Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

May 30, 1899, and remained absent therefrom during the

[ G.R. No. 666, January 14, 1902 ] whole period. It was in January, 1901, that he returned to these
Islands.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF J. GARCIA BOSQUE FOR From this conduct on the part of the petitioner it is evident that
ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE PHILIPPINE he elected to take the first of the two courses open to him
ISLANDS. under his right of option. Neither the Government nor the
courts can place any other construction upon the facts above
DECISION related. Having left the Islands he had no occasion,to make any
declaration of his intention to preserve his Spanish nationality,
ARELLANO, C.J.:
which he carried with him on his departure. This nationality
The cession of the Philippine Archipelago having been agreed could be forfeited only by a continued residence in the ceded
upon by the parties to the treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, territory and a failure to make a declaration of intention to
the compulsory subjection of the subjects of the ceding power preserve it within the term fixed therefor. The conditions which
to the new sovereign followed as a logical consequence. The gave rise to the presumptive change of nationality were
status, of these subjects was not uniform, as in addition to the residence and the lapse of eighteen months without express
natives there were others who were merely residents but who, declaration to the contrary; these two conditions not being
equally with the natives, had interests and rights inherent in the fulfilled there was no change of national status. Neither by the
nationality of the territory. With respect to these the special Government of Spain nor by that of the United States could the
agreement contained in article 9 was established, by virtue of petitioner be regarded as a Filipino subject. By absenting
which it was agreed to accord them the right of electing to leave himself from the territory he continued to be a Spaniard.
the country, thus freeing themselves of subjection to the new
To native-born subjects of the territory no such right of option
sovereign, or to continue to reside in the territory, in which case
was accorded; it was expressly refused tllem upon the rejection
the expiration of the term of eighteen months without their
by the American Commissioners of the proposition in favor of
making an express declaration of intention to retain their
the inhabitants of the ceded territories made by the Spanish
Spanish nationality resulted in the loss of che latter, such
Commissioners in Annex No. 1 to the twenty-second protocol.
persons thereby becoming subjects of the new sovereign in the
(Conference of December 10, 1898.) The native subject could
same manner as the natives of these Islands. The period of
not evade the power of the new sovereign by withdrawing from
eighteen months began to run from the date of the exchange
the Islands, nor while continuing to reside therein make
of the ratifications of the treaty that is to say, from April
declaration of his intention to preserve the Spanish nationality
11,1899, and expired on the corresponding day of October,
enjoyed under the former sovereign. Neither the Government
1900. The petitioner absented himself from these Islands on
of the United States nor that of Spain can consider them as preserve a residence or domicile in a country is the
other than Filipino subjects. This is expressly stated by the maintenance of a dwelling or commercial establishment
Spanish Government in article 1 of its royal decree of May 11, therein, upon which point, as also upon the fa,ct that the
1901. petitioner became a member of the bar of Barcelona upon his
arrival in that city, we make no decision, not regarding it as of
The dates fixed by the treaty by which the sovereignty of one
any moment in view of the conclusions above expressed. The
nation is ceded to another are of the highest importance, they
fact is thai one is not to be regarded as having submitted to the
being part of the contract, and are not within the control of the
new sovereign by the mere failure to make an express
subjects as are those relating to their individual rights by reason
declaration, inasmuch as without a residence de facto the
of the fact that the political rights of the contracting nations
declaration is of no significance, having been established for
themselves are the subject of the agreement. It is for this
the express purpose of overcoming the effect of a continued
reason that the Government of Spain in the royal decree above
residence, an act which in itself implies subjection to the new
cited has always taken the dates fixed in the treaty of Paris as
sovereign by giving rise to the presumption of waiver of Spanish
the starting point, and, moreover, expressly declares therein
nationality and the adoption of that of the territory.
that persons who are natives or residents of the ceded or
relinquished territories can not, in their relations with the The petitioner can not, therefore, be considered to have lost his
Government or authorities of such territories, lay claim to Spanish nationality by reason of his residence in the territory
Spanish nationality preserved or recovered by virtue of said after the 11th of October, 1900, and his failure to make
decree, except with the consent of such Government, or under declaration of his intention to preserve it within the period
treaty stipulations. (Art. 5.) The Government and courts of agreed upon by the high contracting parties to the treaty of
these Islands should not act with less circumspection in the Paris, and to have adopted the nationality of the native subjects
matter, and invade the sovereign rights of Spain by giving the under the presumption arising from the conditions expressed.
presumptive nationality established by Article IX of the treaty He can only acquire it through voluntary renunciation of his
of Paris an extent not warranted by the conditions upon which present nationality by seeking to become naturalized in these
it depends, to wit, residence coupled with failure to make an Islands; but upon this matter this court can decide nothing,
express declaration to the contrary. The ordinary provisions of there having been no legislation upon the subject up to the
local laws in their normal operation with regard to the effect of present
absence upon the retention of a residence or domicile can not
The status of the petitioner with respect to the new sovereignty
therefore be relied upon, nor the presumption as to the
of the territory having been defined, it remains to determine
intention of an absentee recognized by civil codes and
the question raised as to whether Spanish subjects resident
international treaties, although the most general and almost
therein constitute an intermediate class between other foreign
the only proof allowed by statute as evidence of an intention to
residents and the natives of the country in whose behalf some neither can Spanish subjects do so, they being in every respect
specially favorable conditions have been stipulated. Upon this upon the same footing as other foreigners.
point no proposition was made, even incidentally, nor was any
If, then, the petitioner upon his departure from these Islands
reference made to it in the discussions which preceded the
on May 30,1899, did not take with him the nationality of the
treaty of Paris. The American Commissioners, referring to
native inhabitants impressed by the treaty of Paris, which had
Spanish subjects, natives of Spain, simply said: "Such persons
been in force from the 11th of April of the same year; if he
have the fullest right to dispose of their property and remove
