend and former client of respondent. 3. Respondent's failure to avoid going to Malabon to visit his friend, in spite of his differences with complainant. 4. Respondent's failure to avoid getting involved invarious incidents involving complainant and Priscilla's brothers (Exhs. 'B', B-1', 'F', 'G', ['G-1'] and ['I']) 5. Respondent's interest in seeing Priscilla in the evening when she was confined in the FEU Hospital, in spite again of his differences with

complainant. (Rollo, pp. 39-40). Thus, the Solicitor General concluded that respondent had failed "to properly deport himself by avoiding any possible action or behavior which may be misinterpreted by complainant, thereby causing possible trouble in the complainant's family," which behavior was "unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the court." (Rollo, p. 40). The Solicitor General recommended that respondent Atty. Alfredo Cargo be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months and be severely reprimanded. We agree with the Solicitor General that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to show that respondent had indeed been cohabiting with complainant's wife or was otherwise guilty of acts of immorality. For this very reason, we do not believe that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law may be properly imposed upon respondent. At the same time, the Court agrees that respondent should be reprimanded for failure to comply with the rigorous standards of conduct appropriately required from the members of the Bar and officers of the court. As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous 1 relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to REPRIMAND respondent attorney for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and an officer of the court, and to WARN him that continuation of the same or similar conduct will be dealt with more severely in the future.

ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution, respondents. G.R. No. 80578 February 1, 1989 ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner, vs. HON. RAUL M. GONZALES, claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution, respondent. RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM: We have examined carefully the lengthy and vigorously written Motion for Reconsideration dated October 18, 1988 filed by counsel for respondent Raul M. Gonzalez, relating to the per curiam Resolution of the Court dated October 7, 1988. We have reviewed once more the Court's extended per curiam Resolution, in the light of the argument adduced in the Motion for Reconsideration, but must conclude that we find no sufficient basis for modifying the conclusions and rulings embodied in that Resolution. The Motion for Reconsideration sets forth copious quotations and references to foreign texts which, however, whatever else they may depict, do not reflect the law in this jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it might be useful to develop further, in some measure, some of the conclusions reached in the per curiam Resolution, addressing in the process some of the "Ten (10) Legal Points for Reconsideration," made in the Motion for Reconsideration. 1. In respondent's point A, it is claimed that it was error for this Court "to charge respondent [with] indirect contempt and convict him of direct contempt." In the per curiam Resolution (page 50), the Court concluded that "respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the bar." The Court did not use the phrase "in facie curiae" as a technical equivalent of "direct contempt," though we are aware that courts in the United States have sometimes used that phrase in speaking of "direct contempts' as "contempts in the face of the courts." Rather, the court sought to convey that it regarded the contumacious acts or statements (which were made both in a pleading filed before the Court and in statements given to the media) and the misconduct of respondent Gonzalez as serious acts flaunted in the face of the Court and constituting a frontal assault upon the integrity of the Court and, through the Court, the entire judicial system. What the Court would stress is that it required respondent, in its Resolution dated 2 May 1988, to explain "why he should not be punished for contempt of court and/or subjected to administrative sanctions" and in respect of which, respondent was heard and given the most ample opportunity to present all defenses, arguments and evidence that he wanted to present for the consideration of this Court. The Court did not summarily impose punishment upon the respondent which it could have done under Section 1 of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court had it chosen to consider respondent's acts as constituting "direct contempt." 2. In his point C, respondent's counsel argues that it was "error for this Court to charge respondent under Rule 139 (b)

and not 139 of the Revised Rules of Court." In its per curiam Resolution, the Court referred to Rule 139 (b) of the Revised Rules of Court pointing out that: [R]eference of complaints against attorneys either to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or to the Solicitor General is not mandatory upon the Supreme Court such reference to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or to the Solicitor General is certainly not an exclusive procedure under the terms of Rule 139 (b) of the Revised Rules of Court, especially where the charge consists of acts done before the Supreme Court. The above statement was made by the Court in response to respondent's motion for referral of this case either to the Solicitor General or to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines under Rule 139 (b). Otherwise, there would have been no need to refer to Rule 139 (b). It is thus only necessary to point out that under the old rule, Rule 139, referral to the Solicitor General was similarly not an exclusive procedure and was not the only course of action open to the Supreme Court. It is well to recall that under Section 1 (entitled "Motion or complaint") of Rule 139, "Proceedings for the removal or suspension of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court, (1) on its own motion, or (2) upon the complaint under oath of another in writing" (Parentheses supplied). The procedure described in Sections 2 et seq. of Rule 139 is the procedure provided for suspension or disbarment proceedings initiated upon sworn complaint of another person, rather than a procedure required for proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court on its own motion. It is inconceivable that the Supreme Court would initiate motu proprioproceedings for which it did not find probable cause to proceed against an attorney. Thus, there is no need to refer a case to the Solicitor General, which referral is made "for investigation to determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed with the prosecution of the respondent" (Section 3, Rule 139), where the Court itself has initiated against the respondent. The Court may, of course, refer a case to the Solicitor General if it feels that, in a particular case, further factual investigation is needed. In the present case, as pointed out in the per curiamResolution of the Court (page 18), there was "no need for further investigation of facts in the present case for it [was] not substantially disputed by respondent Gonzalez that he uttered or wrote certain statements attributed to him" and that "in any case, respondent has had the amplest opportunity to present his defense: his defense is not that he did not make the statements ascribed to him but that those statements give rise to no liability on his part, having been made in the exercise of his freedom of speech. The issues which thus need to be resolved here are issues of law and of

basic policy and the Court, not any other agency, is compelled to resolve such issues." In this connection, we note that the quotation in page 7 of the Motion for Reconsideration is from a dissentingopinion of Mr. Justice Black in Green v. 1 United State. It may be pointed out that the majority in Green v. United States, through Mr. Justice Harlan, held, among other things, that: Federal courts do not lack power to impose sentences in excess of one year for criminal contempt; that criminal contempts are not subject to jury trial as a matter of constitutional right; nor does the (US) Constitution require that contempt subject to prison terms of more than one year be based on grand jury indictments. In his concurring opinion in the same case, Mr. Justice Frankfurter said: Whatever the conflicting views of scholars in construing more or less dubious manuscripts of the Fourteenth Century, what is indisputable is that from the foundation of the United States the constitutionality of the power to punish for contempt without the intervention of a jury has not been doubted. The First Judiciary Act conferred such a power on the federal courts in the very act of their establishment, 1 State 73, 83, and of the Judiciary Committee of eight that reported the bill to the Senate, five member including the chairman, Senator, later to be Chief Justice, Ellsworth, had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention (Oliver Ellsworth, Chairman, William Paterson, Caleb Strong, Ricard Basett, William Few. 1 Annals of Cong 17). In the First Congress itself no less than nineteen member including Madison who contemporaneously introduced the Bill of Rights, had been delegates to the Convention. And when an abuse under this power manifested itself, and led Congress to define more explicitly the summary power vested in the courts, it did not remotely deny the existence of the power but merely defined the conditions for its exercise more clearly, in an Act "declaratory of the law concerning contempts of court." Act of Mar. 2, 1831, 4 Stat 487. xxxxxxxxx Nor has the constitutionality of the power been doubted by this Court throughout its existence . In at least two score cases in this Court, not to mention the vast mass of decisions in the lower

federal courts, the power to punish summarily has been accepted without 2 question. ... To say that a judge who punishes a contemnor judges his own cause, is simplistic at best. The judge who finds himself compelled to exercise the power to punish for contempt does so not really to avenge a wrong inflicted upon his own person; rather he upholds and vindicates the authority, dignity and integrity of the judicial institution and its claim to respectful behaviour on the part of all persons who appears before it, and most especially from those who are officers of the court. 3. In his point D, respondent counsel urges that it is error "for this Court to apply the "visible tendency" rule rather than the "clear and present danger" rule in disciplinary and contempt charges." The Court did not purport to announce a new doctrine of "visible tendency," it was, more modestly, simply paraphrasing Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court which penalizes a variety of contumacious conduct including: "any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice." The "clear and present danger" doctrine invoked by respondent's counsel is not a magic incantation which dissolves all problems and dispenses with analysis and judgment in the testing of the legitimacy of claims to free speech, and which compels a court to exonerate a defendant the moment the doctrine is invoked, absent proof of impending apocalypse. The clear and present danger" doctrine has been an accepted method for marking out the appropriate limits of freedom of speech and of assembly in certain contexts. It is not, however, the only test which has been recognized and applied by 3 courts. In Logunzad v. Vda. de Gonzales, this Court, speaking through Mme. Justice Melencio-Herrera said: ...The right of freedom of expression indeed, occupies a preferred position in the "hierarchy of civil liberties" (Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 191 [1963]. It is not, however, without limitations. As held in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, 27 SCRA 835, 858 [1960]: "From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the right is not susceptible of any limitation. No law may be passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. The realities of life in a complex society preclude however, a literal interpretation. Freedom of expression is not an absolute. It would

