2 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

2.a. ABUDA Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings inflicted upon
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND OATH-TAKING OF Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that moral duty and was totally
SUCCESSFUL BAR APPLICANT AL C. ARGOSINO, AL C. ARGOSINO irresponsible behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the participant was
B.M. No. 712 possessed of good moral character.
July 13, 1995

FACTS:

A Criminal information was filed against Argosino and 13 others for the
crime of homicide in connection with the death of Camaligan in the course of hazing.
Argosino and co-accused entered into plea bargaining to a lesser offense of homicide
through reckless imprudence which the court accepted.
Argosino and colleagues filed and granted with probation. Argosino filed a
Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examination disclosing the fact of his
criminal conviction and his probation status.
He was allowed to take the bar and passed. However, he was no allowed to
take the lawyer’s oath.

ISSUE:
WON Argosino should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath? (NO)

RULING:

The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be

granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a high personal privilege limited to
citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications, duly
ascertained and certified.
The requirement of good moral character is of greater importance so far as
the general public and the proper administration of justice is concerned, than the
possession of legal learning.
All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect
of those seeking admission to the Bar. The scope of such inquiry is, indeed, said to be
proper broader than inquiry into the moral character of a lawyer in proceedings for
disbarment.
The requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would
seek admission to the bar must of necessity be more stringent than the norm of
conduct expected from the members of the general public. There is a very real need to
prevent a general perception that entry into the legal profession is open to individuals
with inadequate moral qualification. The growth of such perception would signal the
progressive destruction of our people’s confidence in the courts of law and in our
legal system as we know it.
2.b. AGBON

Page 1 of 7
2 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
SOPHIA ALAWI vs. ASHARY M. ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari’a District Court,
Marawi City.
A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P
February 24, 1997
Facts:
 Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E. B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. of
Davao City, a real estate and housing company.
 Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial
Shari'a District in Marawi City.
 Through Alawi's agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on
installments by Alauya of one of the housing units belonging to Villarosa & Co.
and in connection therewith, a housing loan was also granted by the National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
 Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co.
and to NHMFC advising of the termination of his contract with Villarosa &
Co., as his consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud,
dishonesty, and abuse of confidence.
 According to him, he was induced by Alawi to sign a blank contract on the
assurance that Alawi would show the completed document to him later for
correction, but she never did.
 Alawi, in response, filed a verified complaint praying that Alauya be
dismissed or disciplined, for the reason, among other that he usurped the
title of attorney which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may use.
 In response, Alauya first submitted a preliminary comment in which he
questioned the authority of Atty. Marasigan, Asst. Div. Clerk of Court who signed
the notices of resolution, to require explanation of him, pertaining him as a
mere assistant and that the resolution was a result of strong link between
Alawi and Atty. Marasigan’s office.
 Alauya justified his use of the title “attorney” by the assertion that it is
lexically synonymous with “counselors‐at‐law”, a title to which Shari’a
lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of “attorney”
because “counselor” is often mistaken for “councilor”, “konsehal” or the
Maranao term “consial,” connoting a local legislator. Withal, he does not
consider himself a lawyer.
Issue:
WON respondent Alauya is allowed to use the title “attorney” although only
passing the Shari’a Bar? (NO)
Ruling:
As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney," this Court has already had
occasion to declare that persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-edged
members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari'a courts.
While one who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has been admitted
to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered "counsellors," in the sense that they
give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an attorney." The
title of "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary
degree in the study of law and successfully take the Bar Examinations, have
been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members
thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in
this jurisdiction.
Respondent’s disinclination to use the title of “counselor” does not warrant
his use of the title attorney.
Although Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a right of action against
Sophia Alawi, the law requires that he exercise that right with propriety, without
malice or vindictiveness, or undue harm to anyone; in a manner consistent with good
morals, good customs, public policy, public order, supra; or otherwise stated, that he
"act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith."
Righteous indignation, or vindication of right cannot justify resort to vituperative
language, or downright name-calling.
As a member of the Shari'a Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is subject to a
standard of conduct more stringent than for most other government workers.
As a man of the law, he may not use language which is abusive, offensive,
scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper. As a judicial employee, it is expected
that he accord respect for the person and the right of others at all times, and that his
every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, dignity.
His radical deviation from these salutary norms might perhaps be mitigated, but
cannot be excused, by his strongly held conviction that he had been grievously
wronged.
Alauya is hereby REPRIMANDED for the use of excessively intemperate,
insulting or virulent language, i.e., language unbecoming a judicial officer, and for
usurping the title of attorney; and he is warned that any similar or other impropriety
or misconduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.
2.c. MACASA
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE vs. EDWIN L. RANA
Page 2 of 7
2 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
B.M. No. 1036
June 10, 2003
Facts:
Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar
Examinations.
One day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees
as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against him
a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar, charging him with unauthorized practice
of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.
 On the charge of unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct,
complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer,
 appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before
the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon,
Masbate;
 filed with the MBEC a pleading, signing and representing himself as
counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan;
and
 signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in a petition for proclamation as the
winning candidate for mayor.
 On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent, as a
municipal government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate, is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a
client in any court or administrative body.
 On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant
accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George
Bunan without the latter engaging respondent's services.
Respondent was therefore allowed to take the lawyer's oath but disallowed from
signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him.
Upon the Court’s referral of the case, the Office of the Bar Confidant
recommended that respondent be denied admission to the Philippine Bar.
Issue:
WON respondent is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus
does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar? (YES)
Ruling:
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a
privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special quali fications
duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession
of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a
lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice
law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can
be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person
seeking admission had practiced law without a license.
Respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer's
oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-
fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial.
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent
should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
performed, namely: his lawyer's oath to be administered by the Supreme Court and
his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
Even prior to taking the lawyer’s oath, respondent was engaged in the
practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed
various pleadings without license to do so. Respondent called himself "counsel,"
knowing fully well that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as
"counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown
moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
However, the two other charges of violation of law and grave misconduct
were not supported by evidence.
Rana is denied admission to the Philippine Bar.
2.d. EBIO
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY
B.M. NO. 1678
December 17, 2007
Page 3 of 7
2 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