departed as a Spaniard and continued to be a Spaniard, by
from the territory or remain therein to continue to be Spanish
taking the first course left open by the right of option stipulated
subjects or elect the nationality of the new territory."
in the treaty of Paris, without being affected by the
(Memorandum annexed to Protocol No. 22.) "They shall also
presumptive nationality of the territory arising from the fact of
have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and
residence and the lapse of the time fixed; if he had not elected
profession, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are
to adopt this nationality of the territory by express declaration
applicable to other foreigners." (Art. 9 of the treaty of Paris.)
within the same period; if after the expiration of that period it
The laws applicable to other foreigners were, prior to that
is expressly provided that the right of option shall no longer be
treaty, the Law of Foreigners for the Ultramarine Provinces of
available, and that the only course is naturalization, as to which
July 4, 1870, and article 27 of the Civil Code. The first of these
there has been no legislative enactment; if as a Spanish subject
laws in its thirty-ninth article authorized all foreigners to
upon equal footing with other foreign residents he can not
engage in any kind of industry in the Spanish ultramarine
practice the legal profession under the law either prior or
provinces subject to the laws prevailing therein, and to practice
subsequent to the treaty of Paris, it is evident that this court
any profession for which the laws did not require a diploma of
can not regard the petitioner as possessed of the qualifications
proficiency granted by the Spanish authorities. No one can
alleged.
doubt that the legal profession is one of those for the practice
of which the law required a diploma of proficiency granted by The new petition presented by him for admission to the bar of
the Spanish authorities. The second law cited provides that these Islands must therefore be denied, and it is so ordered.
foreigners in Spain shall enjoy the rights which the civil laws
accord to Spaniards, subject to the provisions of article 2 of the Torres, Cooper, Willard, and Mapa, JJ., concur.
constitution of the State. Article 2 of the constitution of 1876 ___________________________________________________
establishes the same restriction or limitation as the law of ___________________________________________________
foreigners. Hence if other foreigners could not then engage in ___________________________________________________
the practice of law, and by the express prohibition of the Code ___________________________________________________
of Civil Procedure in force can not do so at the present time, ___________________________________________________
Ladd, J., did not sit in this case. (a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership
dues in the IBP;
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW,
(b) the payment of professional tax;
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, PETITIONER
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory
continuing legal education; this is especially significant to
In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek
refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws
medical help. In order for him to take advantage of Canada’s
and update him of legal developments and
free medical aid program he became a Canadian citizen in 2004.
In 2006 however, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind
pursuant to Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship Retention and him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an
Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. In the same year, he returned to the officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain
Philippines and he now intends to resume his practice of law. allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing
practice of law. as a member of the Philippine bar.
HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other professions ___________________________________________________
in the Philippines are reserved and limited only to Filipino ___________________________________________________
citizens. Philippine citizenship is a requirement for admission to ___________________________________________________
the bar. So when Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in 2004, ___________________________________________________
he ceased to have the privilege to practice law in the ___________________________________________________
Philippines. However, under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who 5 SCRA 661 – Legal Ethics – Conditional Pardon will not bar
becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have disbarment
lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires his Filipino
citizenship in accordance with RA 9225. Hence, when Dacanay Attorney Diosdado Gutierrez was convicted for the murder of
reacquires his Filipino citizenship in 2006, his membership to one Filemon Samaco in 1956. He was sentenced to the penalty
the Philippine bar was deemed to have never been terminated. of reclusion perpetua. In 1958, after serving a portion of the
penalty, he was granted a conditional pardon by the President.
But does this also mean that he can automatically resume his He was released on the condition that he shall not commit any
practice of law right after reacquisition? crime. Subsequently, the widow of Samaco filed a disbarment
No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before case against Gutierrez by reason of the latter’s conviction of a
he can resume his practice of law, to wit:
crime involving moral turpitude. Murder, is without a doubt, allowhim to take the attorney’s oath of office averring that his
such a crime. probation was already terminated. The court notethat he spent
only 10 months of the probation period before it was
ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred considering
terminated.ISSUE: WON Argosino may take oath of office.
the fact that he was granted pardon.
RULING: The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good
HELD: Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not absolute but morals of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such is of
conditional. It merely remitted his sentence. It does not reach greater importance so far as the general public and the proper
the offense itself. Gutierrez must be judged upon the fact of his administration of justice are concerned, than the possession of
conviction for murder without regard to the pardon (which he legal learning. Hence he was asked by the court to produce
invoked in defense). The crime was actually qualified by evidence that would certify that he has reformed and have
treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in become a responsible member of the community through
hand, by taking advantage of his official position (Gutierrez sworn statements of individuals who have a good reputation
being municipal mayor at the time) and with the use of motor for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a
vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to significant period of time to certify he is morally fit to the
justify his being purged from the profession. admission of the law profession. The court also ordered that
___________________________________________________ said a copy of the proceeding be furnished to the
___________________________________________________ family/relatives of Raul Camaligan.
___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
In Re: Argosino B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995 ___________________________________________________

FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking FACTS: Flora Quingwa filed a verified complaint charging
of a successful bar applicant. Argosino was previously involved Armando Puno, a member of the Bar, with gross immorality and
with hazing that caused the death of Raul Camaligan but was misconduct. Complainant is an educated woman, having been
sentenced withhomicide through reckless imprudence after he a public school teacher for a number of years. The respondent
pleaded guilty. He was sentenced with 2 years imprisonment took her to the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, signing the
where he applied for a probation thereafter which was granted hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno," and succeeded in
by the court with a 2 yr probation. He took the bar exam and having sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage.
passed but was not allowed to take oath. He filed a petition to Complainant submitted to respondent's plea for sexual
intercourse because of respondent's promise of marriage and the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a member of the
not because of a desire for sexual gratification or of Bar as enumerated in section 25 of Rule 127 of the (old) Rules
voluntariness and mutual passion. Complainant gave birth to of Court, it is already a settled rule that the statutory
a baby boysupported by a certified true copy of a birth enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or suspension is
certificate and to show how intimate the relationship between not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts
the respondent and the complainant was, the latter testified to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers of the court
that she gave money to the respondent whenever he asked over its officers cannot be restricted. Times without number,
from her. our Supreme Court held that an attorney will be removed not
only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also
The respondent denied all the material allegations of the for gross misconduct, which shows him to be unfit for the office
complaint, and as a special defense averred that the allegations and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law
therein do not constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension confer upon him. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of court
under section 25, Rule 127 of the former Rules of Court. states that:

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Puno should be A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his
disbarred/suspended. office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
HELD: YES. One of the requirements for immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
all applicants for admission to the Bar is that involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which
the applicant must produce before the Supreme Court he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
satisfactory evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Rule wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
138 of the Rules of Court). It is essential during the continuance for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
of the practice and the exercise of the privilege to maintain a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting
good moral character. When his integrity is challenged by cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the
relator and show proofs that he still maintains the highest The respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has,
degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected thus disregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his
of him. With respect to the special defense raised by the profession. Indeed, it is important that members of this ancient
respondent in his answer to the charges of the complainant and learned profession of law must conform themselves in
that the allegations in the complaint do not fall under any of
accordance with the highest standards of morality. As stated in however, only 3 receipts for the payments. Respondent, Calis,
paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics: provided the complainant with spurious documents which
resulted for complainant to be detained in Changi Prisons upon
The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against arrival in Singapore and thereafter, the complainant was
the admission to the profession of candidates unfit or deported back to the Philippines. Upon arrival in the
unqualified because deficient in either moral character or Philippines, the respondent promised to secure new travel
education. He should strive at all times to uphold the honor and documents for the complainant. However, the complainant
to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not opted to demand for the return of her money. Calis made
only the law but the administration of justice. partial payments of 15,000, 6000, and 5000 to the complainant
but was unreachable when the complainant demanded for the
Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby disbarred rest of the payment. Calis also failed to attend the hearings with
and, as a consequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
the Roll of Attorneys. Philippines (IBP) despite being issued summons and being
___________________________________________________ required to answer or comment on the complaint. Therewith,
___________________________________________________ the IBP recommended the disbarment of herein respondent.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________ ISSUE/S:
___________________________________________________
Whether or not Atty. Dorotheo Calis is guilty of violation of
SEBASTISAN VS. CALIS A.C. NO. 5118/314SCRA1; SEPTEMBER Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
9, 1999 J. which thereby constitutes his disbarment.

FACTS: RULING:

Sometime in November 1992, one Marilou Sebastian, herein Yes, Atty. Calis is guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 101 of the
complainant, was referred to Atty. Dorotheo Calis, herein Code of Professional Responsibility. The practice of law is not a
respondent, for the latter to process all the documents needed right but a privilege carrying with it the condition of continuous
for the former to travel to the United States of America with good moral character. The gross misconduct of a lawyer
the consideration of P150,000.00. With the respondent’s subjects him unfit to practice law..Canon 1, Rule 101 of the
promise to return the complainant’s money if there would be Code of Professional Responsibility states that Rule 1.01 - A
trouble with the documents for her travel. In 4 separate lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
payments, complainant paid the entire consideration receiving,
deceitful conduct. In the case at bar, Calis guaranteed to secure
all the necessary documents for

Sebastian’s travel to the United States with the promise to


return the money if anything goes wrong with her travel. Calis’s
acts of giving the complainant spurious documents constitutes
deception and unlawful conduct on his part. Adding to it is
respondent’s refusal to honor the summons of the IBP which
reflects his unprofessional conduct. The court views Calis’s
conduct and continuance in service as a threat to the
administration of justice. Therefore, Calis is deemed disbarred
and is ordered to immediately return the rest of the
complainant’s
money._____________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
______