Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

Jesus Ma. Cui v. Antonio Ma. Cui, Romulo Cui lawyer.

If not a lawyer, the administrator should be


(1964) a doctor or a civil engineer or a pharmacist, in that
order; or failing all these, should be the one who
Doctrine:
pays the highest taxes among those otherwise
A Bachelors degree alone, conferred by a law qualified. The specific point in dispute is the
school upon completion of certain academic meaning of the term titulo de abogado.
requirements, does not entitle its holder to
Jesus Ma. Cui holds the degree of Bachelor of
exercise the legal profession. The English
Laws from the University of Santo Tomas but is
equivalent of abogado is lawyer or attorney-at-
not a member of the Bar, not having passed the
law. This term has a fixed and general
examinations to qualify him as one. Antonio Ma.
signification, and has reference to that class of
Cui, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar
persons who are by license officers of the courts,
and although disbarred by this Court, was
empowered to appear, prosecute and defend, and
reinstated by resolution, about two weeks before
upon whom peculiar duties,responsibilities and
he assumed the position of administrator of
liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
the Hospicio de Barili.

Facts:
Issue:
The Hospicio is a charitable institution established
1. W/N Jesus Ma. Chui is entitled to the office
by the spouses Don Pedro Cui and Doa Benigna
of administrator.
Cui (deceased) for the care and support, free of
charge, of indigent invalids, and incapacitated and
helpless persons. It acquired corporate existence
Held/Ratio:
by Act No. 3239 and endowed with extensive
properties by the said spouses through a series of 1. NO. The term titulo de abogado means n
donations, principally the deed of donation. When ot mere possession of the academic degre
the spouses died, administration eventually e of Bachelor of Laws butmembership in
passed to Dr. Teodoro Cui. Section 2 of the Act (in the Bar after due admission thereto,
Spanish) gave the initial management to the qualifying one for the practice of law. In this
founders jointly and, in case of their incapacity or jurisdiction admission to the Bar and to the
death, to such persons as they may nominate or practice of law is under the authority of the
designate, in the order prescribed to them. Jesus Supreme Court. According to Rule138
Ma. Cui and Antonio Ma. Cui are brothers, being such admission requires passing the Bar
the sons of Mariano Cui, one of the nephews of examinations, taking the lawyers oath and
the spouses Don Pedro Cui and Doa Benigna receiving a certificate from the Clerk of
Cui. Incumbent administrator, Dr. Teodoro Cui, Court, this certificate being his license to
resigned in favor of AntonioMa. Cui pursuant to a practice the profession. For this purpose,
convenio entered into between them and however, possession of the degree itself is
embodied in a notarial document. The next day, not indispensable: completion of the prescr
Antonio Ma. Cui took his oath of office. Jesus Ma. ibed courses may be shown in some other
Cui, however, had no prior notice of either the way.
convenio or of his brothersassumption of the
position. When Dr. Teodoro Cui died, the plaintiff The founders of
wrote a letter to the defendant demanding that the the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili must
office be turned over to him. When it was not have intended for an actual lawyer
complied with, he filed the complaint in this case. because under
Romulo Cui later on intervened, claiming a right to Act No. 3239 the duties of the managers or
the same office, being a grandson of Vicente Cui, trustees of the Hospicio do work that
another one of the nephews mentioned by the requires, it is to be presumed, a working
founders of the Hospicio knowledge of the law and a license to
practice the profession would be a distinct
in their deed of donation. As between Jesus and
asset. Although the latter is a member of
Antonio the main issue turns upon their respective
the Bar he is nevertheless disqualified by
qualifications to the position of administrator.
virtue of paragraph 3 of the deed of
Jesus is the older of the two and therefore under
donation, which provides that the
equal circumstances would be preferred pursuant
administrator may be removed on the
to section2. However, before the test of age may
ground of ineptitude in the discharge of his
be, applied the deed of donation provides for a
office or lack of evident sound moral In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues
character. Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP
Administrative Case No. MDD-1)
As far as moral character is concerned, the
standard required of one seeking
reinstatement to the office of attorney
cannot be less exacting than that implied in FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon
paragraph 3 of the deed of donation as a is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the
requisite for the office which is disputed in Philippines. The IBP Board of
this case. When the defendant was Governors recommended to the Court the
restored to the roll of lawyers the removal of the name of the respondent
restrictions and disabilities resulting from from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn
his previous disbarment were wiped out. refusal to pay
his membership dues assailing the
As for the claim of intervenor, Romulo Cui, provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and
he is also a lawyer, grandson of Vicente the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article
Cui, one of the nephews of the founders of III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the
the Hospicio mentioned by them in the organization of IBP, payment
deed of donation. He is further, in the line of membership fee and suspension for
of succession, than Antonio Ma. Cui, who failure to pay the same.