(b) the payment of professional tax;

FACTS: (c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education;
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of
law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and
ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and
medical aid program. His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to
in May 2004. maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention
and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On
that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and
now intends to resume his law practice.

ISSUE:
WON petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine
bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship?

RULING:
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. Since
Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates
membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the
practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the
privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to
foreigners.

The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization

as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This
is because “all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA
9225].” Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance
with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his membership
in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.

Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the

Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions “(he) 2.e. DACILLO
shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such ADELITA B. LLUNAR vs. ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT
practice. A.C. No. 6484
June 16, 2015
Dacanay must do the following to resume his law practice:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP; FACTS:

Page 4 of 7
2 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
In September, 2000, Adelita engaged the services of Atty. Romulo Ricafort
for the recovery of a parcel of land owned by the Banez family but which was
fraudulently registered to a different name. The lot was the subject of foreclosure
proceedings, hence, Adelita gave to Atty. Ricafort the amount of P95,000.00 (partial
redemption fee, as filing fees, and attorney’s fees).
Three years later, complainant learned that Atty. Ricafort did not file any
case with the RTC of Legazpi City, hence, she demanded the return of P95,000.00.
The latter averred that there was a complaint for annulment of title filed
against Ard Cervantes, though not him, but by another lawyer. Thus, he was willing to
refund the amount less the P50,000.00 which he gave to Atty. Abitria.
Adelita refused to recognize the case filed by Atty. Abitria, insisting she did
not hire him as counsel; also, the complaint was filed three years late and the property
cannot be redeemed from the bank anymore. She also learned that Atty. Ricafort was
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law since 2002 in A.C. No. 5054, thus she
suspected it was the reason why another lawyer filed the case.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Ricafort should be held administratively liable? (YES)
RULING:
The respondent is found guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings with his
client and in engaging in the practice of law while under indefinite suspension, and
thus impose upon him the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT.
The respondent in this case committed several infractions making him liable for grave
misconduct.
First, the respondent did not exert due diligence in handling the
complainant’s case. He failed to act promptly in redeeming the complainant’s property
within the period of redemption. What is worse is the delay of three years before a
complaint to recover the property was actually filed in court. The respondent clearly
dilly-dallied on the complainant’s case and wasted precious time and opportunity that
were then readily available to recover the complainant’s property. Under these facts,
the respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
which states that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”
Second, the respondent failed to return, upon demand, the amounts given to
him by the complainant for handling the latter’s case. On three separate occasions, the
respondent received from the complainant the amounts of P19,000.00, P70,000.00,
and P6,500.00 for purposes of redeeming the mortgaged property from the bank and
filing the necessary civil case/s against Ard Cervantes. The complainant approached
the respondent several times thereafter to follow up on the case/s to be filed
supposedly by the respondent who, in turn, reassured her that actions on her case had
been taken.
After the complainant discovered three years later that the respondent had
not filed any case in court, she demanded that the respondent return the amount of
P95,000.00, but her demand was left unheeded. The respondent later promised to pay
her, but until now, no payment of any amount has been made. These facts confirm that
the respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which mandates every lawyer to “hold
in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession” 1
and to “account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.”
In addition, a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds or property he holds
for his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated these funds or
property for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in
him by his client.
Third, the respondent committed dishonesty by not being forthright with the
complainant that he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The
respondent should have disclosed this fact at the time he was approached by the
complainant for his services. Canon 15 of the CPR states that “a lawyer shall observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.” The
respondent lacked the candor expected of him as a member of the Bar when he
accepted the complainant’s case despite knowing that he could not and should not
practice law.
Lastly, the respondent was effectively in the practice of law despite the
indefinite suspension imposed on him. This infraction infinitely aggravates the
offenses he committed. Based on the above facts alone, the penalty of suspension for
five (5) years from the practice of law would have been justified, but the respondent is
