Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Monsod
G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991
]
I. Facts:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President
Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a
letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on
Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner opposed the nomination
because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years.On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments
confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC.
On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he
assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC. Challenging the
validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of
Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the
instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying that said
confirmation and consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman
of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
II. Issue:
Whether the appointment of Chairman Monsod of Comelec
violates Section 1 (1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution?
III. Held:
I. Facts:
The order of the trial court was not strictly complied with because
private respondent was not detained in the residence of Atty. Del
Rosario. He went about his normal activities as if he were a free man,
including engaging in the practice of law.
II. Issue/s:
Since it appears that Atty. (now Judge) del Rosario never really
held and detained Atty. Javellana as prisoner in his residence, is not
Atty. Javellana considered an escapee or a fugitive of justice for
which warrant for his arrest should forthwith be issued?
III. Held:
RTC’s Decision:
SC’s Decision:
I. Facts:
Atty. Misael Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, appeared as counsel for and in behalf of his cousin,
Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an accused in Criminal Case No. 84-885 for
“Falsification of Public Documents” before the METC of Quezon City.
It is also denied that the appearance of said respondent in said case
was without the previous permission of the Court. During the
occasions that the respondent appeared as such counsel before the
METC of Quezon City, he was on official leave of absence. Moreover,
his Presiding Judge, Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case
he was handling. Respondent appeared as pro bono counsel for his
cousin-client Narcisa Ladaga. Respondent did not receive a single
centavo from her. Helpless as she was andrespondent being the only
lawyer in the family, he agreed to represent her out of his
compassion and high regard for her.
This is the first time that respondent ever handled a case for a
member of his family who is like a bigsister to him. He appeared for
free and for the purpose of settling the case amicably. Furthermore,
his Presiding Judge was aware of his appearance as counsel for his
cousin. On top of this, during all the years that he has been in
government service, he has maintained his integrity and
independence. He failed to obtain a prior permission from the head
of the Department. The presiding judge of the court to which
respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department
contemplated by law.
II. Issue:
WON Atty. Ladaga, upon such several appearances, was engages
into private practice?
III. Held:
Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which
prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their
profession. A similar prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court which disallows certain attorneys from
engaging in the private practice of their profession. THERE WAS
NO PRIVATE PRACTICE: In People vs. Villanueva: Practice is more
than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary
action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is
frequent habitual exercise (State vs. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864,
42 LRA, N.S. 768).
Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been
interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the
public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services (State
vs. Bryan, 4 S. E. 522, 98 N. C. 644, 647). The appearance as
counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of
engagement in the private practiceof law. Based on the foregoing, it
is evident that the isolated instances when respondent appeared as
pro bono counsel of his cousin in Criminal Case No. 84885 does not
constitute the “private practice” of the law profession contemplated
by law.
I. Facts:
On April 5, 1999, Ching was one of the bar passers. The oath
taking ceremony was scheduled on May 5, 1999.
IV. Issue:
III. Rulings:
I. Facts:
II. Issue:
WON the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S.
Meling is proper and shall subsequently barred him from
taking his lawyer’s oath and signing on the Roll of Attorneys
III. Held:
Rationale:
I. Facts:
II. Issue:
III. Held:
I. FACTS
A. Factual Antecedent
II. ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. de Silva should be suspended.
III. RULING
The office of an Attorney’s nature requires that a lawyer shall be a
person of good moral character. Gross misconduct which puts the
lawyer’s moral character in serious doubt may render her unfit to
continue in the practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined for evading
payment of a debt validly incurred. The loss of moral character of a
lawyer for any reason whatsoever shall warrant her suspension or
disbarment.
Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for the profession,
whether it be professional or non-professional justifies disciplinary
action. For a lawyer’s professional and personal conduct must at all
times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion.
Her deliberate refusal to accept the notices served on her stains the
nobility of the profession. How else would a lawyer endeavor to serve
justice and uphold the law when she disdains to follow simple
directives? Canon 1 expressly states that: “A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for legal
processes.”
I. FACTS
A. Factual Antecedent
This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a
successful bar applicant. Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the
bar examinations held in 1993. The Court however deferred his
oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide.
Argosino was previously involved with hazing that caused the death
of Raul Camaligan but was sentenced with Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide after he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced with
two (2) years imprisonment where he applied for a probation thereafter
which was granted by the Court with a two (2) year probation. He took
the Bar Exam and passed but was not allowed to take oath. He filed a
petition to allow him to take the attorney’s oath of office averring that
his probation was already terminated. The Court notes that he spent
only ten (10) months of the probation period before it was terminated.
