A.M. No.

09-5-2-SC April 11, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE ELECTIONS OF THE

INTEGRA TED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Facts:

At the helm of the IBP is the IBP National President (IBP-President), who is
automatically succeeded by the EVP. When the Philippine Bar was first integrated, both
the IBP-President and the EVP were elected by the IBP-BOG from among themselves or
from other members of the Integrated Bar, with the right of automatic succession by the
EVP to the presidency for the next succeeding full term. The presidency rotated among
all the nine regions in such order as the IBP-BOG had prescribed. Both the IBP-
President and the EVP held a term of one (1) year, with the presidency rotating from
year to year among the regions.

On November 1, 1974, the IBP By-Laws took effect, providing that the IBP-President
and the EVP be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional
governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. It was also provided that the IBP-
President and the EVP hold office for a term of two (2) years from July 1 following their
election until June 30 of their second year in office and until their successors shall have
been duly chosen and qualified.

Later, several amendments in the IBP By-Laws were introduced, among which were the
provisions relating to the election of its national officers. In Bar Matter No. 287, dated
July 9, 1985, the Court approved the recommendation allowing the IBP-President, the
EVP and the officers of the House of Delegates to be directly elected by the House of
Delegates.

As noted by the Court in its December 4, 2012 Resolution, there is a sense of

predictability in the rotation by the pre-ordained scheme. Through the rotation by
exclusion scheme, the elections will be more genuine, as the opportunity to serve at any
time is once again open to all, unless, of course, a region has already served in the new
cycle. While predictability is not altogether avoided, as in the case where only one region
remains in the cycle, still, as previously noted by the Court "the rotation rule should be
applied in harmony with, and not in derogation of, the sovereign will of the electorate as
expressed through the ballot."

ISSUE: W/N the amendments by the IBP impairs the integrity of lawyers?

Held:

Yes, therefore to further avoid conflicting and confusing rulings in the various IBP cases
like what happened to this one, the December 14,2010 Resolution and Velez, it is
recommended that the Court create a committee for IBP affairs to primarily attend to the
problems and needs of a very important professional body and to make recommendation
for its improvement and strengthening.
Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebonian Tabang, A.C. No. 2505, February 21 1992

FACTS:

Tabang and Leda contracted marriage at Iloilo and was solemnized under Article 76 of
the Civil Code as marriage of exceptional character. Both of them kept their marriage a
secret until Tabang finishes his law studies, they had not yet lived as husband and wife.

Tabang, having finished his law studies, declared in his application to take the bar that
he was ―single‖. After Tabang passed the bar, Leda blocked him of taking his oath by
instituting a complaint, Bar Matter No. 78, that he acted fraudulently in filling out his
application. Thus, Tabang should be considered as unworthy to take the lawyer‘s oath
for lack of good moral character. Tabang admitted that he l̳ egally married‖ Leda but that
the marriage ―was not yet made and declared public‖ so that he could properly take the
Bar exams and ensure their future. Bar Matter No. 78 was dismissed because Tabang
said that it just arose out of misunderstanding between him and Leda.

Leda, in response to this, instituted the present Administrative Case praying Tabang‘s
disbarment on grounds of using his legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage with
Leda, misrepresented himself as single, and for lack of good moral character.

It was found out that the marriage contract was actually void for failure to comply with
the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, or the five-year minimum cohabitation
before celebration of marriage and that they were both twenty years old when they got
married, below the required minimum age of twenty-one years old.

He contended that he and Leda agreed not to disclose that their marriage was void from
the beginning because he wanted to finish his studies and take the bar first. He also
believed that when he applied for the Bar, he honestly believed that in the eyes of the
law, he was single.

ISSUE: WON Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status

HELD:

Yes. Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status. Tabang‘s declaration in

his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a
gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should be
made answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional
Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
false statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for
admission to the bar." That false statement, if it had been known, would have
disqualified him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack
of good moral character.