is a son of Mariano Cui, another one of the
said nephews. The intervenor contends Edillon contends that the stated provisions
that the intention of the founders was to constitute an invasion of his constitutional
confer the administration by line and rights in the sense that he is being
successively to the descendants of the compelled as a pre-condition to maintain
nephews named in the deed, in the order his status as a lawyer in good standing, to
they are named. Since the last be a member of the IBP and to pay the
administrator was Dr. Teodoro Cui, who corresponding dues, and that as a
belonged to the Mauricio Cui line, the next consequence of this compelled financial
administrator must come from the line of support of the said organization to which
Vicente Cui, to whom the intervenor he is admitted personally antagonistic, he
belongs. This interpretation, however, is is being deprived of the rights to liberty and
not justified by the terms of the deed of properly guaranteed to him by the
donation. Constitution. Hence, the respondent
concludes the above provisions of the
NOTE: The deed of donation provides: a Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are
la muerte o incapacidad de void and of no legal force and effect.
estos administradores (those appointed in
the deed itself) pasara a una sola persona ISSUE: Whether or not the court may
que sera el varon, mayor de edad, que compel Atty. Edillion to pay
descienda legitimamente de cualquiera de his membership fee to the IBP.
nuestrossobrinos legitimos Mariano Cui,
Mauricio Cui, Vicente Cui, Victor Cui, y que HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-
posea titulo de abogado ... En igualdadde organized Bar which every lawyer must be
circumstancias, sera preferido el varon de a member of as distinguished from
mas edad descendiente de quien tenia bar associations in which membership is
ultimamente la administration. Besides merely optional and voluntary. All
being a nearer descendant than Romulo lawyers are subject to comply with the
Cui, Antonio Ma. Cui is older than he and rules prescribed for the governance of the
therefore is preferred when the Bar including payment a
circumstances are otherwise equal. reasonable annual fees as one of
the requirements. The Rules of Court only
compels him to pay his annual dues and it
is not in violation of his constitutional
A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978 freedom to associate. Bar integration does
not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. He is free to attend or not the
meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or
vote or refuse to vote in its election as he
chooses. The only compulsion to which he 31 SCRA 1 Legal Ethics Duty to Respect
is subjected is the payment of annual dues. Judicial Authorities Contempt of Court
The Supreme Court in order to further the
States legitimate interest in elevating the In Re: Contempt Proceedings Against
quality of professional legal services, may Attorneys Vicente L. Santiago, Jose Beltran
require thet the cost of the regulatory Sotto, Graciano C. Regala and Associates,
program the lawyers. Erlito R. Uy, Juanito M. Caling; and Morton F.
Meads
Such compulsion is justified as an exercise
In 1968, the Supreme Court promulgated a
of the police power of the State. The right
unanimous decision (24 SCRA 491; G.R. No. L-
to practice law before the courts of this
27072) which was not favorable to MacArthur
country should be and is a matter subject
International Minerals Co. The latters lawyer, Atty.
to regulation and inquiry. And if the power
Vicente Santiago then filed a motion for
to impose the fee as a regulatory measure
reconsideration. Eventually, a third motion for
is recognize then a penalty designed to
reconsideration was submitted by him where the
enforce its payment is not void as
following paragraph was stated:
unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore,
the Court has jurisdiction over matters 6. Unfortunately for our people, it seems that many
of admission, suspension, disbarment, and of our judicial authorities believe that they are the
reinstatement of lawyers and their chosen messengers of God in all matters that
regulation as part of its inherent judicial come before them, and that no matter what the
functions and responsibilities thus the court circumstances are, their judgment is truly ordained
may compel all members of the Integrated by the Almighty unto eternity. Some seem to be
Bar to pay their annual dues. constitutionally incapable of considering that any
emanation from their mind or pen could be the
product of unjudicial prejudice or unjudicial
In re: Atty. Marcial Edillion 5 SCRA 661 Legal
Ethics Conditional Pardon will not bar sympathy or favoritism for a party or an issue.
disbarment Witness the recent absurdity of Judge Alikpala
daring to proceed to judge a motion to hold himself
Attorney Diosdado Gutierrez was convicted for the in contempt of court seemingly totally oblivious
murder of one Filemon Samaco in 1956. He was or uncomprehending of the violation of moral
sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In
principle involved and also of Judge Geraldez
1958, after serving a portion of the penalty, he was
granted a conditional pardon by the President. He who refuses to inhibit himself in judging a criminal
was released on the condition that he shall not case against an accused who is also his
commit any crime. Subsequently, the widow of correspondent in two other cases. What is the
Samaco filed a disbarment case against Gutierrez explanation for such mentality? Is it outright
by reason of the latters conviction of a crime dishonesty? Lack of intelligence? Serious
involving moral turpitude. Murder, is without a deficiency in moral comprehension? Or is it that
doubt, such a crime. many of our government officials are just amoral?
Scattered in his motion were other statements
ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred where he attacked the 1968 decision of the