be too much to insist that all times and under all circumstances it should remain unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal values that press for recognition." The prevailing doctrine is that the clear and present danger rule is such a limitation. Another criterion for permissible limitation on freedom of speech and of the press, which includes such vehicles of the mass media as radio, television and the movies, is the "balancing-of-interests test" (Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando on the Bill of Rights, 1970 ed., p. 79). The principle "requires a court to take conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation (Separate Opinion of the late Chief Justice Castro in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, supra, p. 899). (Emphasis 4 Supplied) Under either the "clear and present danger" test or the "balancing-of-interest test," we believe that the statements here made by respondent Gonzalez are of such a nature and were made in such a manner and under such circumstances, as to transcend the permissible limits of free speech. This conclusion was implicit in the per curiam Resolution of October 7, 1988. It is important to point out that the "substantive evil" which the Supreme Court has a right and a duty to prevent does not, in the instant case, relate to threats of physical disorder or overt violence or similar disruptions 5 of public order. What is here at stake is the authority of the Supreme Court to confront and prevent a "substantive evil" consisting not only of the obstruction of a free and fair hearing of a particular case but also the avoidance of the broader evil of the degradation of the judicial system of a country and the destruction of the standards of professional conduct required from members of the bar and officers of the courts. The "substantive evil" here involved, in other words, is not as palpable as a threat of public disorder or rioting but is certainly no less deleterious and more far reaching in its implications for society. 4. In his point H, respondent's counsel argues that it is error "for this Court to hold that intent is irrelevant in charges of misconduct." What the Court actually said on this point was: Respondent Gonzalez disclaims an intent to attack and denigrate the Court. The subjectivities of the respondent are irrelevant so far as characterization of his conduct or misconduct is concerned. He will not, however, be allowed to

disclaim the natural and plain import of his words and acts. It is, upon the other hand, not irrelevant to point out that the respondent offered no apology in his two (2) explanations and exhibited no repentance (Resolution, p. 7; footnotes omitted). The actual subjectivities of the respondent are irrelevant because such subjectivities (understood as pyschological phenomena) cannot be ascertained and reached by the processes of this Court. Human intent can only be shown derivatively and implied from an examination of acts and statements. Thus, what the Court was saying was that respondent's disclaimer of an intent to attack and denigrate the Court, cannot prevail over the plain import of what he did say and do. Respondent cannot negate the clear import of his acts and statements by simply pleading a secret intent or state of mind incompatible with those acts or statements. It is scarcely open to dispute that, e.g., one accused of homicide cannot successfully deny his criminal intent by simply asserting that while he may have inserted a knife between the victim's ribs, he actually acted from high motives and kind feelings for the latter. 5 In his point 1, respondent's counsel argues that it is error "for this Court to punish respondent for contempt of court for out of court publications." Respondent's counsel asks this Court to follow what he presents as alleged modern trends in the United Kingdom and in the United States concerning the law of contempt. We are, however, unable to regard the texts that he cites as binding or persuasive in our jurisdiction. The Court went to some length to document the state of our case law on this matter in its per curiam Resolution. There is nothing in the circumstances of this case that would suggest to this Court that that case law, which has been followed for at least half a century or so, ought to be reversed. 6. In his point J, respondent's counsel pleads that the imposition of indefinite suspension from the practice of law constitutes "cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment". The Court finds it difficult to consider this a substantial constitutional argument. The indefiniteness of the respondent's suspension, far from being "cruel" or "degrading" or "inhuman," has the effect of placing, as it were, the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own hands. That sanction has the effect of giving respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time of his contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance and

demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of conduct rightly demanded from every member of the bar and officer of the courts. ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. The denial is FINAL. The Court also NOTED the Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion, dated October 25, 1988 and the Supplemental Manifestation, dated October 27, 1988, filed by respondent IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO IN L-24114, People's Homesite and Housing Corporation and University of the Philippines, vs. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ELPIDIO TIBURCIO, MARCELINO TIBURCIO, ET AL. RESOLUTION

conference, Marcelino Tiburcio supposedly informed Atty. Soriano of the precise status of each of the two cases, thus: that the Varsity Hills case was set for hearing by this Court on October 27, 1969, while the present case was still pending and the date of hearing thereof was yet undetermined. In addition to Marcelino Tiburcio's representations, Atty. Soriano allegedly relied upon the assurance of a mutual acquaintance, Atty. Antonio J. Dalangpan that indeed these two cases were pending in this Court. And so Atty. Soriano prepared a letter-contract dated October 8, 1969, by virtue of which he agreed to render professional services in the two cases in consideration of a contingent fee of 143.33 hectares of land out of the 430 hectares (more or less) involved in the two cases. It was on the same date, October 8, 1969, that he then caused the preparation of his written appearance in the present case. Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that the contingent fee of 143.33 hectares of land would find no justification if Atty. Soriano were to render his professional services solely in the Varsity Hills case, for in this latter case, the records of which we are in a position to take judicial notice, an area of only about 19 hectares is involved, 1 the bulk of the property claimed by the respondents having been litigated in the present case. The entry of appearance of a counsel in a case which has long been sealed and terminated by a final judgment, besides being an unmitigated absurdity in itself and an unwarranted annoyance to the court which pronounced the judgment, is a sore deviation from normal judicial processes. It detracts heavily from the faith which should be accorded final judgments of courts of justice, generating as it does in the minds of the litigants, as well as of the public, an illusory belief that something more can be done toward overturning a final judicial mandate. In the incident before us, we find Atty. Soriano grossly remiss and inexcusably precipitate in putting an officious finger into the vortex of the case. He was wanting in the reasonable care which every member of the Bar must needs exercise before rushing into the midst of a case already litigated or under litigation. Before taking over a case handled by a peer in the Bar, a lawyer is enjoined to obtain the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute. And if this cannot be had, then he should, at the very least, give notice to 2 such lawyer of the contemplated substitution. Atty. Soriano's entry of appearance in the present case as "chief counsel of record" for the respondents in effect sought to preempt the former counsel, Atty. Nemesio Diaz, of the premier control over the case. Although at the hearing of the present incident he averred that he exerted efforts to communicate with Atty. Diaz to no avail, we are far from being convinced that he really did so. Nowhere in his written manifestations to this Court did he make mention of such efforts on his part. His

CASTRO, J.: By virtue of a pleading entitled "Appearance" filed with this Court on October 10, 1969, Clemente M. Soriano, a member of the Philippine Bar since January 19, 1954, entered his appearance in the present case (L-24114, PHHC and U.P. vs. Mencias, Tiburcio, et al.) as "chief counsel of record" for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio, et al. This act in itself would have been innocuous were it not for the fact that it was done one year and eight months after the decision in this case became final. Wittingly or unwittingly, therefore, Atty. Soriano was in effect asking this Court to exhume this case from the archives. We thus considered it needful that he explain in full and in writing his unprecedented, if not altogether bizzare behavior. His subsequent explanation did not, however, serve to dissuade this Court from requiring him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for entering an appearance at such a late date. He forthwith came with a recital of the circumstances under which he had agreed to have his services retained by the respondents Tiburcio, et al. He alleged that sometime during the first week of October 1969, the respondent Marcelino Tiburcio, in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact of the other respondents, went to him to engage his professional services in two cases, to wit: this terminated case (L24114), and the case entitled "Varsity Hills vs. Hon. Herminio C. Mariano, etc., et al." (L-30546). At their

subsequent assertions to the contrary are plainly mere after thoughts. Furthermore, we note that Atty. Soriano has joined one Atty. Bonifacio T. Doria as counsel for the respondents in the Varsity Hills case now pending before this Court. Atty. Doria, who was counsel of record in that case even prior to October 10, 1969, certainly knew the status of the present case since the scope of our decision in the latter is a prime issue raised in the Varsity Hills case. Clearly, therefore, when Atty. Soriano accepted the two cases for the respondents, especially the Varsity Hills case, he had not bothered at all to communicate with Atty. Doria, as is the befitting thing to do when a 3 lawyer associates with another in a pending cause. He did not bother either to comprehend the substance of the Varsity Hills case before accepting the said case, something which is elementary in the lawyer's trade. Had he been less precipitate in his actions, he would have surely detected the existence of a final judgment in the present case. Further still, if it were true, as claimed by Atty. Soriano at the hearing of this incident, that his clients complained to him about having been left out in the cold by their former lawyer, then that circumstance of itself should have indicated to him the imperative need for verification of the true status of the present case. Atty. Soriano cannot lean on the supposed assurance of Atty. Dalangpan that the case was still pending with his Court which assurance Atty. Dalangpan, at the hearing of this incident, categorically denied having given. What Atty. Soriano should have done, in keeping with the reasonable vigilance exacted of members of the legal profession, was to pay a verification visit to the records section of this Court, which is easily and quickly accessible by car or public conveyance from his office (May Building, Rizal Avenue, Manila). If this office were situated in the province and he did not have the time to come to the Supreme Court building in Manila, he could have posed the proper query to the Clerk of Court by registered mail or by telegram. We find Atty. Clemente M. Soriano guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of this Court. This inexcusable negligence would merit no less than his suspension from the practice of the law profession, were it not for his candor, at the hearing of this incident, in owning his mistake and the apology he made to this Court. It is the sense of this Court, however, that he must be as he is hereby severely censured. Atty. Soriano is further likewise warned that any future similar act will be met with heavier disciplinary sanction. Atty. Soriano is hereby ordered, in the present case, to forthwith withdraw the appearance that he has entered as chief counsel of record for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio, et al. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal record of Atty. Clemente M. Soriano on file in the Bar Division of this Court. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO TENAZASpetitioners, vs. BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, & QUINTIN MUNINGrespondents. Cipriano Cid & Associates for petitioners. Ceferino Magat and Manuel C. Gonzales for respondent Quintin Muning.