III. RULING
The Court understands and shares the sentiment of Atty. Gilbert
Camaligan. The death of one’s child is, for a parent, a most traumatic
experience. The suffering becomes even more pronounced and
profound in cases where the death is due to causes other than natural
or accidental but due to the reckless imprudence of third parties. Atty.
Camaligan’s statement before the Court manifesting his having forgiven
the accused is no less than praiseworthy and commendable. it is
exceptional for a parent, given the circumstances in these cases, to find
room for forgiveness. However, Atty. Camaligan admits that he is still
not in a position to state if petitioner is now morally fit to be a lawyer.
After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow
petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, sign the Roll
of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the following
admonition:
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, the Court
recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently bad moral fiber. On the
contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout Catholic
with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to
atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. The Court stresses to Mr.
Argosino that the lawyer’s oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for
practicing law. Every lawyer should at all times weigh his actions
according tot he sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer’s
oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the
lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for
everyone concerned.
I. FACTS
A.Facts
In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant
Remedios Ramirez Tapucar sought the disbarment of her husband,
Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly immoral
conduct for cohabiting with a certain Elena Pena under scandalous
circumstances.
Prior to this complaint, respondent was already administratively
charged four (4) times for conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court.
In AM No. 1740, resolved on April 11, 1980, respondent, at that time
the Judge of Butuan City, was meted the penalty of six (6) months
suspension without pay, while in AM Nos. 1720, 1911 and 2300-CFI,
which were consolidated, this Court on January 31, 1981 ordered the
separation from service of respondent.
II. ISSUE
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
III. RULING
Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
A lawyer us expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to
the bar, to the Courts and to his clients. Exacted from him, as a
member of the profession charged with the responsibility to stand as a
shield in the defense of what is right, are such positive qualities of
decency, truthfulness and responsibility that have been compendiously
described as “moral character.” To achieve such end, every lawyer
needs to strive at all times to honor and maintain the dignity of his
profession, and thus improve not only the public regard for the Bar but
also the administration of justice.
10. Maelotesia Garrido vs Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana
P.Valencia
A.C.No.6593
I. Facts:
Maelotisea Garrido filed a disbarment case against Atty. Angel
Garrido and Atty.Romana Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Committee on Discipline charging them with gross
immorality.
By way of defense Atty. Angel Garrido denied that Maelotesia
Garrido is his legal wife, as he was already married to a certain
Constancia David when he married the complainant. Further, Atty.
Garrido emphasized that all his marriages were contracted before he
was admitted to the bar.
On her counter-affidavit Atty. Valencia contended that she never
was a mistress of Atty. Garrido since the former’s marriage to the
complainant is void ab initio due to the then existing marriage of Atty.
GArrido to a certain Constancia David. Therefore, the complainant had
no cause of action against her.
In the course of the hearings, the parties filed the following motions
before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline:
(1) The respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings in
view of the criminal complaint for concubinage Maelotisea filed
against them, and the Petition for Declaration of Nullity(of
marriage) Atty. Garrido filed to nullify his marriage to Maelotisea.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline denied this motion for
lack of merit.
(2) The respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaints after
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City declared the marriage
between Atty. Garrido and Maelotisea an absolute nullity. Since
Maelotisea was never the legal wife of Atty. Garrido, the
respondents argued that she had no personality to file her
complaints against them. The respondents also alleged that they
had not committed any immoral act since they married when
Atty. Garrido was already a widower, and the acts complained of
were committed before his admission to the bar. The IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline also denied this motion.
(3) Maelotisea filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints she
filed against the respondents, arguing that she wanted to
maintain friendly relations with Atty. Garrido, who is the father of
her six (6) children. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
likewise denied this motion
Atty. Garrido moved to reconsider this resolution, but the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline denied his motion under Resolution
No. XVII-2007-038 dated January 18, 2007. Hence, seeking relief
with the Supreme Court through the present petition for review.
II. ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. Garrido and Atty.Valencia’s action constitutes
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and thus a good
enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense was being
committed when they were not yet lawyers.
III. SUPREME COURT RULING:
Yes. Membership of the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege it can be
withdrawn where circumstances show the lawyer’s lack of essential
qualifications required of lawyers, be it academic or moral.
In this present case, the Supreme Court resolved to withdraw this
privilege from Atty. Garrido and Atty. Valencia respectively. The
contention of the respondent that they got married when they were not
yet lawyers will not afford them exemptions from sanctions: good moral
character was already a condition required precedent to the admission
to the bar.
As a lawyer, both the respondents were shouldered with the
expectation to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land
and set as an example to others to do the same. When they violated the
law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish
motives, not only did their actions discredit the legal profession. Such
actions by themselves, without even including the fact of Garrido’s
abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children
by the petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite
knowing of his other marriages to two other women including the
petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not consistent
with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As,
such their disbarment is affirmed.