considering the fact that he was granted pardon. Supreme Court as false, erroneous, and illegal.
In another motion, Atty. Santiago sought the
HELD: Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not inhibition of two Justices: Justice Fred Castro,
absolute but conditional. It merely remitted his because allegedly, he is the brother of the vice
sentence. It does not reach the offense itself. president of the opposing party. And Chief Justice
Gutierrez must be judged upon the fact of his Roberto Concepcion because immediately after
conviction for murder without regard to the pardon the 1968 decision, his son was appointed to a
(which he invoked in defense). The crime was significant position in the government. (Here Atty.
actually qualified by treachery and aggravated by Santiago implied that the justices were not fair and
its having been committed in hand, by taking that their decision was influenced).
advantage of his official position (Gutierrez being
municipal mayor at the time) and with the use of In his defense, Atty. Santiago said that he
motor vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude originally deleted the above paragraph and was
involved is such as to justify his being purged from only included due to inadvertence. But that any
the profession.
rate, he averred that the language he used was Court] has overlooked the applicable law due to
necessary to defend his client. the misrepresentation and obfuscation of the
petitioners counsel and
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Vicente Santiago is And the Supreme Court in the effect:
guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. Lawyers are administrators of justice, Never has any civilized, democratic tribunal
oath-bound servants of society, their first duty is ruled that such a gimmick (referring to the right
not to their clients, as many suppose, but to the to reject any and all bids) can be used by
vulturous executives to cover up and excuse
administration of justice; to this, their clients
losses to the public, a government agency or
success is wholly subordinate; and their conduct
just plain fraud. Atty. Santiago also filed a
ought to and must be scrupulously observant of motion to inhibit against Chief Justice
law and ethics. Thus, Santiagos defense is not Concepcion and Justice Castro.
tenable. The second contempt proceeding arose when
A lawyer must avoid language that tend to create respondent MacArthur, through new counsel, Atty.
an atmosphere of distrust, of disbelief in the Juanito M. Caling who entered a special
judicial system. A lawyers duties to the Court appearance for the purpose, lodged a fourth
have become common place. Really, there could motion for reconsideration without express leave
hardly be any valid excuse for lapses in the of court. Said motion reiterated previous grounds
observance thereof. raised, and included citing the New Rules of Court
Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in Section 1 Rule 51 and that alleged injustice may
categorical terms, spells out one such duty: To cut off all aid and benefits to the Philippine
observe and maintain the respect due to the Government by invoking the Hickenlooper
courts of justice and judicial officers. Amendment after making it known to the World
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Court. Meads, for his part tried to reason out why
Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the such a distorted quotation came about the
temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for portion left out was anyway marked by XS which
the maintenance of its supreme importance. is a common practice among lawyers. Canon 22 of
the Canons of Legal Ethics reminds the lawyer to
Atty. Santiago was fined for his infractions.
characterize his conduct with candor and fairness,
and specifically states that it is not candid nor fair
Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel for the lawyer knowingly to misquote..
[G.R. No. L-27072 January 9, 1970]
ISSUES:
Ponente: SANCHEZ, J. Whether or not:
FACTS:
The first contempt proceeding arose from third a) Atty. Vicente L. Santiago; Atty. Jose Beltran
motion for reconsideration signed by Atty. Vicente Sotto; Graciano C. Regala; and Associates; and
L. Santiago, on his behalf and purportedly for Atty. Erlito R. Uy; are guilty of contempt on the
Attys. Erlito R. Uy, Graciano Regala and filed Third Motion for Reconsideration;
Associates, and Jose B. Sotto, that the petitioners,
who, according to the Solicitor General and based b) Atty. Vicente L. Santiago; Atty. Juanito M.
on their submitted and signed memorandum, Caling, and Mr. Morton F. Meads are guilty of
alleged that petitioners: contempt on the filed Fourth Motion for
Reconsideration;
To have made false, ridiculous and wild
statements in a desperate attempt to prejudice
the courts against MacArthur International HELD:
(such efforts could be accurately called a) For Atty. Vicente L. Santiago YES. Fine of
scattershot desperation); P1,000.00.
To have such a proposition is corrupt on its For Atty. Jose Beltran Sotto YES. Fine of
face and it lays bare the immoral and arrogant P100.00.
attitude of the petitioners, and petitioners
For Atty. Graciano C. Regala and Associates
opportunistically change their claims and
stories not only from case to case but from NO. (Took no part)
pleading to pleading in the same case. Atty For Atty. Erlito R. Uy NO. (Took no part)
Santiago further alleged that the Supreme
b) For Atty. Vicente L. Santiago YES. should not be attached to pleadings contemptuous
Additional fine of P1,000.00 in character.
For Atty. Juanito M. Caling YES. Fine P200.00.
For Mr. Morton F. Meads YES. Fine of As to Mr. Meads, having admitted having prepared
P1,000.00. the fourth motion for reconsideration, he cannot
beg off from the contempt charge against him
RATIO: even though he is not a lawyer.
a) On the Third Motion for Reconsideration