REYES, J.B.L., J.: May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered? This is the issue presented in this petition for review of an order, dated 12 May 1964, and the en banc resolution, dated 8 December 1964, of the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 72-ULPIloilo, granting respondent Quintin Muning a non-lawyer, attorney's fees for professional services in the said case. The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the reinstatement with backwages of complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18 October 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 November 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas on 3 December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages. Munings petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer. The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the hearings were held in Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf of the complainants were at first by Attorney Pacis and subsequently by respondent Quintin Muning. On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the backwages as compensation for professional services rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:

Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates ............................................. 10% Quintin Muning ................................................................ ......... 10% Atty. Atanacio Pacis ................................................................ . 5% The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer according to the order, is sought to be voided in the present petition. Respondent Muning moved in this Court to dismiss the present petition on the ground of late filing but his motion 1 was overruled on 20 January 1965. He asked for reconsideration, but, considering that the motion contained averments that go into the merits of the case, this Court admitted and considered the motion for reconsideration for all purposes as respondent's answer 2 to the petitioner for review. The case was considered 3 submitted for decision without respondent's brief. Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle enunciated in Amalgamated Laborers' Association, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-23467, 27 4 March 1968, that an agreement providing for the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union president is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot be justified. An award by a court of attorney's fees is no less immoral in the absence of a contract, as in the present case. The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 that In the proceeding before the Court or Hearing Examiner thereof, the parties shall not be required to be represented by legal counsel ... is no justification for a ruling, that the person representing the party-litigant in the Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is entitled to attorney's fees: for the same section adds that it shall be the duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer to examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of evidence. thus making it clear that the representation should be exclusively entrusted to duly qualified members of the bar.

The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear or defend in the said court on behalf of a party-litigant does not by itself entitle the representative to compensation for such representation. For Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, providing Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, ... imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition to the recovery of attorney's fees. Such a relationship cannot exist unless the client's representative in court be a lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees. Certainly public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties litigant should be entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and who are sworn, to observe the rules and the ethics of the profession, as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary control for the protection of courts, clients and the public. On the present issue, the rule in American jurisdictions is persuasive. There, it is stated: But in practically all jurisdictions statutes have now been enacted prohibiting persons not licensed or admitted to the bar from practising law, and under statutes of this kind, the great weight of authority is to the effect that compensation for legal services cannot be recovered by one who has not been admitted to practice before the court or in the jurisdiction the services were 5 rendered. No one is entitled to recover compensation for services as an attorney at law unless he has been duly admitted to practice ... and is an 6 attorney in good standing at the time. The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession 7 should not be violated; that acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt of court, which is 8 punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, and the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an 9 act or an act done in violation of law; and that if were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to 10 disciplinary measures.

And the general rule above-stated (referring to non-recovery of attorney's fees by non-lawyers) cannot be circumvented when the services were purely legal, by seeking to recover as an 11 "agent" and not as an attorney. The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a nonlawyer may not be awarded attorney's fees should suffice to refute the possible argument that appearances by non-lawyers before the Court of Industrial Relations should be excepted on the ground that said court is a court of special jurisdiction; such special jurisdiction does not weigh the aforesaid reasons and cannot justify an exception. The other issue in this case is whether or not a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay of some of its members. This issue arose because it was the union PAFLU, alone, that moved for an extension of time to file the present petition for review; union members Entila and Tenazas did not ask for extension but they were included as petitioners in the present petition that was subsequently filed, it being contended that, as to them (Entila and Tenazas), their inclusion in the petition as copetitioners was belated. We hold that a union or legitimate labor organization may appeal an award of attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay of its members because such union or labor organization is permitted to institute 12 an action in the industrial court, on behalf of its members; and the union was organized "for the promotion of the emloyees' moral, social and economic 13 well-being"; hence, if an award is disadvantageous to its members, the union may prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party, under Section 6, Republic Act 875, which provides: Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any order of the Court may appeal to the Supreme Court of the Philippines ..., since more often than not the individual unionist is not in a position to bear the financial burden of litigations. Petitioners allege that respondent Muning is engaged in the habitual practice of law before the Court of Industrial Relations, and many of them like him who are not licensed to practice, registering their appearances as "representatives" and appearing daily before the said court. If true, this is a serious situation demanding corrective action that respondent court should actively pursue and enforce by positive action to that purpose. But since this matter was not brought in issue before the court a quo, it may not be taken up in the present case. Petitioners, however, may file proper action against the persons alleged to be illegally engaged in the practice of law.

WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby set aside insofar as they awarded 10% of the backwages as attorney's fees for respondent Quintin Muning. Said orders are affirmed in all other respects. Costs against respondent Muning.

VICENTE MUOZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents, DELIA T. SUTTON, respondent. RESOLUTION

FERNANDO, J.: We have before us a task far from pleasant. Respondent, Delia T. Sutton, a member of the Philippine Bar, connected with the law firm of Salonga, Ordoez, Yap, Parlade, and Associates, must be held accountable for failure to live up to that exacting standard expected of counsel, more specifically with reference to a duty owing this Tribunal. She failed to meet the test of candor and honesty required of pleaders when, in a petition forcertiorari prepared by her to review a Court of Appeals decision, she attributed to it a finding of facts in reckless disregard, to say the least, of what in truth was its version as to what transpired. When given an opportunity to make proper amends, both in her appearance before us and thereafter in her memorandum, there was lacking any showing of regret for a misconduct so obvious and so inexcusable. Such an attitude of intransigence hardly commends itself. Her liability is clear. Only her relative inexperience in the ways of the law did save her from a penalty graver than severe censure. So we rule. The background of the incident before us was set forth in our resolution of July 12, 1971. It reads as follows: "Acting upon the petition for review in G.R. No. L-33672, Vicente Muoz v. People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, and considering that the main issue therein is whether petitioner Muoz is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence, as charged in the information; that in the language of the decision of the Court of Appeals "the prosecution and the defense offered two conflicting versions of the incident that gave rise to the case"; that, upon examination of the evidence, the Court of Appeals found, as did the trial court, that the version of the prosecution is the true one and that of the defense is

unbelievable; that this finding of the Court of Appeals is borne out by substantial evidence, whereas the version of the defense is inconsistent with some established facts, for: (a) petitioner's theory, to the effect that his boat had been rammed by that of the complainant, is refuted by the fact that after hitting the left frontal outrigger of the latter's boat, the prow and front outrigger of petitioner's motorboat hit also the left front portion of complainant's boat where the complainant was seated, thereby hitting him on the back and inflicting the injury that cause his death so that, immediately after the collision - part of petitioner's boat was on top of that of the complainant; (b) these circumstances, likewise, indicate the considerable speed at which petitioner's motorboat was cruising, (c) petitioner's motorboat had suffered very little damage, which would have been considerable had it been rammed by the offended party's boat, the latter being bigger than, as well as provided with an engine twice as powerful as, that of the petitioner; and (d) although appellant's boat carried several passengers, including children, and was, in fact, overloaded, appellant acted as pilot and, at the same time, as its machinist, thereby rendering it difficult for him to manuever it properly; the Court resolved to [deny] the petition upon the ground that it is mainly factual and for lack of merit. Considering further, that the petition quotes, on page 5 thereof a portion of the decision appealed from, summing up evidence for the defense, and makes reference thereto "findings" of the Court of Appeals, which is not true; that, on page 6 of the petition, petitioner states, referring to a portion of the same quotation, that the same "are the established uncontroverted facts recognized by the Court of Appeals," which is, likewise, untrue; that, on page 8 of the petition, it is averred "It being conceded that the two versions recounted above are by themselves credible, although they are conflicting the same cannot be binding on, and is therefore, reviewable by the Honorable Supreme Court. Where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals [are conflicting], the same [are not binding] on the Supreme Court. (Cesica v. Villaseca, G.R. L-9590, April 30, 1957)" although, in fact, no conflicting findings of fact are made in the decision

appealed from; and that, on page 9 of the petition, it is alleged that the Court of Appeals had"affirmed the minimum penalty of one (1) year and one (1) day imposed by the lower court," although, in fact, minimum penalty imposed by the trial court was "four(4) months of arresto mayor"; the Court resolved to require counsel for the petitioner to show cause, within ten (10) days from notice, why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court [or] otherwise subjected to disciplinary action for making aforementioned 1 misrepresentations." " A pleading entitled "Compliance with Resolution" by the aforesaid law firm was filed on August 14, 1971. There was no attempt at justification, because in law there is none, but it did offer what was hoped to be a satisfactory explanation. If so, such optimism was misplaced. It betrayed on its face more than just a hint of lack of candor, of minimizing the effects of grave inaccuracies in the attribution to the Court of Appeals certain alleged facts not so considered as such. It was then to say that the least a far from meticulous appraisal of the matter in issue. Much of what was therein contained did not ring true. Under the circumstances, we set the matter for hearing on September 14 of the same year, requiring all lawyerspartners in said firm to be present. At such a hearing, respondent Delia T. Sutton appeared. While her demeanor was respectful, it was obvious that she was far from contrite. On the contrary, the impression she gave the Court was that what was done by her was hardly deserving of any reproach. Even when subjected to intensive questioning by several members of the Court, she was not to be budged from such an untenable position. It was as if she was serenely unconcerned, oblivious of the unfavorable reaction to, which her evasive answers gave rise. There certainly was lack of awareness of the serious character of her misdeed. The act of unruffled assurance under the circumstances was hard to understand. Perhaps realizing that the Court was not disposed to look at the matter as a minor peccadillo, Attorney Sedfrey A. Ordoez of the law firm expressly acknowledged that what appeared in its petition for certiorari prepared by respondent Delia T. Sutton insofar as it did misrepresent what is set forth in the Court of Appeals decision sought to be reviewed was reprehensible, and did make with the proper spirit of humility the necessary expression of regret. What is more, the law firm in a pleading entitled "Joint Apology to the Supreme Court" filed on December 1,