Tabang‘s protestations that he had acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single"
not only because of his pact with Complainant to keep the marriage under wraps but
also because that marriage to Leda was void from the beginning, are mere afterthoughts
absolutely wanting of merit. Tabang cannot assume that his marriage to Leda is void.
The presumption is that all the requisites and conditions of a marriage of an exceptional
character under Article 76 of the Civil Code have been met and that the Judge's official
duty in connection therewith has been regularly performed. Tabang is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law until further Orders

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S.

MELING IN THE 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS
MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARI’A BAR,

Facts:
On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the Office of the
Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the
2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a
member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.

In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the
2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, namely: Criminal Cases Noa.
15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for
Less Serious Physical Injuries.

The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which occurred on May 21, 2001,
when Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front
of media practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the
face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.

The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in his petition
to take the Bar Examinations are ludicrous. He should have known that only the court of
competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In
fact, the cases filed against Meling are still pending. Furthermore, granting arguendo
that these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same for the
Court to ascertain his good moral character. Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are
made under oath, and should not be taken lightly by an applicant.

Issue: W/N Meling Committed false statement in application for admission to the bar?

Held:

Yes. Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a matter of
right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the
law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The requirement of good
moral character 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.

The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is

satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. The nature of whatever
cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court in determining whether he
is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the existence of
such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately
proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character of
the applicant.

In Re Investigation of Angel Parazo for Alleged Leakage of Questions in Some

Subjects in the 1948 Bar Examinations

FACTS:

The defendant, Angel Parazo, a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter, a local
daily of general publication wrote in the front page of a newspaper where it states in bold
letters- ―CLAIM LEAK IN LAST BAR TEST‖ followed by another in slightly small letters-
―Applicants in Uproar, Want Anomaly Probed: One School Favored‖. According to this
article, the leakage in some subjects in the recent bar examinations were denounced by
some of the law graduates who took part of the test to the Star Reporter. Only students
of one private university in Sampaloc had mimeographed questions on said subject fully
one week before the tests.

The students who made the denunciation to the Star Reporter claim that the tests
actually given were similar in every respect to those they had seen students of this
private university holding around the city. Thereafter, Justice Padilla, by the authority of
the court, instructed Mr. Jose Dela Cruz with assistance of Mr. E. Soriano to cite Mr.
Parazo for questioning.

In September 18, 1948, the investigation of Mr. Parazo was conducted, on which he
testified under oath. He admitted that he was the author of the news item; that he wrote
up the story in good faith and in a spirit of public service; and that he knew the persons
who gave him the information was given to him in confidence and his informants did not
wish their identities revealed.

The investigators urged Mr. Parazo to reveal the names of his informants so that the
Supreme Court may be in the position to start and conduct the necessary investigation in
order to verify their charge and complaint and take action against the party or parties
responsible for this alleged irregularity, if found true, but Parazo consistently refused to
make the revelation.

Upon his refusal to reveal, he be accorded a hearing, with the consent of the Court first
obtained, a public hearing was held on the same day, October 15, 1948 in the course of
which, Attorney Serrano extensively and ably argued the case of his client, invoking the
benefits of Republic Act No. 53, the first section provides that The publisher, editor or
duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in
said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter,
unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is
demanded by the interest of the state.

ISSUE/S: WON the court can compel Mr. Parazo to reveal the identities of his
informants
HELD: Yes, the court may demand the respondent to reveal the sources of his
information, in refusing to make the revelation which the Court required of him, he
committed contempt of court. The court orders his immediate arrest and confinement in
jail for a period of 1 month.

RA No. 53 provides immunity to be accorded to a publisher, editor, or reporter of any

newspaper was absolute that under no circumstances could he be compelled to reveal
his source of information or news report. The committee however, inserted an
amendment by adding to the end of section 1 of the clause ―unless the court finds such
revelation is demanded by public interest‖. The court is satisfied with that the present
case easily comes under the phrase ―interest of the state.‖ Under Article VII, section 13
of the Constitution, the SC takes charge of the admission of members of the Philippine
Bar.

