Scribd
Upload
23 views3 pages

27 - Dulalia Jr. Vs Cruz - Osados, Zandra Marie N.

Uploaded by

Zandra Marie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views3 pages

27 - Dulalia Jr. Vs Cruz - Osados, Zandra Marie N.

Uploaded by

Zandra Marie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Case Citation: Juan Dulalia, Jr., v. Atty. Pablo Cruz, A.C. No.

6854

Date: April 27, 2007

Petitioner: Juan Dulalia, Jr.

Respondent: Atty. Pablo Cruz

Syllabus topic: Canon 5

Doctrine: A position coterminous to that of the appointing authority,


suffice it to state that respondent proffered proof that his private
practice is not prohibited.

Case Summary:

Court dismissed the charges of violating Rules 6.02 and 7.03. A position
coterminous to that of the appointing authority, suffice it to state that respondent
proffered proof that his private practice is not prohibited. Complaint failed to
prove that respondent used his position as Municipal Legal Officer to advance his
own personal interest against complainant and his wife. But he is guilty to Rule
1.01 and Canon 5 of CPR.

The Facts of the 1. Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer (respondent),
Case: is charged by Juan Dulalia, Jr. (complainant) of violation
Rules 1.01, 6.02, and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
2. The complaint dealt with mainly on the issue that
respondent allegedly opposes the application of his wife
(Susan) for a building permit for the construction of their
commercial building. One of the reasons stated by the
complainant was that his wife was not in favor of Imelda’s
relationship (first cousin of Susan) with respondent who is
a married man. And the other reason is that respondent
was not authorized to represent his neighbors in opposing
the construction of his building.

IBP Commission IBP CBD dismissed the complaint. Thus, a petition for review was
on Bar filed by complainant.
Discipline
Ruling:
Petitioner’s 1. Complainant maintains that respondent violated Rule 1.01
Contention: when he contracted a second marriage with Imelda
Soriano on September 17, 1989 while his marriage with
Carolina Agaton, which was solemnized on December 17,
1967, is still subsisting.
2. Complainant further maintains that respondent used his
influence as the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan to
oppose his wife’s application for building permit, in
violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
3. And for engaging in the practice of law while serving as
the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, complainant
maintains that respondent violated Rule 7.03

Issue: Whether or not the complainant violated Rule 1.01, Rule 6.02
and 7.03 of the CPR

Supreme Court Court dismissed the charges of violating Rules 6.02 and 7.03.
Ruling: complaint failed to prove that respondent used his position as
Municipal Legal Officer to advance his own personal interest
against complainant and his wife.

No clear, convincing and strong evidence to warrant the


disbarment or suspension of respondent. An attorney enjoys the
legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred
against him until the contrary is proved

Respecting complainant’s charge that respondent engaged in an


unauthorized private practice of law while he was the Municipal
Legal Officer of Meycauayan, a position coterminous to that of
the appointing authority, suffice it to state that respondent
proffered proof that his private practice is not prohibited.

It is, however, with respect to respondent’s admitted contracting


of a second marriage while his first marriage is still subsisting
that this Court finds respondent liable, for violation of Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the


Code of Professional Responsibility, as opposed to grossly
immoral conduct, connotes "conduct that shows indifference to
the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community." Gross immoral
conduct on the other hand must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.

Respondent married Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989,


when the Family Code of the Philippines had already taken
effect. He invokes good faith, however, he claims that the
applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code.

As early as 1957, this Court has frowned on the act of


contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still
in place as being contrary to honesty, justice, decency and
morality.

In another vein, respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of


Professional Responsibility which provides:

CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments,


participate in continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating
information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

Respondent’s claim that he was not aware that the Family Code
already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the United
States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the
Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990
does not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of


violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one year. He is WARNED that a similar infraction will be dealt
with more severely.

Dispositive
Portion:

Other Notes:

You might also like