1971, signed jointly by Sedfrey A. Ordoez and Delia Sutton, did seek to make amends thus: "1. That undersigned attorney, Delia T. Sutton, together with Messrs. Sedfrey A. Ordoez, Pedro L. Yap and Custodio O. Parlade, partners in the firm of Salonga, Ordoez, Yap, Parlade & Associates, appeared before this Honorable Court on November 22, 1971, pursuant to an order dated October 18, 1971; 2. That with all the sincerity and candor at the command of undersigned attorney, the circumstances surrounding her preparation of the pleading which gave rise to the instant citation to show cause why she should not be punished for contempt of court were explained by her, with the assistance of Atty. Sedfrey A. Ordoez; 3. That the undersigned Delia T. Sutton had no intention to misrepresent any question of fact before this Honorable Court for her personal gain or benefit, and that it was her lack of adequate extensive experience in preparing petitions for certiorari which may have caused the inaccurate statements in the said petition which were enumerated in the order of this Honorable Court; 4. That undersigned Delia T. Sutton contritely realizes the errors which she committed in the preparation of the said petition forcertiorari and that the same will not recur in the future as she will always abide by the provisions on candor and fairness in the Canons of Professional Ethics, which reads: "22. [Candor and Fairness]. The conduct of the lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and fairness. It is not candid or fair for the lawyer knowingly to misquote the contents of a paper, the testimony of a witness, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the language of a decision or a textbook or; with knowledge of its invalidity, to cite as authority a decision that has been overruled, or a statute that has been repealed; or in argument to assert as fact that which has not been proved, or in those jurisdictions where a side has the opening and closing arguments to mislead his opponent by concealing or withholding positions in his opening argument upon which his side then intends to rely. ..." 5. That undersigned Atty. Sedfrey A. Ordoez joins Atty. Delia T. Sutton in expressing his own apologies to the Honorable Court for not having thoroughly supervised the preparation by Atty. Delia T. Sutton of a type of pleading with which she 2 was not thoroughly familiar." The "Joint Apology" thus offered did mitigate to some extent the liability of respondent Sutton. Some members of the Court feel, however, that it does not go far enough. While expressing regret and offering apology, there was lacking that free admission that what was done by her should not characterized merely as "errors" consisting as they do of "inaccurate statements." If there were a greater sincerity on her part, the offense should have been acknowledged as the submission of deliberate misstatements. There ought to be, for the apology to gain significance, no further attempt at minimizing the enormity of the misdeed. It is then as if there was hardly any retreat from the untenable stand originally taken. The mood, even at this stage, seems to be that she could brazen it out as long as the words

indicative of an apology were offered. This Court does not view matters thus. To purge herself of the contempt, she ought to have displayed the proper spirit of contrition and humility. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of a client's cause, it must never be at the expense of deviation from the truth. As set forth in the applicable Canon of Legal Ethics: "Nothing operates more certainly to create or to foster popular prejudice against lawyers as a class, and to deprive the profession of that full measure of public esteem and confidence which belongs to the proper discharge of its duties than does the false claim, often set up by the unscrupulous in defense of questionable transactions, that it is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever may enable him to succeed in winning his client's 3 cause." What is more, the obligation to the bench, especially to this Court, for candor and honesty takes precedence. It is by virtue of such considerations that punishment that must fit the offense has to be meted out to respondent Delia T. Sutton. At the same time, the attitude displayed by one of the senior partners, Attorney Sedfrey A. Ordoez, both in the appearances before the Court and in the pleadings submitted, must be commended. He has made manifest that his awareness of the role properly incumbent on counsel, especially in his relationship to this Court, is deep-seated. It must be stated, however, that in the future he, as well as the other senior partners, should exercise greater care in the supervision of the attorneys connected with their law firm, perhaps inexperienced as yet but nonetheless called upon to comply with the peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. WHEREFORE, respondent Delia T. Sutton is severely censured. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on her record.

JORGE MONTECILLO and QUIRICO DEL MAR, petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO M. GICA, MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, JOSE N. LEUTERIO, and RAMON G. GAVIOLA, Justices of the Court of Appeals, respondents. In Re Quirico del Mar, For Disciplinary action as member of the Philippine Bar, respondent.

ESGUERRA, J.:p Petitioner Atty. Quirico del Mar of Cebu City in G. R. No. L-36800, and as respondent in contempt proceedings both in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, virtually

focused the limelight on himself and relegated to insignificance the limelight on himself and relegated to insignificance the principal issue raised in the petition forcertiorari to review the entitled "Francisco M. Gica vs. Hon. Santiago O. Taada, et al" which was denied due course by this Court's resolution dated May 14, 1973, for lack of merit. Although the petition for certiorari has been denied, it becomes imperatively necessary to elucidate upon the antecedents of this case even if Our only justification in so doing is to seek a reason or motive for the acts of contempt perpetrated by respondent Quirico del Mar that might serve to lighten the enormity of his wrongdoing as a member of the Bar. As a result of an alleged slander committed by Jorge Montecillo on Francisco M. Gica (the former allegedly calling the latter "stupid" or a "fool'), Mr. Gica filed a criminal complaint for oral defamation against Montecillo (Criminal Case No. R-28782 in Branch VII of the Cebu City Court) and a case for damages arising from the same incident (Civil Case No. R-13075 in Branch VI of the Cebu City Court). Montecillo was acquitted in Criminal Case No. R-28782, and in Civil Case No. R13075, the Cebu City Court found that Montecillo did not call Gica "stupid". Finding the counter-claim of Montecillo meritorious, the City Court rendered judgment against Gica for him to pay Montecillo five hundred pesos as moral damages, two hundred pesos as compensatory damages and three hundred pesos as attorney's fees, plus costs. Francisco Gica appealed from the decision of the City Court of Cebu in Civil Case No. R-13075 to the Court of First Instance of Cebu presided by Hon. Santiago O. Taada but the Court of First Instance upheld the decision of the City Court. The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals by petition for review by petitioner Francisco M. Gica and it was docketed therein as CA-G.R. No. 46504-R. The Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals in a decision penned by the Hon. Magno S. Gatmaitan and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose N. Leuterio and Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr. (promulgated on Sept. 27, 1972), reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu; ruled in favor of petitioner Gica on the ground that the preponderance of evidence favored petitioner Francisco M. Gica on the principle that positive must prevail over the negative evidence, and that "some words must have come from Montecillo's lips that were insulting to Gica". The appellate court concluded that its decision is a vindication of Gica and instead, awarded him five hundred pesos as damages. It is from this point that trouble began for respondent Atty. Quirico del Mar when, as counsel for Montecillo, he moved for a reconsideration of the Appellate Court's decision with a veiled threat by mentioning the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on "Knowingly

rendering unjust judgment" and "judgment rendered through negligence", and the innuendo that the Court of Appeals allowed itself to be deceived. When the Appellate Court denied the motion for reconsideration in its Resolution of October 24, 1972, it observed that the terminology of the motion insinuated that the Appellate Court rendered an unjust judgment, that it abetted a falsification and it permitted itself to be deceived. It admonished Atty. del Mar to remember that threats and abusive language cannot compel any court of justice to grant reconsideration. Respondent del Mar persisted and in his second motion for reconsideration, filed without leave of court, made another threat by stating that "with almost all penal violations placed under the jurisdiction of the President of the Philippines, particularly Articles 171, 204 and 205 of the Revised Penal Code, as Commander in Chief of the AFP, by virtue of the proclamation of martial law, the next appeal that will he interposed, will be to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines." The Appellate Court in its resolution of Nov. 27, 1972, noticed that notwithstanding its admonition in its resolution of Oct. 24, 1972, for Atty. del Mar to refrain from abusive language and threats, he reiterated his threats, and that the Appellate Court, impelled to assert its authority, ordered respondent del Mar to explain within 10 days (and to appear on January 10, 1973) why he should not be punished for contempt of court. On December 5, 1972, respondent del Mar made a written explanation wherein he said that the Appellate Court could not be threatened and he was not making any threat but only informing the Appellate Court of the course of action he would follow. On the same date, respondent sent a letter to the Justices of the 4th Division of the Court of Appeals informing them that he sent a letter to the President of the Philippines, furnishing them a copy thereof, and requesting the Justices to take into consideration the contents of said letter during the hearing of the case scheduled for January 10, 1973. Not content with that move, on December 8, 1972, respondent sent another letter to the same Justices of the Court of Appeals wherein he reminded them of a civil case he instituted against Justices of the Supreme Court for damages in the amount of P200,000 for a decision rendered not in accordance with law and justice, stating that he would not like to do it again but would do so if provoked. We pause here to observe that respondent del Mar seems to be of that frame of mind whereby he considers as in accordance with law and justice whatever he believes to be right in his own opinion and as contrary to law and justice whatever does not accord with his views. In other words, he would like to assume the role of this Court, personally and individually, in the interpretation and construction of the laws, evaluation of evidence and determination of what is in accordance with law and justice.