not an ordinary violator of the profession’s ethical rules; he is a repeat violator of
these rules.
2.f. SALAMIDA
PATRICK A. CARONAN vs. RICHARD A. CARONAN a.k.a. “ATTY. PATRICK A.
CARONAN”
A.C. No. 11316
July 12, 2016
FACTS:
 Patrick A. Caronan, complainant and Richard A. Caronan, respondent are siblings.
Richard is older than Patrick Caronan.
Page 5 of 7
2 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
 Patrick Caronan graduated from University of Makati with a degree in Business
Administration. He worked as a Sales Associate for Philippine Seven Corporation
(PSC) until he was promoted as a Store Manager of the 7-11 Store in Muntinlupa.
 On the other hand, Richard Caronan studied at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila (PLM), where he stayed for one 1 year before transferring to the
Philippine Military Academy (PMA) in 1992. In 1993, he was discharged from the
PMA and focused on helping their father in the family's car rental business.
 Richard moved to Nueva Vizcaya with his wife and three children and never went
back to school to earn a college degree.
 In 1999, he told Patrick that he enrolled in a law school in Nueva Vizcaya. In
2004, their mother informed Patrick that Richard passed the Bar Examinations
and that he used his name and college records from the University of Makati to
enrolled at St. Mary's University's College of Law. Patrick, meantime, ignored
what his brother did.
 In May 2009, Patrick was informed that the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) was requesting his presence for an investigation against "Atty. Patrick A.
Caronan for qualified theft and estafa. He learned also that his brother was
arrested for gun-running activities, illegal possession of explosives, and violation
of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22. He developed a fear for his own safety and
security because he became the subject of talk in his office, which he was forced
to resign from his job. Hence, he filed a complaint against his brother to stop use
of his name and identity, and illegal practice of law.
 In his Answer, Richard denied all the allegations against him and invoked res
judicata as a defense. He maintained that his identity can no longer be raised as
an issue as it had already been resolved in an earlier administrative case declared
closed and terminated.
 The Investigating Commissioner issued his report and recommendation finding
respondent guilty of illegally and falsely assuming complainant's name, identity,
and academic records. He recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys and the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred
from being admitted as a member of the Bar for making a mockery of the judicial
institution.
 The IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting the Investigating
Commissioner's recommendation.
ISSUE:
WON the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred
from being admitted to the Bar? (NO)
RULING:
The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings and
recommendations of the IBP. Since complainant -the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never
took the Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A.
Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, no applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless
he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law course. Clearly, respondent has
not completed the requisite pre-law degree. Respondent also exhibited his dishonesty
and utter lack of moral fitness to be a member of the Bar when he assumed the name,
identity, and school records of his own brother and dragged the latter into
controversies which eventually caused him to fear for his safety and to resign from
PSC where he had been working for years. “Good moral character is essential in those
who would be lawyers. This is imperative in the nature of the office of a lawyer, the
trust relation which exists between him and his client, as well as between him and the
court,” the court said.
Respondent falsely used complainant's name, identity, and school records to
gain admission to the Bar. Since complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never
took the Bar
Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A.
Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
The IBP was also correct in ordering that respondent, whose real name is
"Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission to the Bar. Under Section 6, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be
admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law course, VIZ.:
Section 6. Pre-Law. - No applicant for admission to the bar examination
shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the
Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had
pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized
university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a
four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a
bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subject as
major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish,
history, and economics.
Finally, Respondent made also a mockery of the legal profession by
pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. He also tarnished the
image of lawyers with his alleged unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing
of several criminal cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts do not have a
place in the legal profession where one of the primary duties of its members is to
uphold its integrity and dignity.
Respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" is found
GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity, and academic records of complainant
Patrick A. Caronan to obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations.
Page 6 of 7
2 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

The Court hereby resolves: the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of
Attorneys No. 49069 is ordered DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys;
PROHIBITED from engaging in the practice of law or making any representations as a
lawyer; BARRED from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar in the future;
the Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to respondent
under the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" and the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education Certificates issued in such name are CANCELLED and/or REVOKED.

Page 7 of 7