The Supreme Court and the Philippine Bar have always tried to maintain a high standard
for the legal profession, both in academic preparation and legal training, as well as in
honesty and fair dealing. The Court and the licensed lawyers themselves are vitally
interested in keeping this high standard; and one of the ways of achieving this end is to
admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known to be
honest, possess good moral character, and show proficiency in and knowledge of the
law by the standard set by this Court by passing the Bar Examinations honestly and in
the regular and usual manner. And one important thing to bear in mind is that the
Judiciary, from the Supreme Court down to the Justice of the Peace Courts, provincial
fiscalships and other prosecuting attorneys, and the legal departments of the
Government, draw exclusively from the Bar to fill their positions. Consequently, any
charge or insinuation of anomaly in theconduct of Bar Examinations, of necessity is
imbued with wide and general interest and national importance.

SPOUSES GERALDY AND LILIBETH VICTORY VS. ATTY. MARIAN JO S.

MERCADO
A.C. No. 10580, July 12, 2017

FACTS:
Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory (Spouses Victory) were enticed by
respondent to enter into a financial transaction with her with a promise of good monetary
returns. As respondent is a lawyer and a person of reputation, Spouses Victory
entrusted their money to respondent to invest, manage, and administer into some
financial transactions that would earn good profit for the parties. Respondent called and
asked Geraldy Victory (Geraldy) whether he wanted to invest his money. The
respondent promised that for an investment of PhP 400,000, she will give Geraldy PhP
600,000 in 30 days; and for PhP 500,000, she will give Geraldy PhP 625,000.

Later on, respondent became evasive in returning to Spouses Victory the money
that the latter were supposed to receive as part of the agreement. Respondent failed to
settle and account the money entrusted to her by Spouses Victory. Spouses Victory
filed a criminal complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 with the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
 After the filing of said criminal case, respondent met with Spouses Victory.
Respondent proposed to reduce her obligation from PhP 8.3 Million to PhP 7.5 Million in
staggered payments, to which Spouses Victory agreed. Respondent then issued three
postdated checks in the amount of PhP 300,000 each. However, said checks bounced.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)

found that respondent indeed lured Spouses Victory in entering into a series of financial
transactions with a promise of return of profit. Respondent, however, failed to deliver
such promise.

ISSUE:
Should the respondent be held administratively liable based on the allegations in
the pleadings of all parties on record?

RULING:
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair
dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties
to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7
provides:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF

THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

CANON 7 -A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND

DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.

It is without dispute that respondent has an outstanding obligation with Spouses

Victory, as the latter's investments which they coursed through the respondent fell
through. To make matters worse, respondent issued several checks to settle her
obligation, it must be considered that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the
administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we resolve to SUSPEND Atty. Marian Jo S.

Mercado from the practice of law for one (1) year to commence immediately from the
receipt of this Decision, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will warrant a more severe penalty.
 A.C. No. 10628, July 01, 2015

MAXIMINO NOBLE III, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES, Respondent.

Facts:

This instant administrative case arose from a verified Complaint1 for disbarment
dated April 16, 2012 filed by complainant Maximino Noble III (Maximino) against
respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes (Orlando) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP).

Atty. Orlando O. Ailes filed an action for damages against his brother Marcelo O.
Ailes, Jr. (Marcelo) who filed a separate case of Grave Threat and Estafa against the
respondent. Maximino was the counsel of Marcelo who represented him in his civil case
(Action for Damages).

When Maximino was furnished a copy of the complaint, he discovered that,

through text messages, Orlando had been maligning him and dissuading Marcelo from
retaining his services as counsel, claiming that he was incompetent and that he charged
exorbitant fees, saying, among others:

“Better dismiss your hi-track lawyer who will impoverish you with his
unconscionable professional fee. Max Noble, as shown in court records, never
appeared even once, that's why you lost in the pre-trial stage, x x x get rid of
Noble as your lawyer. He is out to squeeze a lot of money from you, x x x daig mo
nga mismong abogado mong polpol."