The documented incidents as narrated in the Appellate Court's Resolution of March 5, 1973, cannot more eloquently depict the very manifest and repeated threats of respondent del Mar to bludgeon the Justices of the Fourth Davison into reconsidering its decision which happened to be adverse to respondent's client. Respondent del Mar, instead of presenting lucid and forceful arguments on the merits of his plea for a reconsideration to convince the Justices of the Fourth Division of the alleged error in their decision, resorted to innuendos and veiled threats, even casting downright aspersion on the Justices concerned by insinuating that for their decision they could be criminally and civilly liable for knowingly rendering unjust judgment, or doing it through ignorance. We quote with approval this portion of the Appellate Court's Resolution (March 5, 1973): A just man can never be threatened, p. 145, rollo, is not at all true; any man, just or unjust, can be threatened; if he is unjust, he will succumb, if he is just, he will not, but the offense is committed, whether the threats do or do not succeed. As to his (respondent del Mar's reference to the New Society, p. 150, in his letter to his Excellency, complaining against those justices, let it be said that precisely it was under the Former Society that there had been so much disrespect for the constituted authorities, there was abuse, worse than abuse, there was arrogant abuse, of the so-called civil liberties, against the authorities, including the courts, not excluding even the President; it is this anarchy that is the program to cure in the New. This Resolution of the Appellate Court of March 5, 1973, fittingly concluded that "counsel del Mar is found guilty of contempt and condemned to pay a fine of P200.00 and ordered suspended from the practice of law and pursuant to Sec. 9 of Rule 139, let certified copies of these papers be elevated to the Honorable Supreme Court". We upheld the Court of Appeals and gave full force and effect to this order of suspension from the practice of law when in Our resolution dated Nov. 19, 1973, the Judicial Consultant of this Court was directed to circularize all courts about the order of the Court of Appeals suspending Atty. Quirico del Mar from the practice of law. Not satisfied with the wrong that he had already done against Associate Justices Magno S. Gatmaitan, Jose N. Leuterio and Ramon Gaviola, Jr., respondent del Mar sued the three Justices for damages in Civil Case No. R13277 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, trying to hold them liable for their decision in CA-G.R. No. 46504R; that the case for damages (R-13277)was terminated

by compromise agreement after Mr. del Mar himself moved for the dismissal of his complaint apologized to the Court of Appeals and the Justices concerned, and agreed to pay nominal moral damages in favor of the defendants-justices. This is the undeniable indication that respondent del Mar did not only threaten the three Justices of the Appellate Court but he actually carried out his threat, although he did not succeed in making them change their minds in the case they decided in accordance with the exercise of their judicial discretion emanating from pure conviction. To add insult to injury, respondent del Mar had the temerity to file his motion on October 10, 1973, before Us, asking that his suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court of Appeals be ignored because of the amicable settlement reached in Civil Case No. R13277 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu which was the action for damages filed against the three Justices of the Appellate Court. Respondent del Mar's ire at the Appellate Court, fanned by the wind of frustration, turned against Us when We denied on May 14, 1973, his petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Appellate Court, G. R. No. L-36800, for on May 25, 1973, he filed his motion for reconsideration and wrote a letter addressed to the Clerk of this Court requesting the names of the Justices of this Court who supported the resolution denying his petition, together with the names of the Justices favoring his motion for reconsideration. This motion for reconsideration We denied for lack of merit in Our resolution dated June 15, 1973. He, then, filed a manifestation dated July 1, 1973, before Us, stating brazenly, among other things, "I can at this time reveal to you that, had your Clerk of Court furnished me with certified true copies of the last two Resolutions of the Supreme Court confirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case entitled Francisco M. Gica vs. Jorge Montecillo, I would have filed against the Justices supporting the same, civil and criminal suit as I did to the Justices of the Court of Appeals who, rewarding the abhorent falsification committed by Mr. Gica, reversed for him the decisions of the City Court and the Court of First Instance of Cebu, not with a view to obtaining a favorable judgment therein but for the purpose of exposing to the people the corroding evils extant in our Government, so that they may well know them and work for their extermination" (Emphasis supplied. In one breath and in a language certainly not complimentary to the Appellate Court and to Us, respondent del Mar again made his veiled threat of retribution aimed at the Appellate Court and at Us for Our judicial acts in CA-G. R. No. 46504-R and G. R. No. L-36800. Our immediate reaction to this manifestation, dictated by the impulse of placing on a pedestal beyond suspicion the integrity and honor of this Court and that of any of our other courts of justice, was to require by Resolution of July 16, 1973, respondent del Mar to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for

the contemptuous statements contained in his manifestation. At this juncture, We pause to reexamine the act of the Appellate Court in CA-G. R. No. 46504-R and our own in G. R. No. L-36800 to determine what error we might have committed to generate such a vengeful wrath of respondent del Mar which drove him to make his contemptuous statements. The crucial issue in the case of oral defamation filed by Francisco M. Gica against Jorge Montecillo is as to what was the statement really uttered by Montecillo on the occasion in question "binuang man gud na" (That act is senseless or done without thinking) or "buang man gud na siya" (He is foolish or stupid). If the statement uttered was the former, Montecillo should be exonerated; if the latter, he would be liable. The Appellate Court on evaluating the evidence ruled that the preponderance thereof favored Gica "on the principle that the positive evidence must prevail over the negative" and, therefore, what was really uttered by Montecillo on that occasion was "buang man gud na siya" (He is foolish or stupid), thus making him liable for oral defamation. When We denied in G. R. No. L-36800 the petition for review on certiorari of the Appellate Court's decision in CA-G. R. No. 46504-R, We did so because We could find no reason for disturbing the Appellate Court's finding and conclusion on the aforementioned lone question of fact which would warrant overturning its decision. On July 13, 1973, Our resolution of May 14, 1973, denying the petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Appellate Court in CA-G. R. No. 46504R, became final and executory and the Court of Appeals was so informed. To Our resolution of July 16, 1973, requiring respondent del Mar to show cause why he should not be disciplined for his statements contained in his manifestation of July 1, 1973, he submitted an explanation dated August 1, 1973, wherein he stated that "..., he is attaching hereto the criminal case he filed with the President of the Philippines (copy marked as Annex "A") and the civil case he instituted in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (copy marked as Annex "B") against Justices Magno S. Gatmaitan, Jose N. Leuterio and Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr., which embody the corroding evils he complained of as extant in the Government needing correction. He would have followed suit were it not for the fact that he is firmly convinced that human efforts in this direction will be fruitless. As manifested, he, therefore, decided to retire from a life of militancy to a life of seclusion leaving to God the filling-up of human deficiencies" (Emphasis supplied). This so-called explanation is more, in its tenor, of a defiant justification of his contemptuous statements contained in the manifestation of July 1, 1973. Its contents reveal a continued veiled threat against the

Justices of this Court who voted to deny del Mar's petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Court Appeals in CA-G R. No. 46504-R. Our resolution of September 4, 1973, required respondent Atty. Quirico del Mar to appear personally at the hearing of his explanation on November 5, 1973. On September 26, 1973, respondent filed an additional explanation with this Court, wherein he stated, among other things: "Graft, corruption and injustice are rampant in and outside of the Government. It is this state of things that convinced me that all human efforts to correct and/or reform the said evils will be fruitless and, as stated in my manifestation to you, I have already decided to retire from a life of militancy to a life of seclusion, leaving to God the filling-up of human deficiencies." Again We noticed that the tenor of this additional explanation is a toned-down justification(as compared to his explanation of August 1, 1973) of his previous contemptuous statements without even a hint of apology or regret. Respondent is utilizing what exists in his mind as state of graft, corruption and injustice allegedly rampant in and outside of the government as justification for his contemptuous statements. In other words, he already assumed by his own contemptuous utterances that because there is an alleged existence of rampant corruption, graft, and injustice in and out of the government, We, by Our act in G. R. No. L-36800, are among the corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing injustice. We are at a complete loss to follow respondent del Mar's logic and We certainly should, with understanding condescension, commiserate in the pitiable state of mind of a brother in the legal profession who seems to have his reasoning and sense of proportion blurred or warped by an all-consuming obsession emanating from a one-track mind that only his views are absolutely correct and those of others are all wrong. When this Court in the resolution dated November 19, 1973, directed the Judicial Consultant to circularize to all courts concerning the order of the Court of Appeals suspending Atty. Quirico del Mar from the practice of law, respondent del Mar filed a motion for reconsideration on December 12, 1973, requesting Us to reconsider said directive. In Our resolution dated December 17, 1973, respondent del Mar, after he had been interpellated by the Court, was given a period of five days to submit a memorandum in support of his explanation. In view of respondent's manifestation that there was no need for further investigation of the facts involved, in accordance with Section 29 of Rule 138, We resolved that the matter be deemed submitted for decision. In the memorandum entitled "Explanation" dated December 20, 1973, respondent del Mar stated that he suffered repeated strokes of high blood pressure which rendered him dizzy and unstable mentally and

physically; that his sight is blurred and his reasoning is faulty; he easily forgets things and cannot readily correlate them; that for any and all mistakes he might have committed he asked for forgiveness; he reiterated that "blunders" were committed by the Court of Appeals in its decision and that the Justices thereof knowingly rendered the same in violation of Article 204 of the Penal Code; he persisted in his view that the Court of Appeals committed an error in its decision; justified his act of invoking Article 204 of the Penal Code in trying to make the Appellate Justices liable; that he was high in his academic and scholastic standing during his school days; that "with all the confusion prevailing nowadays, the undersigned has decided for reasons of sickness and old age to retire from the practice of law. He hopes and expects that, with the approval thereof by the Supreme Court, he could have himself released from the obligation he has contracted with his clients as regards all his pending cases." It is Our observation that the tenor of this explanation although pleading mental and physical ailment as a mitigation of the contemptuous acts, is still that of arrogant justification for respondent's previous statements. We quote: The undersigned was asked if he had not filed against the Justices of the Supreme Court a case for damages against them. He answered in the affirmative, but the case was dismissed by Judge Villasor, of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, because of an American ruling that a justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines cannot be civilly held liable. The ruling cited was rendered during the American regime in the Philippines which was still subject to the jurisdiction of the American laws. But the Philippines is now independent and Article 204 of the Penal Code still remains incorporated therein for observance and fulfillment. Up to now, there is not yet any definite ruling of the Supreme Court thereon While still persistently justifying his contemptuous statements and at the same time pleading that his physical and mental ailment be considered so that We may forgive respondent del Mar he shrewdly stated at the end of his explanation that he has decided for reasons of sickness and old age to retire from the practice of law, in practical anticipation of whatever penalty We may decide to impose on him and thus making it appear that he has voluntarily done so with honor and in complete evasion of whatever this Court may decide to do in this case. With full realization that a practicing lawyer and officer of the court facing contempt proceedings cannot just be allowed to voluntarily retire from the practice of law, an