The Supreme Court finds language that is not to


be expected of an officer of the courts. Atty.
Santiago pictures petitioners as vulturous
executives and speaks of this [Supreme] Court as
a civilized, democratic tribunal, but by innuendo
would suggest that it is not. Atty. Jose Beltran
Sotto has misbehaved, under Section 3 (a), Rule
71 of the Rules of Court; and that he too has
committed, under Section 3 (d) of the same rule,
improper conduct tending to degrade the
administration of justice. Atty. Regala did not even
know that his name was included as co-counsel in
this case. Finally, borne out by the record is the
fact that Atty. Uy was not also involved in the
preparation of any of the pleadings subject of the
contempt citation.

b) On the Fourth Motion for Reconsideration

Atty. Santiago is a lawyer of record for respondent


MacArthur in this case. He has not resigned from
his position as such lawyer. He has control of the
proceedings. Whatever steps his client takes
should be within his knowledge and responsibility.
Indeed, Canon 16 of the Canons of Legal Ethics
should have reminded him that [a] lawyer should
use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his
clients from doing those things which the lawyer
himself ought not to do, particularly with reference
to their conduct towards courts, judicial officers,
jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in
such wrongdoing the lawyer should terminate their
relation.

Atty. Caling lifted Section 1. Rule 51, Rules of


Court, out of context. He has not shown to the
satisfaction of this Court that he should be
exempted from the contempt charge against him.
He knows that he is an officer of this Court. He
admits that he has read the fourth motion for
reconsideration before he signed it. While he has
been dragged in only at the last minute, still it was
plainly his duty to have taken care that his name

Potrebbero piacerti anche