Records show that Orlando even prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of

Counsel7 in the complaint for damages, which stated that Maximino

"x x x has never done anything to protect the interests of the defendants in a
manner not befitting his representation as a seasoned law practitioner and, aside from
charging enormous amount of professional fees and questionable expenses, said
counsel's contracted services reached as far only in preparing and filing uncalled for
motions to dismiss x x x" as well as a Compromise Agreement, both of which he sent to
Marcelo for his signature. Affronted, Maximino filed the instant complaint charging
Orlando with violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) and prayed for the disbarment of respondent as well
as the award of damages. Meanwhile, criminal charges against the respondent were
downgraded to unjust vexation and the latter pleaded guilty.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is found guilty of violating Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 and
the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Ruling:

Yes. Respondent is guilty.

Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR provides:

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
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.

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer,
without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief
against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be

dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial
forum. IBP found that the text message between Marcelo and Orlando is only a casual
communication considering that they were conveyed privately, however to the Court the
tenor of text messages should not taken for granted and that the intention of it were
clearly to malign and annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the word "polpol"
(stupid). Likewise, Orlando's insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate the services
of Maximino indicates Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in violation of
the above-quoted rules.

Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of guilty to the crime of unjust vexation in the
criminal case filed against him by Marcelo was, for all intents and purposes, an
admission that he spoke ill, insulted, and disrespected Maximino - a departure from the
judicial decorum which exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. The Court has
consistently reminded the members of the bar to abstain from all offensive personality
and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party. Considering the
circumstances, it is glaringly clear how Orlando transgressed the CPR when he
maligned Maximino to his client.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes GUILTY of

violating Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in dealing with his
professional colleagues and STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Buenviaje v. Mangdamo (leave space for this, no digest 2017 case  )

CAMACHO v PANGULAYAN

FACTS

§ 9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published

objectionable features or articles in the school paper

§ Denial of the appeal to AMA President Aguiluz gave rise to Civil Case 97-30549

§ CAMACHO was the hired counsel of the expelled students in an action for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injuction in the said civil case

§ While the civil case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements were separately executed by the expelled students without the knowledge
of CAMACHO

§ CAMACHO filed a complaint against lawyers comprising the PANGULAYAN AND

ASSOCIATES Law Firm (lawyers of AMA) because without his knowledge they procured
and effected on separate occasions compromise agreements (letters of apology and Re-
admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients which in effect required them to waive all
kinds of claims they may have with AMA

§ CAMACHO averred that such an act was unbecoming of any member of the legal
profession warranting either disbarment or suspension

§ PANGULAYAN in his defense claimed that the agreements were executed for the
sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case

ISSUE : W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES SHOULD BE

SUSPENDED/DISBARRED

HELD

Yes. It would appear that when individual letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements were formalized, CAMACHO was already the retained counsel of the
expelled AMA students

PANGULAYAN and associates having full knowledge of this fact still proceeded to
negotiate with the expelled AMA students and their parents without at least
communicating the matter to their lawyer CAMACHO

This failure of PANGULAYAN and associates, whether by design or oversight, is an

excusable violation of the canons of profession ethics and in utter disregard of a duty
owing to a colleague

The excuse that agreements were executed for settling the administrative case was
belied by the Manifestation which states “9 signatories agreed among others to
terminate ALL civil, criminal and administrative proceedings they may have against AMA
arising from their previous dismissal” Hence, PANGULAYAN should be suspended for 3
months
DOCTRINE

A lawyers should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a
party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent
upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party
not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law.

Bonifacio v. Era (also a 2017 case)

Alawi v. Alauya (see legprof digests)

Carlos v. Linsangan (2017 case also)