act which would negate the inherent power of the court to punish him for contempt in defense of its integrity and honor, We resolve, by resolution of January 10, 1974, to deny said prayer of Atty. del Mar without prejudice to his making arrangement directly with his clients. To aged brethren of the bar it may appear belated to remind them that second only to the duty of maintaining allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines, is the duty of all attorneys to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers (Sec. 20 (b) Rule 138, Rules of Court). But We do remind them of said duty to emphasize to their younger brethren its paramount importance. A lawyer must always remember that he is an officer of the court exercising a high privilege and serving in the noble mission of administering justice. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude (People vs. Carillo, 77 Phil. 572). As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation. (In re Sotto 82 Phil. 595). As We stated before: We concede that a lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment. That is his privilege. And, he may suffer frustration at what he feels is others' lack of it. This is his misfortune. Some such frame of mind, however, should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attack a court's decision in words calculated to jettison the time-honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right. He should give due allowance to the fact that judges are but men; and men are encompassed by error, fettered by fallibility. ... To be sure, lawyers may come up with various methods, perhaps much more effective, in calling the Court's attention to the issues involved. The language vehicle does not run short of expressions, emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive (Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer G. R. No. L22979, June 26, 1967; 20 SCRA 441, 444-445) Criminal contempt has been defined as a conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially. It is an act obstructing the

administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect (17 C. J. S. 7). We have held that statements contained in a motion to disqualify a judge, imputing to the latter conspiracy or connivance with the prosecutors or concocting a plan with a view to securing the conviction of the accused, and implicating said judge in a supposed attempt to extort money from the accused on a promise or assurance of the latter's acquittal, all without basis, were highly derogatory and serve nothing but to discredit the judge presiding the court in an attempt to secure his disqualification. Statements of that nature have no place in a court pleading and if uttered by a member of the bar, constitute a serious disrespect. We said: As an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarilythe high esteem and regard towards the court so essential to the proper administration of justice(Emphasis supplied). (People vs. Carillo, 43 O.G. No. 12, p. 5021; De Joya et al vs. C. F. I. of Rizal and Rilloraza 52 0. G. 6150). As already stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 46504-R was based on its evaluation of the evidence on only one specific issue. We in turn denied in G. R. No. L-36800 the petition for review oncertiorari of the decision because We found no reason for disturbing the appellate court's finding and conclusion. In both instances, both the Court of Appeals and this Court exercised judicial discretion in a case under their respective jurisdiction. The intemperate and imprudent act of respondent del Mar in resorting to veiled threats to make both Courts reconsider their respective stand in the decision and the resolution that spelled disaster for his client cannot be anything but pure contumely for said tribunals. It is manifest that respondent del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on the flimsy ground of alleged error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his client. We note with wonder and amazement the brazen effrontery of respondent in assuming that his personal knowledge of the law and his concept of justice are superior to that of both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. His pretense cannot but tend to erode the people's faith in the integrity of the courts of justice and in the administration of justice. He repeatedly invoked his supposed quest for law and justice as justification for his contemptuous statements without realizing that, in seeking both abstract elusive terms, he is merely pursuing his own personal concept of law and justice. He

seems not to comprehend that what to him may be lawful or just may not be so in the minds of others. He could not accept that what to him may appear to be right or correct may be wrong or erroneous from the viewpoint of another. We understand that respondent's mind delves into the absolute without considering the universal law of change. It is with deep concern that We view such a state of mind of a practicing lawyer since what We expect as a paramount qualification for those in the practice of law is broadmindedness and tolerance, coupled with keen perception and a sound sense of proportion in evaluating events and circumstances. For a lawyer in the twilight of his life, with supposed physical and mental ailments at that, who dares to challenge the integrity and honor of both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, We have nothing but commiseration and sympathy for his choosing to close the book of his long years of law practice not by voluntary retirement with honor but in disciplinary action with ignominy and dishonor. To those who are in the practice of law and those who in the future will choose to enter this profession, We wish to point to this case as a reminder for them to imprint in their hearts and minds that an attorney owes it to himself to respect the courts of justice and its officers as a fealty for the stability of our democratic institutions. WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 46504-R, dated March 5, 1973, suspending Atty. Quirico del Mar from the practice of law, as implemented by Our resolution of November 19, 1973, is hereby affirmed. Respondent Atty. Quirico del Mar for his misconduct towards the Supreme Court, shall be, as he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law until further orders of this Court, such suspension to take effect immediately. (In re Almacen, No. L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970, 31 SCRA, p. 562.) The Judicial Consultant of this Court is directed to circularize all courts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines regarding the indefinite suspension of Atty. Quirico del Mar from the practice of law. SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 7199 July 22, 2009 [Formerly CBD 04-1386] FOODSPHERE, INC., Complainant, vs. ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR., Respondent. DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.: Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant), a corporation engaged in the business of meat processing and manufacture and distribution of canned goods and grocery products under 1 the brand name "CDO," filed a Verified Complaint for disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., popularly known as "Batas Mauricio" (respondent), a writer/columnist of tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and HATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB, for (1) grossly immoral conduct; (2) violation of lawyers oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors. The facts that spawned the filing of the complaint are as follows: On June 22, 2004, a certain 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. Corderos wife thus filed a complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD). Laboratory examination confirmed the presence of parasites in the Liver spread. Pursuant to Joint DTI-DOH-DA Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, the BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing on July 27, 2004 during which the spouses Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages from complainant. Complainant refused to heed the demand, however, as being in contravention of company policy and, in any event, "outrageous." Complainant instead offered to return actual medical and incidental expenses incurred by the Corderos as long as they were supported by receipts, but the offer was turned down. And the Corderos threatened to bring the matter to the attention of the media. Complainant was later required by the BFAD to file its Answer to the complaint. In the meantime or on August 6, 2004, respondent sent complainant via fax a copy of the front page of the would-be August 10-16, 2004 issue of the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS, Vol. 1, No. 2 12 which complainant found to contain articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices and defects to it and its products. Respondent threatened to publish the articles unless complainant gave in to the P150,000 demand of the Corderos. Complainant thereupon reiterated its counter-offer earlier conveyed to the Corderos, but respondent turned it down.

Respondent later proposed to settle the matter for P50,000, P15,000 of which would go to the Corderos andP35,000 to his Batas Foundation. And respondent directed complainant to place paid advertisements in the tabloids and television program. The Corderos eventually forged a 3 KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the 4 complaint. Respondent, who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the document. On August 11, 2004, respondent sent complainant an 5 Advertising Contract asking complainant to advertise in the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS for its next 24 weekly issues at P15,000 per issue or a total amount 6 ofP360,000, and a Program Profile of the television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS also asking complainant to place spot advertisements with the following rate cards: (a) spot buy 15-second TVC at P4,000; (b) spot buy 30-second TVC at P7,700; and (c) season buy [13 episodes, 26 spots] of 30-second TVC for P130,000. As a sign of goodwill, complainant offered to buy three full-page advertisements in the tabloid amounting toP45,000 at P15,000 per advertisement, and three spots of 30-second TVC in the television program at P7,700 each or a total of P23,100. Acting on complainants offer, respondent relayed to it that he and his Executive Producer were disappointed with the offer and threatened to proceed with the publication of the 7 articles/columns. On August 28, 2004, respondent, in his radio program Double B- Batas ng Bayan at radio station DZBB, announced the holding of a supposed contest sponsored by said program, which announcement was transcribed as follows: "OK, at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na o ha, meron pa-contest si Batas Mauricio ang Batas ng Bayan. Ito yung ating pa-contest, hulaan ninyo, tatawag kayo sa telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang mga premyo babanggitin po natin sa susunod pero ito muna ang contest, o, aling liver spread ang may uod? Yan kita ninyo yan, ayan malalaman ninyo yan. Pagkanahulaan yan ah, at sasagot kayo sa akin, aling liver spread ang may uod at anong companya ang gumagawa nyan? Itawag po ninyo sa 433-7549 st 4337553. Open po an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng ating tagapakinig. Pipiliin natin ang mananalo, kung tama ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong, aling liver spread sa 8 Pilipinas an[g] may uod? (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied) And respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles which put complainant in bad light. Thus, in the August 31- September 6, 2004 issue of Balitang Patas

BATAS, he wrote an article captioned "KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD!" In another article, he wrote "IBA 9 PANG PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN!" which appeared in the same publication in its September 7-13, 2004 issue. And still in the same publication, its September 14-20, 2004 issue, he wrote another article entitled 10 "DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG CDO." Respondent continued his tirade against complainant in his column LAGING HANDA published in another tabloid, BAGONG TIKTIK, with the following 11 articles: (a) "Uod sa liver spread," Setyembre 6, 2004 12 (Taon 7, Blg.276); (b) "Uod, itinanggi ng CDO," 13 Setyembre 7, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.277); (c) "Pagpapatigil 14 sa CDO," Setyembre 8, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.278); (d) "Uod sa liver spread kumpirmado," Setyembre 9, 2004 15 (Taon 7, Blg.279); (e) "Salaysay ng nakakain ng uod," 16 Setyembre 10, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.280); (f) "Kaso VS. CDO itinuloy," Setyembre 11, 2004 (Taon 7, 17 Blg.281); (g) "Kasong Kidnapping laban sa CDO 18 guards," Setyembre 14, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.284); (h) "Brutalidad ng CDO guards," Setyembre 15, 2004 (Taon 19 7, Blg.285); (i) "CDO guards pinababanatan sa PNP," 20 Setyembre 17, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.287); (j) "May uod na CDO liver spread sa Puregold binili," Setyembre 18, 21 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.288); (k) "Desperado na ang CDO," 22 Setyembre 20, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.290); (l) "Atty. Rufus Rodriguez pumadrino sa CDO," Setyembre 21, 2004 23 (Taon 7,Blg. 291); (m) "Kasunduan ng CDO at Pamilya 24 Cordero," Setyembre 22, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 292); (n) "Bakit nagbayad ng P50 libo ang CDO," Setyembre 23, 25 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 293). In his September 8, 2004 column "Anggulo ng Batas" published in Hataw!, respondent wrote an article 26 "Reaksyon pa sa uod ng CDO Liver Spread." And respondent, in several episodes in September 2004 of his television program Kakampi Mo ang Batas aired over UNTV, repeatedly complained of what complainant claimed to be the "same baseless and malicious 27 allegations/issues" against it. Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending at he time of the filing of the 28 present administrative complaint. In the criminal complaints pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, docketed as I.S. Nos. V-04-2917-2933, respondent filed his Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These 29 Cases to the Department of Justice, alleging: xxxx

2.N. The question here is this: What gives, Honorable (???) Prosecutors of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City? xxxx 2.R. Can an ordinary person like Villarez simply be tossed around, waiting for miracles to happen? 2.S. Why? How much miracle is needed to happen here before this Office would ever act on his complaint? xxxx 8. With a City Prosecutor acting the way he did in the case filed by Villarez, and with an investigating prosecutor virtually kowtowing to the wishes of his boss, the Chief Prosecutor, can Respondents expect justice to be meted to them? 9. With utmost due respect, Respondents have reason to believe that justice would elude them in this Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, not because of the injustice of their cause, but, more importantly, because of the injustice of the system; 10. Couple all of these with reports that many a government office in Valenzuela City had been the willing recipient of too many generosities in the past of the Complainant, and also with reports that a top official of the City had campaigned for his much coveted position in the past distributing products of the Complainant, what would one expect the Respondents to think? 11. Of course, not to be lost sight of here is the attitude and behavior displayed even by mere staff and underlings of this Office to people who dare complain against the Complainant in their respective turfs. Perhaps, top officials of this Office should investigate and ask their associates and relatives incognito to file, even if on a pakunwari basis only, complaints against the Complainant, and they would surely be given the same rough and insulting treatment that Respondent 30 Villarez got when he filed his kidnapping charge here; And in a Motion to Dismiss [the case] for Lack of 31 Jurisdiction which respondent filed, as counsel for his therein co-respondents-staffers of the newspaper Hataw!, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent alleged: xxxx 5. If the Complainant or its lawyer merely used even a little of whatever is inside their thick skulls, they would have clearly deduced that this Office has no 32 jurisdiction over this action. (Emphasis supplied) xxxx

Meanwhile, on October 26, 2004, complainant filed a civil case against respondent and several others, 33 docketed as Civil Case No. 249-V-04, before the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City and raffled to Branch 75 thereof. The pending cases against him and the issuance of a status quo order notwithstanding, respondent continued 34 to publish articles against complainant and to malign complainant through his television shows. Acting on the present administrative complaint, the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) came up with the following findings in 35 his October 5, 2005 Report and Recommendation: I. xxxx In Civil Case No. 249-V-04 entitled "Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. [Melanio] Mauricio, et al.", the Order dated 10 December 2004 (Annex O of the Complaint) was issued by Presiding Judge Dionisio C. Sison which in part reads: "Anent the plaintiffs prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order included in the instant plaintiffs motion, this Court, inasmuch as the defendants failed to appear in court or file an opposition thereto, is constrained to GRANT the said plaintiffs prater, as it is GRANTED, in order to maintain STATUS QUO, and that all the defendants, their agents, representatives or any person acting for and in behalf are hereby restrained/enjoined from further publishing, televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the instant case more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff and its products." Complainant alleged that the above-quoted Order was served on respondent by the Branch Sheriff on 13 December 2004. Respondent has not denied the issuance of the Order dated 10 December 2004 or his receipt of a copy thereof on 13 December 2004. Despite his receipt of the Order dated 10 December 2004, and the clear directive therein addressed to him to desists [sic] from "further publishing, televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the instant case more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff and its products", respondent in clear defiance of this Order came out with articles on the prohibited subject matter in his column "Atty. Batas", 2004 in the December 16 and 17, 2004 issues of the tabloid "Balitang Bayan Toro" (Annexes Q and Q-1 of the Complaint). The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional

Responsibilitywhich 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." II. xxxx In I.S. No. V.04-2917-2933, then pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent filed his "Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases To the Department of Justice". In said pleading, respondent made the following statements: xxxx The above language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and did not even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the above-quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: "A lawyer [s]hall [o]bserve and [m]aintain [t]he [re]spect [d]ue [t]o [t]he [c]ourts [a]nd [t]o [j]udicial [o]fficers [a]nd [s]hould [i]nsist [o]n [s]imilar [c]onduct [b]y [o]thers." III. The "Kasunduan" entered into by the Spouses Cordero and herein complainant (Annex C of the Complaint) was admittedly prepared, witnessed and signed by herein respondent. xxxx In its Order dated 16 August 2004, the Bureau of Food and Drugs recognized that the said "Kasunduan" was not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and policy, and this accordingly dismissed the complaint filed by the Spouses Cordero against herein complainant. However, even after the execution of the "Kasunduan" and the consequent dismissal of the complaint of his clients against herein complainant, respondent inexplicably launched a media offensive intended to disparage and put to ridicule herein complainant. On record are the numerous articles of respondent published in 3 tabloids commencing from 31 August to 17 December 2004 (Annexes G to Q-1). As already above-stated, respondent continued to come out with these articles against complainant in his tabloid columns despite a temporary restraining order issued against him expressly prohibiting such actions. Respondent did not

deny that he indeed wrote said articles and submitted them for publication in the tabloids. Respondent claims that he was prompted by his sense of public service, that is, to expose the defects of complainants products to the consuming public. Complainant claims that there is a baser motive to the actions of respondent. Complainant avers that respondent retaliated for complainants failure to give in to respondents "request" that complainant advertise in the tabloids and television programs of respondent. Complainants explanation is more credible. Nevertheless, whatever the true motive of respondent for his barrage of articles against complainant does not detract from the fact that respondent consciously violated the spirit behind the "Kasunduan" which he himself prepared and signed and submitted to the BFAD for approval. Respondent was less than forthright when he prepared said "Kasunduan" and then turned around and proceeded to lambaste complainant for what was supposedly already settled in said agreement. Complainant would have been better of with the BFAD case proceeding as it could have defended itself against the charges of the Spouses Cordero. Complainant was helpless against the attacks of respondent, a media personality. The actuations of respondent constituted, to say the least, deceitful conduct contemplated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional 36 Responsibility. (Underscoring supplied) The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVIII2006-114 dated March 20, 2006, adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years. The Court finds the findings/evaluation of the IBP welltaken. The Court, once again, takes this occasion to emphasize the necessity for every lawyer to act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the 37 integrity of the legal profession, which confidence may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. By the above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP found, he engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, 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. He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates:

A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. For despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products. At the same time, respondent violated Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to "uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes." For he defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as a member of the legal profession to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities." Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandate, viz: CANON 8 - 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, by using intemperate language. Apropos is the following reminder in Saberon v. 38 Larong: To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients. However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.1awphi1 On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language even 39 in his pleadings must be dignified. (Underscoring supplied) By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent alsoviolated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to "at all times

uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal 40 profession." 1avvph!1 The power of the media to form or influence public opinion cannot be underestimated. In Dalisay v. 41 Mauricio, Jr., the therein complainant engaged thereinherein respondents services as "she was impressed by the pro-poor and pro-justice advocacy of respondent, a 42 media personality," only to later find out that after he demanded and the therein complainant paid an exorbitant fee, no action was taken nor any pleadings prepared by him. Respondent was suspended for six months. On reading the articles respondent published, not to mention listening to him over the radio and watching him on television, it cannot be gainsaid that the same could, to a certain extent, have affected the sales of complainant. Back to Dalisay, this Court, in denying therein-herein respondents motion for reconsideration, took note of the fact that respondent was motivated by vindictiveness when he filed falsification charges against the therein 43 complainant. To the Court, suspension of respondent from the practice of law for three years is, in the premises, sufficient. WHEREFORE, Atty. Melanio Mauricio is, for violation of the lawyers oath and breach of ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three years effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to his personal record and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts. SO ORDERED.

GANCAYCO, J.: Two main issues are raised by defendant-appellant in his appeal from the decision of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City: (1) Whether or not the defendant-appellant entered a valid plea of guilty to the offense as charged in the information; and (2) Assuming that there was a valid plea of guilty, whether the accused may waive the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. Charged with Murder before Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, under the following information, That on or about the 17th day of December 1986, at about 7:00 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused with deliberate intent, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there attack, assault and use personal violence upon one Tricia by punching and kicking her on the different parts of her body thereby inflicting upon her the following physical injuries: CARDIO RESPIRATORY ARREST, SECONDARY TO SEVERE MULTIPLE INJURIES, TRAUMATIC. and as a consequence of said injuries Tricia died in the next day. CONTRARY TO LAW.
1

defendant-appellant Patrick de Luna, assisted by Counsel-de Oficio Atty. David Ompoc, when arraigned on December 23, 1986, entered a PLEA OF GUILTY 2 with the qualification that "hindi ko sinasadya." The five-page transcript of stenographic notes taken on the day of the arraignment reveals the following: INTERPRETER: (TO ACCUSED) (After reading the Information)

G.R. No. L-77969 June 22, 1989 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PATRICK DE LUNA, defendant-appellant. The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. David G. Ompoc for defendant-appellant.

Q: Do you understand the charge which I have just read to you? ACCUSED DE LUNA: A: Yes, I understand but I have no motive to kill her. I was drunk at that time. INTERPRETER: (TO ACCUSED)

Q: What do you say to this charge, are you guilty or not? ACCUSED DE LUNA: A: I am guilty but" hindi ko sinasadya ang nangyari." I was so drunk. COURT: Companero, did the accused understand that this is a capital offense? ATTY. OMPOC: (Explaining to the accused) Do you understand that this is a capital offense? ACCUSED DE LUNA: A: Yes, but' hindi ko sinasadya ang nangyari. xxx xxx xxx COURT: Under the law, the Rules of Court, the prosecution will have to present evidence in order to determine the culpability of the accused in this heinous charge of Murder. (TO ACCUSED): What does the accused say, do we have to present evidence for the prosecution? ACCUSED DE LUNA: A: No more evidence. No more presentation of evidence. I accept my fault but I want the court to know that I have no motive to kill her. ATTY. OMPOC: The accused your honor categorically stated that he does not want evidence to be presented but he accepts his fault, but according to him, he did not intend to commit the crime, "hindi sinasadya." COURT: (TO ACCUSED) So you admit the charge against you? You understood the charge of Murder

filed against you and you admit you are guilty? ACCUSED DE LUNA: Yes, I am guilty but I have no intention 3 to kill the child. Thereupon, the court a quo rendered a decision dated December 23, 1986 convicting defendant-appellant of the crime of Murder. The decision reads, thus: When this case was called for arraignment, Atty. David G. Ompoc, appointed Counsel-de-Oficio for the accused Patrick de Luna lengthily conferred with the accused and after such lengthy conference with the accused, accused Patrick de Luna, upon arraignment registered his plea of Guilty to the charge of Murder with the qualification that 'hindi niya sinasadya. Being informed of the charge and having understood the said accusation, the accused waived his right that the prosecution present its evidence in order to determine for this court the degree of culpability of the accused under the present charge. Aside from the plea of Guilty, the records is [sic] replete with evidence strongly and indubitably showing that on the 17th day of December, 1986 at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, the accused, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there attack, assault and use personal violence upon one little, small [sic] girl named Tricia by punching and kicking her on the different parts of her body thereby inflicting upon her the following physical injuries: Cardiorespiratory Arrest, Secondary to Severe Multiple Injuries, Traumatic' and as a consequence of said injuries, Tricia died the next day. WHEREFORE, finding accused Patrick de Luna Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the came of Murder and appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty plus his manifestation to this court that he did not intentionally want it to happen that way, the court hereby sentences accused Patrick de Luna to Reclusion Perpetua (life

imprisonment) and to indemnify the heirs of Tricia the sum of P 30,000.00. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.
4

In order to be valid, the plea must be an unconditional admission of guilt. It must be of such nature as to foreclose the defendant's right to defend himself from said charge, thus leaving the court no alternative but to 7 impose the penalty fixed by law. Under the circumstances of this case, the appellant's qualified plea of guilty is not a valid plea of guilty. Thus, this Court has ruled that: An accused may not enter a conditional plea of guilty in the sense that he admits his guilt, provided that a certain penalty be imposed upon him. In such cases, the information should first be amended or modified with the consent of the fiscal if the facts so warrant, or the accused must be considered as having entered a 8 plea of not guilty. While this Court has had the occasion to rule that it is permissible for an accused to enter a plea of guilty to the crime charged with the reservation to prove mitigating 9 circumstances, considering, however, the gravity of the offense charged in the case at bar, the more prudent course for the trial court to follow is to reject the plea made by the appellant and direct the parties to submit their respective evidence. Even assuming that the plea was in fact to the lesser offense of Homicide and not Murder, as stated by 10 appellant in his appeal, this Court cannot sustain appellant's earnest request for an immediate reduction of the penalty imposed by the trial court. This procedure would run contrary to the explicit provisions of Section 2, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, which states: SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.-The accused, with the consent of the offended party and the fiscal, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or is cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (Emphasis supplied.) The consent of the fiscal and the offended party is necessary. If the plea of guilty to a lesser offense is made without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily 11 includes the offense charged in the former information. On the second assigned error, it is the contention of appellant that the trial court, after a plea of guilty to a

Not satisfied therewith, the defendant-appellant interposed this appeal alleging that the trial court committed the following errors: I THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SENTENCING THE ACCUSED FOR MURDER WHICH WAS NOT PLEADED OR ADMITTED BY THE ACCUSED, BECAUSE OF HIS QUALIFICATION TO HIS PLEA, THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME INTENTIONALLY. II THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT REQUIRING THE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE PROPER PENALTY FOR THE CRIME INVOLVED. In his first assigned error, it is the contention of appellant that the trial court misappreciated the plea of guilty made by him. Appellant contends that what he admitted was the commission of the crime of Homicide and not Murder because of the repeated qualification to his plea that he did not commit the crime intentionally. He denied the allegations of treachery and evident premeditation in the information which are necessary to sustain a charge and subsequent conviction for Murder. He questions the appreciation by the trial court that what was proved by the qualification 'hindi ko sinasadya' was only the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong" recited in paragraph 3, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, and claims that in truth and in fact his plea was that of guilt of the lesser offense of Homicide, not Murder. The essence of a plea of guilty is that the accused admits his guilt, freely, voluntarily, and with a full knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his act and with a clear understanding of the precise nature of 5 the crime charged in the complaint or information. While it is true that a plea of guilty admits all the allegations in the information including the aggravating 6 and qualifying circumstances, the repeated and emphatic qualification stated by the defendant- appellant as regards his plea of guilty should have drawn the attention of the trial court that the plea was made without a full knowledge of its consequences. Apparently, counsel failed to advise him as to the meaning and effect of the technical language used in the information qualifying the acts constituting the offense.

capital offense (Murder), should have required the prosecution to present its evidence to determine the proper penalty to be imposed. The Court sustains the appellant on this score. This Court has had the opportunity to formulate this proceedings as early as People vs. Apduhan, Jr." and a 13 long line of cases thereafter. In People vs. Camay,
14

3 The court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. This rule is, therefore, mandatory. After a plea of guilty in capital offenses, it is imperative that the trial court requires the presentation of evidence for the prosecution to enable itself to determine the precise participation and the degree of culpability of the accused in the perpetration of the capital offense charged. In his Manifestation, in lieu of Appellee's Brief, the Solicitor General, in fact, made the following observation: Herein trial court's recognition and admission of appellant's purported waiver of his right that the prosecution present further evidence ... is rather odd. For it is the duty of the trial court to take evidence in capital cases where 15 accused enters a plea of guilty ... Thus, notwithstanding the waiver made by the appellant as to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution, the presentation of evidence should be required in order to preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial court, or the Supreme Court on review, as to the possibility that there might have been some misunderstanding on the part of the accused as to the nature of the charge to which he pleaded guilty, and to ascertain the circumstances attendant to the commission of the crime which justify or require the exercise of a greater or lesser degree of severity in the imposition of 16 the prescribed penalties. WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated December 23, 1986 is hereby SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to said court for a new arraignment and further proceeding. No costs. SO ORDERED.

this Court has ruled that:

The procedure to be followed in a situation like this where the accused, with assistance of counsel, voluntarily pleads guilty to a capital offense is explicitly laid down in Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure promulgated by the Court, and which went into effect on January 1, 1985. This new rule states: When an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. The amended rule is a capsulization of the provisions of the old rule and pertinent jurisprudence. We had several occasions to issue the caveat that even if the trial court is satisfied that the plea of guilty was entered with full knowledge of its meaning and consequences, the court must still require the introduction of evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt and the degree of culpability of the defendant. xxxxxxxxx Under the new formulation, three (3) things are enjoined of the trial court after a plea of guilty to a capital offense has been entered by the accused: 1. The court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea; 2. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and

Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO, vs. SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner. BENGZON, C.J.: After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar.

About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. The matter was in due course referred to the Solicitor General who caused the charge to be investigated; and later he submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petition for examination in this Court, he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars: (a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and (b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education". Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: but he claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school. We have serious doubts, about the validity of this claim, what with respondent's failure to exhibit any certification to that effect (the equivalence) by the proper school officials. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly meritorious. Diao never obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such college. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records. Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been permitted

to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education," (emphasis on "previous"). Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.. The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty days. So ordered.